Columnist Bonnie Erbe said last week that “it ought to be against the law” for people to call George Tiller “a murderer” and “anyone who [says such things] it ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism.” Others have also demanded that we treat such crimes as “domestic terrorism.” Below is today’s column on defining terrorism.
They’re not ‘terrorists’
Sometimes, ‘criminal’ will do just fine
In the aftermath of the killings of abortion provider George Tiller in Wichita and Holocaust museum guard Stephen Johns in Washington, D.C., many have called for the prosecution of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn as terrorists and demanded a new push against “domestic terrorism.” It is an all-too-familiar demand, but this time it is coming from an unlikely source: liberals.
For years, liberals denounced the tendency of the Bush administration and conservatives to call every possible crime an act of terrorism. Now, with anti-abortion and anti-Semitic suspects, there is an insistence that these crimes must be treated as terrorism as if to call them “murder” or “hate crimes” would diminish their significance.
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, has called for a crackdown on such “domestic terrorists.” And an article in the U.S. News & World Report last week included both shootings in a “domestic terrorism” roundup. On the blogosphere? Well, you can imagine.
The fact is that Roeder and von Brunn appear to be murderers, not terrorists. Many people kill strangers out of hate for their race or religion or some other association. Colin Ferguson killed six people and injured 19 in 1993 on the Long Island Rail Road in a race-based rage. Last July, Jim Adkisson shot and killed two people at a church in Knoxville, Tenn., because he hated liberals. These are acts of loners or rogue operators who seek to satisfy a blood lust against different groups.
There is an important legal difference between people who seek to terrorize a society through coordinated acts of killing and people who act on impulse to kill people they hate. Calling something a terrorism case puts it in a different category for investigation and prosecution. Special laws and punishments apply. The classification allows a now massive counterterrorism apparatus in this country to use powerful investigatory powers to seize records, tape telephones and hold witnesses.
The term “terrorism” once had a clear meaning before it was used as a point of emphasis to elevate or distinguish certain crimes. The Bush administration broadened the definition of terrorism to encompass any prosecution that disrupts a “potential” terrorism threat. The definition allowed virtually any case to be counted as a counterterrorism prosecution, including hundreds of simple immigration or gang cases. Terrorist prosecutions included a Connecticut man who was fined $275 for going through airport security with a knife.
For civil libertarians, the expansion of terrorism investigations represents a clear threat to free speech and free association, as well documented during the Bush administration. Now, with a liberal administration in power, many want to see terrorism investigations targeting anti-abortion activists and other groups that use violent speech.
In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that violent speech is protected by the Constitution if a violent act is not imminent. Saying that you wish someone was dead is a juvenile but all-too-common way of expressing profound hatred for views or conduct. You are allowed to pray for the murder of all abortion doctors or hated figures. Indeed, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson once called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
We do not advance our efforts by classifying every hate crime as terrorism. The fact is that even an authoritarian nation can do little to stop a determined rogue operator from walking into a church and killing someone like Dr. Tiller. Calling someone such as Roeder a murderer does not diminish the crime or the victim.
If we classify every such slaying as terrorism, it is the terrorists who will benefit from our lack of focus. We are not a society overrun by terrorism. More important, we do not have to call murder “terrorism” to take the crime or its causes seriously.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
Published: June 17, 2009
Here is an interesting video:
Week of 6.12.2009
Abortion providers under siege: Is this the new face of domestic terrorism?
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/524/index.html
You can see that abortion providers are somewhat scared and are slowly dwindling in numbers. Even with the current conditions, I expect that abortion will remain available for the vast majority of American women.
Prof. Turley is correct is warning us away from emotion-based, knee-jerk reactions when passing national laws. He provided excellent input on this two emotional Congressional issues, which were both errors on the part of Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
http://amorrow.wikidot.com/elizabeth-morgan
We are carrying the Bush/Cheney Terrorism/fear mongering too far.
________________________________
{Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20watch.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
On Terrorist Watch List, but Allowed to Buy Guns
The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.
A report in May from the Justice Department inspector general found that the list kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried the names of 24,000 people included on the basis of outdated or sometimes irrelevant information.
End Quote}
__________________________________
There are many innocent people on the list because of governmental incompetency, often as simple as misspelled names.
JJ: James von Brunn, the suspected shooter, considered himself a lone wolf. Do such so-called rogues really operate on their own, or are they part of a bigger movement?
TL: They do these actions on their own, but the ideology they did not get on their own. The idea of the lone wolf was an offshoot of Louis Beam’s leaderless resistance. He’s a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Texas. He came up with this thing saying you’ve got to go into a cell program, six guys max. And when you get more than six, you break into two groups. That way, if you get busted for a crime they only bust three or four, and your unit can keep going. So these guys started figuring out that if it works that way, why don’t we break it down smaller into one- and two-man groups. That’s how we got lone wolfs. These guys go out and do these acts, but then the groups they belong to say, “He doesn’t belong to us.” And if he’s not part of the group, you can’t go after the group civilly or monetarily.
-TJ Leyden, 43, spent 15 years as a leader in the white supremacist movement.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/community/article/ex-skinhead_leyden_on_supremacist_motivation_threat_20090617/
I agree with Professor Turley. I also think that we need to enforce the laws already on the books. It is unwise to ‘dilute’ the term terrorism in fits and starts of hyperbole depending on which interest group is the target of such “hate” or “terror” and depending on which political party is in power at any given time.
Enforcing the Face Act, Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act — Statute 18 U.S.C. § 248 could have helped prevent Dr. Tiller’s death and there is no reason to label it a terrorist event.
We had a long discussion regarding this subject:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/01/police-arrest-alleged-killer-of-dr-george-tiller/
If killing a doctor because he performs abortions is not terrorism, what is? If calling in fake bomb threats or blowing up the clinic in the middle of the night is terrorism, why would actual murders not be? The goal is the same in all cases, using force to stop the immediate victim and to intimidate others.
I agree that the guy at the Holocaust museum isn’t terrorism unless more information comes out.
“Columnist Bonnie Erbe said last week that “it ought to be against the law” for people to call George Tiller “a murderer” and “anyone who [says such things] it ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism.” Others have also demanded that we treat such crimes as “domestic terrorism.”
JT,
I agree with the entire thrust of you article on this.
Looking at the above quote this is almost a classic invocation of a potential “slippery slope.” Although it is tempting to seek punishment for these inciting characters, the end result will conjure up the “law of unintended consequences” big time.
Jonathan,
I will speak to the subject of your column for which I have personal experience. I do think that anti-abortion activists in some, but not all cases, may legitimately be called domestic terrorist groups. There are well coordinated efforts in the extreme wing of the anti-abortion movement who do such things as: 1. follow doctors’ movements and disseminate this information 2. make threats of violence to doctors, clinics and the other people who work there, both at the clinics and at their home 3. take pictures of women going into clinics and take down their license plates which are then posted to their websites 4. cross off names of those who are killed on these same websites.
These actions are coordinated and their purpose is to stop women from having an abortion by means on terror. This type of violence and threats of violence go well beyond free speech and the right of protest. My friend owned a clinic and she got death threats at her home on a regular basis. She did wonder, as did others who worked at the clinic, if they would be killed or injured. It was something they learned to live with, but it was always a nagging fear in the back of their minds.
This part of the anti-abortion movement is small, but they do mean to use violence. Killing or maiming other people is used to send a message. These are methods to achieve their aim.
The real problem in calling this domestic terrorism to me, isn’t that this wing of the anti-abortion movement doesn’t fit the definition of a terrorist group, it’s the expansive tools of counter-terrorism used by our government. This is why I am also wondering about how to treat these groups. I believe there will be a spill over by law enforcemnt into those who are truly engaging in free speech and the right of non-voilent protest.
It is not accurate to say that anyone who says abortion is murder is an accomplice to Dr. Tiller’s murder. That is both absurd and dangerous. The government should go after those small groups of people who coordinate and plan violence, to include murder, of those who provide abortions to women. Those groups are out there and they need to be stopped. These groups are criminal enterprises and perhaps it is better to approach them that way. Still, I see the main problem as this: we live under a government who’s law enforcement powers are out of control. Our nation’s law enforcement is being used against our people; to the point of inflitrating, surveilling and calling terrorist (as another poster pointed out) people who gather peacefully to protest as is our right under the Constitution.
So we need two actions here: 1. agreesive law enforcement against those who advocate violence in the name of stopping abortion and 2. we need to reign in the expanded powers of all law enforcement, now arrayed against the legal rights of our citizens.
And my Criminal Law Professor insisted that I was a larcenist at heart, so whats your point!
Last week, one could be convinced that David Letterman was a contemporary Marquis de Sade for the litany of crimes he was accused of conspiring in.
Mespo,
Don’t use such words a linguists or any variation of the form or substance. I did take one of those classes in college and I swear the Professor had done time with Timothy Leary. Advanced Calculus was easier than that shit.
I said No three time but it did not matter. So I just sat back and tried to make the best out of it.
“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.”
–Benjamin Lee Whorf (American Linguist)
KKT,
While I by in large agree with your statement, I would add one caveat. Never underestimate the power of personal satisfaction as a motivator of criminal action.
CM,
Motive is important, but it’s should not be the primary element of a crime. When motive is criminalized, we have the thought police – this is my primary objection to “hate” crimes. Consider this: what if his motive WASN’T terror but rather a desire (due to serious mental illness albeit) to become more Christ-like in protecting children even if his definition of “child” is flawed? Motive should be an element that is used more in weighing sentencing options than in weighing filing of charges. At least until we are all genetically engineered to be telepathic.
With all due respect, the murder of Dr. Tiller is the very definition of the word terrorism: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”
The stated goals of people who prey on these doctors, these clinics and the people who use their services is to stop abortions by any means possible.
There was nothing personal about the murder of Dr. Tiller. Any doctor in his position would have been a target.
There was no personal gain for the murderer in this behavior (excluding the satisfaction that the murderer seemed to have gotten from it).
The entire purpose was to threaten and intimidate doctors all over the country so that they would think reconsider providing abortions. The collateral purpose was to threaten and intimidate patients so that they would reconsider having an abortion.
… the very definition of the word “terrorism.”
Any name you give it the Aim and result is generally the same. Somebody is dead. If they can be held to inciting then conspirator works for me. Hyperbole, Zealous, Harlot, Scarlett (O’Hara), Maddow, Grace, all have similar rings. Call it what you may but creating drama is the name of the game.
Frankly my Dear I don’t give a damn. [Well I really do]
Definition:
terrorist – a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
Noun 1. terror – an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety
affright, panic
fear, fearfulness, fright – an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight)
swivet – a panic or extreme discomposure; “it threw her into a swivet”
2. terror – a person who inspires fear or dread; “he was the terror of the neighborhood”
scourge, threat
individual, mortal, person, somebody, someone, soul – a human being; “there was too much for one person to do”
3. terror – a very troublesome child
brat, holy terror, little terror
scamp, imp, monkey, rapscallion, rascal, scalawag, scallywag – one who is playfully mischievous
The war on terror has displaced the war on drugs as the primary means of advancing an agenda to eliminate civil liberties and increase police and prosecutorial power.
Actually I think that calling Roeder a terrorist is consistent with other uses of the word as clearly his purpose was political, to prevent women having access to abortion. He intended to deter other abortion providers and their staff by generating in them feelings of terror.
Governments love the concept of terrorism as it can be extended slowly to cover any dissent. Eventually trying to overthrow the Government by voting the wrong way will be considered terrorism. Somewhere in the last day or so I saw an article about government training materials that classify participating in public demonstrations as low level terrorism.
I hate the words “terror” and “terrorism” as they are used to selectively strip legitimacy from some participants in a war but not others. I have no doubt that US air attacks in Afghanistan that kill non-combatants have a good a terroristic effect on the Afghans as anything done by Al Queada or Hamas has on Americans or Israelis.
If terrorism were an honest word it would cover such things as the killing by New York police of Amadou Diallo as well as the airlinering ot the World Trade centre, but it is not an honest word so it does not.
JT
I think that the reason many liberals are calling for Scott Roeder and James Von Brunn to be treated as terrorists is to force the right wing fanatics who have created the terrorism moral panic and pushed for the draconian laws used on those suspected of being Muslim terrorists to apply those laws evenly.
The fact is that the people who dreamed up the stuff allowing terrorist suspects to be held incommunicado indefinitely while being tortured never expected that decent people like them would be caught by the laws.
It seems to me that the law gives too much attention to the motives of criminals and too little to the results of the crime. Does it really matter if one killing is motivated by the prospect of personal gain while another is an act of war and a third is motivated by hate. Dead is dead and it should not worry a dead person or his relatives whether he was killed by a mugger, a race hater or a terrorist.