Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure this will come as a shock to no one who's been paying attention, but Dick Cheney has been telling lies about the Bush administration's handling of the shoe bomber. The latest attempt to get out of the contradiction of trying the shoe bomber in civilian court but claiming that doing the same for the underwear bomber is going to undermine our security is Cheney claiming that the only reason they didn't transfer Reid to military custody was because he pleaded guilty. FactCheck documents the lie:
President Bush's order establishing military commissions to try any non-U.S.-citizen who "has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism" was issued on Nov. 13, 2001. Cheney is correct to say that the apparatus for actually trying anyone before a military commission wasn't yet operational, but the Nov. 13 order also gave the secretary of defense authority to take suspects such as Reid into custody, even if he was already in the custody of another part of the government. Cheney acknowledged this, but said that "all of that was never worked out, primarily because he pled guilty."But Reid didn't plead guilty until Oct. 4, 2002 - nearly 11 months after his arrest. Events suggest the guilty plea was a surprise to prosecutors -- Reid had been scheduled for trial in November. For nearly a year, then, the Bush administration had the option of transferring Reid into military custody, but didn't. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft even discussed the idea with DoD early on, but the decision was made to proceed in the civilian system, according to Ashcroft, who was asked about the possibility at a press conference a little more than a month after Reid's arrest.
Ashcroft, Jan. 16, 2002: I did confer with the Department of Defense and with their general counsel, and they had no objective [sic] to our proceeding in this manner.
So we have Ashcroft at the time saying that they had openly discussed transferring Reid into military custody and made the decision not to do so. The Bush administration consciously chose to treat Reid the same way Obama is treating Abdulmutallab. But of course, Obama is endangering our lives when he does it and Bush was not.
As for the claim that they couldn't do this because the military commissions were not yet operational, this is even more nonsensical. Bear in mind that at that time, the Bush administration was still taking the position that they didn't even have to bring anyone before any trier of fact, whether civilian or military.
It was in May 2002 that they arrested Jose Padilla, an American citizen, and on June 9 of that year that they transferred him to a military prison and held him incommunicado, without charges being filed or any access to any civilian or military court (or even an attorney) until 2006. Surely if the Bush administration could transfer an American citizen to military custody in 2002, they could have done the same with the shoe bomber. They deliberately chose not to. And Cheney is lying when he says their hands were tied.
Politics
Comments
Well, obviously they learned their lesson from Reid and didn't allow Padilla anywhere near an opportunity to plea out. Give a little credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 19, 2010 9:48 AM
Well Gingrich lied on Stewart's show that the reason was that he was an american citizen (which he wasn't). I think they need to get together and choose one of these lies and stick to it.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 19, 2010 10:06 AM
Your headline is 4 words too long.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 19, 2010 10:18 AM
Well, obviously they learned their lesson from Reid and didn't allow Padilla anywhere near an opportunity to plea out.
Oh. My. God. I get it now. You're saying that Bush and Cheney were time travelers from the future, sent back in time to help make sure that the Global Terrorist Uprising and Bake Sale of 2020 did not come to pass.
Either that or they're like Merlin and they actually age backwards, so they're not guessing that Obama is imperiling America, they're remembering that he will imperil America.
I guess I'm going to have to change my answer to that Minnesota billboard. Yes, George W. Bush, I do miss you now.
Posted by: Geds | February 19, 2010 10:35 AM
Wow, Cheney lied about something. Must be a day that ends in the letter "y."
Posted by: CHV | February 19, 2010 11:33 AM
While we're on the topic of terrorism, I'm curious, Ed, about your thoughts regarding yesterday's Austin plane crash. I'm utterly floored that the DHS hasn't accurately assessed it as a terrorist act (an act of domestic terrorism, but the difference is only a matter of politics, it seems).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 12:24 PM
Wow -- I live just a couple of miles from there. I didn't watch any news last night so this is the first I've heard of it. I wonder if the pilot was an Alex Jones fan...
Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2010 12:51 PM
You would think that after sticking his foot in his mouth so many times that Cheney wouldn't be able to say anything.
Posted by: camanintx | February 19, 2010 12:53 PM
WRT to Joe Stack (alleged Austin plane crash pilot), it sounds more like he was just an anti-IRS wacko and a perfect candidate for the tea
partiersbaggers and Badnarik supporters. The smoking gun has screen shots of his web site and 3000-word (six page) anti IRS diatribe.Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 19, 2010 1:04 PM
I don't see why every murder/suicide should be considered terrorism. This country has a long history of frustrated crazy people who go out in a blaze of infamy. Does it make such a difference that the victims aren't spouses or coworkers?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | February 19, 2010 1:10 PM
Yeah, just skimmed the suicide note and it's chock full of anti-government rantings (not just the IRS). The funny thing is that Jones's web site, Prison Planet, has published a copy of Stack's letter and is complaining that it will be used to wrongly demonize Jones and his followers, but if you read the comments at the bottom of the article, they are already declaring Stack to be a martyr for their cause.
Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2010 1:35 PM
If it's ideologically informed (and if it's clearly modeled after the WTC attacks), then as far as I'm concerned it's an act of terrorism.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 2:01 PM
You're going to have to do some explaining (Shawn and Scott) about why it's terrorism when Muslims fly a plane into a building, but not when a white guy flies a plane into a building.
An individual performing an act of violence against civilians based on antipathy towards the government? That usually qualifies as terrorism, doesn't it? Certainly that's what domestic terrorism usually consists of.
If somebody in Iraq flew a plane into an Iraqi government building, the papers would immediately label the man a terrorist. Yes?
Posted by: RickD | February 19, 2010 2:02 PM
It's a violent attack with a stated political purpose. Obviously it's terrorism. The fact that the person committing the act is a loon doesn't change anything - does anyone think that the 9/11 hijackers were model clear headed rational guys?
Now just because it's a terrorist attack doesn't mean we have to pee our pants and hide in the closet (or if you're cheney, bunker), even if that is the preferred republican reaction.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 19, 2010 2:23 PM
No, this still strikes me as more akin to the guy who shoots up the post office, rather than, say, Timothy McVeigh attempting to start a revolution, or the violent intimidation of abortion providers*. Maybe I'm denying that "the personal is political," but this just sounds like a man who wants to feel powerful by killing someone before he quits life, rather than someone making a sacrifice for a political goal.** Maybe I underestimate how much of a public statement Stack thought he was making. But, except for the spectacular method, it still just sounds like the typical "I'm taking someone with me when I go" loser that we don't normally refer to as a terrorist.
* To give the lie to the insinuation that I make the distinction based on race or religion.
** And I'm aware that sounds like I respect terrorists more than I do murderer/suicides. This might, in fact, be the case.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | February 19, 2010 3:32 PM
Point taken, Sadie (and Coriolis), but it isn't relevant. Terrorism is both ideologically and politically motivated. There has to be a sense that by scaring people, change can be brought. One person flying a plane into a building because he is angry and mentally disturbed isn't a terrorist act. A group of people sending a few of its members to do the same in order to provoke us is. So is one man bombing buildings, for that matter, if he's doing it to bring down what he sees as a corrupt government.
The rant on Stack's website shows no such political motive. He wasn't expecting that his actions would cause change - quite the opposite, in fact. He did it to express his anger and to hurt others. So, no, it was not a terrorist act. He was just a guy who slowly went insane and eventually decided to take a few more people out with him.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 3:35 PM
Coriolis stated @ 14:
Really? I'm sure struggling to concede that point where I remain planted firmly on the fence. Perhaps its an arguable point but I don't believe it's remotely "obvious".
I read his diatribe last night and my initial reaction was this act was very similar to the Amy Bishop U. of AL-Huntsville rampage. The similarity was their motivation where the difference was that the power that frustrated him happened to be the IRS while Ms. Bishop's antagonists were those who controlled and influenced her ability to grant tenure.
I would think the Dr. Tiller assassination passes the test it was an act of terror because the intention is to create a chilling effect in a society well-beyond the direct damage done by the act of terror. That is my understanding of a key feature of terrorism. I don't see that in the Austin IRS tragedy though we are early in the story.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 19, 2010 3:43 PM
Yes, but it could also be argued that 9/11 and health clinic bombings fail that definition of terrorism. Such actions could be considered as lacking a strictly political motive in favor of ideological and religious motives. Few people would deny that the two actions are terrorist in nature.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 3:47 PM
<threadjack>
Okay, RickD, I'll grant your point calling this attack terrorism. Like Coriolis, however, I'm not too worried that this will initiate a larger pattern of violence. After reading his diatribe I still contend that it's isolated. There doesn't appear to be any conspiracy, but more of a "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" response. To tell you the truth, it looks like he doesn't like organized religion, either, so I fully expect to hear some outlets to start calling him an atheist, and to call it atheist terrorism. And yet another computer programmer / engineer goes batshit. Just what I fucking need.
According to the report I heard this morning on NPR, he also got violent with his wife and stepdaughter before he allegedly set fire to his house and fence. So, it looks to me like he just couldn't deal with the fact that his life sucked (in his own mind). He thought that because he had no income he wouldn't have to file a return? Yeah, I probably thought that too, when I was 22, maybe. But this guy was at least 30, and had already filed returns in the past. Shit, a 1040 isn't that hard to fill out when you can put 0's on most of the lines.
P.S. I couldn't fucking care less what color his skin is, so please lay off implying my original reticence to calling it terrorism is as a result of him being white instead of muslim, 'kay? My being ignorant and/or stupid will qualify as a reason, just fine, thank you.
</threadjack>
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 19, 2010 3:56 PM
Indeed, they are terrorist in nature, but that's because both of those movements are politically motivated; they are attempting to bring changes about in their societies. The fact that their politics have a religious source is an accident of their birth and upbringing. A key feature of terrorism is that there is a political movement behind it.
Whether that movement is a single person or not is immaterial, but any terrorist is going to make sure the movement lives on. In the case of Mr. Stack, he did not outline a manifesto so much as he had a very long and rambling suicide note. So he was not a terrorist; he was merely very mentally disturbed and destructive.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 4:00 PM
The problem with claiming that Stack's grudge and difficulties with the IRS absolve him of charges of terrorism is that many of those who commit acts of terrorism are doing it for no better reason than resentment and bitterness against their target, likely combined with a deep sense of hopelessness.
I also doubt that Major Hassan thought that his shooting rampage would have any effect on American policies in the Middle East -- certainly not in the same way that the IRA believed that they could acheive their political ends by violence.
While Stack's actions may not be classic terrorism in the same sense as the Shining Path movement or the IRA, it is also quantifiably different from the usual post office shooting. (It seems utterly bizarre to say "usual" in this context, but that's how it is in America today.) yes, be bore a grudge against those who were causing him personal difficulties (just like many living in Iraq were impacted by the US invasion) but that grudge was further fueled by a life-long political ideology that insisted that the government had no right to take money from him (or intrude in many other forms in his life).
The typical going-postal worker does not reflect upon a life long effort to oppose big government tax policy before slamming a plane into a building of people he didn't know.
(That's another difference, most "going postal" attacks are aimed at people the attacker knows or has deal with.)
Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2010 4:07 PM
On the other hand, had Stack flown his plane into a post office on April 15 to discourage people from filing their taxes, I would undoubtably classify it as an act of terror.
At the same time, I can understand the desire of those looking to call it an act of terror to label this as something more than a murder-suicide. There was an apparent desire to cause significant damage, and there seems to be a political motivation. Frankly, I would call this an act of insurrection, albeit a very small and ineffective insurrection.
Posted by: Dave | February 19, 2010 4:09 PM
I would have to agree with those who are arguing that the Austin incident isn't terrorism. My reasoning is simple. While he may have similar arguments with those who claim to be tax protesters, his actual motivation appears to be much more driven by his frustrations as a failed businessman. Based on my reading of his background, it appears that he failed to adequately deal with the financial aspects of running a business and failed to meet his legal tax based obligations. He then (it appears) tried to fight against paying them, failed, and faced even greater penalties. Having done that, he (again appears) to have failed to have learned from his mistakes and did so again at least twice starting up new businesses and then failing to adequately deal with financial legal responsibilities.
Now on the one hand this is very similar to the Tea Party movement in that it is a bullshit transfer of blame to a party that is at best tangentially responsible for the actual problem. Stack (again much like the Tea Party movement) was a frustrated individual blaming others for his plight and lashing out.
McVeigh, the Tiller incident, the WTC and 9/11 all had long term social/political intent. This guy appears to have snapped because, as has been mentioned in this thread, his life sucked.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 19, 2010 4:45 PM
He had dealt with them, at least to his own mind. He was committing one of the most common and horrific human errors and lumping people under a big supergroup he felt he could hate. To him, the IRS was the problem, and anyone who worked in that building had contributed to his tax problems over the years.
There is always a political motive - that comes from living in a politicized world. The main difference here is that the suicide itself was not for the political gain. He was out to hurt as many people who had caused him pain as he could. That's the key difference between Mr. Stack and a terrorist: while both may be aware of the political situation and both may be out to cause as much destruction and death as possible, the terrorist does it to further his/her political causes. Mr. Stack had no such cause.
It's horrible and depressing to think that one man's insanity could cause so much hurt, but it is an error to label what he did as terrorism. It simply does not fit. For that matter, Mr. Hassan may not even fit the description either, since he was not associated with a particular movement. Mr. Hassan was deeply disturbed and seeking reasons to inflict his growing anger upon others, but it's much more likely that he was used by real terrorists to further their goals.
And that's the distinction: terrorists rarely risk themselves. They are fundamentally cowards. They will use others for their ends, particularly those they can convince to go out in a blaze of glory, but it is not true that all mentally disturbed people who seek to frighten others are terrorists. Reserve that label for the cowards who deserve it.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 4:54 PM
Can someone high profile, such as Biden or some democrat call Cheney out on this and put a stop to this ridiculous deceitful posturing about national security? I mean, it's fine and dandy that we in the blogosphere get it, and Jon Stewart will certainly get a laugh or four out of it, but unless someone forces Cheney and nutcases inc. into responding to their falsehoods, they are still dominating the discussion. Listening to week after week after this Terrorball will begin to affect opinions of the masses if it isn't countered. And it's so EASY to disprove, and then shove the ball right back into the republican's throats.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 19, 2010 5:09 PM
Was UnaBomber a terrorist? What about the Holocaust Museum shooter? The Beltway Sniper? The guy who opened fire in the UU church in Tennessee (or was it Kentucky?)?
Either those people are/were terrorists and Stack is also, or none of them are.
I think they all are. If they are not, I'd like to hear a coherent definition of terrorism that excludes them. It seems to me that such a definition would require a large-scale organization or conspiracy as an element of the crime of terrorism. But that doesn't seem to be part of the legal definition:
(emphasis mine)Posted by: bullfighter | February 19, 2010 5:21 PM
@Tamarron #25
Terrorism is the use of fear as a tool for political change. So, what do you call an endless posturing on national security as being the only way to protect ourselves from an unseen enemy, and then adding in distinct political goals? That's right: terrorism.
See why I don't label Mr. Stack nor Mr. Hassan as terrorists? A better example is Dick Cheney and his cronies. Sorry, Tamarron, I don't think you're going to get your wish. We already have the evidence that terrorism works quite well, even when we do it to ourselves.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 5:21 PM
@bullfighter #26:
The legal definition isn't necessarily the most sensible one. As such, I reject your false dichotomy, particularly because of one very notable difference between Mr. Stack and (most of) the others: a distinct political (which also means "social") motive. In the case of the Holocaust Museum shooter, there was a distinct political motive, which makes it an act of terrorism, even if the shooter himself was not a terrorist. Be careful with your definitions.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 5:25 PM
Ryan E:
That's the key difference between Mr. Stack and a terrorist: while both may be aware of the political situation and both may be out to cause as much destruction and death as possible, the terrorist does it to further his/her political causes. Mr. Stack had no such cause.
How so? His suicide note clearly states a political cause. It isn't a rational cause, but a lot of terrorists' causes are irrational.
For that matter, Mr. Hassan may not even fit the description either, since he was not associated with a particular movement.
The main reason Hassan doesn't fit is that he didn't target civilians. Considerations of his sanity aside, his crime, on its face, may be treason, but it would be a huge stretch to deem it terrorism.
(Admittedly, the "noncombatant targets" could be interpreted to include active members of the military not currently involved in combat, but that would make a lot of normal warfare terrorism.)
Posted by: bullfighter | February 19, 2010 5:33 PM
His suicide note clearly states his own frustration and a desire to inflict harm upon those who he felt had wronged him. What isn't in there is a belief that his acts would cause some "beneficial" political change. In other words, he wasn't using fear as a tool; he was simply expressing his anger and frustration in the most violent manner available to him.
That isn't the primary feature of terrorism anyway. Mr. Hassan's acts may have been an act of terrorism (if he was manipulated into doing it by terrorists), but he himself was not a terrorist because he wasn't attempting to bring about political changes. The fear wasn't the tool; the gun was simply an instrument for killing in order to express his disturbed mentality. The fact that fear was inflicted upon others was external to his primary goal.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 5:41 PM
Well, I have already seen one teabagger claiming that Stack was an anti-capitalist Marxist.
If ever there was a need for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to exist it would be when right-winger commit acts of domestic terrorism (or whatever you want to call it).
And to think I never knew that there were so many Marxists in America today.
Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2010 6:07 PM
Ryan:
Then how do you explain this excerpt from the note, which strikes me as a call-to-arms for others to emulate his actions:
Sure, a lawyer might argue that he's simply stating a simple opinion and not necessarily calling others to join his army, but I'm not buying it.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 6:11 PM
Cheney lies.
In other news, the sun sets in the west, bears shit in the woods, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | February 19, 2010 6:18 PM
Well, the "chilling effect" it is having on me is to make me even less interested in paying my taxes.
"that would make a lot of normal warfare terrorism"
...from the mouths of babes...
But you are correct. Hasan is not a terrorist. He is currenlty being charged with murder under the UCMJ. He may also be charged as a traitor if the prosecution can show that he targeted his victims as soldiers rather than just as other coworkers.
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 6:23 PM
Since you've called Cheney a liar, here's a tip: don't accept an invitation to go hunting. You don't screw with a man who shoots people with a shotgun and receives an apology from the victim.
Posted by: MadScientist | February 19, 2010 6:28 PM
Good point, Sadie. There is also plenty of cheering coming from his fellow believers -- fans of Alex Jones and his ilk.
Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2010 6:29 PM
...and why would this be so?
Posted by: Tamarron | February 19, 2010 6:56 PM
As Sadie already pointed out there are clear indications in his note that he expects this to lead to political change and motivation for others to follow. There are even clear references to specific laws that he believes have caused him and the tech sector in general harm. Here's a small quote from near the end:
"I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are."
I think it's pretty obvious. He hoped that this act would bring about political change.
Of course he was also motivated by a personal vendetta. But if that was a reason not to classify this as terrorism we would have to "disqualify" every suicide bomber who had a family member killed. And clearly we don't do that.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 19, 2010 7:07 PM
I'm sure he was stating his feelings and that there was at least some political motivation behind what he did; I never doubted nor discounted that. However, there is a distinct difference here: Mr. Stack had the primary intent to kill and cause destruction as a means of expressing his insanity. Even from the quote you give, he is very sure that his actions won't have the effect of starting a revolution, despite his wishes that it were so. That is markedly different from the usual terrorist MO where every act is an attempt to influence politics. That's exactly why they are such cowards - they have to live in order to keep the movement going.
But if you want to call him a terrorist, that's according to your definition and not mine. I won't say there's anything wrong with your definition, except that it shifts the focus away from the ones who actually are out to destroy our way of life through fear and manipulation. I prefer to focus on people like Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney, and other similar characters as the enemy. People like Mr. Stack should instead be identified and helped before they explode.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 7:35 PM
Sadie and Coriolis - Specks call to arms is that of an imagined insurgent, militant, or revolutionary, but not necessarily that of a terrorist. Terrorists are looking to incite fear in their opponents in hopes of creating societal changes by those who are fearful; a call to arms is the act of revolutionist. To Speck his call appears to be a denial mechanism to rationalize his planned criminal act.
Tiller's murderer hoped to accomplish a reduction of health care supply in terms of capacity and willingness of providers to provide abortion services by creating fear in the health care community, lawmakers who regulate such, and the public that vote for those lawmakers. That's a perfect expression of both an act of terrorism and a terrorist. Mr. Speck on the other-hand was instead looking for revenge and it appears, justifying his rage by imagining himself as some sort of lead brigade of an uprising.
It's not surprising this gets muddled. Post-invasion of the Iraq War the more legitimate news organizations took a lot of heat for often calling some of our enemies insurgents rather than terrorists depending on the target and/or the group who was committing violence.
Like the term 'judicial activism' which has become so broad as to be meaningless; I think it's important we don't dilute the term 'terrorism' by extending its usage either.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 19, 2010 7:40 PM
Nonsense. The woman who broke into one of my neighbor's houses and stole several thousand dollars of jewelery had no political motive, nor did the diapered astronaut of a few years ago. Most crimes are simply that, crimes, without any political dimension. Speck had a clear political agenda, deluded though it may be. A political agenda, of course, does not make it an act of terrorism, but it does distinguish it from the run of the mill murder suicide.* The desire to strike a blow against the US government is what makes this an act of (a very small and ineffective) insurrection. Im quite sure Speck saw himself as a modern day Daniel Shay.
* As disturbing as it may be that the phrase has meaning.
Posted by: Dave | February 19, 2010 7:59 PM
Please spare me your missing my point in a rush to make your own. I very obviously wasn't talking about just any crime but one involving anger at public officials. Having a political motive can't be helped in those cases - which is what makes it insurrectionist and vice-versa.
The difference between insurrectionism and terrorism is the use of fear as a tool for social (or political) change. Just because a person who kills others has a clear political motive does not make that person a terrorist, yes, but it's specifically because of that difference.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 19, 2010 9:19 PM
Your claim Michael than is that because there was not a sufficiently organized movement that shares this man's ideology, such that they could credibly present a threat to other people, he cannot be called a terrorist.
It's true that there are less people who would share his passion compared to anti-abortionists (actually I'm not too sure about that) or islamists. But it's not really all that obvious that the amount of people who would agree with his views is all that different from the amount of people who would agree with McVeigh, or with various white supremacist groups. And clearly McVeigh was considered a terrorist (I guess because he was more competent personally).
As for diluting terrorism to being meaningless - in my view that happened a long time ago. The term is used pretty much entirely as a meaningless political bludgeon at this point, exactly like judicial activism. And considering that terrorism does not pose a serious threat to this country I'd rather the whole obsession with it be discredited.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 20, 2010 12:00 AM
The number of people who may or may not share a person's views does not affect whether that person is a terrorist. Neither does competence, to which you allude later. It's simply about the tools one uses for what purposes. McVeigh is a terrorist because he used fear in order to bring about sociopolitical change, which we know because of his associated behaviors. Almost everything else about him is irrelevant in determining that.
Yes, it did happen long ago, but by the terrorists on "our side" who want to goad us into acting out their own sick torture fantasies. It is incorrect and very dangerous to think that the dilution of a label like "terrorism" means that it does not pose a serious threat to this country; on the contrary, it is more of a threat because it is more difficult to see. I don't mean to be alarmist in saying that, but we should be very careful who we call a terrorist so we can keep our eyes on the real ones.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 20, 2010 1:40 AM
Coriolis @ 43 stated:
That is not my claim. In fact I twice used an example of a lone wolf, the murderer of Dr. Tiller, as contrast of someone who was a terrorist committing a terrorist act and how that differed from Mr. Speck's crime.
Coriolis @ 43 stated:
You again completely miss my point. The above is what insurgents attempt to do which I previously described is not necessarily terrorism but you are conflating as such, which dilutes the term 'terrorism'. I instead described how terrorists use violence hoping to affect society with fear well beyond their direct victims.
In the George Tiller murder the attempt was to suppress the number of abortions by spreading fear to other health care providers and their potential clients beyond Dr. Tiller's office with an act that had prior success like we've experienced with other terrorists such as Paul Hill. Speck's crime or his imagined justifications weren't an attempt to suppress the IRS, but instead rationalizations justifying his crime coupled to an ineffectual 'call to arms'. The latter is what insurgents do, but that is not necessarily terrorism.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 6:08 AM
Tiller may have been a lone wolf but he had an movement which agrees with his principles, if not his zeal. He acted alone, but because of the movement his actions could credibly threaten other people - which is why he's called a terrorist. I thought your point was that the same cannot be said of Speck. Which I disagree with.
If not that, then your other point seems to be that if someone is an "insurgent" i.e. someone who plans to promote some change in his own society (even if by violent means), then that person is... not neccesarily a terrorist? True, not all insurgents are terrorists. But all terrorists (apart from purely war-time ones) at some level are attempting to reform their society as well. Osama is hoping for a global islamic caliphate - the rationale for attacking us is that our overreaction would unite muslims around the world against us into a islamic state. Tiller was hoping that abortion would be outlawed. Speck was hoping for tax changes.
The only terrorist acts that cannot also be classified as insurgent acts are those that are purely meant as a means of suppressing some other nation or perhaps a part of society (if that part is sufficiently distinct from the whole). And even then, there is some internal social ramifications, i.e. the actions of the Mumbai terrorists may appear to be just meant to scare Indians, but in reality I'm sure that at least one of the goals of the people who sent them was also to take away support in Pakistan for normalizing relations with India. The fact that Indians were smart enough not to overreact undermined those goals, but if India had reacted stupidly it could have easily worked.
Now if your point is something else still I suggest you say it clearly.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 20, 2010 9:37 AM
Oops, my bad there, Tiller was of course the victim, not the murderer, who was Scott Roeder.
Posted by: Coriolis | February 20, 2010 9:42 AM
"You're going to have to do some explaining (Shawn and Scott) about why it's terrorism when Muslims fly a plane into a building, but not when a white guy flies a plane into a building."
Okay look, people, I'm not going to explain this again.
Muslim (alone or in concert with other Muslims) = terrorist. White guy "terrorist" = either mentally ill or patriot, depending on who the audience is.
Are we clear now?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 20, 2010 12:14 PM
@Coriolis: I don't know where your desire to label Mr. Speck as a terrorist comes from, but you're not making sense. The fact that he is not a terrorist does not make his crimes any less atrocious, nor the event any less horrifying. We have already discussed your point in detail: Mr. Speck is not a terrorist because he was not using fear as a tool for sociopolitical change. That was clearly evident even from his suicide note. He wasn't even all that extreme in his views - just extreme in how he chose to express them. The (non-legal) definition for terrorist is a very simple one and he very simply does not meet it.
@Modusoperandi: I don't care for your implications, though you are probably correct for the majority of the Fox-viewing public. In my case:
"person who uses fear as a tool for sociopolitical change" = terrorist. Examples include: Dick Cheney, Timothy McVeigh, Osama bin Laden (and the rest of al Qaeda), etc. Not even a serial or mass murderer makes that list unless the definition is met, and it has nothing to do with religious nor ethnic minority.
"person who kills other people because he's angry with the world" = either mentally ill. Not patriot.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 20, 2010 1:03 PM
Ryan Egesdahl @ 49,
I've agreed with your very cogent arguments in nearly all your posts on this thread until you hit what I think is an overly broad definition which creates a category of players I don't believe fit the term terrorists nor were the acts terrorism. You state:
I find that definition too broad and filter it down by noting that terrorists by definition are engaged in asymmetrical attacks against non-military targets where their enemies have vastly more resources. That would exclude someone like Dick Cheney and his acts as being terror along with most state military actions like carpet bombings at collateral targets hoping to change the enemies' populace's support in being at war, e.g., WWII Dresden bombing or Hitler's bombing of collateral targets in England, Palestinian bombs being lobbed from their territory targeted at Israeli military resources, or even the U.S. dropping nuclear bombs on Japan - none of which I would define as acts of terror (though some were or are arguably war crimes). I don't add this descriptor to defend Americans or American policy, but am merely attempting to define terror as I understand it be commonly understood by experts which includes this asymmetrical component targeting collateral resources.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 2:47 PM
@Michael Heath: I was using that definition because it is correct. Filtering down from there is a matter of functional description. I say Cheney is a terrorist because he fits that definition, but the functional description of terrorists who engage in asymmetrical warfare would not apply to him. It would, however, apply to a significant percentage colonial fighters during the American Revolution, since "striking fear into the heart of the enemy" was a stated goal of their tactics.
That brings up the point that labeling a thing should neither dismiss it nor attempt to fully describe it. We can accept and even agree with terrorists and their motives when we feel the cause is just. The only real difference between the American brand of terrorism and the radical Muslim brand is who is being attacked. It doesn't matter who is doing it anymore, though; the philosophy of non-violence has largely been accepted (if not actively practiced) by the intelligentsia of the world and terrorism has therefore been deemed counterproductive.
My only role in this argument has been to point out what the actual definition is and to warn against redefining the term out of fear for the reason that one should not always treat a mentally disturbed person as a terrorist and vice-versa. Besides which, in redefining the term so broadly, we only succeed in scaring ourselves witless.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 20, 2010 3:05 PM
Ryan @ 51:
I didn't know there was a universal definition of terrorism, could you provide a citation? For example, here is the difficulty the United Nations has had defining terrorism: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633
My standard, and its humbly presented, has been my understanding regarding how terror-related words are used by journalists working for serious publishers, e.g., Foreign Policy or The New York Times or historians. It was especially interesting watching how they parsed various acts and players in Iraq and Afghanistan when distinguishing acts of insurgency versus acts of terror. I think my definition is consistent with how they've used these terms in these two theaters of war over the past nine years.
I've never encountered these sources using a definition as broad as yours that would include President Truman bombing Japan, or Cheney's apparent war crimes, or all the other examples I noted in my previous comment. So I guess your last comment left me completely unconvinced unless you can support your argument that your definition is definitionally correct simply because it is the definition, in spite of such deviating so broadly from how it's used by journalists and historians.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 3:33 PM
@Michael Heath: Sure. I use a simplified version of Princeton's, which is also the same one I learned in all my political science classes.
And I wasn't trying to support my argument on the basis of practical usage - I was supporting it on the basis of political theory, for the sole reason that the word is so emotionally charged. Yes, Truman bombing Japan would fall under the broad definition because that is exactly what it was. Whether I agree with any particular historical or journalistic interpretation of the event is beyond the point. My feelings on this issue are irrelevant and remain unexpressed.
Oh, and argumentum ad verecundiam, by the way. Or argumentum ad populum. Just because a certain class of people who are considered experts render an implicit opinion on a fact does not make that opinion beyond dispute. I keep myself to the theoretical definition in order to make opinion irrelevant.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | February 20, 2010 4:17 PM
@Sadie: I suspect it's not classified as "terrorist" because there is no apparent collaboration, unlike the case of Timothy McVeigh. Investigators are reasonably confident that it's a one-off, there are no plans for future attacks, and there is no connection to any political or religious movement which might inspire others to do the same. I don't agree with Ryan#16 dismissing the pilot as "mentally unstable" since that is an unhelpful classification.
Posted by: MadScientist | February 20, 2010 4:39 PM
Ryan @ 53:
Given your Princeton cite, I concede you have an arguable position. However I disagree there is a collective agreement on what constitutes terror given it's not consistently applied by others with the same authority as Princeton.
So I don't agree these fallacies apply to my argument. Who I was looking towards are in no way merely a class of people using the term, they are instead those who belong to the set of standard-bearers regarding the proper use of terms.
For example, the proper definition of deism during our founding would include Jefferson and Adams, however the word has evolved since then to the point using that term now incorrectly leads to the conclusion they didn't believe in a providential god when in fact they did. Therefore, responsible historians must now provide additional descriptors in order to not mislead or I recommend, use the new term theistic rationalist which was invented by historian Dr. Gregg Frazer, where those words make their belief self-evident.
This trouble with definitions is also why there's been so much recent discussion regarding certain standard-bearers being hesitant to call President Bush's "enhanced interrogation methods" torture when they freely described other countries' equivalent practices torture.
Therefore, I concede your descriptor is arguably correct, however I don't think it falsifies mine given we haven't established a standard is collectively accepted.
Andrew Sullivan is claiming that Joe Stack committed an act of terror. Sullivan has a PhD in Political Science from Harvard but in this blog post fails to define terror but merely frames the events in a way convenient to claiming it's "obviously torture". Sullivan states:
I googled:
in hopes of getting a more thoroughly researched analysis than either of us have presented here. To stay out of moderation I won't link to the below examples but restrict them to the first page of my google search results.The Boston Globe's ombudsman has an incredibly lazy approach. They concede there is no accepted definition and therefore don't even try to define it, but instead use the "you know it when you see it approach" by simply claiming an act is terrorism on an individual basis. I think that's a total fail equivalent to Sullivan's above.
The WaPo's 2003 ombudsman references their style standards which promote their articles not "slap on labels" that are not collectively accepted, but instead precisely describe the event (they therefore minimize or avoid using those terms). So they avoid our debate by not engaging, conceding no agreement is possible. That's where we are so that might be a wise position given I certainly have no devastating argument (and always knew I never did) nor do I find yours commonly accepted though its certainly arguable in a manner that doesn't override challenges.
On another google hunt, The UN General Assy of 1994 came up with the following definition consistent with my understanding which is narrow enough to exclude the examples I claim are not terror which you claim are:
This descriptor doesn't filter out acts that are asymmetrical relative to a larger enemy like I prefer when using the term (and still do so I'm not conceding to this description). It includes the Tiller murderer and Timothy McVeigh. I would argue it doesn't include Cheney even if criminally convicted, ditto with Joseph Speck.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 5:27 PM
Here are the two citations that went unlinked above to avoid moderation (limit is two per comment):
Boston Globe
WaPo (second article down the page)
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 5:31 PM
So, Michael and Ryan, here is a summary of your posts:
You both argue that what Stack committed was not terrorism, and you both believe you know what "real" terrorism is, but you cannot agree on the definition. Ryan's definition would include most war crimes (and arguably some acts of warfare that are not criminal), while Michael's would exclude assassins of abortion providers (whose targets do not have vastly more resources). And neither agrees with the legal definition in the US Code.
So I wonder how you know with so much confidence that X is a terrorist act, and Y is not.
Finally, if there is this much disagreement on its definition, is "terrorism" a meaningful term at all?
(I think it is, but I am not sure if it is meaningfully distinct from "hate crime". Perhaps the two concepts should be merged.)
Posted by: bullfighter | February 22, 2010 10:53 AM