What Is (and Isn't) Terrorism?

When is -- and isn't -- a crime considered terrorism? The legal, political and moral definitions are often at odds. We explore why on BrainStuff.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works, Hey, brain Stuff,
Lauren vogelbam here. When the news of another mass murder
in the United States breaks, people are forced to stumble
their way through a series of inescapable emotions. The psychological stages,
much like the well known stages of grief, go something
like this, shock, revulsion, fear, curiosity, anxiety, anger, numbness, and

(00:25):
finally depression and perhaps acceptance. Somewhere along that arc two
comes the inevitable question was it terrorism? The question is
way more easily asked than answered. That's partially because the
legal definition of the word terrorism is as murky as
the motivations of the people who commit these drastic crimes.
We talked with Dr Jane Kramer, a professor of political

(00:47):
science at the University of Oregon. She told us every
terrorism textbook and every terrorism class begins with the definition problem.
Most people have to be satisfied with no definition. The
Miriam Webster rizing of the term terrorism has become so tricky,
in fact, so fraught with politics and legal pitfalls, that
even after decades of trying, the United Nations can't come

(01:07):
up with an agreement on what constitutes terrorism or what
a terrorist is that's not all that surprising, maybe, considering
that what one group might call a cowardly and despicable act,
another might term a patriotic or even holy duty. At
least within the borders of the United States, the legal
definition seems a little less troublesome. Several federal laws list
some variation of the terms, but the US Code of

(01:29):
Federal Regulations defines terrorism 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. Still, even among Americans,
it's not that easy. When an avowed white supremacist killed

(01:50):
nine black members of a church in Charleston, South Carolina,
on June seventeenth, it was immediately considered by most as
a hate crime and a terroristic act, but then FBI
Director James Comey wouldn't call it terrorism. In a press
conference three days after the shooting, he said terrorism is
violence done or threatened in order to try to influence
a public body or citizen, So it's more of a

(02:12):
political act. Again, based on what I know, I don't
see it as a political act. The unwillingness to immediately
flagged people like this perpetrator as terrorists, or even the
Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty eight and wounded another
five hundred plus on October one seen, can wrankle those
who see the issue, often falling along racial and religious lines.

(02:32):
For example, when a native of Uzbekistan killed eight people
in New York City on October thirty one seen by
driving a rented truck into pedestrians and cyclists, the FBI
slapped federal terrorism charges on him in less than two days. Officially,
tagging acts like this as terrorism or not requires thought
towards the legal and moral implications. For example, no terrorism

(02:54):
charges were filed against Army major Nidal Hassan, who killed
thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, in two thous and nine,
even though Hassan told investigators that he shot the soldiers
because they were quote going against the Islamic Empire. According
to The New York Times, the reasoning the Army could
more easily and swiftly try him on charges of murder
and attempted murder without the hassle of proving he was

(03:16):
a terrorist. Hassan is now in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, awaiting
execution after being convicted of thirteen counts of murder and
thirty two counts of attempted murder without designated Hassan a terrorist,
though his victims can't get combat related benefits or receive
purple Hearts because the attack was considered workplace violence and
not combat. The labeling or specific not labeling of terrorists

(03:38):
isn't a particularly new phenomenon. More than thirty years ago,
then President Ronald Reagan pushed a foreign policy that included
financial backing for a group of so called freedom fighters
in Nicaragua, the Contras. Some accused the United States of
state backed terrorism. Many other presidents and heads of state
all over the world have taken similar steps in the
name of national interest. The objection to calling someone a

(03:59):
terrorist lies law atally within the word itself terrorism. Dr
Kramer said, it's a loaded term. It's meant to make
somebody evil. When everybody after this last incident notices that
Trump wouldn't use terrorism after Charlottesville, where a white supremacist
killed counterprotester head their hair on August twelve, and immediately
uses it. After New York, it was like, Wow, we

(04:20):
only use it from Muslim or dark skinned people. That's
why this is coming up all the time. It's loaded.
It's probably not surprising that many politicians, not just the president,
used the concept of terror as a way to influence
minds and gain votes. The defeat of the terrorist Islamic
State was a big issue in the tween election. Immigration
reform has also been tied to keeping terrorists from our shores.

(04:41):
Dr Cramer said that's why politicians use the word, but
academics try not to. They're trying to win supporters and
make sides. Academics are trying to analyze things. That's the difference.
Today's episode was written by John Donovan and produced by
Tristan Signal. For more on this and lots of other
political science topics, visit our home planet, how Stuff Works

(05:05):
dot com. M