In his column in the Thursday, Oct. 2 issue of the Daily, Rhaason Mitchell rejects the claim that Allan Nosworthy’s hunger strike is terrorism.

In support of his arguments he gives the FBI definition of terrorism. “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force of violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Yet by this definition Allan Nosworthy is actually committing an act of terrorism.

The first part of the definition states terrorism is using unlawful force against people.

The hunger strike is fundamentally a suicide attempt and in this country suicide is illegal. There is the unlawful force, the person in which the unlawful force is being used against is Allan Nosworthy himself.

The second part of the definition states force is used to coerce a group in order to further an agenda. The hunger strike is an attempt to coerce Dr. Jischke and the entire student body in order to further his agenda.

Terrorism does not have to be a bunch of lunatics holding a plane hostage.

Terrorism is not defined by whether or not the FBI is involved. Terrorism can occur without buildings being bombed or women and children dying in the streets.

Nosworthy is committing an act of terrorism by holding his life in front of us. Just like a stereotypical terrorist threatens the life of an innocent bystander to achieve his demands, Nosworthy is threatening his own life to achieve his demands.

The only difference between most terrorist acts and a hunger strike is that the victim is not innocent. Nosworthy has chosen to be the victim of his own terrorism.

A hunger strike is an act of terrorism, and it should be treated like all acts of terrorism.

This country has never given in to the demands of terrorists, no matter how much validity their arguments may carry.

In the end, terrorism always fails. The only hope in every such situation is that the terrorist can be persuaded into stopping their “unlawful use of force.”

The demands of Allan Nosworthy cannot be looked into until he stops his hunger strike. Continuing the hunger strike will only insure one thing: his own injury.

It that happens, it won’t be the fault of the administration, it will be the fault of the terrorist, Nosworthy himself.

It is my hope that Allan Nosworthy will give up this act of terrorism so that he does not hurt himself.

Perhaps after he gives up this terroristic act, the student body and the administration can consider the demands he has made. But that can not happen until he stops trying to coerce the school into meeting his demands.

---

David Douglas

Freshman

Computer engineering