Comment

Iraq Veteran Confesses to Arson in Fires at Mosque and Planned Parenthood

14
CuriousLurker10/24/2013 8:34:47 pm PDT

re: #11 sliv_the_eli

So then, by your own definition, it’s entirely possible that some instances of Palestinian-on-Israeli violence are a result of purely personal hatred & bigotry towards Israelis—or in some cases perhaps mental illness/pathology— and are not in any way related to or indicative of the broader agenda necessary for it to qualify as terrorism, is that correct?1

I’m asking because we seem to be splitting hairs here and I want to be sure we’re on the same page. While I (mostly) agree with your definition of terrorism, there is no definitive scholarly or international legal definition of terrorism that I’m aware of. Dictionary.com defines it as:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Wikipedia provides numerous definitions:

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term “terrorism”. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of “terrorism”. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged. […]

The report I mentioned earlier, in my comment #2 above similarly states (emphasis mine):

Similar to the attempts of terrorism scholars to confront the absence of an agreed definition of terrorism, two complementing conceptual approaches have evolved to describe the far right.2 […]

The Jewish Virtual Library agrees as well:

Terrorism is difficult to define, even the various law enforcement branches of the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is still very much alive and well today.

Listed below are several definitions of terrorism:

[Eight definitions follow…]

The FBI apparently follows the U.S. Code, which describes three different types of terrorism: International, domestic, and the “federal crime of terrorism”. The first two, which are closest to your definition, both involve “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” which “appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”. Obviously, the domestic version occurs within U.S. jurisdiction and the international version occurs outside of it. The third definition is specific to federal facilities, officers & employees, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

IANAL (obviously), but going strictly by the FBI/U.S.C. definition, it seems to me that Mr. Stout’s actions could put his crime in the terrorism category, especially since the violent acts only need to “appear to be intended to…” Of course, he could be suffering from some sort of mental illness that rendered him unable to judge between right & wrong, or his intent may have only been to damage the structures and not the people in them—the article doesn’t mention whether or not there were people in the Planned Parenthood building or the mosque when the arson was committed (or attempted in the case of PP). Time will tell, I guess.

——————————————————————-

1. I’m purposely leaving out violent crimes such as armed robbery or kidnapping for (cash) ransom since those crimes—while I’m sure they’re quite terrifying—are clearly not terrorism-related unless it can be proven that the proceeds were intended to fund the material support of such.

2. See Arie Perliger, Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right (Combating Terrorism Center, November 2012), p. 14.