Why police aren't calling Austin bombing suspect Mark Anthony Conditt a terrorist
A crime is classified as terrorism only if it is politically motivated.
Authorities don't yet know why Austin bomber Mark Anthony Conditt planted explosive devices around the city, sending ripples of terror through Texas' capital. That means they cannot determine whether he was, in fact, a terrorist — though many say he ought to be called one.
According to the federal government's definition, a crime is classified as terrorism only if it is politically motivated. With the motive for the package bombings still unclear, experts say authorities are being appropriately cautious in not calling the bomber a terrorist.
"What occurred in Austin in the past few weeks certainly, without a doubt, terrorized people," said Bruce Hoffman, a senior visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "Inside Terrorism." "But just inducing fear and anxiety is insufficient to say that it's terrorism. Terrorizing and terrorism are two different things."
In a 25-minute video confession Conditt recorded before he blew himself up as authorities closed in on him on Wednesday, Austin police chief Brian Manley said Conditt did "not at all mention anything about terrorism or anything about hate."
That left authorities with no clues about whether the attacks, several of which seemed to target minorities, were hate crimes, terrorism or something else.
Hate crimes can overlap with terrorism, but not always, said Chuck Strozier, director of the Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Racist motivations are not necessarily political," Strozier said, "unless you find on his computer that he's been going to neo-Nazi websites and seeing the violence and read right-wing propaganda."
Under that scenario, Strozier said, the bombings could be seen as "a process that would lead to a greater race war."
"Then I think there would be no question of whether it would be appropriate to start talking about it as terrorism," he said.
Even without evidence of that kind, there have been growing demands to call Conditt a terrorist.
On Monday, before Conditt was publicly identified as a suspect, three members of the Congressional Black Caucus requested in a joint statement that the bombings be classified as "ongoing terrorist attacks." A day later, University of Texas at Austin police Chief David Carter told The Dallas Morning News that "whatever you call it, technically under federal law or anything, it is clearly a terrorist act."
After it was revealed that the man behind the bombings was white, the calls grew louder. Pakistani-American comedian Kumail Nanjiani tweeted, "If this terrorist bomber was a brown guy, my mom wouldn’t be able to leave her house for a week." And political comedian Tim Young tweeted: "Did anyone call the Austin Bomber a domestic terrorist? Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and religions."
The calls for Conditt to be considered a terrorist follow criticism of how and when President Donald Trump has used the word "terrorism" in the past. Critics say he has been quick to use the word when suspects are Muslim, but appears reluctant to use it otherwise. Those concerns peaked last August, when members of Trump's own party, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., slammed Trump for not calling a deadly confrontation at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "domestic terrorism."
In the case of the Austin bombings, the White House said this week that the attacks did not appear to be terrorism. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted Tuesday that Trump was mourning the victims and added, "There is no apparent nexus to terrorism at this time."
Tags
Who is online
451 visitors
Throughout the week I have read comments regarding the lack of labeling the Austin bomber as a terrorist - many may not like it, but this appears to be the answer...
And it is the correct answer. Let's not dilute the definition.
I agree, yet many do not see it that way. Just as Americans need be hyphenated, so it would seem terrorism needs to be labeled in hyphenated degrees .. racism is even labeled in varying degrees - were you aware that there ordinary racists and extreme racists?
.
*not trying to derail my own topic, I am just sincerely curious as to why labels are needed
Labels are useful to characterize motive which is useful in developing countermeasures.
Okay, I did a lil research of 'characterize motivation or motive' .. I can see that learning what makes one tick is important .. it is a tool of profiling. So labeling does make a bit more sense as it then provides a 'generalized view' of who the individual is that is being sought...
Thank you Cerenlov...
"Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants."
I think that those who would commit acts of evil on others deserve to be labeled.
Cannot argue with you Greg, I am just curious as to why it makes a difference? Does it have anything to do with a feel good moment to label others in order to feel better about ones self - 'I' am / 'we' are somehow different/superior to the individual that is labeled?
These are labels .. mass shooter, rapist, terrorist, pedophile, serial killer, murderer, racist, bigot, RWNJ (list goes on) - and if there is not a specific category that comes to ones mind then some are just plain criminals, Republicans, Democrats etc... and these are only a subsection of labels
"Does it have anything to do with a feel good moment to label others in order to feel better about ones self - 'I' am / 'we' are somehow different/superior to the individual that is labeled?"
No I don't think so, in my opinion it's just calling a spade a spade. If you mean those of us who wouldn't commit acts like this young man, then yes, I am/we are fundamentally different.
Good point, I was not thinking along those lines .. I was thinking along the lines of labels always seeming to be a negative / put down to others... I guess there is a certain amount of separation needed between the 'bad' guys and the 'good' guys. Cannot help but wonder if it is truly necessary though.
I will have to let it go .. as I said "I am sure it is just me, but I have really never seen the purpose of labeling individuals."
Thanks for the input Greg
I think it probably stems from protection of the tribe/herd. Threats both perceived and real needed to be identified and labeled so everyone was aware.
Perhaps there is where I have drawn my line is on the perceived tribal threat needing a label... I am more clan oriented : )
...
my gosh there is a label for everything under the sun .. Bing/Google ... Clan v Tribe .. : )
In my experience, once my mom passed .. blood has not been my strongest allies.
I'm sorry to hear that. I just assumed that was what you meant by being more clan oriented.
Ultimately it all breaks down to more labels of varying degrees ... seems one can never truly get away from societal labeling ....
Probably true Greg but the definition was broadened so that government investigators then don't have to pay attention to those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments. They can get away with just about anything if they call it terrorism. They did much the same thing by mislabeling other crimes as drug crimes. That designation makes the rules much looser.
He's Dead. As he should be. Who gives a shit what you call it as long as he's done, for good?
Agreed Spikegary .. that part of why as I asking what difference does it make if he is labeled a terrorist or not..
You'd never be that ambivalent if he'd have belonged to a group you consider an enemy, though.
Remember when Trump and republicans said this every day?
Yeah okay...
Daesh and AQ are terrorist organizations, for political combined with religious reasons. Daesh established a Caliphate through violence in the name of their bastardized version of Islam... Daesh is the definition of a Radical Islamic Terrorist organization...
As far as the rest of the babble from the current President I do not 'hang on' very many things that he or the members of Congress have to say - does not matter which side of the aisle is speaking, it is all pretty much BS lies..
I am sure it is just me, but I have really never seen the purpose of labeling individuals. I can recall all the yelping over the former President not calling out radical Islam nor labeling things as terrorism - it is merely words, what difference does it make?
Forget when you and Trump held THIS belief in labels?
Can you please show me where / when I held this belief? I have been anti labels for a very long time ... I do not believe that I had anything to say about the Orlando shooter as being a radical anything. Nor do I believe that I even once said anything regarding Obama resigning for not labeling ...
I will wait for the evidence, that will verify your claim regarding my beliefs.
While he may not have committed the attacks in the name of Christian Conservatism, to deny that he wasn't influenced by his open Christian Conservative values is disingenuous at best.
He was also part of a Christian survivalist group, which are known for breeding extremism.
Do you have any links that show the "breeding of extremism" .. the information I read yesterday did not seem to support extremism - the group consists of Christian preppers...
Preppers in general are a pretty extreme element politically or socially, aren't they? And, in numbers they seem to lean much more to the right than left.
"Survivalist" is listed as a Terrorist/Extremist term by the DOJ.
The bomber was part of a Survivalist group.
Preppers are a tight knit group, rather secretive - not sure that I would call them extreme, yet I can see how some would label them as extreme. Their social network is different for sure.
I do not think that politics necessarily play a role in the conservatism of the preppers - it is more a way of life than a political statement.
Thanks for the link Unchained ..
I have to leave for a wee bit - I will be back soon and will then have a chance to read...
I linked to a few articles concerning Conditt's survivalism but got ignored....
Not unsurprising, unfortunately. It's interesting that they demand proof and when proof is provided, they either refuse to read it or automatically dismiss it even if it's from a reliable source.
Credit does go to those who read the sources, though, like Colour.
mmmm......
This is the definition from the link ..
I do not think I understand how survivalists make the DOJ Terrorism Criminal Extreme Term list ... this a dictionary of terms that the government tracks?
Did you read this in the link?
or this?
I read the links you provided yesterday Trout Giggles .. they did not provide any more proof of a terrorist organization (or that the Austin bomber was radicalized) than the DOJ Terrorism Criminal Extreme Term list does..
Just wanted you to know that your links were not ignored.
That twenty minute video, or at least a transcript, needs to be made public. We can't let the "very challenged young man" be all we get to know about what Conditt said. What was so "challenging" in his life that put him on his murderous path to address? I definitely don't think he has to have had some kind of a "manifesto" or specific racist or phobic words in order to be considered a terrorist.
I am sure it will be leaked soon ... From links I have read, there is not much to the 25 minute "confession" .. he shows no remorse, had personal problems and goes into detail about the bombs he built, as well as detail over how the bombs differed from each other.....
Terrorism is a tactic of war. There is no evidence he sought to overthrow the government or supported a foreign entity hostile to the US
Making up self-serving definitions like that is a tactic of the morally bereft.
Terrorism is a tactic of practicing war against the most vulnerable part of society. Regardless of his motivation, he was most definitely a terrorist.
He's not a terrorist if he had no message. It's that simple. He's just a mass murderer.
Tim McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski didn't seek to overthrow the federal government but they were both domestic terrorist. The same goes for the Klan and Neo-nazis who seek to use physical force to change public policy.
He was a white male and espoused conservatives ideas so he was labeled mentally ill instead of being a domestic terrorist.
No. He didn't espouse any terrorist goals. So he wasn't a terrorist. Language is not that hard.
Sometimes terrorist goals are just to spread terror.
They need to try and find out why the first bombs were placed in black neighborhoods. That's not really something that was done by chance.
Right away people wanted the president to call this terrorism but these words mean something. Media people were calling it terrorism even though they know better - or should. Not every bomb or shooting is terrorism, just like not every crime against a minority is a hate crime.
His conservative views per se cannot make him a "terrorist".
The fact that he evidently was part of a "survivalist" orientated Christian youth group gets you a little closer, but again is not "proof" of terrorist inclinations.
Let's see what comes out as the investigation proceeds. Hopefully top investigative journalists are looking into this as well, and not entirely leaving it to the police in Texas.