It's Premature to Call the Boston Bombing an Act of "Terrorism"

More

In the wake of a tragedy, we are often compelled to do the only thing we can to regain control in the wake of all the chaos: name and classify the trauma. We feel a need to rationally understand what is, in truth, beyond comprehension.
Which is one reason why we have collectively rushed to categorize the tragedy that occurred at the Boston Marathon as “terrorism.” Our elected leaders (from President Obama to city councils) have done so, our media elite have done so, and most Americans have done so.
However, without knowing a motive – and we don’t yet know what the motive was – can we truly classify the horrors that happened in Boston as terrorism? My answer is an unequivocal no.
And a look at U.S. code and varying U.S. classifications reveals that our government indeed requires a known motivation in order to classify a violent act as terrorism.

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:

“premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

In this definition, violence must clearly be “politically motivated” in order to be classified as terrorism.
According to the F.B.I., it is defined as:

“the unlawful use of force or 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.”

So too the F.B.I. defines terrorism as something that is meant to further “political or social objectives.” While methods are emphasized in the F.B.I.’s definition, a motivation must be present in order to classify what happened in Boston as terrorism.
Why does it matter? Classifying the bombing doesn’t bring back the dead; it doesn’t mitigate the suffering of the living, of the bereaved.
But it does matter for public policy and for how law enforcement treats those who are involved. Much controversy emerged when it was learned that the Department of Justice was withholding Miranda protections from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old bomber still clutching to life.
Why was he not read his Miranda rights when Wade Michael Page, who fatally shot six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, was presented with such rights?
Does it have to do with our post-9/11 prejudices? Does it have to do with the fact that immediate assumptions were made that Tsarnaev, who is Muslim, must have committed a politically-motivated act of terror?
A look at his Twitter feed reveals nothing but a (shockingly) normal teenager, and news that Tsarnaev “partied” after the bombing certainly doesn’t fit any radical profiles.
Which is why, in our rush to classify the horrors which occurred in Boston, it’s premature to label it – in my eyes – as terrorism. It’s too early to assume that, based on Tsarnaev’s religion and ethnic background, his actions were motivated by anything but pure madness.
It’s not too early to name it for what it definitely is: an unspeakable tragedy.
Follow David Harris-Gershon on Twitter @David_EHG

0 thoughts on “It's Premature to Call the Boston Bombing an Act of "Terrorism"

  1. If it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that bombs were implanted and detonated in the buildings that were brought down before 911, would those who implanted them be defined as ‘terrorists’ and possibly ‘traitors’?
    Also would the U.S. Government representatives who ignored the evidence be culpable for the war crimes – the murders, injuries and property damages – that were committed as a result of such a ‘false flag’ operation?
    Is the creditability of U.S. Government as a democracy or republic at stake for not trying to reveal the truth of the causes and effects of 911?

  2. Thanks for saying out loud what many Muslims have been thinking. I fear that if the perpetrators had been of any other religion, the tragedy in Boston would not have been labeled terrorism so quickly. We as a human race love to put labels on people, unfortunately.

    • From my point of view, all violent actions are a form of terrorism. The main question I raise here, is to properly identify terrorists, charge & try them in creditable criminal courts and incarcerate them if found guilty and let the punishment fit the crime.

      • Hubert,
        I am in total agreement with you. According to the Catholic church there are two types of sin: one of “omission,” the other “commission.” Most of us are guilty of the former. Supporting Israel for instance, is a sin of omission. Morally, Israel is a totalitarian regime. The total suppression of Palestinians is indicative of Israelly fascism, and that is what it is, that totally overturns the democratic traditions of the West. Auswitzch and Treblinka, although unspeakeable crimes of humanity, is an excuse used by Israel to justify the maltreatment of Palestinians – which is a form of abuse perpetrated in the name of “security.” Palestinian victimization is symbolized by the Wall that has been constructed by the Neo-Zionist to divide people rather than a symbol of reconcilliation. The Wall instead is a tool that is used to commit terror on the Palistinian peoples. Acknowledging Palestinian rights to independence would in fact be revolutionary, similar to ministry of Jesus. Jesus however is not a model of the Knesset. Rather Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini and Moa Tse Dung are the dictators who are spirit, who represent Israelly domestic and foreign policy towards Arab Muslims. Israel perpetuates violence. It does not advocate peace as an alternative to it. It’s inhuman. Unbridled aggression is one of the means Israel exercises to tyrranize Paleistinians.
        The US should immediately renounce its alliance with Israel and stop supporting a government that is culpable of “terrorism” on Palestinians – a people whom Israel has demonized. Israel should be condemned and ostracized internationally without restraint and reservation.

  3. War is terrorism. A- bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Schock and Awe of Iraq, Drone attacks, Isreal’s attacks on Palestine are/was terrorism. Man’s inhumanity to man is terrorism.
    Why can’t we get along? Lack of compassion?, Kindness?
    Is it our free will? Oh! Take care of number one, regardless of the circumstances. That is our creed.
    It is the creed of self annihilation or slow suicide.
    We have killed our planet, thus ourselves.

  4. Rabbi Lerner is very quick to assign blame to “right-wing extremists” without a full investigation of the motives. He did so with the Aurora, CO shootings. Why is that any different?

  5. Domestic violence is a form of terrorism. So is the abuse of children both sexually and physically. Violence is not limited to the religious or political. Familial terrorism is equally devastating. The results are incalculable. The pervasiveness of violence American homes is widespread. Statistically, women have been and are victims of intentional harm by intimates far outstrips collective violence. Intimacy is no barrier to destructive aggression “I am violent therefore I am” is genetically inherited. We are predisposed to violence both culturally and socially. History provides irrefutable evidence that violence in the world is endemic. War, genocide and homicide in general are extreme examples of “man’s inhumanity to man.” It is inevitably predictable and will remain a normative a human trait for time immemorial. We are all perpetrators of violence. By supporting regimes that use violence as a means to an end is a symptom of man’s capacity to maintain distance from those who suffer as a result of violence. – Whether it is ideologically, religiously or financially motivated – violence is a tool used by all of to satisfies those means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *