What’s in a Name?
How does one define an act of terrorism? It seems obvious that a suicide bomber flying a plane into a government building and killing ordinary people would qualify. But apparently not. Apparently, in the United States, there is an important qualifier – the person must be a foreigner, and preferably a Muslim. If he is an American protesting “big government”, well, tut-tut, killing people is bad, but we should empathize with the poor guy, right? After all, this is a common sentiment among the right, even among elected officials. And yet, when a foreigner does something similar, forget empathy. Forget even giving him a fair trial – this same macho right will be first in line calling for him to tortured (to make sure we get all the information, you see) and thrown into a military brig like the dog he is.
I’ve come to expect these double standards on the right, but I don’t expect it from the media. Oh sure, I expect laziness, superficiality, and obsequiousness, but I do not expect this morally cavalier attitude, this seeping Palinization of discourse. Glenn Greenwald has a must-read on an internal Newsweek debate on whether they should use the word terrorist. And they all admit it – Americans don’t qualify. Managing Editor Kathy Jones says as much. And here is this whopper from reporter Dan Stone:
“Yep, comes down to ID. This guy was a regular guy-next-door Joe Schmo. Terrorists have beards in live in caves. He was also an American, so targeting the IRS seems more a political statement — albeit a crazy one — whereas Abdulmutallab was an attack on our freedom.”
Incredible. Journalists have bought fully into the phony ideological of American exceptionalism, the notion that America is God’s chosen nation where different rules apply. Hard-nosed secular journalists borrow liberally from hard-edged Calvinism. It now makes more sense that they will not use the word “torture” when it comes to America (or Israel, for that matter), but will use that word when other countries do exactly the same thing.
As usual, it all boils down to consequentialism. The act of political murder, or torture, is not intrinsically evil. It all depends on the circumstances, and who is doing it. Thus we get a bizarre situation – an Iraqi who attacks an occupying army in his own country is deemed a “terrorist”, but an American who deliberately targets civilians in America is not. If a communist government uses waterboarding, or sleep deprivation, ot stress positions, or persistent beating, it is torture, but if the American government does it, it is defending freedom. Words convey meaning.
Let’s have some greater clarity about the object of the act. Killing civilians, terrorism, torture are always evil, regardless of circumstances. Resorting to this kind of Orwellian language is just the first step on the road to moral relativism, the first act in a consequentialist nightmare.
Comments are closed.
It seems to me that an act is “terrorist” only if it leaves the survivors worried that more of the same is coming. If the act was done by one guy, even if he did it for political reasons, and there is no reason to believe that he has a group of comrades out there, readying themselves to follow suit,then nobody is likely to be terrorized. Horrified and saddened, yes. Angered, probably. But terrorized? I don’t think so.
I tend to dislike the wide use of the term terrorism. It seems we as a people want to use terrorist whenever we have an ax to grind. So I would disagree with you that “It seems obvious that a suicide bomber flying a plane into a government building and killing ordinary people would qualify.” People wanted to call the Oklahoma City bombing a act of terrorism, and they wanted to call the murder of the abortion doctor George Tiller a terrorist. Yet we don’t want to call the wide amount of gang violence terrorism despite it better fitting a lot of people’s technical definitions than either the Tiller case or Oklahoma City. I think it would be better to reserve the word terrorism to describe the acts the IRA undertook, Al Qaida undertook, et cetera.
“It seems to me that an act is “terrorist” only if it leaves the survivors worried that more of the same is coming. . .”
Given the rhetoric and stated purposes of the Tea Party movement, something like this was foreseeable, and I’m not entirely sure that we can dismiss the possibility of more of the same occurring.
Joseph Stack is a considered a hero by too many people.
It is also a double standard when the united states regularly uses terrorist tactics and calls it “war making” or even “peace keeping.”
Remember, too, that that heroin(e) of the right Sarah Palin insisted that abortion clinic bombings should not be called terrorism either.
Remember, too, that that heroin(e) of the right Sarah Palin insisted that abortion clinic bombings should not be called terrorism either.
Just goes to prove broken clocks are right twice a day.
1) I think most people agree that “terrorism” is a pejorative term. We have tried to define it (outside of OED), but can never agree. In fact, there is a committee in the UN that has been working on a definition for it for years with no agreement in sight. There will never be a universal definition because of the sensitivities it arouses.
2) One thing universal about terrorism is that it is a tactic used in war. Americans used it quite a bit during the revolutionary war, for example, and it proved quite effective in South Carolina as tactic to scare Tories, so that they would demand protection from the British, which in turn diluted British numbers elsewhere. I am not saying it was right — just that it is used by all kinds of groups or individuals stemming from a variety of motivations, be they religious, ethno-centric, social, or some other ideological belief.
3) Most definitions also agree that terrorism is designed to instill fear (which relates to the word “terror”) and to reach some political goal — whether it be a caliphate (al Qaida, al Shabaab, etc), a statement to prevent US involvement in the middle east (Maj Hasan in Fort Hood), a statement against the evils of the US government (the recent plane hitting the IRS building or the Oklahoma City bombing). Most definitions of terrorism agree that criminal acts are not terrorism (gang violence, certain drug violence, lunatics killing people because of voices in their head, etc). Of course, there is a fine line between deranged lunatics and suicide bombers, but that’s a better discussion for another day.
4) I agree with this post’s argument that Glenn Greenwald’s understanding of the term is both warped and misleading. Terrorists don’t attack our “freedom.” That is worthless political bunk that makes Americans dumber.
5) I also agree with this post’s argument that Americans should not be exempt from the word terrorism. We need to fight that nonsense. It is too often that I hear terrorism attached specifically to religious (aka radical Islamic) aims exclusively. This neglects terror tactics used by the Tamil Tigers right now, or perhaps the Real IRA which has very minimal religious underpinnings.
6) I disagree with Mr. Iafrate’s response that Americans presently use terror tactics and call it “war making.” Not to say that we haven’t in the past (also consider the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden), but that I don’t know of any examples at the moment that meet the criteria of violence used to inculcate fear for political goals. Perhaps night raids in Afghanistan could be considered terrorism — I think that would be a good debate, because night raids are a problem right now. I do agree, however, that bombings of abortion clinics meet the criteria for unlawful acts designed to instill fear in order to achieve political objectives. That is pure terrorism and Sarah Palin is dead wrong.
Thanks for letting me send a long post. I was just debating this stuff this morning with a number of military guys.
The mere building of u.s. military bases in the Middle East is terrorism. That’s a start.
Thank you Cliff for saving me the time of writing the long post. I could not have said it better. Only to add that I don’t care what you call it, taking an action with the purpose of injuring or killing another is wrong.
One the conditions I outlined a long time ago for an act to be considered terrorism is that the actor must be from outside the society he is attacking, or to be gender inclusive, she is attacking. This is where I would have disagreement for Hill’s #3. And by outside, I don’t merely mean a loner, but someone in a different society. This would mean that abortion providers couldn’t be their own society. It would also mean the violence against blacks up through the 60s may qualify as terrorism. Hill’s #2 is interesting, but I would lean against calling it terrorism due to the Loyalists and Patriots not being separate societies.
This from the same people (the right) who wanted to reinterpret Saddam Hussein as a terrorist, of course.
It is is interesting debate about who and what is a terrorist. Now I will differ with the writer fo the Salon piece that seems to focus somewhat on religion and the ethnic background.
In my short time on the Planet I have seen terrorist used correctly to various people.
I think outside the hardcore Irish the IRA were seen as terrorist. Factions of the Quebce Separtist were seen as terrorist. Also during the cold war I think numerous factions of the Red Brigade that we saw in Gemrnay and Italy were seen as terrorist.
In the United States I think a good many people saw Timothy McVeigh as a terrorist. Partly because he seemed to be part of some movement that involved others which I think is crucial. I think that as t the Austin case that is one of several factors that is missing.
It should also be noted on the right they also talk of domestice terrorism. I mean there was the huge talk about Obama, Ayers, and the Weatherman and many leading figures on the right very much were calling Ayers a unrepeatnent terrorist.
I have no doubt if whie Neo nazis starting blowing ups stuff left and right they would be labeled terrorist too.
In the backgorund of this is this is a whole new worldwide creature we are facing with different factions and a command and control structure that is by design diverse if it exists at all in the big scheme of things.
“Terrorists don’t attack our “freedom.” That is worthless political bunk that makes Americans dumber.”
Well in many ways they do. What is Freedom? It takes in the ability to tade and conduct commerce. That goes from the WTC, to the Sea Lanes , ot business headquarters abroad.
Terrorism attacks our ability to travel and freedom of movement. That goes from the attack on our air travel. Freedom of movement and travel is often essential to Freedom. We saw that in the famous Civil Right cases and understood that.
Terrorism attacks our Freedom of ability to associate. We see that with the needless the major sports events we now have huge security on, we see that with terrorist attacks on Churches, Mosques , and Jewish places of Worship.
Terrorism aslo attack our Free Speech. We see this in Europe more of course over the reaction to certain things that have been published.
So yes Terrorism attacks our Freedom in many ways
phosphorious,
Let’s avoid labeling Joseph Stack as a Tea-Partier or a conservative. In his manifesto, he said that he hated drug and insurance companies, all politicians who were failing to enact universal health care, Catholics, religious people, George W. Bush and his administration, and capitalism.
Let’s just say that Stack was insane, and let’s not try to put him into any political group.
I agree that we should speak clearly when using words. But I don’t know whether I’m convinced that the word “terrorist” is only used to describe Muslim foreigners. Doesn’t everyone recognize and speak about the past conflict in Northern Ireland as involving “terrorists” and “terrorist groups”? It seems to me that “terrorism” is usually applied to a group of people who are trying to achieve some particular end. One lonely crazy guy doesn’t seem to qualify.
“Let’s just say that Stack was insane, and let’s not try to put him into any political group.”
Don’t tell me. . . tell conservative politicians:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/hottopics/archives/195075.asp
Good discussion throughout. A few additional thoughts:
1. There is a lot of talk of “Lone Wolf” terrorists. I can’t remember the source of the term, but the FBI and others use it. According to law enforcement, these are guys who commit acts of terrorism per my definition (unlawful violence or threat of violence to instill fear in order to achieve political goals), but who are not tied to any group. But they generally sympathize with groups and may even communicate over email (Maj Hassan) or have had past affiliations (McVeigh). But I agree with some of the comments that it’s hard to tell if these guys are lunatic killers or terrorists. I’m comfortable with both terms.
2. I find it easier to define “terrorism” more objectively as a tactic, than it is to define a “terrorist” or a “terrorist group.” Those labels are more pejorative, more political, and abused by the far right. The State Department uses “terrorist group” for legal purposes. As I noted, most weak groups who want to fight for political ends have been known to use terrorism. Unfortunately, it can work. Fortunately, there is another approach: passive resistance. That works too. (People like us who view this blog need to keep thinking of better alternatives).
3. As for Mr. Iafrate’s comment, “The mere building of u.s. military bases in the Middle East is terrorism. That’s a start,” I don’t know what to say except: where is the academic rigor? Show us the logic at least. Perhaps he could argue that US bases in the Middle East are the source of terrorism stemming from radical Islam. Or that some US military tactics could be considered terrorism (i.e. unlawful violence to instill fear). There are indeed a number of unlawful acts at the individual soldier level. But it would be hard to argue that a US base is terrorism, or that US policy is terrorism, or US military strategy is terrorism. This would take some work. Are you up for it?
This probably slightly beside the point, but just so you can educate yourself on the subject and discuss it intelligently, take a look at Bruce Hoffman’s “Inside Terrorism,” generally considered the authoritative work on the subject. Terrorism is a pretty vexed term and he goes over possible definitions at length (various government agencies have their own and each is subtly different). He’s on record as saying Stack’s crash wasn’t terrorism. Also, fyi, his book is full of examples of American citizens he considers to be terrorists.
I am a big fan of Hoffman’s work. He also teaches a course on it at Georgetown in the Security Studies program which is very popular there.
“Show us the logic at least.”
Just imagine an al-Qaeda installation, with missiles and a large air fleet, armed with nuclear and other high-tech weapons, located in Windsor, Ontario or in Baja California. Then supply your own logic to that scenario.
phos,
Your comment implied that TeaPartiers consider Stack a hero and that the TeaParty goals are in line with Stack’s. Brown wasn’t implying that.
phos,
And even if Brown believed what you said in your first comment, so what? Brown would be just as misguided as you were in your first comment.