WEBVTT - What Is (and Isn't) Terrorism?

0:00:02.040 --> 0:00:07.280
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works, Hey, brain Stuff,

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:10.319
<v Speaker 1>Lauren vogelbam here. When the news of another mass murder

0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:12.840
<v Speaker 1>in the United States breaks, people are forced to stumble

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:16.640
<v Speaker 1>their way through a series of inescapable emotions. The psychological stages,

0:00:16.800 --> 0:00:19.079
<v Speaker 1>much like the well known stages of grief, go something

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 1>like this, shock, revulsion, fear, curiosity, anxiety, anger, numbness, and

0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 1>finally depression and perhaps acceptance. Somewhere along that arc two

0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:34.880
<v Speaker 1>comes the inevitable question was it terrorism? The question is

0:00:34.920 --> 0:00:37.960
<v Speaker 1>way more easily asked than answered. That's partially because the

0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:40.800
<v Speaker 1>legal definition of the word terrorism is as murky as

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>the motivations of the people who commit these drastic crimes.

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 1>We talked with Dr Jane Kramer, a professor of political

0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:49.960
<v Speaker 1>science at the University of Oregon. She told us every

0:00:50.040 --> 0:00:54.400
<v Speaker 1>terrorism textbook and every terrorism class begins with the definition problem.

0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:57.920
<v Speaker 1>Most people have to be satisfied with no definition. The

0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:01.280
<v Speaker 1>Miriam Webster rizing of the term terrorism has become so tricky,

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:04.560
<v Speaker 1>in fact, so fraught with politics and legal pitfalls, that

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>even after decades of trying, the United Nations can't come

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:10.560
<v Speaker 1>up with an agreement on what constitutes terrorism or what

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:14.399
<v Speaker 1>a terrorist is that's not all that surprising, maybe, considering

0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:17.199
<v Speaker 1>that what one group might call a cowardly and despicable act,

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:20.920
<v Speaker 1>another might term a patriotic or even holy duty. At

0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.000
<v Speaker 1>least within the borders of the United States, the legal

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 1>definition seems a little less troublesome. Several federal laws list

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:29.160
<v Speaker 1>some variation of the terms, but the US Code of

0:01:29.200 --> 0:01:33.479
<v Speaker 1>Federal Regulations defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 1>and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 1>a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:46.679
<v Speaker 1>furtherance of political or social objectives. Still, even among Americans,

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:49.920
<v Speaker 1>it's not that easy. When an avowed white supremacist killed

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 1>nine black members of a church in Charleston, South Carolina,

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:57.200
<v Speaker 1>on June seventeenth, it was immediately considered by most as

0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>a hate crime and a terroristic act, but then FBI

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>Director James Comey wouldn't call it terrorism. In a press

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.880
<v Speaker 1>conference three days after the shooting, he said terrorism is

0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:09.840
<v Speaker 1>violence done or threatened in order to try to influence

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:11.959
<v Speaker 1>a public body or citizen, So it's more of a

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.320
<v Speaker 1>political act. Again, based on what I know, I don't

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.800
<v Speaker 1>see it as a political act. The unwillingness to immediately

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:21.959
<v Speaker 1>flagged people like this perpetrator as terrorists, or even the

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:24.600
<v Speaker 1>Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty eight and wounded another

0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 1>five hundred plus on October one seen, can wrankle those

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:32.079
<v Speaker 1>who see the issue, often falling along racial and religious lines.

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:35.560
<v Speaker 1>For example, when a native of Uzbekistan killed eight people

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 1>in New York City on October thirty one seen by

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 1>driving a rented truck into pedestrians and cyclists, the FBI

0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:46.800
<v Speaker 1>slapped federal terrorism charges on him in less than two days. Officially,

0:02:46.840 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>tagging acts like this as terrorism or not requires thought

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:54.440
<v Speaker 1>towards the legal and moral implications. For example, no terrorism

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:57.760
<v Speaker 1>charges were filed against Army major Nidal Hassan, who killed

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, in two thous and nine,

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:03.760
<v Speaker 1>even though Hassan told investigators that he shot the soldiers

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:07.280
<v Speaker 1>because they were quote going against the Islamic Empire. According

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 1>to The New York Times, the reasoning the Army could

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.480
<v Speaker 1>more easily and swiftly try him on charges of murder

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:16.400
<v Speaker 1>and attempted murder without the hassle of proving he was

0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:20.040
<v Speaker 1>a terrorist. Hassan is now in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, awaiting

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:23.080
<v Speaker 1>execution after being convicted of thirteen counts of murder and

0:03:23.120 --> 0:03:26.920
<v Speaker 1>thirty two counts of attempted murder without designated Hassan a terrorist,

0:03:27.040 --> 0:03:30.480
<v Speaker 1>though his victims can't get combat related benefits or receive

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:33.960
<v Speaker 1>purple Hearts because the attack was considered workplace violence and

0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:38.119
<v Speaker 1>not combat. The labeling or specific not labeling of terrorists

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:41.200
<v Speaker 1>isn't a particularly new phenomenon. More than thirty years ago,

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:44.200
<v Speaker 1>then President Ronald Reagan pushed a foreign policy that included

0:03:44.200 --> 0:03:46.640
<v Speaker 1>financial backing for a group of so called freedom fighters

0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:50.120
<v Speaker 1>in Nicaragua, the Contras. Some accused the United States of

0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:53.520
<v Speaker 1>state backed terrorism. Many other presidents and heads of state

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>all over the world have taken similar steps in the

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 1>name of national interest. The objection to calling someone a

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 1>terrorist lies law atally within the word itself terrorism. Dr

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Kramer said, it's a loaded term. It's meant to make

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>somebody evil. When everybody after this last incident notices that

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump wouldn't use terrorism after Charlottesville, where a white supremacist

0:04:12.960 --> 0:04:17.719
<v Speaker 1>killed counterprotester head their hair on August twelve, and immediately

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>uses it. After New York, it was like, Wow, we

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.760
<v Speaker 1>only use it from Muslim or dark skinned people. That's

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:25.840
<v Speaker 1>why this is coming up all the time. It's loaded.

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:29.880
<v Speaker 1>It's probably not surprising that many politicians, not just the president,

0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:32.160
<v Speaker 1>used the concept of terror as a way to influence

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:35.279
<v Speaker 1>minds and gain votes. The defeat of the terrorist Islamic

0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:38.240
<v Speaker 1>State was a big issue in the tween election. Immigration

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>reform has also been tied to keeping terrorists from our shores.

0:04:41.880 --> 0:04:44.960
<v Speaker 1>Dr Cramer said that's why politicians use the word, but

0:04:45.040 --> 0:04:47.880
<v Speaker 1>academics try not to. They're trying to win supporters and

0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 1>make sides. Academics are trying to analyze things. That's the difference.

0:04:57.120 --> 0:04:59.560
<v Speaker 1>Today's episode was written by John Donovan and produced by

0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:01.720
<v Speaker 1>Tristan Signal. For more on this and lots of other

0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:04.920
<v Speaker 1>political science topics, visit our home planet, how Stuff Works

0:05:05.040 --> 0:05:16.680
<v Speaker 1>dot com. M