When is it okay to call something "terrorism?"

[aidtopia]

From the follow-up story:

Though investigators have repeatedly warned in recent months of a rise in threats to critical infrastructure by anti-government groups and domestic extremists, prosecutors did not highlight any association between the two defendants in this case and any such organization.

While power was out in the first two facilities, the pair broke into a local business to steal from the cash register, Greenwood allegedly told investigators after his arrest.

So we still don’t have any evidence that this was a terrorist action. It might still be, and we just don’t know yet. If you think it was probably terrorism, I’m not going to argue with you. It might have been, and you’re perfectly free to broadcast your opinion.

But given that we don’t yet have any evidence of a political motive in these instances, I still don’t understand why so many here are angry that these news articles haven’t already branded these crimes as terrorism rather than vandalism. To me, this is an example of responsible journalism.

[DukeTrout]

@aidtopia

But given that we don’t yet have any evidence of a political motive in these instances

In this instance. Singular. The other attacks on power infrastructure in the last several months have been politically motivated.

[aidtopia]

I used “instances” (plural) because four different facilities were hit over the course of about 12 hours. In all four, damage included cut fencing and/or padlocks. In the fourth, a failed attempt to access the high side switches resulted in an electrical fault that did extensive damage to the equipment.

[Jesse13927]

Does that sound like vandalism to you?

[Kii]

From the CNN article @stinkinbadgers posted (btw, thanks for the follow-up). Emphasis mine

Two men were arrested on New Year’s Eve for allegedly shutting down four Washington state power substations

According to court documents, Greenwood, 32, and Crahan, 40, plotted to knock out power from four substations

On Christmas. In freezing weather.

From Reuter’s (linked below). Emphasis mine

The two men were known to authorities, and had been under FBI surveillance for more than a month in late 2021 and early 2022, FBI special agent Mark Tucher said in an affidavit filed in federal court on Tuesday. The agent did not give reasons for that surveillance, but Tucher described himself in the affidavit as an expert in domestic terrorism assigned to the FBI Seattle division’s joint terrorism task force.

From CBS. Linked below. Emphasis mine

"The substations are spread out over dozens of miles; the attacks occurred early in the morning and in the evening; and the first and fourth attacks were separated by over twelve hours

@aidtopia You might not have read the other articles. Here is your chance.
On the side of terrorism: These two men attacked four different electrical substations on Christmas in freezing weather leaving thousands of people without power. The two men were under surveillance by a FBI agent with the anti-terrorism task force. They planned these attacks. The attacks were made on substations miles apart and the attacks were separated by up to 12 hours.

On the side of not terrorism: one suspect claims they knocked the power out of one substation to rob, one business and one cash register.

Are you still going to argue that terrorism is an inappropriate term?

Two men arrested in attacks on Washington State power substations

2 arrested in power substation vandalism that left thousands without power in...

[Melizmatic]

@aidtopia

we still don’t have any evidence that this was a terrorist action

Gonna wait until someone actually gets hurt or killed, eh? Maybe after a manifesto has been found and published?

[Kii]

Signed confession. Can’t be terrorism until there is a signed confession listing the political motivations. And never mind that risking the lives of over 15,000 people during freezing weather should be labeled terrorism regardless if it was done to spark a civil war or for funsies or pure psychopathy
/So many sssss that I sound like a pissed off snake

[Mindysan33]

But was it terrorisms in their hearts, because otherwise it’s just sparkling fearmongering! /s

[Melizmatic]

I was re-watching Fight Club for the first time in years with my kid tonight.

Y’know all those ‘homework assignments’ Tyler Durden sent his little cult followers out on, blowing up businesses & whatnot for “funsies?”

Domestic terrorism.

[aidtopia]

Does that sound like vandalism to you?

Yes. Vandalism is the “deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.” Cutting through fences and padlocks is certainly vandalism. The FBI agrees. From the criminal complaint: “On December 25, 2022, four attacks or acts of vandalism occurred at electrical substations in Pierce County, Washington.” The footnote then goes on to describe that tampering at an energy facilities are specific crimes.

Is it terrorism? Terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Of course I agree that turning off the power to thousands of residences on a freezing morning and again that following night is a terrible thing to do. But did they do it in pursuit of political aims? Maybe, but we (the public) haven’t seen any evidence presented yet. Even less was known at the time of the original article that led to the criticism that the news media was failing to label the events as terrorism.

“Tucher described himself in the affidavit as an expert in domestic terrorism” [Emphasis by Kii from a Reuters article.]

I don’t see where in the criminal complaint Tucher decribes himself as an “expert” in domestic terrorism. He says that he’s “familiar” with aspects of “domestic terrorism, and anti-government and racially motivated extremists” due to his training and one year of experience with the FBI.

Melizmatic:

Gonna wait until someone actually gets hurt or killed, eh?

I’m gonna wait until any evidence is offered that supports the idea that these particular attacks were intended to forward a political aim, as per the definition of terrorism. The only evidence as to motive we have know is one suspect’s claim that they burglarized (or tried to burglarize) a local business while the power was out.

Maybe after a manifesto has been found and published?

Reducto ad absurdem.

Are you still going to argue that terrorism is an inappropriate term?

It seems premature. If counter terrorism investigators aren’t ready to allege terrorism even with suspects in custody and evidence from multiple search warrants, why should the news media have called it terrorism a week ago?

@Kii

And never mind that risking the lives of over 15,000 people during freezing weather should be labeled terrorism regardless if it was done to spark a civil war or for funsies or pure psychopathy

Putting thousands of lives at risk is a crime. A serious heinous crime. But terrorism is a specific word with a specific meaning.

[Melizmatic]

@aidtopia

I’m gonna wait

[Jesse13927]

So…if I understand correctly, you are adamant about giving the perpetrators the benefit of the doubt about their nebulous motives until they themselves indicate a motive that you deem sufficiently political?

Are you willing to venture a guess at what non-political motives they might have had, or are you settling on “no motive whatsover until motive made clear?” Or was it all just for shits and giggles?

[jerwin]

Terrorism is a way for the department of justice to claim jurisdiction over a variety of crimes committed in other countries.

Since this isn’t a international crime, the perpetrators can be investigated under conventional laws that, for instance, punish sabotaging a power plant with up to twenty years in prison. If evidence later develops that the accused intended to kill, or intended to start an insurrection, etc, there are stronger felonies, and superceding indictments.

And if it were a bunch of Reichsburgers behind this plot, those international terrorists would likely end up only facing twenty years in prison-- after a bit of wrangling with the German government. The more draconian laws apply if someone gets killed, if weapons of mass destruction are used, etc.

[Kii]

@aidtopia

Terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

That is a very narrow definition of terrorism. So narrow it would exclude terrorist actions based on race, like the shooting of 9 Black people in Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. By his own words and confession, the shooter killed them because he hates Black people. Same with the shooter who killed people at the Buffalo grocery or the white guy who massacred people at Walmart in El Paso. These men didn’t have political aims. They wanted to kill and cause terror to Black and Hispanic people. They didn’t aim to cause any political change. Just hurt BIPOC. It would also exclude religious terrorism.
You also think we can’t use the word terrorism until we know the underlying motivation of a crime. Which is just bullshit. We often never know the underlying motivation.

And yes, this is technically vandalism. But that doesn’t preclude it from also being terrorism.

From the FBI website

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

US law, 18 USC § 2331(5), emphasis mine, states:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Political motivations do not enter into it. If the illegal act was dangerous to human life and was intended to intimate a civilian population, it doesn’t matter why the terrorist wanted to intimate, cause fear, or cause terror. That definition is broad, as discussed by the ACLU. The ACLU does have a point on that.

Vox has an interesting discussion on whether the insurrection on 1/6 was terrorism. Domestic terrorism definition: Does the US Capitol attack qualify? - Vox

Edited to fix the odd formatting.

[Kii]

@jerwin

Since this isn’t a international crime, the perpetrators can be investigated under conventional laws that, for instance, punish sabotaging a power plant with up to twenty years in prison. If evidence later develops that the accused intended to kill, or intended to start an insurrection, etc, there are stronger felonies, and superceding indictments.

This is true. Also true is that the US has no criminal statutes specific to domestic terrorism. All laws making terrorism a crime are about international terrorism. So domestic terrorists must be charged under other felonies, like assault, murder, hate crimes, or sabotaging a power plant.

[ClutchLinkey]

Thanks, this is helpful. I was starting to go down a rabbit hole in my mind about these things. One example I couldn’t make sense of is, based on the very strict definition of “political aims” seeming to be used in the argument upthread, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting wouldn’t count as terrorism, because we don’t know what his motives or aims were. But clearly, randomly murdering 60 people and wounding several hundreds more at a concert venue is an act of terror!

[NukeML]

Terrorism - an act or acts intended to terrorize others.

Could be as simple as that?

[docosc]

Could be and should be. Terrorism is (IMHO) an act designed to inspire terror, whether in a nation, an identifiable subgroup or just in general. KKK is a terrorist group, IRA is a (was?) a terrorist group, Aryan Nation and it’s various descendants and any of these acts which cause terror and fear for life and well-being in a swath of the populace. Trying to minimize this is effectively defending the terrorists.

[ClutchLinkey]

Yeah, and kii’s post clarified some of the seeming disagreement about strict legal definitions when she pointed out that we don’t have any specific laws for domestic terrorism like we do for, say, hate crimes, where the motives make a difference to the legal proceedings.

[Melizmatic]

@Kii

That is a very narrow definition of terrorism.

Intentionally so, methinks.

It’s like some folks desperately need to believe that White men can’t ever be terrorists.