Real-life scenario No. 1: A man with a weapon strides into a military medical office in Texas and opens fire, killing 13 people and wounding 29 before he is stopped and taken into custody. In the ensuing news media coverage and public discussion, the incident is widely viewed as an act of terrorism.
Real-life scenario No. 2: A man with a weapon shows up at a public gathering inside a supermarket in Arizona and opens fire, killing six (including a U.S. district judge) and wounding 13 (including a member of the U.S. House of Representatives) before he is stopped and arrested. In the ensuing media coverage and public discussion, the incident is generally not characterized as terrorism.
The difference? In the first scenario -- the 2009 Fort Hood shootings -- the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, was a Muslim of Palestinian ancestry. In the second -- the 2011 Tucson shootings that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded -- the perpetrator, Jared Loughner, was non-Muslim and white.
So it goes, according to new research by a terrorism prosecutions expert in Portland, Ore., when it comes to public perception of what constitutes terrorism. An analysis by law school professor Tung Yin of Lewis & Clark (the college where I work) reveals that race and religion strongly color portrayals of terrorism, to the point where crimes of a similar pattern -- political motivation, mass destruction, indiscriminate killing, etc. -- tend to be characterized differently in this country when the perpetrators are Muslim or of Arab descent.
This matters. "Terrorist," after all, is the mother of all damning labels in this post-9/11 age. And beyond politics and public relations, ideas about what constitutes terrorism and who commits it can have a significant effect on law enforcement and court outcomes. It's a term that needs to be used with care and consistency.
Listening to Yin review cases of actual and intended violence, one is struck by how the term "terrorist" has been conspicuously absent from public discourse about some high-profile incidents of recent years.
No white terrorists?
Here in Oregon, a father-son team, Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, are on death row for planting a bomb that killed two police officers in a bank in 2008. Prosecutors portrayed the pair as bigots who hated the government. Terrorists? Not if most news media accounts are to serve as our guide. Yin finds the same dynamic in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal coverage of the arrests of five men (all Caucasian and non-Muslim) in Cleveland this spring in a plot to bomb a bridge. Are the alleged Cleveland plotters terrorists? Not if the words of most investigators and reporters are any indication.
Not to say that non-Muslim whites never get tagged as terrorists. Yin notes that two notorious bombers in recent (but pre-9/11) U.S. history have worn the label --Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. You would search in vain, however, for other non-Muslim perpetrators of mass violence in this country who have been similarly branded.
As Yin asks (rhetorically) in the title of his study, "Were Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber the Only White Terrorists?" (The study has been accepted for publication in a juried law review and is available online at the Social Science Research Network.) Clearly, McVeigh and Kaczynski are not the only white terrorists -- not if that loaded term is to be used precisely and responsibly.
Get it right
Getting this right is important for a host of reasons. As many have argued (present company included), subjecting all American Muslims to terrorism-related stereotypes and suspicions is unfair and unwise. Bear in mind that the term "terrorist" is legally significant, too. If perpetrators of violence and their abettors are proved to operate out of terrorist intentions, sentences can go up in federal cases and in some state courts.
As Yin argues, "There are real costs imposed on society when terrorism becomes branded with Islam: Cognitive biases against Muslims become more potent; investigators risk losing the trail of non-Muslim perpetrators when they fixate reflexively on Muslims; and worst of all, some government officials, aware of the biases and concerned about appearing anti-Muslim, may overcompensate by deliberately ignoring specific 'red flags' about Muslim individuals."
Yes, the overcompensation problem. Those who defend American Muslims are tempted at times to obscure the religious and terrorist angles when Muslims do perpetrate violence; this, to protect Muslims from reprisals and reduce the potency of such incidents as fodder for anti-Muslim politics. Such a dynamic was evident in the way some tried to downplay the fact that Nidal Hasan, the man charged in the Fort Hood shooting, is a Muslim and did spew violent jihadist rhetoric on the Internet.
If the religion dimension helps identify a suspect, and if the t-word helps law enforcement and the public understand the nature of an act of mass violence, its use is justified. If the label fits, apply it. But fairly, please.
This article was first published in USA Today
Terrorism isn't simply crime with political goals; people have to see it as a *rational* attempt to achieve them. Al Qaeda exemplifies this; they conduct an ongoing campaign of crimes to achieve a goal of uniting Islam and driving out (or even converting) the West. They tell us (by word and deed) what they want So we can predict that burning a Koran makes us a target, but driving a Ford does not.
Jared Loughner may have had political motives for the Tucson shooting, but if so, he was irrational - a one-time event couldn't achieve such goals. People consider Loughner insane, and his actions were unavoidable random violence. There's nothing you can do differently to avoid being hurt by the Loughners of the world.
Nidal Hasan may simply have been afraid to go to war, but became a terrorist by tying his rampage to the existing campaign of Islamic terrorism. If he hadn't declare that as a motive and hadn't shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he shot people, he'd just be another rampage killer like Patrick Purdy.
The most familiar terrorists in the United States would be the Ku Klux Klan and people who bomb abortion clinics and threaten abortionists. If either group were as active today as they were decades ago we would be calling them that - and talking about Christian terrorism.
You have to have to be tyrannical. Freedom fighter seeking freedom have wants and desires motivated by Self Motivation. In this case freedom and free choice
Not unlike those who have it all. keeping what they have at the cost of THIER wants and desires and SELF MOTIVATION from others who would have what they have.
BOTH SIDE of the same circle. Only through economic, social, judicial, JUSTICE and the Unalienable right to LIFE,LIBERTY and Happiness WITH punishment for taking that away
Will a Nation State or Globe change.
Call freedom fighters TERROIST is a TACTIC of the only Tactic more Freedom Fighter have. Like the Minutemen against King George (Queen Elizabeth ancester)
Treasonist
He did swear to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION, right? The constitution says trial by Jury to protect Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not killing for political collateral or removing a potential problem. As a president or citizen we all have to obey the Laws of America here and there.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11507850-questions-raised-over-virginia-newspapers-delay-in-report-of-attack-on-reporters?lite
For whatever reason, there is a reluctance to publicize such cases.
The Az.shooter has been declared insane by the court of jurisdiction but his motivation was more personal than religious.
Labeling their actions as either or is immaterial to the victims.
The commonality is the mental instability and there seems to be no currant method of preventing similar acts on the part of individuals or groups.
It's an inherently dangerous world and protection from it's vagaries is a personal responsibility ultimately .
He shots the abortion Doctor to make other Doctors afraid = Terrorist,
She shoot her boss for not giving her a raise = not Terrorist
Religion, color, national heritage don’t come into it at all, it’s just a tactic.
I saw
I tested
You failed
Some of you may not have noticed but part of my job is to study large patterns in civilizations. If i wasnt in fact what I have been saying I am then there would be no discernible reactions, anyways this game is all very fun, but.
Anyways since we are going to pretend I dont exist, then I am going to pretend that i am not sanctioning military action against this planet. You are an evil species, reckless arrogant and suffering from mass paranoid delusions. The patient is non-communicative, non response, hostile.
Il pretend to believe it will end a great deal of unncessary pain and suffering.
See ya, o btw any action taken on any of my ideas will result in court action being taken, its obvious that a great many "scientists" have no interest in real solutions, you are warmongers just like the rest.
You have shown us that you might be full of it.
Mentally ill are killing because they're mentally ill. Because the voices tell them to.
I have no problem with how both events were labeled.
(Of course, terrorists killing in the name of some religion are also mentally ill, but for different reasons.)
;-)