Domestic political violence (USA)

[J Wolfsberger]

So, if a Muslim piloted a plane into a Federal building, would anyone question if this was a terrorist incident or not?

If he left the same parting missive, omitted mention of practicing Islam, and omitted the phrase "Alahu ahkbar," I wouldn't call it terrorism. I agree with Ken, and I think this was a guy with employment and tax problems who decided to go out with a parting shot at the organization he blamed for his problems.

[Schmedlap]

I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

[slapout9]

Have to go with Zenpundit on this one.

http://zenpundit.com/

[tequila]

If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective.

I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Given what we know, I'd put this guy, Abdulhakim Mohammad, MAJ Hasan, Richard Poplawski, and the Holocaust museum shooter in the same general category. All had major grievances that were based in political/religious ideology, but all also appear to have had significant personal dysfunctions. None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective, BUT their targets were clearly chosen for political/religious reasons.

I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.

[Ken White]

I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.

but I believe you, slap and Zenpundit are giving nutcases more credit than they deserve. You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized...

As you say:

...None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective...

Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror.

I think the only reason to call those acts terroristic is for political purposes...

[slapout9]

You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized...

I think the IRS might disagree.

[Stan]

Hey Slap !

I think the IRS might disagree.

According to the USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens). Joe apparently kept company with the KKK, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber to name a few.

Mike, legal aspects albeit post Morten ?

[Schmedlap]

I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.

Well, that may be true, but I wasn't using the "most people" standard. Most people regard terrorism as some violent crime, committed by someone who doesn't look like me, for reasons rooted in political grievances that don't resonate with me. In other words, it's not a useful term because it is too broad, nebulous, and subjective.

According to the USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).

I don't think that is clear.

Section 802(a)(5) says that

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) 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

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

I think a good argument can be made that this act appears to be intended as retribution against an agency that he was angry toward, rather than any of the three "appear to be intended" provisions of the act.

Besides, that's just a legal definition necessary for the operation of provisions in the Patriot Act. That doesn't make it a useful definition for anything not related to the Patriot Act.

[Entropy]

Well, the issue here is clearly one of definition. Defining "terrorism" and fitting events into defnitions isn't often straightforward. In short, I think terrorism is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

[Ken White]

Slapout9:

I think the IRS might disagree.

Those in the building at the time; all others, not so much.

Stan:

According to the USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).

Well, if that poorly thought out Act says he is -- then he ain't! I rest my case...

I think Schmedlap sorted that out pretty well. Let the Legal Eagles play with it.

Tequila:

I think we give "terrorists" in general far more credit than they deserve. The cowardly hysteria that surrounds the 9/11 plotters' trial and the idea of moving Gitmo detainees into U.S. prisons is a perfect example.

I agree with your principle point, we do give the acts more attention than they need. However, I also suggest that labeling the acts of certifiable nut jobs, no matter how terrifying to those on the scene at the time as 'acts of terrorism' lend them a cachet that leads people and lawmakers astray. Undeservedly adding to that "cowardly hysteria" thing.

I also believe that while it appears often as cowardly hysteria, it is actually dependency. The old "What is the government going to do about this..." routine. Most are not really terrified. They may say that but the reality is more often that it is simply uncomfortable and the government is supposed to fix it. If it is something the government cannot fix and both terrorism and random criminal acts by psychologically disturbed individuals generally fall in that category then many demand that it be fixed and castigate the government for 'failing.' Lot of politics involved...

It is quite possible that the two examples you cite are less cowardly hysteria in relation to objections and more making much noise for political purposes -- just as announcing the two actions in the first place was politically and not practically motivated. That is not to condemn the action either way, lots of alternatives and both selected will work reasonably well -- though the movement of folks from Gitmo will create as many problems as it solves. Gitmo should never have been used for that. It was.

Entropy:

...In short, I think terrorism is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

very true, I think -- there's also a very significant political quotient involved in what one wants to call a specific act...

[jmm99]

of Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing, together with some of its seemingly odd exceptions.

E.g., in 18 USC 2331, Definitions:

(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

and 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities:

(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction. - This section does not apply to - (1) the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war, which are governed by that law, (2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; ....
.....
(10) "military forces of a state" means the armed forces of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control, and responsibility; (11) "armed conflict" does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature; and (12) "state" has the same meaning as that term has under international law, and includes all political subdivisions thereof.

Do those provisions exclude AQ, if that group is considered a military force (waging unconventional warfare vs the US and others?), from prosecution under the Terrorist Act in a civilian court for say 9/11 or its other bombings ?

Of course that does not mean that AQ members cannot be detained (and yes prosecuted for war crimes) under Military Law.

And, yes, you probably could fit the suicide pilot into the domestic terrorist category; but for what purpose ? The guy is dead; and there seems so far no larger conspiracy.

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

I guess he didn't get the tax refund he was expecting.

And the irony is our taxes will only increase as they fix his mess

I'm with Ken and Wolf, but I would take it a step further. If this were a Muslim who slammed his plane into a government building because he was angry about our policies in the Mideast, I don't even think that would qualify as terrorism. Terrorism has a purpose of using fear and violence of achieve some political objective. If you're just lashing out at something that you hate, that's not terrorism. It's disenfranchisement, desperation, despair, anger, but not terrorism.

Concur. I'm a little worn out with how easily we come to use terms like terrorist and IED lately. Seems to fit and government financing is too easy.

Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010”

At 53 he just had enough. Should have gone after those rich weenies that manipulate instead of the finance ladies who couldn't change a light bulb.