I get the sense that political commentary on Joseph Stack, a white American who crashed a plane into an IRS building in Texas killing one (and himself), is significantly different than political commentary on Umar Abdulmutallab (the Christmas Day bomber), a Nigerian national, or Faisal Shahzad (the Times Square bomber), a nationalized American born in Pakistan. For both the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber, for example, the word "terrorist" is freely used to describe the men, whereas Joseph Stack was labeled a "terrorist" with far less consistency (and was even described as a quasi-hero by some). This is true even though of the three, Stack was the only individual whose attack was successful.
Politicians aren't the only ones who seem to draw a distinction between Stack's case and the other two. Take the Sunday news talk shows, for example. While both the attempted Christmas Day and Times Square bombings were the subject of extensive discussion and commentary on all of the Sunday talk shows (This Week, Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, State of the Union, and Meet the Press) on the Sunday following the respective attempted attacks, literally none of the Sunday talk shows mentioned even a word about Joseph Stack on the Sunday following Stack's attack.
Transcripts of each of the Sunday shows for the Sunday immediately following each of the attacks are available in the table below:
So why the discrepancy in political and media commentary and interest? It is certainly understandable why Abdulmutallab's and Shahzad's actions would generate media interest. One involved arguably the most recognizable block in the United States in the nation's largest city, and the other involved another attempt to bring down a passenger airline, reminiscent of the Richard Reid failed bombing attack and even of September 11 itself. Of course, both attacks were failures (in the sense that the ultimate object of detonating an explosive device failed). The Christmas Day bomber seems to have been affiliated with al Qaeda, and early reports suggest the same may be true of the Times Square bomber. Both would-be bombers were Muslim, and both were born overseas (although the Times Square bomber was a US nationalized citizen).
Joseph Stack, on the other hand, was not affiliated with al Qaeda. While he was associated with radical right wing organizations, his attack does not appear to have been assisted by any other individual. He was driven by hatred for the IRS and frustration with the US government in general (according to his manifesto). Nevertheless, he climbed into a small airplane and intentionally crashed into a government building, killing one innocent victim.
While the difference in treatment may, then, be explained by Stack's lack of association with al Qaeda, it's troubling to contemplate that the difference in treatment of Stack's political and media narrative may be due, in part, to the sympathetic nature (or lack thereof) of the targeted victims. Tourists on an airplane or in Times Square could be any of us. Workers in an IRS building won't be most of us. Some, such as those of Rep. Steven King (R-IA), even suggested sympathy for Stack's motives, whereas no US politician or media personality is likely to hold or express any sympathy for the motives of Abdulmutallab or Shahzad. If this is indeed the reason for the difference in the narratives, it is disturbing. There is no justification for a random killing of a government employee (or anyone else) no matter how upset you are with the policies of that person's employer. Of course, the difference in treatment could also be racial in nature: Stack was white where as Abdulmutallab was black and Shahzad was olive skinned.
All of the foregoing reasons are distinctly possible, but I propose yet another: the public's concept of who is or is not a "terrorist" lies at the heart of government policies designed to deal with terrorists, and blurring of the definition of a "terrorist" can result in eliminating or reducing constitutional rights not just for minority fringe groups, but for majority groups as well. Recognizing that fact, even if only subconsciously, many in the media and politics become very uncomfortable in defining as "terrorists" persons who are not easily assigned into minority fringe groups, even where their conduct is largely indistinguishable from terrorist conduct.
Take, for example, Sen. Lieberman's woefully misguided proposal to strip all American terrorists of their US citizenship. That policy may make sense to Sen. Lieberman so long as the concept of "terrorist" remains somewhat statically defined as a Muslim Middle Eastern extremist with ties to al Qaeda. Of course, that narrow view of "terrorist" must change over time, and with it application of Sen. Lieberman's (and other's) proposals to deal with terrorists. Would Senator Lieberman support stripping Joseph Stack of his citizenship, for example, if Stack had been caught just prior to boarding his aircraft? I doubt it (to my knowledge he still hasn't labeled Stack a terrorist), and that represents not only Lieberman's incorrectness, but also his shortsightedness. Of course, Lieberman's proposal to strip citizenship isn't the only one proposed or already on the books. It is just the latest and one of the most egregious.
Unfortunately, the media is often playing the role of willful participant in furthering the dangerous narratives that support unconstitutional conclusions like Lieberman's. Both politicians and the media alike ought to understand why it is right and good that basic constitutional protections be extended to even the worst among us. If they are incapable of reaching that fundamental understanding, at a minimum they ought to appreciate that opening the door to abuse of one group, even if a heinous group, opens the door to more than just that one group.
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com