We’ve become sadly used to the passing of the word “terrorist” to describe actual terrorists (remember, those people who intentionally kill civilians as a means of political coercion), and also to its occasional misuse to describe anyone the speaker doesn’t like (typically Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc.). Still, one might have hoped for better from our own government.
Michael Totten posts about the dismaying story of an actual freedom fighter who was denied a green card by the INS because of his history as a “terrorist”:
Saman Kareem Ahmad is an Iraqi Kurd who worked as a translator with the Marines in Iraq’s Anbar Province. He was one of the few selected translators who was granted asylum in the U.S. because he and his family were singled out for destruction by insurgents for “collaboration.” He wants to return to Iraq as an American citizen and a Marine, and has already been awarded the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and General David Petraeus wrote notes for his file and recommended he be given a Green Card, but the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) declined his application and called him a “terrorist.” . . .
The Kurds in Iraq–unlike the Kurds in Turkey and the ever-popular Palestinians– did not use terrorism as a tactic in their struggle for liberation. They fought honorably against Saddam’s soldiers, not against Arab civilians in south and central Iraq.
(Via Instapundit.)
For the record, a terrorist is someone who intentionally attacks civilians in order to create terror as a means of coercion. A soldier who attacks legitimate military targets is not a terrorist, even when the speaker disapproves of his cause. Conversely, someone whose vocation is setting off car bombs in crowded marketplaces is a terrorist, and he doesn’t stop being so simply because he is currently fighting for his life against the US Marines or the IDF.
Internet Scofflaw 