Speaker 1: Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works, Hey, brain Stuff,
Speaker 1: Lauren vogelbam here. When the news of another mass murder
Speaker 1: in the United States breaks, people are forced to stumble
Speaker 1: their way through a series of inescapable emotions. The psychological stages,
Speaker 1: much like the well known stages of grief, go something
Speaker 1: like this, shock, revulsion, fear, curiosity, anxiety, anger, numbness, and
Speaker 1: finally depression and perhaps acceptance. Somewhere along that arc two
Speaker 1: comes the inevitable question was it terrorism? The question is
Speaker 1: way more easily asked than answered. That's partially because the
Speaker 1: legal definition of the word terrorism is as murky as
Speaker 1: 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 Webster rizing 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 Comey wouldn't call it terrorism. In a press
Speaker 1: conference three days after the shooting, he said terrorism is
Speaker 1: violence done or threatened in order to try to influence
Speaker 1: a public body or citizen, So it's more of a
Speaker 1: political act. Again, based on what I know, I don't
Speaker 1: see it as a political act. The unwillingness to immediately
Speaker 1: flagged people like this perpetrator as terrorists, or even the
Speaker 1: Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty eight and wounded another
Speaker 1: five hundred plus on October one seen, can wrankle 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 thirty one seen by
Speaker 1: driving a rented truck into pedestrians and cyclists, the FBI
Speaker 1: slapped federal 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 thous and 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 receive
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: in 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 law atally within the word itself terrorism. Dr
Speaker 1: Kramer said, it's a loaded term. It's meant to make
Speaker 1: somebody evil. When everybody after this last incident notices that
Speaker 1: Trump wouldn't use terrorism after Charlottesville, where a white supremacist
Speaker 1: killed counterprotester head their hair on August twelve, and immediately
Speaker 1: uses it. After New York, it was like, Wow, we
Speaker 1: only use it from Muslim or dark skinned people. That's
Speaker 1: why this is coming up all the time. It's loaded.
Speaker 1: It's 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 tween election. Immigration
Speaker 1: reform has also been tied to keeping terrorists from our shores.
Speaker 1: Dr Cramer said that's why politicians use the word, but
Speaker 1: academics try not to. They're trying to win supporters and
Speaker 1: make sides. Academics are trying to analyze things. That's the difference.
Speaker 1: Today's episode was written by John Donovan and produced by
Speaker 1: Tristan Signal. For more on this and lots of other
Speaker 1: political science topics, visit our home planet, how Stuff Works
Speaker 1: dot com. M