What qualifies as terrorism?

[bascule]

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/3110/

 

So here's an interesting story: within the span of two days, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated by Scott Roeder, and two US Army recruiters were assassinated by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad.

 

Muhammad was charged with terrorism. Roeder was not charged with terrorism.

 

What exactly is the distinguishing factor in these two cases?

 

According to Wikipedia (lol) terrorism is:

 

a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies."

 

I'm unclear on how the actions of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad qualify as terrorism while the actions of Scott Roeder do not. I think either they're both terrorists, or neither of them are.

 

I will refrain from suggesting that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad is being considered a terrorist because he's a Muslim. Oh wait, I indirectly suggested it! Whoops!

 

Yeah, honestly, I feel like this is neo-McCarthyism, with the Muslim world as our enemy instead of the USSR, and "terrorist" being the new "communist".

 

What do you think?

[iNow]

Isn't terrorism whatever the government officials tell us it is? I mean, what possible reason would they have not to be authentic with us?

 

 

Kidding aside, it's a tough question. Can someone be "sort of" a terrorist, or is it a boolean state with a clear demarcation somewhere? ... you're not a terrorist until you've crossed this line...

 

I don't think it can be contingent on the actions of the person, because sometimes those actions haven't yet been taken... or, can it? Maybe plans and thoughts and ideas can be considered actions... Interesting question.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Looking more closely at your article, I'm inclined to believe that we're rather biased against labeling fundie Christians as terrorist, and perhaps too likely to label fundie Muslims as terrorist, as per your suggestion.

[Mokele]

Motives, I think, play a large role.

 

If you kill someone, through whatever means, just because they pissed you off for some reason, with no real thought of broader consequences or how this will affect anyone beyond you and them, IMHO it's just plain murder. If, however, your actions are motivated by the desire to "send a message" to a group of people, to intimidate or terrify that group, or as part of your personal 'war/battle' against that group, it's terrorism.

[Pangloss]

Does defining an act as "terrorism" serve a useful purpose?

[iNow]

Does defining an act as "terrorism" serve a useful purpose?

 

Consistency in the application of our laws... Avoidance of bias... Making sure that we are not religiotic ideologues when prosecuting criminals.

 

Or, I could have just said... Yes. It does serve a useful purpose, especially considering how the laws for terrorists are different than the laws for non-terrorists.

 

 

Now, how DO we define it?

[GutZ]

mokele has it, to cause terror....

 

It get's troubling though when you think if it in terms of: once an act of terrorism is done, is everyrhing following that acts of it consider terrorism as well.

 

lets say this guy is going against the government and he bombing stuff...you know...If he takes out a solider, is he doing it to cause terror or to save from being captured?

[Pangloss]

Oh I see. But why are there different laws for terrorist acts?

[Mokele]

Because motive and message do matter. When someone kills Joe Sixpack over a bar fight, it has no real effect beyond his friends and family. When someone kills someone else to "send a message", the act doesn't just hurt the victim and their friends and family, it damages an entire community, and has hundreds or thousands of people looking over their shoulders, fearing they might be next.

[iNow]

Oh I see. But why are there different laws for terrorist acts?

 

Probably off-topic. Maybe that can be explored in another thread, mate?

 

 

 

So... is it the fact that it causes terror and/or sends a message, or the fact that it's directed against the government which matters?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Muhammad was charged with terrorism. Roeder was not charged with terrorism.

 

What exactly is the distinguishing factor in these two cases?

 

You know... The definition of terrorism itself seems to support your point.

Check this out:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+terrorism

 

 

Practically every single one of them references the goal of political change or religious motivation, which also ties in well with Mokele's mention of "sending a message."

 

The killing of Dr. Tiller, an abortion doctor, by a Christian fundie was without a doubt to send a message, it was to impact political change, and it had religious motivations. That meets the definitions shared in my link. Why is that not considered terrorism?

 

How is that different from Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed army recruiters? The only differences I see are a) the target, and b) the underlying religious group motivating the action taken.

 

You mention neo-McCarthyism... Terrorists are, in fact, the new communists... The big bad boogyman which catalyze our acceptance of moving away from our values and reason... our collective rationality. I seem to recall one of the Sunday shows last weekend... one of the guests... stating exactly that... Terrorism is the new communism.

Edited June 11, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

I have to say I'm surprised to see you, Mokele and bascule apparently agreeing with something that I had been under the general impression was more in the nature of a conservative talk radio rallying cry than a logical point of discussion. You guys seem to have accepted the premise that terrorism is a different level of offense than crime.

 

Mokele's point makes little sense to me because it seems to me that if I allow a terrorist to make that "greater impact" then the terrorist has accomplished his goal. Why reward him or her in that fashion? It seems to me that I make an even greater statement about what I think of their principles if I simply treat them as a common criminal.

 

This is just my opinion, of course, but wouldn't it make more sense to stop separating criminals by motive? Many people are opposed to hate crime legislation and capital punishment for the same reason. Isn't crime supposed to be about justice for the victim? How am I in greater need of justice if my attacker maims me because I'm a minority instead of because I was standing in the way of the exit?

 

It also feels like you're rubbing your hands together and saying "Okay, we hated this when conservatives were deciding who the terrorists were, but now we're in charge!" Maybe that's an erroneous impression on my part, but I have to question whether using a different ideology to select what constitutes a "terrorist" is actually an improvement.

[bascule]

I have to say I'm surprised to see you, Mokele and bascule apparently agreeing with something that I had been under the general impression was more in the nature of a conservative talk radio rallying cry than a logical point of discussion. You guys seem to have accepted the premise that terrorism is a different level of offense than crime.

 

I think you missed my point completely.

 

Yeah, honestly, I feel like this is neo-McCarthyism, with the Muslim world as our enemy instead of the USSR, and "terrorist" being the new "communist".

 

I guess I'll just leave it where I left it in my original post. I think the word "terrorist" has become diluted to the same level of offensiveness that was once afforded to "communist". I feel that among conservatives circles they leverage the same level of criticism against "liberals". These are not words that carry definitive meaning. These are words leveraged by a particular social group against a particular social outgroup.

 

I see it as little more than neo-McCarthyism.

[Mokele]

I actually never disputed the distinction between terrorism and "regular crime", and I don't see how acknowledging someone's terrorism or attempt at it as a "reward", especially since it comes with stiffer penalties.

 

Punishing criminals isn't about "justice", but rather about prevention, and it's not so much about "motive" as goals[/b]. If I catch two robbers in the act, before they can make off with something, and one was stealing a car while another was robbing a bank, should the bank robber be sentenced to more time because of the greater magnitude of the crime.

 

That's the mistake people make in these debates - a 'hate crime' isn't punished more severely because of the perpetrator's mindset, it's punished more severely because the crime causes more damage, affects more people, and damages both individuals and society more.

 

IMHO, it's an issue of consistency. Either broader social effects don't matter, in which case neither hate crimes nor terrorism are justifiable distinctions, or they do matter, in which case both are equally valid.

[JohnB]

The killing of Dr. Tiller, an abortion doctor, by a Christian fundie was without a doubt to send a message, it was to impact political change, and it had religious motivations. That meets the definitions shared in my link.

Agreed. Either both are terrorist acts or neither are.

[CaptainPanic]

Terrorism is the new word. Has been for the last years (since 9/11). If you're fighting terrorism, you're the good guy. And the bad guys are automatically terrorists.

 

Bad guy = Terrorist

 

For example: the entire country of North Korea, including it's government can become terrorists. Or perhaps they already are. After all, they're severely disrupting life in the rest of the world... aren't they? Bloody Terrorists.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/24/113635.shtml

 

How does that work? It certainly doesn't fit in my definition of terrorism that an entire country can be a terror-country... unless perhaps it's called Mordor.

[The Bear's Key]

....that an entire country can be a terror-country... unless perhaps it's called Mordor.

I don't know Cap, the link says...

 

This article needs additional citations for verification.

 

 

But Powell likely meant only the N. Korean government.

 

A state did this, not terrorists, but a state...

[Severian]

I agree with Bascules' statement that they are the same level of crime. I generally think the word 'terrorist' is ill defined and not very useful in the first place though. We should just call them all "murderers".

[D H]

Muhammad was charged with terrorism. Roeder was not charged with terrorism.

 

What exactly is the distinguishing factor in these two cases?

 

According to Wikipedia (lol) terrorism is: ...

 

Wikipedia, last I read, doesn't count as a legal reference. The key distinguishing factor is that Muhammad, acting as a civilian, killed a member of the military far removed from a combat zone for political reasons. Roeder, acting as a civilian, killed a civilian for political reasons.

 

The first is a terrorist act by definition. The second could be a terrorist act if Roeder had had support from an officially recognized terrorist group. He didn't. Why pin a charge on Roeder that any reasonably capable defense attorney, even a publicly appointed one, could easily get dismissed?

 

We are a nation of laws. If you don't like the laws regarding what does and does not constitute terrorism, convince Congress to change them.

[swansont]

The first is a terrorist act by definition. The second could be a terrorist act if Roeder had had support from an officially recognized terrorist group.

 

One implication of that is that terrorism must be a conspiracy, and as such, an individual acting alone cannot be a terrorist. I don't think that's a good dividing line. The unabomber was not a terrorist by this definition, yet under a more common use of the term he was. The beltway snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, were not part of a recognized terrorist group, yet what they did was deemed terrorism (in at least one trial), and I can say from personal experience that I agree — I live within walking distance of one of the attacks. It was a frantic three weeks.

 

But this definition only moves the problem a step back. Why is a radical sub-group (as part of a larger ideological movement) that kills people not recognized as a terror group?

[Sisyphus]

That's seriously how it's defined? That you have to be part of a group? So, an individual suicide bomber isn't technically a terrorist, no matter what the target or motives?

[D H]

One implication of that is that terrorism must be a conspiracy, and as such, an individual acting alone cannot be a terrorist. I don't think that's a good dividing line.

Fine. Convince your Congresscritter to change the law. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of what you would like the law to be. To be charged with terrorism as a crime the act and the conditions around the act must meet the legal definition of terrorism, not the lay definition.

 

Another key point: Roeder was charged with violating state law. Terrorism, as far as I know, is covered by federal law. The federal government typically does not get involved in state criminal trials immediately. It instead lets the state try to do the right thing without federal intervention. Suppose Roeder is found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances (lying in wait or hate crime) and is sentenced to death or to jail for life without parole. There will be no reason for the federal government to make a federal case.

 

Muhammad, on the other hand, killed a member of the military in the act of performing military duty. This is a federal crime. There is every reason for the federal government to get involved in this case from the onset.

[Mokele]

According to US Law, title 18, part 1, chapter 113B, section 2331:

 

(5) 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

 

© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of

the United States.

 

Therefore, by legal standards of the US, Roeder's actions were terrorism, particularly with respect to parts i and ii.

[D H]

Once again, that is US law, not state law. The jurisdiction matters. Roeder is charged with violating state law. The federal government will most likely stay out of Kansas' way unless it comes up with a non-conviction or a bogus conviction. Muhammad, on the other hand committed a federal crime from the get-go.

[Mokele]

Pretty much the same at the state law level. Roeder still qualifies.

[D H]

Does he? Did he intend "to intimidate or coerce the civilian population", or just a tiny, tiny segment of the civilian population? Had he killed patients as well as the doctor I would say yes. He didn't. Kansas already has a solid case against him, and a capital offense at that. Why confound this solid case with an accusation that may or may not stick and that might well make a jury more inclined to give him a lesser sentence? This is Kansas, after all.

[Mokele]

He attempted to intimidate or coerce 51% of the US population. That's what the entire debate is about, controlling women. The message was clear and simple: "we can kill anyone who dares go against us on this issue".

 

Furthermore, he clearly attempted to "influence government policy by intimidation or coercion" - by terrorizing abortion providers, he attempted to intimidate people into not providing the constitutionally-guaranteed care, thus attempting to undermine the law.

 

How is this any less terrorism than a clinic bombing?