30 Crimes the Government Chooses to Not Label Terrorism

time_bombjpgWe recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.

The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.

Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:

  1. Plotting to assassinate the president.
  2. Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
  3. Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
  4. Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
  5. Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
  6. Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
  7. Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
  8. Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
  9. Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
  10. Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
  11. Making bomb threats on an airplane.
  12. Impersonating an armed federal agent.
  13. Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
  14. Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
  15. Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
  16. Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
  17. Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
  18. Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
  19. Kidnapping 3 children.
  20. Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
  21. Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
  22. Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
  23. Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
  24. Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
  25. A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
  26. Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
  27. Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
  28. Stealing cattle for personal profit.
  29. Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
  30. Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”

Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?

Related posts:

  • Joe
    Will, I think you need to look at the definition of terrorism again. Terrorism -the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

    Many of the crimes listed are hate crimes which have punishments enhancements if found guilty. Many of them are just crimes, trying to buy a 9 year old for sex is a very disgusting crime and should carry a sentence of stoning but it does not try to force any political change.

    AR terrorist use violence and arson of try and force other to live as they do, none of the crimes you have listed seem to do that. They are just crimes.


    BTW, I hope you are feeling better and back on your feet, hopefully you had someone to make you chicken soup while you were sick.
  • Joe:

    It's quite convenient to want to define terrorism so broadly as to include non-violent civil disobedience and home protests, then want to define it so narrowly as not other acts that "intimidate or coerce" for political purposes.

    It's interesting to me that you think things like buying a child for sex are "just crimes," but you consistently post on this website absolutely outraged by the "terrorism" of property destruction.
  • Lin
    WOW....radio silence for a month and then BAM!!! Three articles right in a row. I'm glad to see you're back.
  • Thanks Lin!
  • Joe
    Will

    I never said that buying a child was a lesser crime than threatening violence on researchers, but buying a child for sex does not force political change. Trying to put a research lab out of business by threatening the employees and their families who work there can.
  • kevin
    Joe:

    perhaps then do you think we should reconsider our ideas of terrorism and the sentencing that comes along with a terrorism charge? its quite disturbing but clear now that a person like eric mcdavid(who is now serving a 20 yr sentence for a conspiracy charge) is going to spend more time behind bars than a child rapist. why should whether or not he was promoting a certain political agenda play any role in his sentencing?

    i havent looked at all those 30 crimes too closely but im sure a large portion(including the recent murder of Dr George Tiller)were committed to promote a right-wing political agenda that will never include any mentioning of the word terrorism. strange. perhaps because erics acts hit the wallets of rich white men while scott roeders act of murder affected largely poor women...now if you cant see the contradictions behind the governments agenda espeically after this recent murder you must be pretty naive, joe.
  • Excellent list! Thank you.
  • Dave
    Joe, beating black people for voting or for being black isn't politically motivated?
  • I don't know about Joe's other comments, but I have to agree that terrorism is generally supposed to indicate frightening crimes meant to change people's behavior or have political influence.

    Here's a good example from today's news:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/hal-tu...

    Personally I'm in favor of protecting animals, regardless of how its labeled.
  • Beating black voters, mailing anthrax to politicians and presidential candidates, smuggling surface-to-air-rockets, none of that is intended to have a political influence? Seriously?

    I included the other examples, which are the minority of the list, in order to show how backwards all of this is. Committing these very serious, evil crimes for personal gain, greed or indulgence is, as Joe said, "just a crime." Meanwhile, acting to create positive social change--either through non-violent civil disobedience, property destruction, or even leafletting--is being labeled as "terrorism." I think things couldn't be more upside down.
  • I also thought it was a great article and immediately forwarded it to all my contacts. I just meant to say that I thought, from this list, the violent crimes actually fitting the standard definition of terrorism but are not treated as such by the authorities, make your point better than the others. Not that its wrong to include the others; I can also see the point if that.
  • joe, by your logic the war in iraq was terrorism because it forced political change.
    there is over 100 definitions for the word terrorism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terr...
  • BB
    GOVERNMENT'S COVERT, BUT TRUE, DEFINITION OF TERRORISM:
    ANY act which threatens to take political or corporate power/profits from the status quo.
  • BB:
    I think that's a great point, and helps explain the label not being applied to Tiller's murder: struggling to take power away from the government or corporations is terrorism, struggling to take power away from women is business as usual.
  • addie
    Joe--I know what you mean, the label, "terrorist, "has been, overwhelmingly, broadly used by government and police officials in the US.
    It is called spin, like If you call people in Afghanistan terrorists then people wont mind that we are bombing those citizens to whatever was before the stone age.

    Anyway, when I read an Associated press article titled, "Anti-abortion Activist Charged with Murder," I had a heart attack.

    This jerk, allegedly, murdered a man.
    Activist?
    The Green River Killer wanted to rid the world of prostitutes, was he an activist? I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

    Peace out--
    Addie
  • Greg
    obviously something is terrorism only if it's against the government or corporations
  • Greg, I think you nailed it.
  • addie
    I meant to make those comments to Will Potter, not Joe, although I was trying to answer some of Joe's mistakes, as I see them, in my response to Mr. Potter.

    sorry and thanks:)
    Addie
  • Joe: so animal testing or logging is "not political" but protesting it is "political"?
    by what criterion do you make this distinction?

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k1HsPh3JxiU/Sdv8rs7xZ...
  • Joe
    xvxdavexvx, animal testing and logging are not political....they are just jobs that need to be done.
  • Trish
    Joe, I think many could contest that animal testing and logging are jobs that *need* to be done.
  • Joe
    Trish, so cures for cancer and wood for homes are things we do not need?
  • Trish
    You assume the only material a home can be built from is wood and that the only way to find a cure for cancer is by first testing it on animals.
  • razor
    joe,

    must be a blissful life, believing and buying into everything mainstream society has taught you is Truth.
  • Joe
    Razor, it would be more blissful if I didn't have to worry about some eco-terrorist planting a bomb at the office where my wife and I work.
  • hunter
    “…animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone.”

    I beg to differ. Arson, theft, stalking and bombing are criminal activities. The animal rights may think that supporting or carry out crimes against those that oppose them or those that they have chosen as their enemy is not a crime but it is.

    The animal rights activist who sent threatening letters to my office, stalked my children and my wife, all because I hunt and like to eat meat, is a criminal and quite rightly ended up in prison.
  • @Hunter:

    You quoted me as saying that these activists have never harmed anyone. I've never said the actions you listed are not illegal.

    Also: Sorry, but I'm not buying that animal rights activists "stalked your children" because you eat meat. Who is this individual? If they ended up in prison, I'm sure you can point to some news article or court document.
  • VR
    Poor Joe, he happily buys into everything he is told. Animal experimentation has not and will not cure cancer:

    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-against...

    Sometimes I think that it would be easier to be like Joe; buying into everything one is told makes one less conflicted, requires less thought and action and makes for a great nights sleep.
  • tamaraehawk
    ahem.. i am a libertarian so i have no horse in this race other than justice and Liberty.. however, i feel compelled to correct you by sending you to the following DHS report:
    http://docs.ekrub.net/hsaradicals_orig.pdf
    and its supplementary lexicon:
    http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-do...
    if you are unfamiliar with these reports, then i suggest reviewing the lexicon FIRST, but please.. the truth is horrifying enough WITHOUT bloggers deliberately misleading people
    Peace
  • tamaraehawk:
    Yes, I've read both of those, and have written about them. Please point to any of the 30 above examples where the word terrorism is used. It's one thing to note that right wing extremists are part of a government lexicon, along with many others, and it's quite another to see *any* terrorism rhetoric or charges used against them play out in the real world.
  • The government won't label anything as "terrorism" if they agree with it. Although some won't admit it, alot of them agree with the murder of Dr. Tiller.
blog comments powered by Disqus