Is That Legal?

In this thread on a local left-of-center political blog, especially toward the bottom, some people seem eager to avoid the "terrorism" label and instead attribute the act to mental illness.

As someone who's also inclined to think it was an act of mental illness (although I posted about it elsewhere) I don't think I could fairly be characterized as "eager" to avoid the terrorism label, except to the extent that I'm "eager" not to label things incorrectly. I just don't think it was terrorism. I think it's more likely that it was an act of mental illness, end of story.

I'm perfectly capable of calling things terrorism that I think actually are.

Interestingly, the same people who want to label incidents like this as "terrorism" are precisely those who reject any special treatment of "hate-crimes." "A crime is a crime, regardless of motive," they tell us. Except when political opportunity arises.

I heard about the "terrorism" debate this morning on the radio. Why is it important to affix some label to what happened? The facts are that a former UNC student who is a Muslim deliberately tried to run over some students and said his motive was to avenge the mistreatment of Muslims. So far it appears he acted entirely alone.
It is important to label this as "terrorism" or something else to various groups that want to spin the event to advance other agendas.
It surprises me that a recent college grad who has been described normal could behave so irrationally. How could he think that his actions could advance his goal of avenging Muslims? Maybe he had some other motive and simply lied.

I have been scratching my head over this one. If this guy had exploded his car in the Pit, I don't think people would question a "terrorism" label. But, thankfully, no one was killed, and some of the people he hit didn't even need medical treatment. So, is this not terrorism because it was a weak plan?

Or, is Taheri-azar best compared to Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber? A loner, probably mentally unstable, with an axe to grind. Maybe more mentally stable than John Hickley or Wendell Williamson (the UNC law school student who shot and killed 2 people on Franklin St. in 1995), but still off-kilter. Terrorists? I am interested to know where people draw the line.

(By the way, you can listen to the Taheri-azar's 911 call in today's N&O. Probably not the kind of call a dispatcher gets every day, he/she did a good job of keeping him talking with basic questions.)

Dictionary.com defines terrorism as follows:

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now I'm no Republican but I can't see how anyone could argue that this attack doesn't fit the above definition. The fact that it was poorly conceived may indicate some degree of irrationality on the part of the perpetrator, but I reject the label of "mental illness" to the extent that it's used to excuse his actions.

Interestingly Matt, the people who reflexively oppose any limits on the criminalization of belief, often completely fail to distinguish between reasonable enhancements in sentencing and crime degree linked to conduct that the state should discourage, and per se criminalization of disfavored speech or mental state. Interestingly, those people generally mischaracterize the arguments of those who oppose speech codes.

Cathy, he told the 9/11 dispatcher and police that he did it to take revenge for US government policies, and advance Allah's will in the world. How is that mental illness? It's the same argument advanced by Al Qaida. Shouldn't we instead be asking what it is that the government did, that caused him to feel that way? You know, look for the root causes of his behavior, and not be so quick to attribute it to mental illness? Other than hitting some people, this might merely be a case of civil disobedience. Why chalk it up to pathology, when it might actually just be perfectly legit behavior coupled with a momentary lapse in judgment?

It seems to me that this debate about whether to define last Friday’s events as an act of EITHER terrorism OR mental illness is misguided. The two categories are not mutually exclusive. Just like a sane person, a mentally ill individual may commit crimes of terrorism or of non-terrorism. If the perpetrator did in fact go on his rampage “to avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world," that sounds like terrorism to me. But if it can be shown that he was so mentally ill as not to have had the mental state required for a conviction of “terrorism,” then we have to live with that or come up with a better definition of the word. Maybe both sides are right.

The guy in the car -- assuming the reports are accurate -- committed both a crime and an act of terror, as Dictionary.com defines that term.

Okay. So what?

What's the point of the UNC college Repubs? That the guy should be strung up by his balls until castrated? Executed summarily? Water-boarded until he tells us who his Al Qaeda controller is?

Or is their point that we have terrorists in our midst so we need to increase Bush's already unlimited inherent & plenary C-in-C powers?

Maybe if Bush had been conducting domestic-to-domestic warrantless spying, this could have been avoided. So let him do it.

Maybe if Bush is allowed to personally shoot the guy in the middle of the street -- like that notorious photo of the So. Vietnam General summarily executing a Viet Cong prisoner -- then the Islamofascist terrorists who've infiltrated our country will see how strong and serious Bush is and they'll leave America in deadly fear of our remarkable, brilliant President. So let Bush pull the trigger.

Maybe if Bush is allowed to temporarily detain all practicing Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, in those new detention centers Halliburton is building in America's heartland, then these sorts of terrorist incidents won't happen in America. So let Bush sign the executive order -- like the one Roosevelt signed.

If none of the foregoing is the point of the UNC Repub rally, then they should just shut the hell up.

Eric, the results of WRAL's scientific poll are now in. It looks like it was terrorism:

Yes; it clearly was aimed at innocent people with the intention of intimidating or coercing the government: 69%

No; it could just be the act of a mentally disturbed person: 13%

Let's wait and see what details come out in a trial before deciding: 12%

It's possibly terrorism, but it shouldn't be called that because it could inflame the situation: 4%

I'm not sure: 1%

I have to question where we draw the line if we decide to label this terrorism. Just a few days ago a woman in Nampa Idaho drove her vehicle into some abortion protesters becuase she didn't like the signs they were carrying. Is that act terrorism?

The problem with labeling this terrorism is that neither of these acts were actually staged because the actor believed they could intimidate someone from doing something. The student was acting alone and since being arrested cannot any longer take any action against anyone. How can he be intimidating?

I guess you could say that he was intimidating those people that he tried to run over. But again, do you think they thought he was a terrorist when he was driving at them? Do you think they are afraid of him now that he is locked up?

I think the missing component in these particular acts is any sense of intimidation. I don't think Americans are now worried that Muslims across the country are going to try to run them over in a vehicle.

I don't believe this act fits the definition of terrorism. That definition is contained in Title 22 US Code, Section 2656f(d). "The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." There is no evidence that this individual is a member of a subnational group or a clandestine agent. There is also some doubt about other elements (e.g. was it truly premeditated).
Put me down for horrific and possibly a hate crime but not terrorism.

On a related tangent, the administration's intellectual heavyweights -- those brilliant folks who brought us Iraq -- are now laying the groundwork for invading, or at least using their trademark "shock & awe" air campaign, against Iran.

Rumsfeld says Iran is really the reason for all the chaos in Iraq. They're "meddling" in Iraq's business. (He's serious.)

So if we just invade Iran all the problems in Iraq will go away. And here I thought it was a few dead-enders in their last throes.

Oh, and of course democracy will sprout wings in Iran and the newly elected democratic regime will forswear nuclear weapons. On second thought, if the new regime is democratic -- like India -- they can have as many nuclear weapons as they want.

And Cheney all but threatens o attack on Iran. "We won't let them have nuclear weapons."

Why won't we? Because Iran poses an IMMINENT threat to the US and our allies in the region. That's because Iran is thinking about getting the technology and hardware that, if all works, will allow them to produce nuclear weapons if they want to.

So you see, we must attack. NOW.

Orwell's 1984 was not -- repeat "NOT" -- intended to be used as a cookbook for how to run a country. Didn't anyone at Yale tell that to Bush.

So, is this not terrorism because it was a weak plan?

Not because it was a weak plan, but perhaps because (if) it wasn't really planned, period. This guy might have just gotten up one morning, dashed off a letter, jumped in his car, and done the deed. Can something be both a "crime of passion" and an act of terrorism?

Looking at it another way, it's hard to believe that this was the best plan he could come up with to kill people. If this was a serious, deliberate plan, I have to assume that homicide wasn't his primary goal. Is it fair to apply the label of "terrorism" to something that lacked truly lethal intent?

Matt,
I wonder whether this isn't in fact a hate crime. Wasn't he targeting a group of people because of their (perceived) nationality?

For that matter, based on the criteria people are using to judge this case, wouldn't virtually all hate crimes also be terrorism? Isn't there generally an intent to intimidate at least a section of society? What about assaults by or on protesters? What about vandalizing a car that has a bumper sticker you don't like? Should all of those be defined as terrorism as well? They all more or less fit the dictionary.com definition. Maybe instead of looking at this definition or that, we should try to judge this incident by the same criteria we use in other cases.

Finally, those college Republicans might want to take a look at this WorldNetDaily article, which warns of the danger of attaching the label of 'terrorism' even to a sustained campaign of violence.

Yes, by the definition most people use, most, if not all hate crimes are acts of terrorism. They are crimes intending to communicate a message of intimidation to an entire group.

Yes, I know that the opposite people tend to want hate crime legislation versus terrorism legislation.

I cannot satisfactorily explain this.

Mojo, your citation of law is very much off point.

22 U.S.C. 2656 only governs a State Department process for determining whether certain foreign organizations are terrorist organizations, thereby meeting criteria for inclusion in the State Department’s annual report to Congress on worldwide terrorism. It has nothing to do with the question of whether Mr. Taheri-azar committed the crime of terrorism, or can deemed a “terrorist” under the law.

The definition of terrorism most widely relied upon in the federal criminal code is found it 18 USC Chapter 113B, § 2331. This is the definitions section for the chapter prohibiting terrorism, and the definitions therein are applicable in any terrorism cases unless a particular charge contains a narrower definition. Since the alleged acts occurred in the United States, and there is no apparent link to any international or transnational groups, the definition of “domestic terrorism” is applicable. That portion of § 2331 states:

(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.

Mr. Taheri-azar’s statements that his actions were in protest of U.S. government activities involving Muslims around the world, could very easily bring his conduct within § (B)(ii), activities intended to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion.

Al, Thanks for the correction.