This morning on the radio, I heard the question raised as to whether the killings at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin should be considered an act of “domestic terrorism.”
Sure, I said to myself. And that would have been that, except that I then proceeded to think about it, and changed my mind.
“Terrorism” has to have a political aim — a goal to be achieved by sowing terror within a population. (Such as, for instance, trying to cow Americans to the point that we withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, which was Osama bin Laden’s motive.) Without that, it’s something else.
The Oklahoma City bombing pretty much (although not perfectly) fits the definition because the conspirators — and the existence of multiple conspirators lends credence to the political aspect — were trying to send a message in response to Waco and Ruby Ridge. I’m not entirely clear what policy goal they hoped to achieve, but the use of mass murder to send a political message seems pretty clear.
We’ve heard about how the Sikh temple killer was a white supremacist, which nudges us toward politics, but that only suggests that if he was going to kill somebody, it seems likely he’d strike at nonwhites. Which he did. But that still suggests irrational personal animus more than saying he had some policy goal in mind.
There are those who would call it a “hate crime.” Well, they can do so without me. I could see it as a crime motivated by hate (one supposes some strong emotion was involved, although perhaps not), but I don’t hold with having a special category of crime based in the attitudes of the perpetrator, beyond such basics as whether the crime was intentional. We punish actions in this country, not opinions.
Attorney General Eric Holder seems to have wanted to cover all bases today, calling it “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred, a hate crime.”
Of course, his goal is to offer succor to mourners on behalf of the community, which means saying anything and everything that might express the country’s horror. If he were acting as a prosecutor in the case, we would have every right to demand that he be more precise.
And that’s the thing here that makes the search for motives, for terminology that will place a name upon these horrific crimes and thereby place them in a box of understanding — there will be no trial, no public proces of discernment and administration of justice. The killer robbed the mourners of that by killing himself.
On “Tell Me More” this afternoon as I was coming back from lunch, I heard a discussion that contained some foolishness (something to the effect that if it had been a dark-skinned man shooting up a bunch of white people, that would be terrorism), but also some wisdom — the point was made that people reach for an explanation like “terrorism” (or, I would add, “hate crime”) rather than random act of evil because that suggests there’s something we can do about it going forward. A political movement with a violent agenda is something you can take action against, and prevent further such acts. But an individual act of madness, or personal evil — how do you ward that off?
What we know is that there were six acts of senseless, premeditated murder. Which is more, far more, than bad enough. And in terms of how empowered we feel to deal with it, more horrible than anything else.
Related Posts
Would black gangs be considered “black supremacists”? What about Mexican and Asian gangs? What about left-handed lesbians? Why don’t we simplify it and just call them all “nut jobs”.
Dunno as how I agree with the premeditated murder charge. He shot randomly selected people (unlike, say, a fired postal worker might choose bosses and coworkers with whom he had a beef), and selected them solely because they were in a Sikh temple, and presumably looked “foreign” of the Middle-eastern, Indian variety–none of the victims were blonde or blue-eyed. Whether he was acting out rage at “colored” people, which militates against murder and more towards a manslaughter/diminished capacity situation, or sending a message, a political message–one can be a party of one, no?
Ted Kaczynski was some combination of diminished capacity and political. He targeted people unknown to him because they fit a category, in order to make a statement.
They would be if that’s what they were. I don’t know about gangs, but I think there were elements of black supremacist ideas in the Black Panthers, and to some extent in the Nation of Islam when Malcolm X joined it.
It all depends on the ideas that the group espouses.
Kathryn, I think I see what you’re saying in a legalistic sense. But I’m using premeditation to mean intent to kill SOMEBODY, even though the killer did not have specific individuals in mind.
In the same sense, I would call the “Batman” killings premeditated. It’s not like the perp happened to be at the theater, and suddenly thought “Hey, I’m armed to the teeth! I feel a whim coming on…” He planned it.
But the Batman killings lacked an element of categorizing the victims–the Colorado victims were “extras” in the perp’s bid for fame, while the Sikhs were killed *because they were Sikhs/brown*.
As far as black/latino/Asian gangs go, they are not killing white people. Seriously. They are fighting for dominance in some combination of honor and ill-gotten gains, just like the Mafia.
So you’re saying it’s business and not personal?
Ah, but what fans of the movie don’t know was that in the book, Puzo explained that it was ALL personal. He has Michael make this critical speech:
“Tom, don’t let anybody kid you. It’s all personal, every bit of business. They call it business. OK. but it’s personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That’s what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal. Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes. Right?”
I don’t know why that was left out of the movie. Leaving that out left a whole generation quoting the “it’s just business, not personal” part without realizing Puzo meant to say the exact opposite…
Whoa, legal flag on the play:
It’s absolutely first-degree premeditated murder, y’all The shooter walked into the building with the specific intent to kill people. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t know who he was going to kill. He intended to kill people. End of analysis.
The doctrine of transferred intent is instructive here. For instance, Let’s suppose that Brad intends to shoot and kill me because I like college football, and Brad wants to rid the world of crazy football fans like me. However, when he fires his .357 magnum at me [Dirty Harry Style], he misses, and hits Kathryn, who was standing several yards behind me, just reading a book, killing her.
Brad is guilty of first degree murder. He doesn’t get the defense of “Well I’m a bad shot. I didn’t mean to shoot Kathryn; everyone knows I was trying to kill Bryan”.
In the Wisconsin shooting, the shooter had the willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to kill people. The analysis ends there.
The Godfather was fiction. The real Mafiosi fight for honor and, chiefly, for market share.
Also, the concept of “personal” you are citing means “honor”–not the exactly the same as killing your wife’s lover or the boss who fired you. Respect must be paid.
Regarding the Godfather quote: Hammer-nail.
It also dovetails nicely with the Don’s speech that he gives to the other Don’s [to get Michael to be able come back from Sicily] where the Don actually references Michael hypothetically getting hit by a bolt of lightning, and he would “not forgive that” because he is a “superstitious man”.
Also, first scene of the movie: Bonasera asks for his favor (murder) and the Godfather’s refusal contains a rebuke that the man never comes to his house for tea, and that he “never wanted his friendship”.
Hell of a good movie.
Kathryn, don’t tell guys that the Godfather is fiction. Too many use it as a guide to life… Not that I’m saying I do. Of course, now that I do business development for ADCO, I am sort of in the business of making people offers they can’t refuse.
Bryan, yes, the personal is certainly implied, and even alluded to when the Don speaks to the other dons, but not overtly stated.
This leads to a whole other, really interesting, digression. Mario Puzo was obsessed with this idea — the personal vs. “business” or objective codes such as the rule of law.
To some extent it was about a clash of cultures, the difference between the Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic notion of the rule of law, and a nation of laws and not of men, on the one side, and on the other the more Mediterranean notion that an honorable man looks after his family and his friends, if you’ll allow me to indulge in gross oversimplification. In The Godfather, the larger Anglo-American society had its rules and police and courts, while the Sicilian immigrant had his family and friends, his personal connections, and his honor.
I didn’t really realize that was the whole point of that book until I read Puzo’s The Fourth K. In that story, an Irish-American president (a member of the Kennedy family, hence the title) starts out as the embodiment of a constitutional system of laws and not men. Then, his daughter is killed by terrorists. And from that moment on, he acts like Michael Corleone after the Don was shot — he uses all the raw executive power at his command to go after the terrorists and every government or movement or individual that had anything to do with them, without any sort of restraint.
That strain between the impersonal (“business,” the law) and the personal was a real obsession of his.
It was interesting, in light of having read The Fourth K, to watch George W. Bush’s reaction to 9/11. While one could easily go overboard with it, there were similar elements.
This idea of the “lone wolf” makes sense except when you realize that this individual existed within a context of some subset of society, with certain common strands that hold them together, even if not in an organized fashion in the way that we think of a terrorist “organization.”
Basically, whether we decide to label something “terrorism” or a “senseless individual act” really just depends on what suits us as a society, in terms of pursuing ends that we wanted to pursue anyway. In a different world, for example, there would be much gnashing of teeth and wondering about what it is that makes white Anglo-Saxon males predisposed to acts of mass murder and what should we do about it, and about them?
Ever since it was revealed that the “weapons of mass destruction reason” was a ruse, I’ve thought that George W. Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq because he had a personal beef with Saddam Hussein for attempting to have H. W. Bush assassinated. What other reason was there for invading Iraq at that time?
If this is declared a case of “domestic terrorism”, then what are we to label the multiple shootings at Ft. Hood?
It is either premeditated murder in both cases or not. Both men went with the intent to kill other people. I agree with Bryan, first degree murder.
Brad, you may also classify this as foolishness according to your next to last paragraph of your post, but Juan Cole makes some cogent points and interesting observations. I’d put the link but it’d wouldn’t be that effective. Sorry for his long post.
Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others
Posted on 08/09/2012 by Juan
1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.
Let’s recall February 12, 2010, when a Harvard-trained neuroscientist known for her strong opinions allegedly shot and killed three colleagues after hearing for the second time that she was denied tenure at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Coincidence, you say? Balderdash!
@Juan C. She shot colleagues with whom she had a personal beef, like a fired postal worker or a spurned lover/spouse does. She was specific.
These gunmen/terrorists shoot indiscriminately at the site of the killings.In the Sikh case, the site was chosen to maximize the deaths of a particular ethnic group.
Kathryn: Are you saying that one cannot commit a terrorist act unless they kill a “category” of victims? If so, how broadly may a “category” be defined?
No, Bryan, I’m not. I’m saying if a significant intent of the shooter was to make an intimidating “statement,” to parties not present at the shooting, rather than merely exact revenge (the Alabama researcher, Ft. Hood, any number of postal employees/disgruntled domestic partners), it is terrorism.
The Aurora shootings don’t seem to fall into that category. That shooter was making a statement, perhaps, that he wished to be famous, maybe, but not, say, to dissuade future moviegoers, right?
Texas A&M shooting today. What can we say?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_AM_SHOOTER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-13-14-30-18
@J,
I think racism plays a part, but there is also the fear that those who answer to no one might somehow be involved.
When Joe Bob shoots up a mall, local law enforcement and the FBI are involved, not “top men”.
Ok, that makes sense. I think we’re struggling with a difficult question: “What is the definition of terrorism?”
I certainly agree with you on the “making a statement” element. I would say that an essential element of terrorism is the element of influencing the behavior of those not killed. I don’t think that’s a sufficient element, but it is necessary.
The tactic used is also a consideration (in my opinion).
In today’s The State, there’s a bit about that guy who killed an 8 year old girl (the daughter of his estranged wife’s boyfriend) to get back at her. http://www.thestate.com/2012/08/13/2398540/man-charged-in-sc-girls-killing.html#storylink=Afternoon%20Newsletter
I’m not sure if that constitutes terrorism. His intent was to terrorize one person, maybe two (the boyfriend as well as the wife).
Interesting question. But if he is a terrorist, he’s the world’s stupidest. Whatever his goal, what he succeeded in doing (and this was highly predictable) was to make virtually everyone in America, including capital punishment opponents, want to kill HIM, the thoroughly evil scum.
Who were/are the most effective terrorists? The 9/11 guys?
Yeah, probably. The guy who killed Archduke Ferdinand may have “accomplished” more, but then he doesn’t quite fit the definition of terrorist.
Of course, you have to ask: While they killed more innocents than any terrorists before or since, and certainly provoked a huge political reaction, how successful were the 9/11 guys in striking FEAR into the hearts of the populace? I don’t know. The conventional wisdom is that they were extremely successful at that, but as one who never felt that fear, I just have to take other people’s word for it, which doesn’t quite satisfy me. I have no doubt though that they succeeded in planting outrage in the American psyche.
This brings up a digression that interests me…
In the past, I’ve made mention of a book called On Killing, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. It’s a book I’ve leafed through rather extensively in the past while drinking coffee at Barnes & Noble. I finally broke down and bought it, and am now reading it in a linear manner.
It’s fascinating. It looks into the fact that throughout the history of firearms, the overwhelming majority of soldiers have not fired their weapons in combat, and among those few who did, most deliberately fired to miss the enemy. He uses these data to suggest something I’ve always believed about combat — that the most stressful thing about it (and most likely to cause PTSD) is NOT the fear of death or injury, but the fact that the soldier is expected to kill the enemy. (People think the greatest sacrifice of soldier is to give his life for his country. I’ve always suspected that the greatest sacrifice, in terms of the cost to the individual, is to KILL for his country.)
Anyway, one of the examples he uses to prove his point is the fact that civilian populations subjected to heavy bombing do not suffer from psychiatric problems the way combat soldiers do. Which to many people is counterintuitive.
It certainly isn’t what both sides believed would be true in WWII. Strategists on both sides believed that bombing population centers would cause such mass psychological breakdown in the population that their nation would give up the fight. And they acted upon that belief, which is what gave us the Blitz in England and the day (by the Americans) and night (by the Brits) saturation bombing of German cities.
But both sides were wrong about civilians when they believed they were more likely to crack than trained soldiers. In fact, mental breakdown was relatively rare among civilians (because, in Grossman’s theory, they were not expected to kill). There’s even evidence that it tended to steel civilian resolve to fight on.
So, to the extent that he is right — and the evidence he offers tends to support him — that means all those thousands of civilians died for nothing, for the sake of a bad theory.
After reading that, you may think of what I just thought of: What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those DID result in a combatant nation surrendering.
Maybe Grossman addresses that later in the book. But in case he doesn’t, here’s what I imagine he might say: That the surrender didn’t come about because of terror among the civilian population, but because the leadership reached the unemotional, pragmatic conclusion that their country faced total destruction.
Although I don’t know how accurate that is. One thing about WWII I’ve never quite understood — I need to read more on the subject — is exactly why the Japanese DID surrender after those two bombs. They had engendered such a culture of suicide — amply demonstrated at Iwo Jima and Okinawa — that it sort of seems like they would have preferred annihilation.
I guess the simple answer was that the Japanese were more human (surprise!) than the face they projected in those battles. But the surrender still seemed like a sudden reversal. I’d like to read a good explanation of what happened…
or the people facing suicide by atom bomb were higher up the command chain than the guys flying Zeroes.