The shootings at the Sikh temple in
Wisconsin and the Family Research Council in Washington , D.C.
I have posted several times about the importance of not broadening the definition of terrorism, which dilutes its evil and have stated clearly which acts constitute terrorism and which do not.
The attack at the Sikh temple was
an act of hatred with the intent to kill, not to terrorize others beyond the immediate targets. At worst, it was an act of
genocide -- a grave evil, but not the same thing as terrorism. The motive of the shooter, who
was killed in the attack, was unlikely to terrorize the general populace
because it was targeted at a particular group or at least at those not within
his ethnic group and because he acted alone. He
might have expected or even intended to be killed in the attack.
Acting alone in a one-time attack cannot possibly terrorize anyone after
the completion of the attack, once there is no longer the ability to carry out
further attacks.
The second target, the Family
Research Council, was apparently selected for a political motivation. The general populace was not the target, but
the individuals at the organization, in this case a conservative advocacy
organization, with whom the shooter disagreed.
The general populace is not terrorized by an attack on a particular political
target.
When law enforcement refers to a
crime as “domestic terrorism,” it means an attack that is based upon political,
religious or ethnic motivations, as opposed to the usual motivations of crime. To them, it makes little difference whether
or not such an attack meets the definition of terrorism. Their jargon, as reported in the media, however,
does not necessarily define the crime for everyone else.
I take this opportunity to express sympathy for the victims of these attacks and their families and to laud the heroism of those who ended them.
No comments:
Post a Comment