Following on from my previous post, no doubt one of the most political words of our current era is “terrorist” and, not surprisingly, the question of whet her or not Joe Stack should be considered a “terrorist” has entered the discussion.
A noteworthy example, Dave Neiwert at Crooks and Liars: Huh? Since when is attempting to blow up a federal building NOT an act of domestic terrorism?
Since when, after all, is attempting to blow up a federal office as a protest against federal policies NOT an act of domestic terrorism?
You know, Timothy McVeigh used a "dangerous instrument" to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. He too was angry at the federal government, and was converted to the belief that acts of violence was the only means possible to prevent the government from overwhelming our freedom and replacing it with tyranny. He also believed that his act of exemplary violence would inspire others to take up similar acts to stave off the threat of tyranny.
However, to this point, it would seem that Stack’s motive was revenge born of anger and despair.
Others who see this as terrrorism include Chuck Frank and Spencer Ackerman.
Without venturing into a lengthy social science discussion about defining the term, let me just ask this: if a guy gets mad as hell and isn’t going to take it anymore, and wants to a “pound of flesh” out of the object of his ire, is it terrorism in any way that makes a difference?
Niewert quotes the FBI (as does, btw, Frank and Ackerman):
Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]
The highlighted part (Niewert’s emphasis), actually seems to mitigate against classifying this action as one of terrorism, as I am not sure that Stack’s goal was to influence government policy apart from avoiding to pay his taxes. And, indeed, while he won’t be paying them, if I understand the way these things work, his family will still have the same tax liability. It is unclear to me that he thought that this action was going to lead to changes at the IRS or the start of an anti-tax revolt in the US. Certainly, the action has not created a greater sense of fear in the civilian population that has any chance of putting pressure on the government to change tax policy. Rather, the crime is basically over in the public’s mind.
(See update below)
In terms of media and governmental downplaying the word “terrorist” I think that that has a lot to do with whether the given event has a likelihood of leading to further violence. While I would not make the case that an act has to have a chance of a follow-up to call it terrorism in technical sense, in terms of out current public discourse, I do think that that is part of the public perception of what the term means. Therefore for the government and for news outlets to not want to use the term for an action that is clearly self-contained makes sense. The NYT’s Media Decoder has a useful post on this topic: In Plane Crash Coverage, Networks Use the Word ‘Terrorism’ With Care.
I do think that some who want to leap to terrorism as the appropriate label are doing so with political motives in mind, rather than a desire to use the most accurate term available. When Matthew Yglesias Tweets the following, I think that the purpose is clear:
Politically motivated violence undertaken by non-Muslims isn’t terrorism, everyone knows that!
Likewise, the Relaxed Politics blog notes a similar Tweet:
@buzzflash:
Okay Islamic fanatics fly planes into buildings and are terrorists; white guys flies plane into federal offices and is troubled?
These statements are clearly a critique of the way they think many have conflated “terrrorism” with “Muslim/Islamic”-a criticism that has validity. The degree to which this event, per se, makes his point, however, is more dubious.
Ultimately, my position here is quite similar to that that I took with the Bishop case: is the application of a certain label, “leftist” or “socialist” in the Bishop case and “terrorist” here being used as a means of enhancing understanding or is the reason the term is being deployed to make a political point?
I will say this: it is clear that Stack had a generally political motivation for his crimes. The degree to which he could be said to have been motivated by a specific ideology is unclear from his rambling statement.
Update: I note from an AP story on the event that Stack did write in his suicide note “Nothing changes unless there is a body count” so, one could argue that he did have a motive of trying to use the event to foster change, although I am not sure, still, what he hoped that change would be.
Sphere: Related Content
February 19th, 2024 at 2:11 pm
The man was a terrorist, pure and simple. No equivocating - he was trying to kill government employees. The Ft. Hood shooter was a terroists as well.
February 19th, 2024 at 2:18 pm
I just think that the definition of terrorism goes beyond trying to kill government employees. That would make Amy Bishop a terrorist, because UAH employees work for a state institution or the proverbial guy who “goes postal” a terrorist if he shoots fellow mail carriers, etc. It just strikes me as a watering down of the word to the point at which it has very little useful meaning.
February 19th, 2024 at 2:33 pm
I also think that this guy is pretty close to a suicide bomber. He killed himself in order to do damage to federal property, and it’s pretty clear from his note that he was anti-goverment. Bishop’s case I haven’t been following closesly, but I understand that her motive was, in part, or denial of tenure - she wasn’t killing gov’t employees to make a statement so much as to avenge a perceived slight.
February 19th, 2024 at 2:35 pm
On technical grounds alone, he was clearly a suicide bomber.
I would argue, however, that Stack (based on his letter) was very much looking avenge what he perceived as a major slight at the hands of the IRS.
February 19th, 2024 at 2:54 pm
Just for frame of refference, do you consider McVeigh to have been a terrorist?
February 19th, 2024 at 2:58 pm
Yes, I think McVeigh clearly fits the definition. I think McVeigh specifically was motivated by a specific political goal and hoped that his act would inspire terror and maybe result in sparking others to join his cause. I think Stack was just depressed and angry and took lashed out at the source of his anger. If you read his entire missive, it is clear that he has long-term resentment of the IRS.
For what’s it worth, I am actually less sure that Hasan fits the definition of terrorist in a meaningful way.
February 19th, 2024 at 3:11 pm
I believe CNN did post the entire suicide note, if you’d like to read it. It mostly read like a short biography, but it’s only 6 pages. I read it yesterday.
The thing that I personally find most troubling are the number of comments on the story that describe Stack as a “hero” who’s paving the way for their revolution. Those would be the people I’m concerned with, and I’d say that a good 1/3 of the comments on the CNN story I read were similar to what I just described.
February 19th, 2024 at 3:19 pm
Al. Mod: I linked it in an earlier post as well.
February 19th, 2024 at 3:25 pm
Forgot to mention my personal definition of what I’d consider to be a terrorist. Stack would definitely fit that description:
1. Intent to change government policy or to bring attention to it: check.
2. Makes intent known: check.
3. Political motives: check.
4. Intent for large body count and/or “showy”: check.
I don’t think that having a personal vendetta would really disqualify as most terrorists will have some personal issues with their target. I don’t think we’ll find a terrorist that will agree that their object of ire has never really done anything to them personally.
Also, let me touch on the “showy” comment a bit… The thing about terrorists and their seeming preference toward explosives is that explosives not only create a lot of damage but are also very hard not to notice. Terrorists have an agenda, and they want you to know that they’re there so that they can bring attention to their cause.
A shooting would have done the trick if it was just about revenge. A bomb would have gotten attention if it was just about revenge. But look at how much more attention Stack is getting than Bishop because he flew a plane into a federal office building. That’s a very specific and significant kind of attack in the U.S. that’s meant to get attention. Flying a plane into a building MEANS something to people in the U.S. when they see or hear about it. He wrote a 6-page suicide note that he knew would get his message across. He wanted something more than revenge. He wanted to be heard.
I don’t think Bishop would qualify as a “terrorist” mainly because I see no real political motives behind her actions and no real desire to bring about any sort of change in policy.
February 19th, 2024 at 3:52 pm
It’s the “Nothing changes unless there is a body count” statement that clinches it for me. “Wants to cause a change through violence-inspired terror” -> terrorism. I do admit that he falls pretty close to the line, though.
From what I can see, Professor Taylor’s reluctance to label Stack a terrorist comes from Stack’s Quixotic goal (”I am not sure that Stack’s goal was to influence government policy apart from avoiding to pay his taxes.” “It is unclear to me that he thought that this action was going to lead to changes at the IRS or the start of an anti-tax revolt in the US.” “[O]ne could argue that he did have a motive of trying to use the event to foster change, although I am not sure, still, what he hoped that change would be.”). But I don’t see how the definition of terrorism changes because the perpetrator’s demands are not clear, or because violence doesn’t seem an effective route, or because the end goal doesn’t seem like much of a goal. I can think of a lot of “classic terrorism” that is just as Quixotic (the Beslan elementary school incident was mainly a plan for Chechen separatists to exact a pound of flesh from Russia; and I can’t see much of a difference between that motivation and Stack’s).
I will agree, however, that the label we end up applying doesn’t make much difference.
February 19th, 2024 at 4:02 pm
It really isn’t the Quixotic nature of the goals that affects my classification, as really even acts that we would unequivocally call terrorisitic are frequently (always?) aimed at achieving goals that are likely never to come to pass. I do think that as a general matter goals come into a definition of terrorism, as I see terrorism as a tool used by weak actors (vis-a-vis states) to use violence to cause political reactions or change by those states.
However, it seems to me that as much as anything, this was about a lone man’s rage and despair.
More than anything, I am not sure what is useful about calling it terrorism from an analytical or policy perspective.
I would say Chechen separatists are hopeful that if they extract enough pounds of flesh the Russians will finally give up and leave. In Stack’s case it was a singular moment of incandescent rage and then oblivion. Or, put another way, the Chechens have attempted to systematically repeatedly extract multiple pounds of flesh with the hope of changing Russian policy.
February 19th, 2024 at 5:44 pm
Does Weather Underground meet the Terrorist criteria? They were not state supported.
February 19th, 2024 at 6:03 pm
Yes. In fact, usually terrorist organization are not state supported.