Is That Legal?

Eric,
I see the word game here not as a problem of rhetoric which it is in part, but a utilitatrian problem. How does the label help us work with the problems involved? Does calling any lone actor the same name as a highly or even loosely organized group help us solve the problem? Are they the same problem? And from an interactionist labling perspective, does labeling the lone actor a terrorist mean that we are creating a label that can be used/misused by others that might be disturbed, lonely and/or newly radicalized seeking a fantasy in which to validate themselves.

Under Eric's definition, George Bush is a terrorist for the random violence that he has authorized against his (mostly innocent and therefore random) victims in Guantanamo and other prisons. But we should not apply the connotation of "terrorist" that suggests that we can treat as him we will, rather than by the rules and standards that we usually accord to citizens. Rather, we should turn him over to an international war crimes tribunal and provide him with due process.

Shouldn't the definition of the word "terrorism" include something like "attempting to create terror in the minds of ..." or "inspiring terror in ..."? Your definition doesn't seem to me to capture this, and I think it's the important part of the concept.

Also, the guy driving the SUV didn't seem to be trying to inspire terror in anybody; he was trying to kill them.

Terrorism, perhaps. But that does not settle the issue, as the word covers a wide range of actions.

At first glance, the differnce between what Mohammed Taheri-azar did and what an organization such as Al-Qaida seeks is the difference between a teenager robbing the 7-11 and the mob shaking down store owners for protection money and commiting arson on those who don't pay.

Both are criminals, but they are hardly alike in their goals, or in their impact on society.

I think that to focus on exactly what "terrorism" means is kind of to miss Eric's point. The word itself is contaminated after Sept. 11 (like "Jap" was). When you call someone a terrorist now, at least in this country and especially if the person is Middle Eastern, there is no going back to a definition that does not invoke the "war on terror" and all of the politics surrounding it. This example is a sign of a deep polarization in which language is no longer our friend. If it turns out that this attack cannot be labeled the result of mental illness, it will need to be called something, and the handle that comes easiest to mind is "terrorism." I'd like to think it's possible to use the word more carefully, as Eric would like, but once it is uttered I think the speaker has lost control of it.

Sally: I think that to focus on exactly what "terrorism" means is kind of to miss Eric's point. The word itself is contaminated after Sept. 11 (like "Jap" was).

I agree that use of the word "terrorism" is out of control, but I think that that is central to Eric's point. If this crime is terrorism, what violent crime isn't? Heck, strike "violent;" what crime isn't? Can a blogger commit terrorism by pushing down on keys while wearing pajamas? Apparently so. Is there a difference between the current meaning of "terrorism" and Orwell's "thoughtcrime?"

I don't know if it's possible, but I think that we should try to restrict the meaning of the word to acts intended to inspire widespread terror.

Paul, many of the newer provisions in the just renewed Quisling Act, et. al. have to do with detecting and dealing with "lone actors" and "lone wolves". When you pare the policy down to searching for and detaining individuals, that by definition show no previous signs of "terrorism", we essentially have created a police state - we're all suspect because any one of us could rent that SUV and mow over folk.

I also wonder about the "terror" aspect of this incident. 9/11 (oh no!) heightened folks (or some folks) general anxiety - an anxiety that BushCo has put to good political use (hey, when was the last "terror" alert?) Suicide bombings promote terror by heightening the fear that no public place is safe. Where is the "terror" in this incident? Will I feel anxious in the Pit? Was that the intent?

I didn't feel anxious on Henderson St. after Williamson. When they show Taheri-Azar smirking during his perp walks, when I read what he's said in court, when I listened to the 911 tape - I keep thinking this guy has more in common with Williamson than BinLaden.

I'd submit that the statutory definition offered in the federal criminal code, at 18 U.S.C. 2331, which boils down to an individual committing an illegal act of violence to influence government policy through the violence itself, intimidation or coercion, or mass casualty attack, is a pretty fair definition of it. Illegal violence + political motivation = terrorism works for me. The definition covers Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, our AQ buddies, etc. It doesn't extend to mere civil disobedience, no matter how unpopular; and the specific mens rea requirement means that (1) the individual must have the mental capacity to form specific intent; and, (2) the intent must be influencing political change through illegal violence or coercion. If we actually rely on the definition, that precludes the merely mentally ill from being classed as terrorists (the lack capacity to form the requisite mens rea) and it precludes the merely violent members of unpopular ethnic or religious groups from being classed as terrorists absent proof of motivation.

As a general matter and in the privacy of my own mind I employ some locker room language to categorize anybody that engages in extralegal violence against innocent persons, regardless of motivation; but for the purposes of keeping public debate reasonably fair the statute works for me.

One of the missing links in this discussion, I think, is the distinction between terrorism, terrorists and terrorist organizations. The kind of law enforcement and social response to the "lone wolf" has to be very different than the response to the ongoing conspiracy. Both carry out similar kinds of attacks and have similar effects, perhaps (I'm not prepared to concede that without thinking it through, and I don't have time right now, but feel free to take up the question without me) but in terms of how we respond and how we try to prevent terrorist attacks, these are very different.

terrorism (as was discussed nearly every day in my law and measures against international terrorism seminar last semester) is nearly impossible to define outside a particular cultural context. most definitions include violence (or the threat thereof), but that leaves out attempts to disrupt society through non-violent acts: shutting down wall street, for example, or taking an electric grid offline. then there's adulterating food, poisoning drugs, releasing biologically active matter... all things which could be seen as acts of terrorism.

i think one of my favorite definitions of a terrorist comes from peru's law establishing the punishment for acts of terrorism. it is as follows: (apologies for those who don't speak spanish)

"El que provoca, crea o mantiene un estado de zozobra, alarma o temor en la población o en un sector de ella, realiza actos contra la vida, el cuerpo, la salud, la libertad y seguridad personales o contra el patrimonio, contra la seguridad de los edificios públicos, vías o medios de comunicación o de transporte de cualquier índole, torres de energía o transmisión, instalaciones motrices o cualquier otro bien o servicio, empleando armamentos, materias o artefactos explosivos o cualquier otro medio capaz de causar estragos o grave perturbación de la tranquilidad pública o afectar las relaciones internacionales o la seguridad de la sociedad y del Estado"

Ahistoricality, there's an even finer distinction to be made between the "volunteer" for a terrorist cause, and the lone wolf grinding his own axe. The Unabomber is distinct from a guy who supports a particular terrorist group or end. I'm not sure if Mr. Taheri-azar fits into the former or the latter group, but I believe the distinction is relevant.

Ironically, under the definition you give for terrorism, in which I concur, the 9/11 attackers were not "terrorists". Their object was to attack and destroy a portion of the U.S.'s military and economic power, reducing our ability to support Israel and station our forces in Arab and Muslim lands. The effect upon the American psyche, although far greater than the material damage suffered, did not seem paramount to them. If the object had been to "terrorize" the American people, some means of spreading a deadly disease among the general population would have been a more fruitful avenue to take. The spectacular damage wrought by the collapse of the twin towers, and the public reaction it spurred, surprised those behind the plot as much as it did Americans.

It appears to me the motivation of the young Iranian in the UNC Pit was the same - more to do with finding satisfaction inflicting damage on the "enemy" than elicting a response. The mystery to me is why he would choose the univeristy community in Chapel Hill to attack as a representative of the Bush administration policies he detests. I'd like to know more about what went on with him during his years as a student on the campus.

As to whether to brand him as a "terrorist" for legal purposes, I think one responder had it right above. The energies of the FBI and our Homeland Security Department should be devoted to ferreting out and disabling cells of conspirators that may be secreting themselves within our country for future attack, rather than pursuing charges against one who appears to have been a sole agent, acting alone, whose case can be handled quite satisfactorily by the North Carolina Justice system.

Al,
Illegal violence + political motivation = terrorism works for me.

So if I went outside and punched a passerby in the face while screaming, "This is revenge for Bloomberg's smoking ban!", that would be terrorism? Given the legal and social implications of calling something 'terrorism,' that seems like an awfully low bar.

the individual must have the mental capacity to form specific intent ... that precludes the merely mentally ill from being classed as terrorists (they lack capacity to form the requisite mens rea)

Is there something in the legal definitions of 'mens rea' and 'intent' that makes that so? From a non-legal viewpoint, I don't see how it works. Some forms of "mental illness" might prevent someone from forming and acting on an intention -- e.g. catatonia, major depression, etc -- but other very serious forms do not. Certainly a schizophrenic is perfectly capable of acting on an intention. John Hinckley acted with the intention of winning Jodie Foster's love, but he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Hinckley's choice of means for achieving his goal would strike most people as 'crazy' (why would killing Reagen make Foster love him?), but is the case of Taheri-azar really that different? At least Hinckley succeeded in getting Foster's attention. I doubt Bush or his advisors are even aware of Taheri-azar's existence. I'm tempted to think that if Taheri-azar is truly a terrorist (if he really intended his actions to influence US foreign policy), he must also be crazy.

Ahistoricality,
The kind of law enforcement and social response to the "lone wolf" has to be very different than the response to the ongoing conspiracy.

I don't disagree, but I don't really like the phrase, "lone wolf" in this context. It echoes The Turner Diaries and similar texts which advocate "leaderless resistance" and "lone wolf" terrorism. To me, "lone wolf" implies, not a truly independent actor, but a member of a loose conspiracy.

Beth: I did use the term "lone wolf" deliberately (more or less; my first association is with ronin not with skinheads), and I agree with you and Al Maviva (and that doesn't happen often, let me tell you) that there's a distinction to be made between members of movements with "lone wolf" ideologies and people who take it on themselves to do something violent and stupid without a lot of tactical sense. However, I don't know that, in a law enforcement/prevention sense, that you can make a useful distinction between them, since the "lone wolf" tactic is precisely intended to stymie surveillance and conspiracy charges.