Domestic political violence (USA)

[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 ?

[slapout9]

Hey Slap !



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 ?

Stan, you are correctomundo IMO.

[tequila]

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...

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.

[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

[zenpundit]

This is really an argument regarding parameters. I think Ken is taking a far too narrow view of what constitutes "terrorism", historically speaking.

Certainly, well-organized, highly ideological, methodical and frequently state-sponsored groups that engage in assassinations, hijackings, bombings and murder of civilians to further political objectives should be considered terrorists. The Marxist and Left-revolutionary nationalist groups of the 1960's-1980's from the Baader-Meihoff Gang, FALN, IRA and the PLO factions fit this model but they are not the only kind of org that can engage in terrorism.

While terrorism as a tactic has a very long pedigree - ancient Athens celebrated Harmodius and Aristogeiton as democratic martyrs for assasinating the tyrant Hipparchus - the term's meaning has evolved. The first modern terrorists were Jacobin agents of the Committee of Public Safety like Joseph Fouche enforcing a revolutionary terror against hapless clergy and other "enemies".

Later 19th century terrorists were primarily anarchists, acting in small cells like the Russian People's Will or as solitary assassins and bombmakers. Their ideology was ill-defined, their strategy virtually absent as they advocated "the propaganda of the deed". This tradition continued well into the 20th century with the Left S.R's trying to kill Lenin and itinerant anarchists attempting to kill Mussolini, A. Mitchell Palmer and FDR. Ethnic criminal organizations such as the Sicilian Black Hand and the Irish Molly Maguires also made liberal use of terrorism to buttress their efforts at extortion and influence in their communities.

Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.

[Ken White]

Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.

I agree with the last clause but disagree with the first. 'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

More precisely, the intended effect of what was done (Terror, like other things can fail to achieve a goal) is the defining factor. If the effort by a single actor or a group, organized or not, is intended to provoke a mass or target group reaction then it's terror. If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror.

If it is an action by a deranged individual or collection of them and achieves no significant effect or fearful reaction by a targeted population other than locally, it's a nut or a few doing something stupid and usually wasteful.

I agree with Rifleman. What you call something is important due to human perception triggering reaction. Overuse of the 'terror' tag has sorta cheapened it. As we can see...

[Armed Liberal]

Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy.

I'll suggest that there are two phenomena here - one is what I've been calling the phenomenon of "muckers" (after John Brunner) - people who because of some anomic defect simply decide that killing people - sometimes lots of people - is the only way to scratch some psychic itch. We're rich in them in the West, for philosophical reasons that are interesting to explore, but a sidebar.

One is the growing acceptance, in the face of new standards of behavior in warfare that explicitly attempt to restrain military behavior, of non-state violence.

Some of the non-state actors are political participants within a state (Sri Lanka, the Taliban) some are transnational movements (currently the one that is active and attention getting is based on a modern interpretation of fundamentalist Islam - Islam crossbred with modern European philosophy).

I'll suggest a kind of "occam's razor" in distinguishing muckers from terrorists; if there are policy issues at stake - even irrational ones, we are probably talking about terrorists, even if they are lone wolf or self-initiated terrorists.

Muckers have no addressable complaints - as the Austin pilot didn't, the Washington state trooper murderer didn't. And they had no social network supporting and encouraging this kind of violence.

The Aryan Nation bank robbers in the 1980's? terrorists. Random cranks who go off and spout inchoate rage against the government and the system? Not so much, I'll argue.

So it seems dangerous to define terrorism down to the level of someone like this...


Marc

[Rifleman]

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.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

[Bob's World]

Under current definitions, which I believe have been heavily shaped to define the current threat, no, it is not terrorism.

A quick google takes one to ABOUT with several definitions. In 1937 it was terrorism according to the League of Nations:

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."

And it may meet the current FBI definition:

"The unlawful use of force or 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."

And certainly it is under the Arab Conventions of 1998; which ironically have about the lowest standard for what qualifies as terrorism. The cynic in me would say it is because it really flies in the face of Arab culture to have to work too hard at anything...:

"Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources."

[slapout9]

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.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

Rifleman, your right to a point...........he was a Revolutionary and he was willing to pay any price to make his point. Bob Dylan recently played at the White House singing some of his songs but I bet he didn't play this one. The Tea Party was an act of Revolution.............most people seem to forget that. H. Rap Brown said "Revolution is as American As Apple Pie." The 70's are coming back and most ain't old enough to remember the Revolutionary groups that existed then or they have forgotten them. The New Breed will be a lot tougher and smarter. So much for my weekend analysis have to go do my "honey do list"

album: Band of the Hand Soundtrack

lyrics

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Down these streets the fools rule
There's no freedom or self respect,
A knife's point or a trip to the joint
Is about all you can expect.

They kill people here who stand up for their rights, The system's just too damned corrupt
It's always the same, the name of the game
Is who do you know higher up well.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

The blacks and the whites,
The idiotic, the exotic,
Wealth is a filthy rag
So erotic so unpatriotic
So wrapped up in the American flag.

Witchcraft scum exploiting the dumb,
Turning children into punks and slaves
Whose heroes and healers are rich drug dealers Who should be put in their graves.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Listen to me Mr. Pussyman
This might be your last night in a bed so soft. We're not pimps on the make, politicians on the take, You can't pay us off.

We're gonna blow up your home of Voodoo
And watch it burn without any regret
We got the power we're the new government,
You just don't know it yet.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

For all of my brothers from Vietnam
And my uncles from World War II,
I'd like to say that it's countdown time now
And we're gonna do what the law should do.

And for you pretty baby,
I know you've seen it all.
I know your story is too painful to share.
One day though you'll be talking in your sleep.And when you do, I wanna be there yeaahhh.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man

The Studio Version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLoO1S3-QE