Speaker 1: Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio. Hey
Speaker 1: brain Stuff, Lauren boge Baum here with another classic episode
Speaker 1: from our archives. This one has to do with the
Speaker 1: definitions of terrorism and why it's become such a politically
Speaker 1: loaded term. Hey brain Stuff, Lauren Vogelbaum Here. When the
Speaker 1: news of another mass murder in the United States breaks,
Speaker 1: people are forced to stumble their way through a series
Speaker 1: of inescapable emotions. The psychological stages, much like the well
Speaker 1: known stages of grief, go something like this, shock, revulsion, fear, curiosity, anxiety, anger, numbness,
Speaker 1: and finally depression and perhaps acceptance. Somewhere along that arc
Speaker 1: two comes the inevitable question was it terrorism? The question
Speaker 1: is way more easily asked than answered. That's partially because
Speaker 1: the legal definition of the word terrorism is as murky
Speaker 1: as the motivations of the people who commit these drastic crimes.
Speaker 1: We talked with Dr Jane Kramer, a professor of political
Speaker 1: science at the University of Oregon. She told us every
Speaker 1: terrorism textbook and every terrorism class begins with the definition problem.
Speaker 1: Most people have to be satisfied with no definition. The
Speaker 1: Miriam websterizing of the term terrorism has become so tricky
Speaker 1: in fact, so fraught with politics and legal pitfalls that,
Speaker 1: even after decades of trying, the United Nations can't come
Speaker 1: up with an agreement on what constitutes terrorism or what
Speaker 1: a terrorist is. That's not all that surprising, maybe, considering
Speaker 1: that what one group might call a cowardly and despicable act,
Speaker 1: another might term a patriotic or even holy duty. At
Speaker 1: least within the borders of the United States, the legal
Speaker 1: definition seems a little less troublesome. Several federal laws list
Speaker 1: some variation of the terms, but the US Code of
Speaker 1: Federal Regulations defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force
Speaker 1: and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce
Speaker 1: a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
Speaker 1: furtherance of political or social objectives. Still, even among Americans,
Speaker 1: it's not that easy. When an avowed white supremacist killed
Speaker 1: nine black members of a church in Charleston, South Carolina,
Speaker 1: on June seventeenth, it was immediately considered by most as
Speaker 1: a hate crime and a terroristic act, But then FBI
Speaker 1: Director James called me wouldn't call it terrorism. In a
Speaker 1: press conference three days after the shooting, he said terrorism
Speaker 1: is violence done or threatened in order to try to
Speaker 1: influence a public body or citizen, so it's more of
Speaker 1: a political act. Again, based on what I know, I
Speaker 1: don't see it as a political act. The unwillingness to
Speaker 1: immediately flagged people like this perpetrator as terrorists, or even
Speaker 1: the Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty eight and wounded
Speaker 1: another five hundred plus on October one, can rankle those
Speaker 1: who see the issue, often falling along racial and religious lines.
Speaker 1: For example, when a native of Uzbekistan killed eight people
Speaker 1: in New York City on October thirteen by driving a
Speaker 1: rented track into pedestrians and cyclists, the FBI slapped federal
Speaker 1: terrorism charges on him in less than two days. Officially
Speaker 1: tagging acts like this as terrorism or not requires thought
Speaker 1: towards the legal and moral implications. For example, no terrorism
Speaker 1: charges were filed against Army major Nidal Hassan, who killed
Speaker 1: thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, in two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: even though Hassan told investigators that he shot the soldiers
Speaker 1: because they were quote going against the Islamic Empire. According
Speaker 1: to the New York Times, the reasoning the Army could
Speaker 1: more easily and swiftly try him on charges of murder
Speaker 1: and attempted murder without the hassle of proving he was
Speaker 1: a terrorist. Hassan is now in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, awaiting
Speaker 1: execution after being convicted of thirteen counts of murder and
Speaker 1: thirty two counts of attempted murder without designated Hassan a terrorist,
Speaker 1: though his victims can't get combat related benefits or received
Speaker 1: Purple Hearts because the attack was considered workplace violence and
Speaker 1: not combat. The labeling or specific not labeling of terrorists
Speaker 1: isn't a particularly new phenomenon. More than thirty years ago,
Speaker 1: then President Ronald Reagan pushed a foreign policy that included
Speaker 1: financial backing for a group of so called freedom fighters
Speaker 1: and Nicaragua the Contras. Some accused the United States of
Speaker 1: state backed terrorism. Many other presidents and heads of state
Speaker 1: all over the world have taken similar steps in the
Speaker 1: name of national interest. The objection to calling someone a
Speaker 1: terrorist lies largely within the word itself terrorism. Dr Kramer said,
Speaker 1: it's a loaded term. It's meant to make somebody evil.
Speaker 1: When everybody after this last incident notices that Trump wouldn't
Speaker 1: use terrorism. After Charlottesville, where a white supremacist killed counterprotester
Speaker 1: head their hair on August twelve, seventeen and immediately uses
Speaker 1: it After New York it was like, Wow, we only
Speaker 1: use it from Muslim or dark skinned people. That's why
Speaker 1: this is coming up all the time. It's loaded. It's
Speaker 1: probably not surprising that many politicians, not just the president,
Speaker 1: used the concept of terror as a way to influence
Speaker 1: minds and gain votes. The defeat of the terrorist Islamic
Speaker 1: State was a big issue in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: Immigration reform has also been tied to keeping terrorists from
Speaker 1: our shores. Dr Cramer said that's why politicians use the word,
Speaker 1: but academics try not to. They're trying to win supporters
Speaker 1: and make sides. Academics are trying to analyze things. That's
Speaker 1: the difference. Today's episode was written by John Donovan and
Speaker 1: produced by Tristan McNeil and Tyler Clang. For more on
Speaker 1: this and lots of other political topics, visit how Stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. Brain Stuff is a production of Our
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Or more podcasts in my heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.