After Dr. George Tiller was gunned down last Sunday, I, among others, declared his murder an act of terrorism. Plenty of folks are labeling yesterday’s murder at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum terrorism as well. The alleged gunman, James W. von Brunn, is known to authorities as a white supremacist. He spent over six years in federal prison for pulling out a sawed-off shotgun at the Federal Reserve Board headquarters in 1981, threatening to take members of the Board hostage.
In April of this year, the Department of Homeland Security released a report warning of the potential threat posed by rightwing extremist groups.
[R]ightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
…
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
In light of the DHS report, many lefties – myself included – insist that the violence of the past two weeks is indeed terrorism, and should be treated as such. Ann at Feministing echoed that sentiment yesterday, calling the Holocaust Museum shooting an act of domestic terrorism.
The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I would argue that Tiller’s murder was absolutely an attempt at coercion:
Coerce the clinic to close (happened this week); coerce abortion-seeking women into giving birth (what else will his hypothetic patients do?); coerce potential abortion providers away from the practice; and coerce the U.S. to place further restrictions on abortion or outlaw it completely. There is no question that Tiller’s murder qualifies as an act of terrorism, according to its definition.
But a commenter on Ann’s post points out that:
When you use the word [terrorism] you endorse the same logic that allowed the right wing to call anti-war demonstrations outside of a recruiting station in DC “terrorism” and the recent G20 and then IMF/World Bank protests “terrorism”.
She says she was threatened with a terrorism charge once, when she was affiliated with a feminist group that put up anti-rape graffiti on a college campus. She continued:
The language of terrorism is specifically designed to allow the state to maintain its own violence. We use the word to talk about single-incident, spectacular (not in the sense of awesome, but in the sense of creating a spectacle) events carried out by non-state actors, and we’re allowed to argue about the incident-by-incident use of the word, but we’re strictly verboten from using it to talk about real, systemic violence.
Hmpf. Well that gave me pause. I really want to use the word “terrorist” in the case of James W. von Brunn. This is probably because I am radically opposed to his politics, but also because he used direct violence against his targets. Would it be better described as a hate crime? I am not sure what sort of action von Brunn was trying to coerce yesterday, if any. He may have been acting out of a desire to bring about certain “social objectives.” Or perhaps he just decided he needed to do something big, as he’s nearly 90 and will probably die soon.
Since I sympathize with anti-war demonstrators and anti-globalization protesters and fellow feminists, I flinch when such groups are labeled terrorists for engaging in activities that do not physically harm other people. Additionally, whilst I oppose “harsh interrogation techniques,” as used against terror suspects in U.S. custody, my reaction upon hearing about Tiller and the Holocaust Museum was waterboard the fuckers. And no, I don’t really support waterboarding anyone, but it’s my natural reaction to categorize “the other side” as terrorists and “my side” as freedom fighters. Judging by the disparate reactions to these crimes from the right and the left, and the reactions that followed 9/11, I am not the only one. Guantanamo prisoners aren’t “my side,” but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
As the DHS report details, President Obama’s election makes the armed insurgency on the far right feel they are losing power. Their extremism is made more frightening by the fact that they have the support of one of our two major political parties and at least one major “news” network, both of which seem intent upon amplifying the paranoid, bigoted fervor. I think they pose more of a threat to our safety than any Muslim jihadist or environmentalist ever could.
Generally, I think it’s terrorism if it has an intended “audience” and it hurts, or strongly threatens to hurt, human beings. I know that often acts of property damage are prosecuted as terrorism, particularly when environmental activists are involved, and I’m not sure I really think it’s terrorism if they burn down a building intentionally when no one is in it. However, I would encourage activists of any and all stripes to stick to peaceful protests and organizing, and avoid damaging property, and most certainly never physically harm any individuals.
Also, the definition of terrorism to me would not just use coercion, but intimidation. If you are trying to intimidate a larger group than just the victim, as von Brunn was surely trying to intimidate Jews at large, despite probably not having a larger coercive goal, it’s terrorism.
To me, the distinction here between non-violent groups and protests, and these incidents, is the VIOLENCE. It’s the violence that makes it terrorism. The intent of the person responsible is to harm and to intimidate. I don’t think many of the groups that have inaccurately been labeled “terrorist” have those goals.
I don’t inherently consider groups terrorist. A great many white supremacists live their lives without ever committing violent acts. I don’t agree with them (and think they’re fecking crazy) but they’re not inherently terrorists because they subscribe to that viewpoint. They’re extremists, which isn’t the same thing.
They become terrorists when they shoot, stab, lynch, someone. Just as an environmentalist group becomes terrorist when their peaceful protests escalate into burning down a building. It’s the move from peaceful activism (however misguided) to violent action.
I agree with funnyface. If the objective of the action was to cause a group of people to change their lives because of they fear for their lives or the lives of loved ones, it’s terrorism.
Just because the word terrorism is misused in some cases, doesn’t mean we can’t use it in other cases where it does fit.
Anna- I agree the distinction is the use of violence that makes it terrorism. I don’t think any group should use violence as a means under any circumstance. Both of the murders of Dr. George Tiller and Stephen Tyrone Jones were terriost acts.
And I am worried these types of attacks will continue as reaction to the current social political climate. Of course this is the point of these attacks to scare, intimidate, and coerce change.
My father was a postal worker present during the 1986 Post Office Massacre. I remember listening to him talk about how the gunshots echoed in the building and he couldn’t tell whether he was running to or from the gunman. I remember him talking about hiding underneath one of the desks and seeing the gunman’s shoes as he walked by, looking for more victims. I doubt anyone called it terrorism at the time, but it started a domino effect of copy-cat violence. Other workplaces were shot up, and bosses feared to fire employees lest they came back with a gun. I’d never connected it to domestic terrorism until I started thinking about whether or not we should use it in reference to the Museum shooting.
It seems that the word terrorism is over-used today, mostly for the shock value. Non-violent protesters are not terrorists. Holding extremist views and opinions is not terrorism. But when a protester or extremist picks up a weapon and does violence in order to advance his/her cause, I believe that IS terrorism.
I agree with AmandaS and I would also disagree with the commenter you cited abpve. I think that if left-wing protestors specifically target government (or private citizens) with violence in order to advance their cause then they should be charged as domestic terrorists and I personally don’t have a problem with that. If they are simply protesting then they shouldn’t be called terrorists or charged as such. I don’t think we can continue to ignore the very real right-wing domestic terrorism that is going on simply because some left wing protestors have been “accused” of being terrorists in the past (and never charged mind you). How many people have to die?
I’m not a lawyer, but thinking out loud, it seems hate crimes and terrorism exist on the same spectrum–an act that the attempts to frighten/intimidate a community, not just a single victim. My gut feeling is that James von Brunn and Scott Roeder are part of the same phenomenon, but that yesterday’s shooting was not terrorism. What was he trying to accomplish?
I agree with Anna and Bluebears. Terrorism is terrorism when violence is done. Holding extreme views and peaceful protests against something is just that. Views, opinions, and peaceful demonstrations. When you escalate to violence for those extremeist views, it becomes terrorism, no matter what those views are. It is an over-used word, especially in the media for it’s shock value, BUT it’s a valid word in the incidences of the past few weeks. Shooting Dr. Tiller was terrorism. It accomplished what the shooter wanted, in his extreme views–closing the clinic. Shooting up the museum was terrorism–he escalated to violence for his extreme views. He made a violent outburst directly tied to his extremist and disgusting views.
Okay, so, I get that the shotgun to the federal reserve was bad. I’m curious as to, since I’ve never used a gun or learned about them, what sawing it off does.
Also, as much as I want to call him a terrorist, I really think it’s much more of a hate crime. His first act with the federal reserve, that’s more in the terrorist zone.
Spark – he was trying to tell Jews that we shouldn’t feel safe here. The last time Jews were this integrated in a society and felt this safe about our inclusion was in Germany. He was trying to remind us that no matter how safe we may feel, no matter how included, there are still people here that think we’re different, and evil, and want us out of the country or dead. He’s not the first to use violence to make that statement. He won’t be the last. But I do think it falls under the category of terrorism rather than a hate crime per se because he didn’t attack any Jews personally. He attacked a symbol of our inclusion in society — a giant monument, in the nation’s capital, that is not only sympathetic to but supportive of Jews.
Jennifer – I agree that it’ll continue. My mother and I were talking about this yesterday. When liberals lose an election, we half-joke/half-cry about moving to Canada. When conservatives lose an election, it seems, they pick up firearms. I wonder when Obama will address this. I wonder how many more people will get shot before everyone realizes the pattern. I wonder if that’ll ever happen.
For me, it becomes terrorism when it’s violence or the threat of violence in support of a specific cause, usually with the collusion of an organization. Dr. Tiller’s murder was terrorism because the violence originated in and furthered the anti-abortion movement. The Holocaust Museum shooting is violence rooted in of anti-semitism and the white supremacy movement. These gunmen may be unstable individuals who “go too far,” but that extreme represents the logical conclusion of their organization’s rhetoric.
The more comments I read in conjunction with the article cited here, the more confused I am. I’m obviously missing a big part of the logic here… how is this NOT terrorism? Are commenters really advocating that since some people are falsely or baselessly accused of terrorism that we should avoid this term in ALL cases, even when it might be valid? Or are people just responding to the fact that “terrorism” is a buzzword that is being over-used?
If a Muslim shot up the Holocaust Museum because he hated Jews and the American government, no one would question the use of the term “terrorist”. Why are people hesitant to use it to refer to an old white man who shot up the Holocaust Museum because he hated Jews and the American government?
And also, if people are saying that his act has terrified them, and will effect the way they live, conduct business, and travel, do others have the right to say it isn’t terrorism?
Baraqiel, your comment is a convincing argument that the Holocaust Museum shooting is, in fact, terrorism. I also just heard a rabbi from Northern VA interviewed on the radio about this, and the effect it’s having on his congregation. You both reminded me that there IS a community of people to whom this act sent a message.
Ultimately this post is not an argument for or against categorizing X as terrorism but not Y. It’s a collection of things I’ve been thinking about as a result of yesterday’s tragedy and I wanted more people’s input!
I’m still not convinced it’s terrorism (though I’m open to being persuaded), because causing fear is one of the overlapping aims/results of hate crimes and terrorism. The museum shooting makes people feel unwelcome and unsafe generally, but it’s not reasonably aimed at accomplishing a specific or political goal, the way murdering Dr. Tiller stops his clinic from providing care. Just trying to get to a precise definition here, if it’s possible to fully separate hate crimes and terrorism, which, maybe not.
Baraqiel, I don’t think the distinction lies in directly attacking a symbol vs. a person. Doesn’t tagging a synagogue with a swastika legally count as a hate crime, instead of garden-variety vandalism?
I think that hate crimes are EXACTLY a form of terrorism. It’s the same as a square being a kind of rectangle, or an apple being a fruit.
Being racist isn’t terrorism. Beating up a member of another race is a terrorist hate crime.
Why can’t hate crimes qualify as terrorism? There are few agreed upon definitions, but generally they include some form of the following: “violence committed by a person or group of persons for the purpose of instilling fear in another person or group of persons.”
A random shooting is not terrorism, but I would include hate crimes and gang violence in the definition. Terrorism is an umbrella term that covers many different types of crimes. Sometimes overused, but I think perfectly appropriate in the last few weeks.
(In comparison, the shootings at VT and NIU, I would not classify as terrorism because they were violent but not meant to instill long-term fear into a group. The fear was a side-effect, not the intention).
That would, obviously, include hate crimes.
@anna: There definitely isn’t consensus on the term, but I think the two key elements are political motives and that the violence must be committed by non-state actors. I think what you described is “employing terror” or “terrorizing”, which includes committing terrorism, but also includes racially motivated murder/vandalism with no political aim, mob extortion and the coercive bombing of civilian populations in conventional war. I think it’s important to make those distinctions in order to better understand the root causes of them.
@beardowncbears: some definitions of terrorism DO include governments. This is why the UN has no finalized definition of terrorism. The US, currently, does not include state actions in the definition of terrorism, but it is not unheard of. Also, not everyone requires that the motive be political, only that it incite some sort social change, which I believe I specified but may not have been clear enough about. That is what I was trying to illustrate: if you are trying to scare someone through violence, you are trying to make them change their behavior out of fear, which is a scale of social change, which is, in some sense, a political motivation.
If it is your personal opinion that states cannot be terrorist, and that small-scale fear-inciting violence is not terrorism because it is small-scale, that’s fine and you have some pretty strong companions in your belief. I’m not going to argue with that because there are so many who agree with you. However, there are also a great many powerful people and governments that agree with me, so it is important for both of us to recognize that the only piece of the various definitions of terrorism that can be universalized is the “violence for fear” part.
I don’t know that an act necessarily needs to be overtly violent to be terrorism. This is coming within just a few months of a massive, concerted neo-nazi protest against the opening of a Holocaust museum in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie has a very large population of Jewish Holocaust survivors, and the presence of so many neo-nazis absolutely was meant as an act of terror, to send a message to that particular Jewish community (and all of our communities across the country, I expect) that they are not welcome and should not feel safe.
And, given Brunn’s history (and the history of the nazi and neo-nazi movements) I do not think that him shooting at a black person first, guard or not, was an accident.
Brunn was living within just a few miles of my house. I absolutely do not feel safe now, as a Jewish person and a member of the same artist community he was, living here any more.
@magnetic crow:
Many definitions also include phrases like, “violence or the threat of violence.”
I’ve done some scholarly study of this stuff. I’m by no means an expert, but I’ve been around the block on the arguments.
@anna, by your definition, yes, von Brunn committed a terrorist act. Going on a shooting spree at a public, Jewish-identified institution clearly aims to spread fear. But what about, say, Matthew Shepherd’s killers? They were motivated by hate, and one end result was inspiring fear, but is that what they consciously intended? Isn’t there a difference between a crime that’s intended to be a spectacle/political event, and one that isn’t?
@spark: I did mention before, in reference to school shootings, that intent does influence the classification.
I think the question in regards to Matthew Shepard is whether or not fear was the intent or the consequence. If the attack was because of his sexuality, as originally reported and backed up by some parts of testimony, then I would probably classify it as a hate crime directed at homosexuals as a group with this individual being the target, thus fitting my own definition of terrorism.
On the other hand, if it was just a violent attack on an individual, then the fear was a secondary consequence and not the purpose.
I’m inclined to go with the former, just because Shepard seems to have been targeted because of his sexuality even though the perpetrators tried to shy around that to keep from being prosecuted for hate crimes, but I will stand by my opinion that not all violence is terrorism. People are afraid of violence, yes, but it becomes terrorism when the person who committed the violent act did so for the PURPOSE of making people change their actions or opinions out of fear.
anna, I agree Matthew Shepherd was definitely targeted for being gay, but I don’t know if his killers intended to achieve any purpose other than killing him. I see a distinction there, even though the effect of their actions was spreading fear.
Spark, I honestly don’t know enough about the story to know whether or not you’re right, and what I’m reading now isn’t giving me a clear distinction on intent at all, which is why I formulated the “if-then” scenarios in my earlier response. It is an interesting question, because when the victim is an individual and the act was committed by people who are not outspoken in their hatred of a group, it becomes difficult to classify.
The sheer number of terrorism definitions indicates that these kinds of difficult scenarios are everywhere. It’s hard to make these things “always,” because when intent is involved it becomes much grayer. In many cases, the distinction is definitely a circumstantial one.
I may have exhausted my coherent thoughts on the matter at this point, but we’ll see what comes up.
I appreciate the thoughtful conversation with all of you on what tends to be a very difficult topic.
@anna: You can of course be small acts of terrorism. They happened during the Troubles all the time. I’ll even agree with you on gang violence when it comes to the Stop Snitching campaign, because that deters civilians from employing a state institution (the cops). But there’s a difference, however small you might think it is, between burning down black churches to keep parishoners from participating in civil rights activity and acts committed simply to freak a particular population out. And I’m not trying to belittle any type of violence here, if that’s what you were implying by your second paragraph.
I get your frustration with not calling state acts of terror “terrorism” because I understand how that might seem like giving state-sponsored violence a pass. But unfortunately, you have to deal with state violence in the international community, which, as we all know, is fickle. I think a danger lies in labeling such acts as “terrorism” and then not punishing it due to politics/logistics, thereby seeming to excuse terrorism in the abstract. I also think it de-emphasizes that non-state actors, for the most part, commit terrorism because they cannot commit violence overtly through a state institution.
@beardown
I don’t think I agree with your first paragraph, but only because I don’t see the distinction here. However, our definitions differ slightly on this point and that’s an acceptable situation for me. I concede to diplomatic courtesy in the conversation.
With regards to your second paragraph, I think a lot of serious crimes get pushed to the back burners and don’t get the justice the deserve because they are difficult to prosecute in the international–and even national–community. Rape, for example, is often ignored and statistically underreported because it can be so difficult to successfully prosecute. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call a spade a spade in either case.
Right, but terrorism as I recognize it happens because the perpetrators have no state recourse for their actions. Even “state-sponsored terrorism”, which might highlight our disconnect, is labeled as such because the state ponsor must use a contracted agent to employ violence on its behalf, because it is politically infeasible to do it with soldiers. I’m thinking Sudan and the janjaweed.
I’m not refusing to call a spade a spade, I’m calling one a trowel and one a post-hole digger.
I think I can simplify this.
Political action becomes terrorism when it uses intimidation and fear rather than persuasion to achieve its ends.