"A people who's primary aims are driving, shopping, and television are subject to terrorism at any time."
~ Steven Deitz.
~ Steven Deitz.
Okay, I have a question for you, but first let me set up the scenario.
A white supremacist opens fire with a .22 caliber rifle at the US Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Is that terrorism, given that terrorims is defined by the US Code as:
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
Here's another scenario: A Christian jihadi kills an abortion doctor. The jihadi had connections to a white supremacist group and has threatened more attacks. Is that terrorism?
It sure looks like terrorism to me, if we go by the definition outlined by the US Code.
In April the Department of Homeland Security issued an report on the resurgence in rightwing extremism. "Extremism" here is a euphemism for "terrorism". And the FBI knew all about this Roeder guy hanging out around Dr. Tiller's clinic, yet they did nothing. All of this makes me wonder exactly who might be behind this sudden rise in the acting out of extreme right-wing fascists in the US, since the government obviously already knows that the fascists are going to act out. Why isn't it doing anything about its own terrorism?
Because, hell, it sure looks like terrorism to me.
And when is the US government going to send these guys to Guantanamo? Is it going to apply "enhanced interrogation techniques" on Roeder in order to find out where and when the next attacks will occur and by whom? Is it going to waterboard him? Why doesn't it waterboard von Brunn, the shooter at the Holocaust Museum, in order to find out who else in his social circle might be planning more terrorist attacks?
And if it doesn't do these things, why not?
Or, is "enhanced interrogation" just for brown people and other foreigners?
UPDATE: Liz Cheney, daughter of pro-torture Dick Cheney, thinks we should be careful with our words:
I do think people need to be a little bit careful about using words like terrorism before we know exactly -- you know, clearly, he [von Brunn] was psychotic. But we don't really know much yet about whether or not he was representing any sort of an organization. I think we need to be a little bit careful.
Not only does she think we should be careful about whom we call terrorists, but she's also trying to lay the groundwork for an insanity defense for the terrorist von Brunn.