The Use and Misuse of "Terrorism"

As someone who was accused of "terrorism" by the US government for the actions you see in this image—rescuing a dying baby pig from a factory farm—I have personal experience in how that term has been used and abused. This is newly relevant as the US has used "terrorism" as the basis for its attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its President Maduro. And here are some of the shocking features of US "terrorism" investigations that you might not know:

• Corporate interests often have carte blanche to define "terrorism." The alleged harm in my case was $42 for removing baby pigs. But because powerful corporations complained, the harm was quickly escalated from alleged petty theft to terrorism. It seems obvious that the oil industry has had a similar impact on the Maduro case.

• "Terrorism" often involves harm to purely economic interests—including speech-based harm. We did no damage to person or property in our rescue—the piglets were dying and not even really worth $42, as the government eventually conceded—but our "defamatory" protests AFTER the investigation were cited as a form of "terrorism." Similarly, Maduro's mocking responses to Trump's threats are thought to be part of the reason Venezuela was attacked as a terrorist state; it's about his speech as much as any legitimate harm.

• Actual terror by a human being is often completely missing from "terrorism" allegations. In my case, no one at the company even knew we removed the piglets. They only realized it months later when it was published in the NYT. But the government still created a "terror" narrative by saying we were "terrorizing" an industry's bottom line. That seems to be the main "terror" caused by Maduro as well, as his unwillingness to cooperate with the US was affecting the nation's energy industry.

• "Terrorism" often looks very different in front of a jury. The government drinks its own kool-aid and usually bullies people into accepting a plea bargain. But if Maduro fights to trial, which could take years, juries might see things very differently. That's what happened in Utah when a jury, much to the government's surprise, acquitted us of all charges. They were offended by the government's massive over-reaction to what seemed, at worst, petty offenses.

I am not an expert in this case, or the allegations against Maduro. But what I do know is that you should not trust the government when it says it is fighting “terrorism.” The word has become weaponized in so many contexts, partly because of the fear and irrationality it invokes, that it has become meaningless.

What we *should* look for is specific evidence of violence or threats against the US. So far, the only thing I’ve found is Maduro mocking Trump as a coward and warmonger, which may irritate our President, but is a far cry from actual terrorism.