Glenn Greenwald: Fort Hood Attack Not Really Terrorism, Or Else the U.S. Gov't is Terrorist, or Something...

Patterico's been going a few rounds with Glenn Greenwald, the hardline left's America-basher extraordinaire. At his post calling out Greenwald's recent attack on him and Allahpundit, Patterico notes, "Despite Greenwald’s history of dishonest sock-puppeting, there are times when I want to like him, because he sometimes shows an inclination to act on principle."

That concuding bit of decency toward Greenwald really struck me, considering how vile the dude is. Indeed, just take a look at Greenwald's post up this afternoon, "Can Attacks on a Military Base Constitute 'Terrorism'?":

The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into "the motives of [Nidal] Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers -- particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war -- fall within any legitimate definition of "terrorism," which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?

The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" -- despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse ....

More at the post, then this:

... a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a "hit list" of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets -- even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time -- because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits "were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order").

Is there any legitimate definition of "terrorism" that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in "terrorism," by definition, because "terrorism" is something only "subnational groups or clandestine agent" can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be "terrorism" but not our own acts?

Hey, that's some pretty professionalized moral relativism?

The difference, as anyone knows -- most of all a constitutional lawyer like Greenwald -- is that the U.S. is a sovereign state-actor, possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, recognized under international law; and its military campaigns are internationally-substantiated legal actions in response to acts of war against this country. (See, "George W. Bush: Declaration of War on Terrorism.") Even Greenwald's own elaboration of the definition of terrorism infers the fundamental right of the U.S. to respond to attacks on its own terroritory and people.

So, what to do? Just denounce the United States as a terrorist itself. That'll do it. Raise a few rhetorical smokescreens and poof!, it's the American military that's the bad guy here, not a methodical fanatical Muslim who killed 13 Americans in cold blood.

You know, this morning Verum Serum used very strong language to denounce Anwar al-Awlaki, who hailed Nadal Hasan's ramage as a heroic act ("anyone who has empathy on any level for the actions of Hasan, or the views expressed by Al-Awlaki, does not deserve to be an American as far as I’m concerned," etc.).

I feel the same way about Greenwald, with all due respect for Patterico's generosity.