As used in this chapter... (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) 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; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
FindLaw: Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 113B
Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller at church in Wichita, KS, last Sunday. To restate the obvious, this was an act dangerous to human life, a violation of the criminal laws of the United States, and appeared to be intended to intimidate a civilian population (providers or possibly recipients of abortion services) and to influence the policy of a government by intimidation (that policy being related to current laws concerning abortion). The murder happened in the United States. Thus, domestic terrorism. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Now, when it comes to terrorism, there are all sorts of legal subtleties that are beyond me. (a) This is a definition used in laws at the federal level, but there are a couple of dozen states that also have terrorism laws that may differ. (b) I don't know what role legal definitions play in the decision to charge someone with a crime. (c) The legal definition doesn't match everyone's everyday understanding: Edgar Morales, a New York City gang member, was convicted on terrorist charges when he fired a gun into a crowd in 2002, murdering a young girl. (d) The notion that some acts are terrorism because they appear to be intended to intimidate strikes me as having too many untestable qualifications. (e) And so forth. But let all that go--I think Roeder's actions fall pretty clearly within the scope of the definition.
Here's the strange thing: Roeder has not been charged with terrorism. In contrast, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Long just a day later outside an Army-Navy Career Center in Little Rock, AK, has been charged as a terrorist. The difference in treatment may be due to the legal complexities I've alluded to above; I don't know. But I found it strange to read this in the Washington Post today:
The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.
and
Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago. "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.
Consider: We capture a man who has just committed a high-profile murder, on the face of it an act of domestic terrorism, and a week later he's calling the news media from jail to publicize "similar events" planned for the future. Is this an indication of how seriously we take domestic terrorism?
Update: There have been some very good comments (below) that clarify and correct various impressions the main post gives. Here's how I understand what is known right now, in summary:
- Arkansas and Kansas both have laws on the books regarding terrorism. Their definitions are very similar to the one above. (Thanks, Stim.)
- Neither Roeder nor Muhammad has yet been charged with a federal crime. (Thanks, stncld.)
- Differences in the treatment of Roeder and Muhammad might simply be due to different procedures in place in Arkansas versus in Kansas.
- Muhammad has not been charged as a terrorist but rather for what news reports are calling "15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act," a potential legal distinction that escaped me. (Thanks again, stncld.)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
C.K. Dexter Haven
Chuck A. Stetson
JK Brady
Mark Pritchard
john blumenthal
OEsheepdog
Salon.com
Comments
I'm incensed.
As to how seriously we take it, I think pretty seriously.
The FBI tracks white supremacists, who they think are the biggest life taking danger, a good bit, and also watches radical environmentalists in terms of property damage out West.
They also pay close attention to abortion protesters, although there is a first amendment concern that gets raised say when there is an anti-war movement a la Cointelpro in Vietnam.
In the end, there is a bit of guesswork as to who is most dangerous, and tombstone follow-through, because there are lots of causes whose fringes might contemplate violence under the right circumstances. Good discussion about definition. rated.
Good post.
--rated--
don't know what else to say. I'm still upset about this asshole
and the millions that run around free and declare him and his kind heroes.
The Patriot Act is just bad law, made worse by its discriminatory application.
Here's a story closer to home for me, related to your story by the question, "Exactly what is domestic terrorism?" Two years ago, a schoolmate of my younger son was charged and convicted of holding a knife to the throat of a classmate on the way home from school. When police went by his house, they apparently found ropes and firearms in the young man's backpack. Obviously this is a very troubled young man, but his parents have since reported that they were threatened by authorities that the case would be treated as an act of domestic terror and governed by the Patriot Act, which would, of course, mean that he could be held indefinitely without a lawyer and without a trial. So with that kind of blackmail, they did not attempt any kind of plea-bargaining. This happened when their son was 14, he was tried as an adult, and is now serving a 2 1/2 year sentence. To date, his parents say at their website for him, he has not received any of the psychological help he was promised in return for a full confession. However, he has been beaten up seven times in ten months by his fellow inmates.
USA Patriot Act needs to be scuttled. It's horrifically bad legislation in myriad ways.
Rob, it may be easier to convict Roeder for murder, than it would be for committing a terrorist act. I agree with your point that these are not mutually exclusive acts.
Now can you please do a post about how what conservatives (both in office and on air) are saying about Obama and overthrowing the system is treason and how their egging on people like this is actually fomenting terrorism, just as they liked to accuse liberals of doing, back in the W reign?
I'm just heartened that one of them (and probably more to come) will not be out of a jail for a looong time. We have our ways of abusing and torturing our own while they're in our jails and prisons, while we get furious over foreign terrorists.
While it could be that the local authorities don't want to deal with the local political fall-out for charging Reoder with terrorism, the federal authorities should have no reservations.
Alas, this is another incident where I fear that my hope for change on critical human rights issues was too audacious. Obama is clearly an agent of massive change, but in the realm of terrorism and human rights, incrementalism is looking like a poor substitute for change.
I can't agree with some that they be waterboarded, since I don't believe in it anyway, but oh, it is tempting.
And why isn't O'Reilly being investigated?
There have been several good points made in recent comments. I think it's true, and sad, that it would be harder to convict what some significant number of Americans find to be a sympathetic terrorist(!) than an ordinary murderer. Hypocrisy does rule.
Thanks for showing the glaring contrasts.
Threatening more violence until they get what they want. That is terrorism.
Good post.
It's simple, really.
Part of the hypocrisy of this situation is squarely rooted in religion. Roeder is acting as a CHRISTIAN, which makes his actions okay in the eyes of many here in the U.S. If he were a Muslim, he’d be finished already. I think this clearly reveals the scam that is the “War on Terror”.
This is the problem with giving undue respect to “beliefs”.
RATED
It depends on the target of the terrorism. Not to defend what he did, but Roeder's actions were very narrowly targeted, which is a lot different than, say, what Timothy McVeigh did. McVeigh and the 9-11 terrorists were much more indiscriminate. So I would put them at a different level of terrorism than Roeder.
The other thing, which I think gets to the point of your post, is that there is a sizable segment of our society that questions whether Roeder's actions were terror at all. In fact, many would say what he did was at worst misguided, and at best heroic. As long as people think abortion is tantamount to murder, many of those same people will applaud the killing of the abortionist, just as they would applaud the killing of someone who would otherwise commit mass murder of living, breathing human beings. These are the people who say our society is engaged in its own holocaust. Of course, they would consider it justified to kill an abortionist just like it would have been OK to kill Hitler or Himmler.
Why aren't these fundamentalists as outraged by the obscene number of deaths in war? I really don't understand it.
Every year, the Catholic church a few blocks from my house, stakes hundreds of little white crosses on their front lawn. It fronts a main thoroughfare, so motorists are forced to see and reflect on those crosses every day.
Each cross represents a thousand 'abortions' -- Every year, the number of crosses increases. I've often pondered that their 'outrage' or 'protest' is mis/displaced.
Why aren't they putting up crosses for all of our *babies* who've been killed in Iraq?
Are they, as well, placed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?
Or are they using those crosses as advertising which play their own role in subliminally instigating further hate crimes by the unstable and the likes of Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley? *Sigh*
You mention, “the porous boundaries of our understanding of a concept like terrorism--the terms ‘cyberterrorism’, ‘eco-terrorism’, ‘economic terrorism’, and probably others can be found in news stories, but they're just not the same thing in my mind unless there's violence and a threat to life or limb involved.”
I suppose coercion in general contains the element of fear, but it seems that there are forms of coercion that do not involve physical aggression, which seems to often be the underlying distinction between “terrorism” and “coercion”. Terrorism is a form of coercion, but coercion is not necessarily a form of terrorism. What’s happening today is that the term “terrorism” has been hijacked by media and politicians for dramatic purposes of propagandizing, manipulation and control.
In reality, I think the term has little value; one man’s terrorist is another's guerilla or freedom fighter. American revolutionaries were essentially terrorists. The term is currently being used to muddy the waters of intelligent discourse about legal issues so that certain agendas can be pushed through congress. On that level, I say our politicians take, at least, the term itself seriously in its usefulness in achieving their various goals, which I’m not convinced are necessarily in your or my best interests.
(This is a bit of a detour, but... I think that some of the muddying of public discourse with respect to international terrorism has to do with lack of public awareness of concepts that should be better understood: just war and its relatives. You sometimes hear phrases like casus belli in speeches, mainly by people in the military and by historians, but politicians and political commentators are just as likely to phrase their discussions of actions in war in terms of us versus them; they'll sometimes just assume that all-out war is the only reasonable course of action; they'll neglect consideration, in a Rumsfeldian way, of what happens after a war starts, much less what should happen after one ends. If we think about terrorism and such in simple-minded terms, it's hard to avoid, well, simple-minded solutions.)
I don't know what comes next. Talk, I guess--that's all I can do.
this guy just took out a third of the doctors in America willing to perform late-term abortions, the unavailability of this rarely needed but essential medical service is a direct result of a decades-long campaign of terror and intimidation against suppliers and clients of legal reproductive services
the hypocrisy of the "war on terror" is obvious to anyone with open eyes and an open mind, if you call yourself a Christian, if you're white, if you toe the Fox News line, then nothing you do or say will be labelled "terrorist", but just look how easily the "terrorist" label is applied to environmentalists, WTO protesters, mixed-race American presidents
all that said, the solution isn't to apply the same oppressive, unconstitutional, police-state measures embodied in the Patriot Act, War Crimes Commissions Act, FISA reauthorization, etc., etc., ad nauseum to a broader range of terrorists, rather we need to restore the even-handed rule of law as it applies to any who commit crimes and threats of violence
RE: American forces attacking civilian populations. That’s a good point. I suppose if we consider their rebellious attacks such as the Boston Tea Party, we might make a case for that since that was a civilian ship owned by the British East India Company.
“The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protestors had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.”
Looking at your opening definition of terrorism, which seems pretty thorough, as well as the definition of “international terrorism” from your source, American forces certainly seem to fit in every other way. So I guess the question becomes whether or not every criterion listed must be present to qualify, or if only some of them must be present; and then, “how many?”
It might also be pertinent in this particular example to note that there were many colonials who did not want to go to war with England, which would seem to place those who revolted into a sort of special outlaw class among their peers. Be all of that as it may, I feel safe in thinking that American revolutionaries would be viewed as terrorists if they were, say, Iraqis who resisted American taxation of Iraqi exportation of Iraqi oil, or some such example, and dumped a tanker-load of oil into the ocean in an effort to coerce the American govt. into policy change. I really just mentioned that as illustration of the ambiguity of what constitutes a “terrorist”, which was one of the main points of your post.
RE: your comment about the muddying of the discourse;
“If we think about terrorism and such in simple-minded terms, it's hard to avoid, well, simple-minded solutions.”
Perhaps I’m just more cynical than you, but I think this is just your diplomatic way of referring the dumbed-down American populace. Perhaps not.
;~)
Roy,
“…we need to restore the even-handed rule of law as it applies to any who commit crimes and threats of violence”
Well stated. I think the propagandizing that places too many acts under the heading of “terrorism” rather than “crime” is a travesty. And the media are largely responsible for this.
I'm no lawyer, but I've seen criminal charges take months to be filed and always being excused by ongoing investigations. Hopefully that will be true in this case. It's hard to say. Public outcry would help in that regard.
This form of terrorism is the reason that there are only two doctors left that will perform late term abortions in the whole country. If that isn't intimidation and panned to influence policy, then the terms are beyond my ability to understand them.
This one guy I work with is the same guy who got pleasure out of watching Saddam Huseein's hanging on YouTube over and over again. I looked at him seriously (we battle all the time) and said, what makes you that much different from him? You get a rush out of watching someone die?????
I would urge anyone who forgot what life was like for normal, every day, housewives and women in general in America before Roe vs. Wade to watch the film "Revolutionary Road" for a little perspective. I wrote a piece domestic terrorism and failed to put that in there. Someone in the comments section brought it up (Mothership I think) and watching it gives the insight to what we'll go back to if it's overturned. Suicides will go up. Back alley abortions will go up. Black market abortions will go up. The prisons will be even more over crowded than they are now with women who get abortions.
Sorry I got off point, but if killing a man viciously in front of family and a congregation at a church isn't sending a message, intentionally, or a terrorist act by it's very nature, then there's no such thing.
Rated
That said, his act, and the subsequent one of announcing an intention to further acts of violence should be dealt with most seriously. I would also think the promotion of these violent acts (as in setting up the social mood for it, via Fox, et al) would also fall under the category of conspiracy.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services.
See the whole thing here if you lke:
Kansas Authorities, FBI Implicated in Tiller's Murder
This does two things. First, it enables the government to lump anyone who's an environmentalist, anti-war demonstrator, anarchist, radical socialist and even plenty of people on the "right" as terrorists if they so choose to. Couple that with "preventative detention" and you have a system locked and loaded to round up dissenters.
Second (and more relevant to your post), this makes the murders of people like George Tiller appear to not be a terrorist act in the public eye. Since Americans are so whipped up in fear of Muslim terrorists or anarchists or the mythical veteran who will come home from the war and start shooting people, it makes real, actual acts of domestic terror (re: your definition above) seem distant, because they don't fit the caricature.
As vile and disgusting as Roeder is, if we take away his voice, we make it even easier to take away our own. And it is getting easier all the time.
Bill
=====
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
As vile and disgusting as Roeder is, if we take away his voice, we make it even easier to take away our own. And it is getting easier all the time.
Bill
=====
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
As vile and disgusting as Roeder is, if we take away his voice, we make it even easier to take away our own. And it is getting easier all the time.
Bill
=====
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
As vile and disgusting as Roeder is, if we take away his voice, we make it even easier to take away our own. And it is getting easier all the time.
Bill
=====
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
As vile and disgusting as Roeder is, if we take away his voice, we make it even easier to take away our own. And it is getting easier all the time.
Bill
=====
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
It is time to rethink it and make abortion terrorists fight through legal means to achieve the reform they desire. They will never win if they fight legally. So they fight illegally.
It is the American Taliban, telling is how to live instead of simply choosing how they temselves should live, which is the actual American way.
Separation of Church and State is one of the most precious ideas in the constitution, and we seem to be abandoning it.
And I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but Scott Roeder may not get convicted for this since he is clearly mentally disturbed. He may well end up a mental hospital where he should have been placed years ago. But then wasn't the sainted Ronnie Reagan who emptied all the loonie bins rather than pay to house crazies?
RT
www.anonymity.2ya.com
Laws within the United States with regard to crime and social jusice have never been so free of contaminants. On the shallow, benign end, we have a criminal justice system which relies on the subjectivity of juries and judges, and justices. In the 19th century the USSC ordered that President Andrew Jackson not move the Cherokee. Jackson's response was, "let the USSC enforce it." The "trail of tears" resulted. That was just one event in a long series of events which preceded it, and followed it that were state sponsored terrorism by the United States. Jim Crow was state sponsored terrorism. You can't swing a dead cat in this society without hitting some aspect which was touched by state sponsored terrorism. It is a great question.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=90687051316&h=2vuUJ&u=1yDGa&ref=nf
I love the way you drew out thoughtful, respectful and wise comments, Rob. They complete your post marvelously.
Thanks for the pointer to your post, J.A.K. I think we're on the same page--you make all the same points I do. (And it looks as if you posted about 12 hours before I did. Damn!)
Stacey, you all are the main reason I write anything at all here; sure, there's self-expression, but the give and take is usually more interesting. Thanks.
Perhaps Dr. Tiller's murderer hasn't been called a domestic terrorist because we Americans hate to call christian folk terrorists. But it is true. Both Roeder and Muhammad are religious extremists. Abortion foes have used fear, intimidation and violence for more than two decades to try to force the U.S. population to abandon the procedure. Islamists use violence to grab power and suppress people who would not vote for such leadership otherwise. Both groups hold minority views in their respective countries.
What we saw in both acts last week is the continuation of a long one-sided "battle" for souls.
I fear it is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Now as to Roeder, if he threatened before hand to commit a violent act in furtherance of the anti-abortion agenda, that to my mind makes him a terrorist: mens rea/intent.
On the other hand, saying stuff after the fact could just be a lone nut gloating over the attention he is getting.
In any event, he is clearly guilty of a capital crime, no matter what you think of abortion, and must be punished severely, because otherwise we would have anarchy quickly. The Leftists could start taking out timber and chemical executives a la the Monkey Wrench gang, or the Rightists could start taking out gun control advocates, and then you have a civil war.
John Brown is the warning here. Now he is thought of more favorably, but he triggered a civil war, and was in fact a dangerous nut mainly.
If a gay man is murdered and during the crime the term "fag" is used, it is considered a bias crime. Special punishments have been legislated to deal harshly with bias crimes.
Crimes involving money often have mandatory sentences based upon the dollar amount involved.
It is common for every possible applicable charge to be brought in the indictment for any crime. The intention being to use all tools available for a successful prosecution.
Clearly this case is being handled outside of what would be a typical prosecution. Instead of employing every weapon in the arsenal to insure justice and public safety, there is another agenda.
I think that the root of the problem is that the DoJ is wary of the chilling effect that a terrorism prosecution of an anti-choice zealot might engender. I'm not sure that murdering people isn't something that we don't want to chill, but I guess that someone must see an upside that's escaping me. I think that another thing that might be inhibiting is the anticipated roar from the right-wing screech monkeys should the actually invoke this law against Roeder. From the point of view of the Feds, it's probably far better to sit back, see what Kansas does and maybe miss the heat altogether. Not the most courageous course, but since when has politics been about courage?
I didn't read all the comments (so many!), so sorry if I stole someone else's line of thought.
In other words, we have our own Christian Taliban. Like Islamic version in Afghanistan and Pakistan, these people are entrenched in the society and the government. They represent a diverse group that ranges from the extremist "soldiers" to the enablers. They have a power base, and directly opposing them is politically dangerous.
I'm afraid that we will see a show of clamping down. There will be a publicized trial for Tiller's killer. The FBI will raid a couple anti-abortion offices and take away some evidence related to only THIS assassination. Other than that, the domestic terrorists (Christian Taliban) will be allowed to operate as long as they kill only a few people a year. After all, "How could a small group place the whole country at risk?". I hope we do not come to rue the day we let this Christian Taliban seed grow.
"Civil government cannot let any group ride roughshod over others simply because their consciences tell them to do so."
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
Why? I don't know. Someone's in custody; two or three people were shot, including a museum guard.
We'd better be vigilant. I fear we're going to be going through a phase where "sacred" institutions are going to be the sites of great acrimony and violence.
I would quibble with your title here in the sense that the double-standard that you're revealing here, while you are obviously right about, is not as basic a problem as the nature of the "war on terror" itself.
The problem isn't that the government doesn't take domestic terrorism seriously enough and should. The problem is the GWOT itself, its domestic corollary in the USA Patriot Act and ubiquitous surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, "prolonged," "preventive" detention, and their underlying logic:
Clearly Roeder's actions are part of a concerted campaign to terrorize women and those who help women such as Dr. Tiller. So it's terrorism by any definition.
But the "war on terror" isn't designed to be a war on terrorism. It's designed to be a war on anyone that the government deems a threat to the government's aims internationally and domestically. It's a cover to justify the wholesale abridgment of civil liberties and strike at core principles of law and morality - witness the justifications for torture, for god's sake, by luminaries such as Dick Cheney and others across the political spectrum, and the abhorrent reaction of Obama to this: it's a "time for reflection, not retribution," and his retaining rendition and the right to use "enhanced interrogation tehniques" on selected prisoners.
I wrote back last year an essay that discusses and analyzes the nature of terrorism and the varying definitions for it: "Fighting Terror with Terror."
Good post overall for raising the contradiction sharply.
Congratulations to the murderous fringe.
The terrorists have won.
On top of today's shootings, I'm left with very little hope about this country's ability to protect itself from domestic religio-political violence.
It would seem a slam-dunk that Roeder should be charged with Domestic Terrorism.