Terrorism Definitions—Increased Discussion

As we noted months ago, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. The discussion of what, precisely, constitutes terrorism has typically been conducted outside the public view. That is beginning to change, first with Senator John Cornyn’s attempts to link gangs with terrorism, and now with people wondering whether school shootings should be treated as terrorism.^[1] As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asks, “is it time to classify these acts as domestic terrorism?”^[2]

Clearly, as terrorism is defined in the United States, these were not terrorist acts; the murders at the Amish school seemed to have no political purpose, and revenge seemed to be driving the murder of a principal who gave his eventual shooter “a disciplinary warning for having tobacco on school grounds.”^[3] (Of course, these are suppositions, as neither of these cases have been fully adjudicated.) Furthermore, as an FBI spokesman, Bill Carter, states, “if a person is murdered at Fifth and Main, people will fear walking on Fifth and Main late at night. I causes fear, so you can use the traditional definition of terrorism. But we look at terrorism under the legal definition.”^[4] The legal definition states that terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population, or to affect the conduct of government.^[5] Nonetheless, some people have gone so far as to question “whether a threat-level system should be introduced for school shootings, like one in place for terrorist activity.”^[6]

This discussion, however, likely has no easy answer. During a speech at the University of Texas, Hans Arnold—Germany’s former ambassador to the Netherlands, Italy, and the UN—noted that the participants of the Boston Tea Party were viewed as patriots in the Colonies, while they were viewed as terrorists by the British Crown.^[7] This might be slightly imprecise; according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the word “terrorism” first occurred in the 1790s, typically used to describe activities during the French Revolution.^[8] The point remains, however, as the American insurrectionists were often referred to as “incendiaries,” with one American sympathizer, James Aitken (perhaps better known as John the Painter), committing an arson-spree in England during the years of the American Revolution.^[9] This terrorist vs. freedom-fighter paradigm has long created controversy, and it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

---

[1] See, e.g., Dealing With Terrorism in School Halls, Janesville Gazette, Oct. 4, 2006; Pete Alfano, Experts Debate “Terrorism” Label, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Oct. 5, 2006.
[2] Alfano, supra note 1.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. (emphasis in original).
[5] 18 U.S.C. § 2331.
[6] Alfano, supra note 1.
[7] Jessica A. Frescas, Perceptions Make Terrorism Hard to Combat, Speaker Says, Daily Texan, Oct. 5, 2006.
[8] Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989).
[9] See Jessica Warner, The Incendiary: The Misadventures of John the Painter, First Modern Terrorist (2005) (also titled John the Painter: Terrorist of the American Revolution (2004)).