|
Join Daniel Pipes on a
trip to Israel's Negev desert, with side visits to explore the recent
Gaza war. For more information, please click here.
Terrorism
Defies Definition
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally
certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important
consequences in U.S. law.
Terrorism suspects can be held longer than criminal suspects after
arrest without an indictment
They can be interrogated
without a lawyer present. They receive longer prison
sentences. "Terrorist
inmates" are subject to many extra restrictions known as Special
Administrative Measures, or SAMs. The "Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002" gives corporate victims of terrorism
special breaks (it is currently up
for renewal) and protects owners of buildings from certain lawsuits.
When terrorism is invoked, families of victims, such as of the 2009 Ft.
Hood attack, win extra benefits such as tax breaks, life insurance,
and combat-related pay. They can even be handed a New
York City skyscraper.
|
The
"Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002" greatly increased the
importance of defining what "terrorism" means.
|
Despite the legal power of this term, however, terrorism
remains undefined beyond a vague sense
of "a non-state actor attacking civilian targets to spread fear for
some putative political goal." One study, Political
Terrorism, lists 109 definitions. American security specialist
David Tucker wryly remarks that "Above the gates of hell is the
warning that all that who enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the
same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism."
The Israeli counterterrorism specialist Boaz
Ganor jokes that "The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes
as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself."
This lack of specificity wreaks chaos, especially among police,
prosecutors, politicians, press, and professors.
"Violence carried out in connection with an internationally
sanctioned terrorist group" such as Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, or Hamas
has become the working police definition of terrorism. This
explains such peculiar statements
after an attack as, "We have not found any links to terrorism,"
which absurdly implies that "lone wolves" are never terrorists.
If they are not terrorists, the police must find other explanation to
account for their acts of violence. Usually, they offer up some personal
problem: insanity,
family
tensions, a work
dispute, "teen
immigrant angst," a prescription
drug, or even a turbulent
airplane ride. Emphasizing personal demons over ideology, they focus
on an perpetrator's (usually irrelevant) private life, ignoring his far
more significant political motives.
But then, inconsistently, they do not require some connection to an
international group. When Oscar
Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez shot eight rounds at the White House in
November 2011, the U.S. attorney asserted that "Firing an assault
rifle at the White House to make a political statement is terrorism,
plain and simple" – no international terrorist group needed.
Similarly, after Paul
Anthony Ciancia went on a shooting spree at Los Angeles International
Airport in November 2013, killing a TSA officer, the indictment accused
him of "substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of
a person and to commit an act of terrorism."
This terminological irregularity breads utter confusion. The whole
world calls the Boston
Marathon bombings terrorism – except the Department of the Treasury,
which, 1½ years on "has not determined that there has been an 'act
of terrorism' under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act." The judge
presiding over the terrorism trial in January 2014 of Jose
Pimentel, accused of planning to set off pipe bombs in Manhattan,
denied the prosecution's request for an expert to justify a charge of
terrorism. Government officials sometimes just throw up their hands:
Asked in June 2013 if the U.S. government considers the Taliban a
terrorist group, the State Department spokeswoman replied "Well, I'm
not sure how they're defined at this particular moment."
|
The whole world,
except of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, sees the Boston Marathon
bombings as terrorism.
|
A May 2013 shooting in New Orleans, which injured 19, was even more
muddled. An FBI
spokeswoman called it not terrorism but "strictly an act of
street violence." The mayor disagreed; asked if he considered it
terrorism, he said "I think so," because families "are
afraid of going outside." Challenged to disentangle this
contradiction, a supervisory special agent in the FBI's New Orleans field
made matters even more opaque: "You can say this is definitely urban
terrorism; it's urban terror. But from the FBI standpoint and for what we
deal with on a national level, it's not what we consider terrorism, per
se." Got that?
|
The U.S.
Department of State has yet to figure out whether the Taliban are or
are not terrorists.
|
This lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.
Terrorism, with all its legal and financial implications, cannot remain a
vague, subjective concept but requires a precise and accurate definition,
consistently applied.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum,
where Teri Blumenfeld is a researcher. © 2014 All rights reserved by
Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld.
Related
Topics: Terrorism This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
Sign up for related (but
non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (articles and event reports)
Campus Watch (articles, blog posts)
Islamist Watch (articles, blog posts)
Legal Project (articles, blog posts)
at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment