POLL: The Austin Plane Attack and the Fort Hood Shooting - What Counts as Terrorism?

[woo me with science]

Which count/s as terrorism? Explanations of your reasoning are welcome.

[KittyWampus]

1. How about uncertain? Cause I can be persuaded either way at this point.

[phantom power]

2. Here is the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.htm

[WhiteTara]

3. based on that definition, both

don't look for whitey to be the one labeled terrorist.

[Xipe Totec]

7. It's murky

If he acted alone, one could argue he was no longer trying to intimidate or coerce a government; he was settling a personal score.

If he acted in collusion with others, then it is definitely domestic terrorism perpetrated by his accomplices; the suicide attacker becomes nothing more than a tool.

[phantom power]

9. It is almost inherently murky, because the definition hinges on motive.

Was "Austin" an attempt to influence/intimidate govt policy? I lean toward "yes" in that case, mostly based on the "manifesto"

Was "Ft Hood" an attempt to influence/intimidate govt policy? I lean toward "no"


But I think it's arguable either way. Both cases involve a person just snapping and lashing out. That, by itself, does not meet the definition of terrorism.

:shrug:

[treestar]

12. A small scale, but it seems to be terrorism

Heck if 911 was - he killed himself to crash a plane into a government office - much like the attack on the Pentagon. Much, much smaller scale. But still terrorism. If he had had accomplices, it could have been much worse.

[JDPriestly]

15. Here are some legal definitions

Here is the definition of terrorism for domestic security in Section 802 of the Patriot Act:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED.—Section 2331 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ‘‘by assassination
or kidnapping’’ and inserting ‘‘by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnapping’’;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(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
‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3077(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) ‘act of terrorism’ means an act of domestic or international
terrorism as defined in section 2331;’’.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbna...

Here is a part of the ACLU's comment on that definition:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) 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. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."" The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.

. . . .

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-a...

International terrorism is separately defined. Here is that definition under the U.S. Code:

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/Define...

[woo me with science]

18. Thanks. nt

[woo me with science]

17. Thanks for posting this.

There are so many definitions, it seems.

[LeftinOH]

4. My choice "Both". IMO, when you take other people (strangers, no less) down with you

because of some grievance -real or imagined.. or partly real/partly imagined- you are a terrorist.

Has anyone heard of Andrew Kehoe? He was a Michigan farmer in the 1920s who was so incensed about the tax increase to build a local school -that he blew up the school after it was built, killing dozens of children (then himself)- presumably to punish the local voters who appoved the levy. I see the Stack attack as similar, though obviously on a smaller scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[Robb]

5. Terrorists don't start their day trying to burn their family alive.

[Fumesucker]

6. Apparently his family was not at the house when he burned it. n/t

[Robb]

10. Right you are.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9dv9ubo0/texas-man-with-irs-grudge-flies-plane-into-office-in-suicide-attack-wife-plans-to-speak-out.html

...I would also argue terrorists' wives don't tend to take the kid and split for a hotel a day before the terrorists do their thing.

The guy cracked, any "agenda" is just a symptom of the cracking.

[Fumesucker]

14. His published screed made it pretty clear he had a political agenda..

And he managed to pick out a particular government office from the air, no mean feat for all but the largest buildings..

[Robb]

16. I read it too

And it struck me as a clumsy attempt to add meaning to his plan. He felt helpless, but was convinced the reason had to be that he didn't lose his power, rather someone took it away. He was refusing to take responsibility for his own actions - not paying payroll taxes and getting caught - so he picked a likely bogeyman.
There's nothing in there that suggests a new policy direction for the IRS, for example. This is an act of pure retribution for a percieved wrong. That's just not terrorism.

[malaise]

8. Neither was terrorism

That is all

[Zoeisright]

11. I think that deliberate acts that scare people and change their behavior are terrorism.

That's pretty much the definition of the word.

[Robb]

13. So burglars and car thieves are terrorists?

Because without them, no one would buy alarm systems. :shrug:

[Obamanaut]

19. Ft Hood was an act of terrorism because:

one of the largest US military bases was effectively shut down;

many military police and local LEOs were involved;

broadcast media, internet blogs, and forums were non-stop Ft Hood for days;

friends and relatives on the outside of Ft Hood had no clue as to what their 'people' were doing ont the inside, whether /not they were victims.

Ft Hood shooter intended to harm multiple people, as evidenced by his reloading his weapon.

Austin was a simply whacko with an airplane and a desire for his own death.

[11 Bravo]

20. That's pretty fucking easy ... Brown guy: terror; White guy: really, really, upset.

Hope this clears it up for you.