Masked Midnight wrote:
Also, do we wanna define what kind of terrorism? Or would that make it too narrow?
One could. The league was likely hoping to make this a foreign/international policy resolution as much as possible though; hence the inclusion of 'international' terrorism -- this is to preempt domestic AFF cases.
Which might happen anyway, if an AFF case targets foreign nationals in the US.
Disclaimer: I think this is a really terrible resolution.
18 U.S.C. § 2331 wrote:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
I suggest that the words "international terrorism" needs to be changed as well. Maybe to "change its approach to acts of terrorism occurring outside the US."
Otherwise, presto-chango, you have a domestic resolution with people running national security cases which have the TSA targeting foreign nationals or something like that.
EDIT: Ooh, or could do "change its response to acts of terrorism occuring outside the US." I like the word "response" - I think it would make it significantly narrower and perhaps marginally debatable.