In response to an opinion article published on Monday, Nov. 20, I would like to offer a more rigorously defined version of what terrorism is.
I do not refute the claims made in the previous article concerning who perpetrates the majority of mass shootings, but rather I would like to point out there is a clearer way to define terrorism.
Notice I do not say terrorist, given the definition of a terrorist is simply “an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion.”
Terrorism, as put forth by the State Department, is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”
I will concede the definition of terrorism is not agreed upon internationally in governmental or political scientific spheres, and I will also state we must view this definition through a widened lens of the current sociopolitical climate.
However, we can break this definition down into four important parts generally agreed upon: premeditated, politically-motivated, violent and against noncombatant targets.
As stated in Jonathan Matusitz’s book Terrorism and Communication: A Critical Introduction, “premeditated” means the act of violence was planned beforehand, in order to ensure maximum harm. “Politically motivated,” or more generally referred to as “ideologically motivated_­­,” shows the motive must be in pursuit of political, religious or ideological goals.
Violence is a bit more difficult to define, but can be simplified to mean committing acts of harm against others. Finally, one must consider the victims of the attack. According to the U.S. Code, they must be noncombatant targets, meaning they are not military or private personnel who are employed to engage in combat.
I know you are thinking, “Why does it matter? Are people like Stephen Paddock and Devin Kelley really not domestic terrorists? Why does it matter if we label them as such?”
The simplest reply to these questions is we label people as terrorists because they meet the definition of one who commits an act of terrorism. When the State Department labels a domestic or foreign entity as a terrorist individual or organization, it is because they meet these criteria.
The problem with labeling mass shooters such as Stephen Paddock and Devin Kelley as terrorists is we are missing the motive angle. Yes, they committed what appear to be premeditated acts of violence against civilians, but why did they do it? Unfortunately, this question will most likely never be answered because both chose to take their own lives after their shootings.
I must note, however, it is possible to label someone a terrorist post-mortem. In a situation such as the mass shooting in Las Vegas, it is the protocol for the FBI to analyze the perpetrator’s actions prior to the attack, such as what books they read or what websites they visited. This analysis can shed light on a previously unknown motive, which would allow the perpetrator to be correctly labeled as a terrorist.
According to Michael Goodwin with the New York Times, while Former President Barack Obama was in office, he would frequently receive criticism from right-wing establishments for not quickly denouncing acts perpetrated by Islamic individuals as acts of terrorism. Instead, he would wait until the most important aspect of the crime, namely motive, came to light.
These days, we see the same complaints towards President Donald Trump, except going the opposite way. People are quick to denounce Trump for not labeling mass shooters, like Stephen Paddock, “terrorists” the day the crime is committed, pointed out by Jason La Miere from Newsweek.
Whether or not these two presidents have been consistent in their labeling of individuals as terrorists is not for me to determine, but it is important to point out it should not be acceptable for our elected officials to use this term loosely.
Just in case we are still not clear on how this definition functions in practice, let us look at some examples. The main ones I will focus on are the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. and the June 17, 2015 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
We can quickly run through each characteristic for both attacks. Was the Sept. 11 attack premeditated? It most definitely was, as it took months, if not years of training for the attackers to learn how to fly their respective planes, as well as to plan the attack.
Was it ideologically motivated? It was clearly a political and religious statement by the extremist group al-Qaeda in denunciation of the U.S.
Finally, was the violence committed against noncombatants? For the most part, yes, it was. Although the argument could be made otherwise concerning the attack on the Pentagon, the attacks on the World Trade Centers were obviously directed at civilians.
Now let us look at our second example: Dylann Roof’s 2015 attack on an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Was his attack premeditated? According to statements by friends and family, Roof had been planning to commit an act of violence for some time. He originally chose the College of Charleston as his target, but later settled for the Episcopal Church due to less security.
Was it ideologically motivated? We do not have to guess about this one because Roof told investigators he committed the shooting in order to start a race war. In addition, excerpts from his website show his actions were inspired by his white nationalist views.
Lastly, was his violence committed against noncombatants? Yes, Roof chose the church in particular because he knew there would be little to no security. He picked out a Bible study consisting of mostly older African-American individuals because he knew they would make for easy targets. If we can take this definition and run it by the information we have concerning an event, it should not be too hard to label an individual as a terrorist or not.
There are always, of course, exceptions. Whereas events such as the 2017 Congressional baseball practice shooting and the 2012 assassination attempt of Gabrielle Giffords were clearly politically motivated, some motives are not clear or are absent entirely.
In the case of the June 14, 2017 shooting at a UPS facility in San Francisco, California, perpetrator Jimmy Lam committed suicide before being apprehended by police. An 18-year veteran of UPS, Lam had no history of violence, nor did he have any serious grievances against the company or his coworkers. Although he did file an overtime complaint in March 2017, this was described as “not unusual” by his Teamsters’ union.
After murdering three and injuring five, Lam took his own life, leaving mourning families and political scientists without answers. This example is an issue at the forefront of the gun control debate, as well as the argument over the labeling of terrorists.
On Oct. 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired into a crowd of 22,000 concertgoers from his hotel window at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. At 64 years old, Paddock’s hobbies included real-estate investment, online gambling and not much else. Although married and divorced twice, Paddock had no history of violence. Furthermore, Paddock’s brother, Eric, stated Paddock had no known political or religious affiliations.
Ten minutes after beginning to fire at the unwitting people below, Paddock stopped shooting at 10:15 p.m.. When SWAT team members finally breached his suite at 11:25 p.m., Paddock was found dead on the floor from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but without a suicide note or further explanation for his actions.
When considering issues such as mass shootings, suicide bombings and other attacks on innocent victims, it is almost impossible to stay impartial and unbiased. If we agree on a definition of a term of who is considered to be a terrorist, it behooves all involved to critically consider the evidence before making a decision based on race, religion or political affiliation.
As I have expounded upon, crimes such as these have a fairly narrow set of criteria to meet in order to be considered terrorism, and it is not a valid assessment to label someone a terrorist if they do not meet the criteria set forth by the State Department.