Domestic Terrorism in US

[roger]

There is nothing in your quoted regulation that requires a group. And it allows for social change.

Now, the only question that remains was whether he hoped to achieve social change. By targeting gay folks, it was certainly a _social statement_ that was made.

You're right, a lone person can commit terrorist acts based on this statute.

I just see this as a dilution of the word. Ramming a jet-liner into a skyscraper, showing taped beheadings, blowing up city buses, vs a whackjob with a beef against gays. I think these are very different things, though I have no doubt the fear/anger/etc felt in the gay community was quite real.

In general, in the past terrorism has been used to describe preplanned attacks, almost always by groups, to advance an agenda that was announced to the world, with a promise the attacks would continue unless certain conditions were met.

Anyway, y'all can use language how you want. It just seems more than a bit inflationary to me.

 

[Manny]

Thinking further on the question in the OP, it may because less is being reported. We're not hearing much beyond that he lay in wait at a gay bar, attacked and fled, picked up that (now-dead) woman in West Virginia and got pulled over and eventually shot in Arkansas after a high speed pursuit.

Some stories have alluded to white supremecist groups in the area where he was headed. But we don't know if he had contact with them before or following the murders. If he was indeed a lone nutjob who happened to have white supremecist friends, that's pretty much the end of the story. If he had contact with them in such a way that they are reasonably seen as accessories before or after the fact, I'd want to see charges filed as appropriate. (Federal charges, you Massachusetts liberals!)

 

[pgwenthold]

You're right, a lone person can commit terrorist acts based on this statute.

I just see this as a dilution of the word.

I'm not going to argue with this sentiment, but only to say if you think that's bad, see the last post about the Patriot Act. According to that, ANY violent crime is terrorism. Now _that_ is watered down.

Ramming a jet-liner into a skyscraper, showing taped beheadings, blowing up city buses, vs a whackjob with a beef against gays. I think these are very different things, though I have no doubt the fear/anger/etc felt in the gay community was quite real.

I do not see a big difference between this act and leaving a bomb on a city bus or in a city square.

Imagine a car bomb that goes off in a shopping area that fortunately "only" kills one person. How is that different from pulling out a gun and opening fire in a crowded room?

Taped beheadings and ramming jet-liners are clearly a different scale, that is true.

In general, in the past terrorism has been used to describe preplanned attacks, almost always by groups, to advance an agenda that was announced to the world, with a promise the attacks would continue unless certain conditions were met.

I don't see that Oklahoma City meets those conditions, particularly the last one. I don't recall their agenda was "announced to world," either, although it is clear they had an agenda to advance politcal change. It just wasn't announced. But then again, don't see how that is different from this case.

Anyway, y'all can use language how you want. It just seems more than a bit inflationary to me.

Somewhere there has to be a line. As part of the "War on Terror" that line has been moved toward the broader end.

Ultimately, I don't see that the people who were in the gay bar were really concerned about whether there was a group of people behind it, and they are probably thinking there was a political (anti-gay) motivation behind it.

 

[roger]

He's pointing out that all of the elements in the definition are present in this case.

1) Unlawful use of force? check
2) to intimidate? check
3) civil population, or element thereof? check
4) in futherance of social objective? see above. He was clearly making a social statement in doing it

It apparently has all the properties of a terrorist act.

Perhaps I have missed some elements of this story? What was this person's social or political objectives?

 

[Manny]

In general, in the past terrorism has been used to describe preplanned attacks, almost always by groups, to advance an agenda that was announced to the world, with a promise the attacks would continue unless certain conditions were met.

Well, that's just it. This guy brought a hatchet and a gun into a bar, specifically asked if it was a gay bar and then had a couple drinks. It had all the hallmarks of a preplanned attack and none of an outburst.

I understand that this was not on the level of a 9-11 or Oklahoma City bombing. But they're of a piece in that both were intended to produce fear among the target populations.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps I have missed some elements of this story? What was this person's social or political objectives?

Killing off gay people furthers the social objectives of (a) reducing the number of gay people (b) intimidating the ones you don't kill.

Kind of like a Palestinian opening fire on Jews, don't you think?

 

[pgwenthold]

Perhaps I have missed some elements of this story? What was this person's social or political objectives?

By targeting a gay bar (he specifically asked if it was a gay bar) he was making an anti-gay statement, don't you think? That is a social statement.

Meanwhile, there was also the postal worker who went, um, postal. She was a raging racist, I know, but I don't know she targeted black people as opposed to it being a personal vendetta against the post office where she worked (as I said, I was out of town so I don't know a lot of details).

Of course, if it was a racial thing, then it is another incidence of domestic terrorism that is more or less ignored as _terrorism_, per se.

 

[BPSCG]

I understand that this was not on the level of a 9-11 or Oklahoma City bombing. But they're of a piece in that both were intended to produce fear among the target populations.

Were they? How do we know that, since the gunman is dead? Did he leave a manifesto? All we know is he wanted to kill some gay people. Maybe he was insanely delusional and thought the gay bar was the secret outpost where aliens from the planet Zendar-3 using the cover of being gay Americans were plotting to steal our oil and rape our women.

Lady shot up a shopping mall the other day. Is she a terrorist, too? Opposed to the mall-ization of America and all that? (I don't know what her motives were...)

 

[bob_kark]

So are you stating that hate crimes are equivalent to terrorist acts? Should we reclassify all hate crimes as acts of terrorism?

 

[Manny]

Of course, if it was a racial thing, then it is another incidence of domestic terrorism that is more or less ignored as _terrorism_, per se.

That's not at all uncommon when the bad guy was acting alone and began pining for the fjords after the incident. After all, there's nothing to investigate once it's determined the guy acted alone. Kill gays, kill blacks, kill jews, kill at random -- if the guy's dead himself it's not like we have to bomb his sponsors or understand his root causes.

 

[Mycroft]

So are you stating that hate crimes are equivalent to terrorist acts? Should we reclassify all hate crimes as acts of terrorism?

If they are not the same, there is certainly overlap.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Um, maybe it's just me, but is there any real certainty the guy attacked the gay bar because it was a gay bar? None of the reports mentioned any previous anti-gay statements, although they do refer to "posters with anti-semitic slogans" and a swastika tattoo. And today I read about an ambiguous note he left saying he'd "do something violent". I think that suggests he didn't have a specific target. He just planned to go nuts, which he did. If he had been a hardcore homophobe, would he have sat down and drank in the gay bar first? Why would he shoot the cop? The cops didn't connect him to the bar attack until after they shot him. Terrorists, even domestic ones, are rarely unclear in why they target what they do. Nor do they half-ass it with a hatchet and one gun. I think this guy sounded more like a nutcase in need of medication, who decided to suicide by cop, than a "terrorist". I think he would have attacked people in any bar he happened to wander into.

 

[roger]

I don't see that Oklahoma City meets those conditions, particularly the last one. I don't recall their agenda was "announced to world," either, although it is clear they had an agenda to advance politcal change. It just wasn't announced. But then again, don't see how that is different from this case.

Excuse me from snipping the rest, but this seems like an excellent point. I honestly don't know how I feel about the use of the word terrorism in this case. I do know that newspaper headlines used 'terrorism', but that as far as I know he was charged with murder, not terrorism. But we know that he was angry about the government's response to the Branch Davidians. I don't know if we know if he was going to continue these attacks or not. Let me concede the point and agree that it is terrorism.

So, how is it different? Well, let's look at what the Council on Foreign Relations says. Let me state up front that this is just something I pulled up in a random google search; I don't proffer it as ironclad evidence, just as a discussion point that I recognize might be refuted or dismissed.

Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence?

No. Experts agree that there is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends.

I don't see much of a strategy or plan in this lone shooter's behavior. He wandered into a random bar, asked if it was a gay bar, and upon hearing yes, opened fire.

Further down in that article, we see quotes from Paul Pillar, former CIA deputy chief of the Counterterrorism unit, specify that it is a political act by a group or agent/b].

The site also points out the difficulty of an "ironclad" definition. Surely we can all agree that 9/11 was a terrorist act, and that a hold up for a wallet isn't. I honestly do see why some of you are arguing for this gay shooter to be called a terrorist, but it just doesn't seem to suit the general use of this term - i.e. premeditated acts for political ends, by a group or agent. Yes, we could quibble with words and say he had an "end" - such as killing gays, but it seems we are ignoring the general tenor of the word's meaning. This guy is no Al-quida, though his acts are truly despicable.

Now, if we find out that we was acting for the Neo Nazis or some other group, then I'll absolutely call it terrorism, though very poorly carried out (after all, what was his message? his aims?).

Here is the link to the site: http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/introduction.html

 

[Manny]

Were they? How do we know that, since the gunman is dead? Did he leave a manifesto? All we know is he wanted to kill some gay people. Maybe he was insanely delusional and thought the gay bar was the secret outpost where aliens from the planet Zendar-3 using the cover of being gay Americans were plotting to steal our oil and rape our women.

Oh, I suppose it's possible. It would certainly be a defense available to him during his trial if Arkansas PD hadn't saved us all the trouble. I'm just saying that on its face it has all the hallmarks of an act of domestic terrorism and that it ought to be being investigated accordingly.

ETA: Maybe that investigation is very short: Pull the guy's emails and phone calls and see if he was in touch with the Arkansas white supremecists and if he wasn't, then cremate his sorry ass and close the file.

 

[roger]

By targeting a gay bar (he specifically asked if it was a gay bar) he was making an anti-gay statement, don't you think? That is a social statement.

No, as far as I can tell he was just trying to kill people that for some strange reason he hated. But if I was to concede the point, so what. I don't see that he was trying to achieve some objective, which the statute mentions. The terrorist is trying to achieve an objective, not make a statement. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd offer the following as an objective that might apply in this case:

"I'll continue killing gays until gay marriage is made illegal in all states"

If/when we find a statement by the shooter to this effect, then we can call it terrorism. IMO.

Again I ask, what was he trying to change with his violence? I'm asking for facts, not speculation - we can both speculate, and agree that if the speculations are true that it would be terrorism.

 

[roger]

Um, maybe it's just me, but is there any real certainty the guy attacked the gay bar because it was a gay bar? None of the reports mentioned any previous anti-gay statements, although they do refer to "posters with anti-semitic slogans" and a swastika tattoo. And today I read about an ambiguous note he left saying he'd "do something violent". I think that suggests he didn't have a specific target. He just planned to go nuts, which he did. If he had been a hardcore homophobe, would he have sat down and drank in the gay bar first? Why would he shoot the cop? The cops didn't connect him to the bar attack until after they shot him. Terrorists, even domestic ones, are rarely unclear in why they target what they do. Nor do they half-ass it with a hatchet and one gun. I think this guy sounded more like a nutcase in need of medication, who decided to suicide by cop, than a "terrorist". I think he would have attacked people in any bar he happened to wander into.

Well, as others have pointed out, he did ask if it was a gay bar before he opened fire. But we have no idea as to his motives. He may have been ready to suicide by cop, went in to have a drink, noticed it was all male couples, got pissed, asked if it was a gay bar, and started shooting. Now, I don't put a lot of weight in that idea; I assume he was looking to shoot at gay people, but this was not much of a premeditated act. I mean, to not even know for sure if the bar was a gay bar or not doesn't speak much for his research and agenda.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not to mention that having a tattoo on your hand is pretty good evidence of insanity, unless you've been in prison.

 

[pgwenthold]

That's not at all uncommon when the bad guy was acting alone and began pining for the fjords after the incident. After all, there's nothing to investigate once it's determined the guy acted alone. Kill gays, kill blacks, kill jews, kill at random -- if the guy's dead himself it's not like we have to bomb his sponsors or understand his root causes.

As I said early on, I thought the goal of the War on Terror was to _prevent_ terrorism.

In fact, one of the big criticisms of Clinton is the policy of "wait for the attacks to happen and then arrest those responsible." Bush's agenda has been to strike them before they strike us. Does that only apply to those we can go after with the military?

 

[pgwenthold]

Um, maybe it's just me, but is there any real certainty the guy attacked the gay bar because it was a gay bar? None of the reports mentioned any previous anti-gay statements, although they do refer to "posters with anti-semitic slogans" and a swastika tattoo.

Rachel Maddo claimed this morning that they have his website, which were more of the general neo-nazi stuff, I think. Nothing specific about gays, I don't believe, but does a neo-nazi really need to claim that he is anti-gay?

 

[BPSCG]

I don't see that he was trying to achieve some objective, which the statute mentions. The terrorist is trying to achieve an objective, not make a statement. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd offer the following as an objective that might apply in this case:

"I'll continue killing gays until gay marriage is made illegal in all states"

If/when we find a statement by the shooter to this effect, then we can call it terrorism.

I think that's a very useful distinction.