Terrorism To Suit the Customer’s Taste*
The absence of a universally accepted definition allows for multiple classifications. U.S. law allows for broadly defined categories, while Brazilian law requires ultra-specific intent.
Are the Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho terrorist organizations as Donald Trump has just decreed?** There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, which gives those who make the classification considerable room to maneuver.
The U.S. relies on relatively open-ended definitions. Any action that involves violence and is meant to intimidate the civilian population or force the government to alter policies may be considered terrorism under U.S. federal criminal statutes. If you have a dispute with local authorities, they won’t have to try very hard to accuse you of terrorism.
Brazilian law is much more demanding. Under Law 13.260/16, for an act to be considered terrorism, it must involve violence or the threat of it, and must also have been committed “for reasons of xenophobia, discrimination, or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity or religion.” Since the PCC and CV act for financial gain, there’s no basis for their actions to be classified as terrorism.
An astute reader may have noted the omission of political-ideological intent among the criteria for terrorism under [Brazil’s] national law. This is not an oversight. During the legislative approval of the law, the left took precautions to avoid MST’s actions from being framed as terrorism.*** This resulted in the absence of a reference to political motivations in the law, which are what inspire most genuine terrorist groups.
This ultimately backfired. Without the term “politics” on the small list of criteria, the actions of Jan. 8 could not be considered terrorism, which would have added years to the prison term of Jair Bolsonaro and his acolytes.
Trump’s decision could have negative repercussions for Brazil, especially in the financial sector and in police collaboration, but it seems improbable to me that it’s a prelude to military intervention by the United States. Trump is not exactly a legal scholar. If he wanted to dispatch his gunboats here, he wouldn’t need a judicial pretext. But I don’t think Brazil is among his priorities in the hemisphere. Cuba, Mexico, Colombia and even Greenland would come first..
*Editor’s note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
**Translator’s note: “The Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) are two of Brazil's largest and most powerful criminal organizations, involved in various illegal activities, including drug trafficking and extortion.
*** Translator’s note to editor: The MST, or Landless Workers' Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra), is a social movement in Brazil focused on land reform and advocating for access to land for poor workers.
Are the Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho terrorist organizations as Donald Trump has just decreed?** There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, which gives those who make the classification considerable room to maneuver.
The U.S. relies on relatively open-ended definitions. Any action that involves violence and is meant to intimidate the civilian population or force the government to alter policies may be considered terrorism under U.S. federal criminal statutes. If you have a dispute with local authorities, they won’t have to try very hard to accuse you of terrorism.
Brazilian law is much more demanding. Under Law 13.260/16, for an act to be considered terrorism, it must involve violence or the threat of it, and must also have been committed “for reasons of xenophobia, discrimination, or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity or religion.” Since the PCC and CV act for financial gain, there’s no basis for their actions to be classified as terrorism.
An astute reader may have noted the omission of political-ideological intent among the criteria for terrorism under [Brazil’s] national law. This is not an oversight. During the legislative approval of the law, the left took precautions to avoid MST’s actions from being framed as terrorism.*** This resulted in the absence of a reference to political motivations in the law, which are what inspire most genuine terrorist groups.
This ultimately backfired. Without the term “politics” on the small list of criteria, the actions of Jan. 8 could not be considered terrorism, which would have added years to the prison term of Jair Bolsonaro and his acolytes.
Trump’s decision could have negative repercussions for Brazil, especially in the financial sector and in police collaboration, but it seems improbable to me that it’s a prelude to military intervention by the United States. Trump is not exactly a legal scholar. If he wanted to dispatch his gunboats here, he wouldn’t need a judicial pretext. But I don’t think Brazil is among his priorities in the hemisphere. Cuba, Mexico, Colombia and even Greenland would come first..
*Editor’s note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
**Translator’s note: “The Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) are two of Brazil's largest and most powerful criminal organizations, involved in various illegal activities, including drug trafficking and extortion.
*** Translator’s note to editor: The MST, or Landless Workers' Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra), is a social movement in Brazil focused on land reform and advocating for access to land for poor workers.
Previous article![]( "War for the Occupation")
Next article![]( "US Imperial Outpost in Space")