Is flying a plane into an IRS building an 'act of terror'? Should a militia member that threatens online to 'level Washington DC' be Mirandized, or turned over to the military?
It's high time that America defines terrorism. After all, in attempting to defeat this 'terrorism', we're spending billions, sacrificing soldiers and innocent civilians, and potentially allowing military rule over certain offenses.
Semantics it may be, but the meaning of 'terrorism' has enormous implications for how we debate and rule our 'war or terror'. Amazingly, there's little debate or consensus on what 'terrorism' actually means. In that vacuum, fear dominates legal principle.
Merriam Webster generically defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion". But is a serial bank robber a terrorist? Obviously, we need more specifics.
In criminal law, it's not the end that always identifies the crime, but also the means to an end. This logic is what separates first degree (premeditated 'cold blood') murder from 'lesser forms' of the taking of human life (crimes of passion, vehicular manslaughter, etc).
In the case of terrorism, identifying the crime requires similar analysis of the means and the end - what separates it from attempted and actual murder?
How can can a spy that constitutes a far greater threat to National Security than Bin Laden be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted in Federal Court, but a simple nomad with an AK-47 is remanded over to the military for water boarding?
Specifically, what makes the nomad with an AK-47 a terrorist, and subject to a country's most strong-armed response?
A simple but comprehensive and flexible definition of terrorism could read as follows:
'Political Terrorists' are persons who are willing and able to premeditatively employ the systematic and indiscriminate use of violence against civilians for the purpose of causing disruption to political mechanisms or government.
The means of terrorism are categorized as follows:
- Willing: stating an implicit intention to act
- Able: obtaining or attempting to obtain abilities
- Premeditative: not a hasty 'act of passion' by a person or group
- Systematic: an organized and calculated effort
- Indiscriminate: there is no effort to mitigate the effect of actions
- Violence: causing severe bodily harm or death
- Civilians: persons not directly acting as a member of armed authority
One's contribution to the crime also defines the 'means'
- Inciting - inspiring others to act
- Conspiring - planning to act or
- Abetting - materially aiding persons who are themselves terrorists
- Manifesting - personal involvement in the crime.
The ends of terrorism is defined by the target.
'Political terrorism' is obviously directed at government or the establishment or operation thereof. If that target is the local town hall (like Granby CO), then the target has different implications for national society.
Establishing the target also determines the direction of the debate over jurisdiction. Thus, our public debate on 'mirandizing' arrestees will in part be determined by how we define jurisdiction on such elements as national security. Should 'National Political Terrorism' be prosecuted by the FBI or the military?
Terrorism can take many forms, and have many targets. As such, the above definition allows for terrorism to be applied to certain other crimes in which 'causing terror' was an enabling element in another crime. Thus, certain crimes could also result in charge such as 'Terrorism in the course of Criminal Behavior'. For example, calling in a bomb threat to distract law enforcement from a robbery could be defined as 'Terrorism in the course of Armed Robbery'. Obviously, this would not be a federal offense - unless the primary crime was federal.
The means and ends combined determine the severity of the crime.
Just like murder there are different degrees of terrorism. Lighting off big fireworks at a public event is obviously far less damaging to society then a 9/11 attack. Putting the fireworks in a dumpster might even be considered mitigating and therefore render the crime non-terroristic in nature. Throwing a firecracker at a 4th of July Parade obviously meets none of the criteria - no matter how 'terrified' someone might be.
If we take the examples that opened this post, the IRS plane bomber and the threatening militia members, then it is plain to see that both acts are indeed terroristic in nature.
Considering the number of people that have threatened the national government in some form (and not just during a heated debate), and also had some means to carry through on that threat, we need some clarity. Otherwise, there is a very real prospect that the US Navy Seals might soon be arresting Bubba off his Potomac-cruising boat entitled "DC Go Boom-Boom' and carting him off to Gitmo.
More so, the use of the word 'terrorism' is emotionally loaded, but increasingly intellectually empty. As the basis of democracy, the law gives guidance to our officials, but at home and abroad there is little in the way of consensus as to what legal principles apply to terrorism.
Why is defining 'terrorism' so important?
This debate is necessary for several reasons:
- Take the breathless edge off the word 'terrorism' and make the public and leaders start discussing and acting rationally.
- Organize our response to the threat in a more appropriate fashion.
- Focus the worldwide debate on the fact that these people are 'criminals'