Assertion: terrorism's definition | /r/HasProperty | needed
Facets:
value: in order to expose it
type: PURPOSE
value: in law
type: LOCATION
value: in order
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: First, that no definition of terrorism is needed, nor any special procedures required.
text: So long as the 'sectoral' approach is followed, there is no need to define terrorism; a definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific 'terrorist' intent; but this would be counter-productive, inasmuch as it would result in unduly restricting their suppression.
text: Second, that a definition is needed but no special procedures and offences required; rather, adjustment to the sentencing powers would suffice.
text: Footnote 50 Lord Lloyd's report thus does not go into any great detail as to why only a single definition of terrorism is needed and does not look at the underlying purpose of the FBI definition recommended.
text: A similar argument is put forward by Ben Saul who contends that a single definition of terrorism in international law is necessary in order that the definition can be controlled.
text: Caleb Carr also agrees with this assertion, arguing that a single definition of terrorism is necessary in law in order to expose it for what it is: a belligerent activity.