Overusing the ‘ T’-word
It is unwise to apply an overly generous definition of terrorism
In the wake of this month’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo., by alleged gunman Robert Lewis Dear, there has been a palpable rush to label the attack an act of domestic terrorism. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has labelled it as such, as have political activists keen to undercut both the anti- abortion movement in the U. S. and the unfortunate association between Islam and terrorism. Caution must be taken, however, against an overapplication of the “T”-word.
Accusations of terrorism, along with treason and sedition, are among the most serious a government can level against an individual, and should be exercised judiciously. Allowing popular political considerations, or the sensational nature of a crime, to trump legal definitions when applying the terrorist label ultimately weakens its meaning and puts civil liberties at risk when applied in circumstances best dealt with through traditional criminal charges.
The philosophical navel- gazing over “what is terrorism?” aside, there is actually a clear and concise definition contained in U. S. law. 18 USC § 2331 defines domestic terrorism as a dangerous criminal act, occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that intends to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policies or conduct of a government.
Two of the required elements are fairly self- evident and non- controversial — dangerous criminal acts and territorial jurisdiction being objectively provable. The key element — and not coincidentally, the toughest to pin down — speaks to the motivation of the accused. Was his act designed and carried out with the aim to intimidate a civilian population or change government policy?
Does the alleged anti-abortion motive of the Planned Parenthood shooting elevate the attack to the level of terrorism? The answer is not as obvious as it might seem.
One could easily argue the shooting was designed to intimidate segments of the population: pro-life advocates, health- care workers, pregnant women or even women generally. In that case, the shooter most certainly fits the definition of a terrorist. The difficulty with that strict reasoning, however, is that the same logic can be applied to any number of crimes one would not traditionally associate with terrorism. Is a gang leader in Chicago who maintains power over his turf through fear and violence a terrorist? Would we accept that label on an environmental activist who throws a pie in the face of a politician to protest the seal hunt or deforestation? Such is the danger of an overly generous definition of terrorism.
It is not a matter of terrorism or bust. The general criminal law is well-equipped to handle even extreme acts of violence — such as the Planned Parenthood shooting or theatre shooting in Aurora, Colo. — without recourse to the terrorism label. Ultimately, not every act of mass violence rises to the level of terrorism.
There will inevitably be a certain sense of arbitrariness in some cases. A shooting at an airport — such as the attack on an El-Al check-in counter at LAX in 2002 — will almost certainly be labelled a terror attack, while more spectacular acts of violence, such as the Fort Hood shooting, are classed as “workplace violence.” Criminals, unfortunately, do not always leave behind rambling, Unabomber-style manifestos or membership cards to international terrorist organizations, and it is a fine line to walk in separating a garden variety violent — and probably mentally ill — criminal from a terrorist.
Despite the appeal and satisfaction of such labels, caution must be taken against an over- application — and watering down — of the terrorist label. It is a strong weapon in the state’s legal arsenal, and one best applied sparingly. Absent clear indications to the contrary regarding motivations, crimes such as the Planned Parenthood or Aurora theatre shootings are best dealt with through traditional criminal charges, without resorting to accusations of terrorism.
Crimes such as the Planned Parenthood or Aurora theatre shootings are best dealt with through traditional criminal charges