The Critical Art Ensemble produces books of theory of how digital technology has provided new avenues for resistance against and disruption of “the velocity of capitalist political economy.” This theoretical work, while limited to ideas and not involving actual action, sits much closer to the cognitive borderlines between art and terrorism than does the scientific work which got Kurtz so much attention from the FBI. By promoting a disruption of the mainstream economic system, the CAE could be construed to fit the Council on Foreign Relations’ vaguely worded definition of cyberterrorism:

While some people use the term “cyberterrorism” (which was coined in the 1980s) to refer to any major computer-based attack on the U.S. government or economy, many terrorism experts would not consider cyberattacks by glory-seeking individuals, organizations with criminal motives, or hostile governments engaging in information warfare to be cyberterrorism. Like other terrorist acts, cyberterror attacks are typically premeditated, politically motivated, perpetrated by small groups rather than governments, and designed to call attention to a cause, spread fear, or otherwise influence the public and decision-makers.

By this definition the work of the CAE seems to be worthy of the cyberterrorism label. They are are hoping to disrupt the US economy with premeditated, politically motivated attempts to influence the public. The definition fits, so even though Kurtz’s biological agents and artworks were completely within the law, it’s still possible to persecute him for his politics. I share the opinion of Ed Cardoni, who purports that the FBI “are opportunistically exploiting the convenient hook of suspicious biological material (in the context of post-9/11 anthrax incidents, both real and hoaxed) to go after an intellectual for his IDEAS. I’m afraid they, too, may have looked deeper into CAE writings … which are in fact political, radical, and subversive.” There is no space here for a lengthy discussion about the dangerous implications of anti-terrorism legislation based on such vague definitions. What I am interested in exploring is how our language gets twisted into our understanding of events without being noticed, how our judgments are shaped by our words. In this case the labels of “artist” or “terrorist” could both be applied to Kurtz depending on one’s ideological standpoint, and indeed both have been.

The Steve Kurtz / CAE case demonstrates a severe lack of clarity in the ongoing political discourse on terrorism. While fighting terrorism is widely considered to be instrumental to peace and security across the planet, the lack of precision in identifying this ‘evil’ of terrorism is profound. While there are very serious implications for the free expression of creativity and subversive thought, there are also massive complications on a geo-political level that are equally grounded in vague semantics and Orwellian ‘doublespeak.’ As one of the premiere linguists of the 20th Century, Noam Chomsky has credentials to speak with authority on the use of language:

“[W]hat is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That’s terrorism … But there’s a problem … If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That’s why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that’s a serious problem. You can’t use the actual definitions.”

Noam Chomsky