Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism thusly:
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
According to the FBI, terrorism is defined as:
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
The FBI Divides Terrorist-Related Activities into Two Categories:
A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.
So… here’s my question. We call an isolated incident of a pair of disenfranchised brothers accused of bombing at the Boston Marathon terrorism. Don’t get me wrong, it was a “terror-inducing” act. On the surface, it appears that the older brother was angry about the US government and some of its policies. But the younger brother, from all accounts so far, had become a US citizen in 2011, was a great guy (NOT that that has anything to do with it), but had never shown anything but love for his adopted country. SO much so, that he became a citizen. Which, BTW, entitles him to ALL rights afforded to citizens.
Is it the mode of weapon that creates terrorism? Is it a bomb? An airline hijacking? Obviously, we know it is not a massacre with an assault weapon. And if it is a bomb, why aren't all bombings considered terrorism?
If we take the FBI definition: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”, then other things qualify as terrorism as well. Things that aren’t identified as such by the US government, the politicians, or any media outlet. Things like systematic bombings and arsons, murders, and other extreme violence including sending anthrax-laced letters aimed at women’s health clinics that may (or may not) provide LEGAL pregnancy termination care.
Why are we so quick to identify an isolated incident such as the Boston Marathon as terrorism, and yet we don’t aggressively seek to arrest and prosecute perpetrators of women’s health clinic violence as terrorists?
Could it be because the health clinic incidents are intended to intimidate women? And women are definitely treated as 2nd class citizens in this country, to do and say they are told. We should keep a quiet dignity, let our men be dominant, focus on why we married our cheating husband in the first place, or remember why we married our abusive husband in the first place.
Health clinic violence, and the accompanying violence that follows clinic workers to their homes is, plain and simple, terrorism. It meets the government definition. Far more than the Boston Marathon bombing does. Because the Boston bombing was a statement - made out of anger rather than out of a desire to intimidate or coerce, whereas the terrorism that leads to the murders and intimidation of women's health care personnel is systematic, prolonged, and meets every single definition put forth on what constitutes terrorism. There can be no doubt as to the motivation behind women’s health clinic violence. It is solely intended to intimidate and scare women, politicians, and the courts into overturning Roe v Wade and criminalizing women’s health choices, turning them into the inanimate sperm receptacles and incubators that some on the right would like to see.
It seems that only one thing meets the definition of terrorism these days. Is the perpetrator Muslim? That’s it. It couldn't possibly be terrorism if the perpetrator is white, male, and fighting FOR 'Murica. Because who cares about YOUR right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if I can't do everything I want, when I want, and with whatever gun I want? And also make YOU do what I want you to do, and worship who I want you to worship?
Incidents of Islamic terrorism in the US are far less frequent than women’s health clinic violence. However, we immediately assume that because someone has different religious views that must be a terrorist. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
I am calling on the US government to investigate every attack on women’s health clinics and their workers as terrorism. The motivation meets the definition.
What about Sandy Hook? Was the systematic massacre of 20 children and 6 adults terrorism? Well, it certainly seems to invoke terror. We may never know Adam Lanza’s motivation. We don’t seem to call massacres with assault weapons terrorism at all. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Seal Beach, Tucson, Lancaster PA, and so many more. Yet we don’t call these terror attacks. No, instead, we use them as a call for more opportunities for more people to commit these crimes.
Why wasn’t the 1999 racial & religiously motivated attack on a Jewish Community Center full of small children prosecuted as a terrorist attack, or even as a hate crime? Furrow admitted it was racially and religiously motivated. But Buford Furrow only faced murder, civil rights violation, and weapons charges.
If we are going to be so selective in our assignment of the terrorism label, then we ought not publish our definition of it at all.
When we focus on one group only, racially profile them as terrorists and ignore all other incidents as "fighting for the rights of the unborn" or "fighting for my 2nd amendment rights" or "put women in their place" or "get that BLACK man out of the WHITE house" then we disavow all that our country has stood for these last 237 years.
Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it, and no matter in whose name.
No comments:
Post a Comment