Domestic political violence (USA)

[Bob's World]

I too don't think his inspiration will do much. Why? No Causation.

In America many complain about the government, but we recognize it's legitimacy and we believe in our ability to control it, vice the other way around. This is what immunizes a populace from Insurgent motivation, be it ideology, leadership, or acts like this.

Most populaces don't have anything even close to what we enjoy in America in this regard; but I assess downward trends on both of these critical metrics over the past 20 years; and that is a trend we would be wise to address sooner than later. Good COIN is done years before the acutal insurgent is ever even born.

[zenpundit]

You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc.

"An expert is someone who has made all of the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field" - Niels Bohr

[Schmedlap]

Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

[zenpundit]

Nobody else has asked, so I will.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is a terrorist. Let us also assume that he was acting alone - a lone wolf, a loner, a loser, whichever you like. Now, for the question: so what?

If he is a terrorist, should this make his crime more troubling than if he were not a terrorist?

Excellent question!

Yes.

A guy going postal because of personal issues doesn't have the attractive or inspirational potential of politically motivated terrorism. In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

[Schmedlap]

In other words, terrorism can have an effect on the psychological/moral level in a way that a guy slicing up his neighbors in his apartment and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti does not. The former is a cause, the latter, a curiousity.

Now I need to ask a follow up, since you mention psych thing and the causal thing.

Is this any more troubling than some high-profile school shooting that is likely to cause copycat shootings?

[zenpundit]

"Is this any more troubling than some high-profile school shooting that is likely to cause copycat shootings?"

While the age of the victims in a school shooting evokes sympathy, terrorism is more troubling because it is directed at the legitimacy of the state or society. If either unravels problems are significant and scale up.

To use school shootings as a test case, Columbine is a less threatening example of violence than was Beslan, because Beslan demonstrates how motivated terrorists could systemically strike at soft targets.

[jmm99]

I start with a mindset that considers "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist", etc., to be subjective terms. My mindset corresponds closely with this discussion of those terms in SORO, Human Factors: Undergrounds in Insurgencies (1966; linked here, Two more 1960s freebies ...), p.169 note:

Terror may be described as state of mind. Its effect upon individuals cannot always be determined from an objective description of the terrorist act. That which threatens or terrorizes one individual may not affect another in the same way.

Essentially, however, the process of terrorism can be viewed in the following manner: The stimulus is the threatening or terroristic act, and the response is the course of action, or inaction, pursued by the individual upon perceiving and interpreting the threat. If the perception of the threat leads to disorganized behavior such as hysteria or panic or the inability to take appropriate action, the individual is said to be in a state of terror.

Terror is not a static phenomenon: As threatening acts accumulate or escalate, the degree of terror heightens. A stimulus can be anything from an act of social sanction to threats of physical violence or actual physical attack. The corresponding interpretation of these threatening sets is a heightening state of terror.

The response may vary from coerced compliance to acquiescence, from physical flight to psychological immobilization and breakdown.

Given my mindset, it should not surprise anyone that I agree with Rifleman, I don't like the "terrorism" category:

I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

and here, I understand the argument and I still disagree...:

I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?

I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?

What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?

Rifleman's point (and mine) is exemplified by 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities (link below), which has to be one of the most confusing pieces of legislation in effect.

But, of course, that portion of the "Patriot Act" goes beyond criminalizing "terrorist acts" (which were criminalized well before its enactment). So far as Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 113b - Terrorism, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing. Here is the table of contents:

Chapter 113b - Terrorism - 18 USC ...

Sec. 2333. Civil remedies
Sec. 2334. Jurisdiction and venue
Sec. 2335. Limitation of actions
Sec. 2336. Other limitations
Sec. 2337. Suits against Government officials
Sec. 2338. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction
Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists
Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists
Sec. 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
Sec. 2339C. Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

Sec. 2331. Definitions
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties
Sec. 2332a. Use of certain weapons of mass destruction
Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
[Sec. 2332c. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-277, div. I, title II, Sec. 201(c)(1), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-871]
Sec. 2332d. Financial transactions
Sec. 2332e. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies
Sec. 2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities

The "direct criminal acts" prohibitions are encompassed in Secs. 2331-2332f.

The Secs. 2333-2338 provisions primarily deal with the rights and limitations of victims of terror in bringing civil actions because of "terrorism". Those provisions require a definition of "terrorism", etc.

The Secs. 2339 provisions are really the key to the need to define "terrorists" in this statutory complex:

18 USC 2339, Harboring or concealing terrorists
18 USC 2339A, Providing material support to terrorists
18 USC 2339B, Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
18 USC 2339C, Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

Most AQ prosecutions have involved the "material support" provisions, in one way or another. Of course, the Secs. 2339 provisions are similar to the various "Communist Control" measures of the early Cold War era. - Are you now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party or of any other subversive organization ?

To provide a flavor, here is 18 USC 2339A, Providing material support to terrorists:

(a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 1993, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or 2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law. (b) Definition. - In this section, the term "material support or resources" means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.

A related section (2339B) is currently before SCOTUS - Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, with oral arguments this Tuesday, 23 Feb.

At what point does a "terrorist supporter" become prosecutable, or more narrowly re: "high value targets", killable ?

How does "terrorism" differ from insurgency, insurrection, rebellion and revolution in regard to its impact on the "legitimacy of the state or society" ?

What is the reasoning (other than the legal uses to provide a not very useful civil action for terrorist victims, and a more useful prosecution tool against material supporters of "terrorists") for defining "terrorism" ? In short, are there non-legal reasons for using the term ?

Regards

Mike

[Schmedlap]

While the age of the victims in a school shooting evokes sympathy, terrorism is more troubling because it is directed at the legitimacy of the state or society. If either unravels problems are significant and scale up.

That's surprising. I would have thought the school shootings are more problematic because one can make a case that there is a causal "copycat" effect. In other words, one school shooting can lead to more. Is there any fear that someone is going to copy this guy?

[Ken White]

may be changing: LINK. I saw another poll but cannot find it wherein IIRC, about 60+ % of the people thought that they were not in control of the government while about 60+ % of the Political class (whatever that is...) thought the people were in control. That is not a good transposition because it giver the pols carte blanche to keep doing what they're doing -- which generally is not good.

So your point about a downward trend is valid and, as you say, good COIN is done BEFORE there is a problem...