«
»

3 Reasons Why Murdering an Abortion Doctor Isn’t Being Called “Terrorism”

Jun 2nd, 2009 by Will Potter

A t-shirt from ChristianShirts.net.

A t-shirt from ChristianShirts.net.

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was murdered inside his church on Sunday, and the only suspect is Scott Roeder, a man The New York Times said “had professed an anti-government, anti-abortion philosophy.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the murder an “abhorrent act of violence,” but he hasn’t used the word “terrorism.” Not once.

Why?

As a bit of context, if you’re new to this website, the FBI labels the animal rights and environmental movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” even though those activists have never harmed a human being. At the very worst, underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have released animals from fur farms, destroyed SUVs and set fire to empty buildings.

When animal rights activists or environmental activists are arrested, though, the government immediately sends out press releases and holds press conferences trumpeting the arrest of “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists.”

So it’s pretty startling that government hasn’t used the T-word, considering that we’re talking about murder, and, as James Ridgeway notes over at Mother Jones, Roeder was also arrested in 1996 with ammunition, gunpowder, a blasting cap, and a fuse chord in his car. He was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. (By contrast, the SHAC 7 received years in prison for running a website).

What gives? Why hasn’t the murder of an abortion provider been labeled “terrorism”?

  • It’s not a threat to profits. Time and again, we’ve seen that a driving force behind the domestic “War on Terrorism” is protecting corporate interests. The ELF, ALF and above-ground, lawful activists all directly target profits. As the Department of Homeland Security said in a memo, “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.” Similarly, the State Department has warned corporations how to protect their profits from “eco-terrorists.”
  • Health clinics and nonprofits don’t have the lobbying power of multinational corporations. NOW is already pushing to label this crime as “terrorism.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they also push legislation to label anti-abortion violence as terrorism. The problem, though, is that groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood don’t have the political influence (read: money) as Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and all the other multinational corporations who push “eco-terrorism” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
  • It’s not threatening the “American way of life.” In my reporting I’ve found that the word “terrorism” is typically applied to two types of crimes. The first are crimes that go up the chain of power (so, for example, the U.S. military bombing civilians is not terrorism, but an Iraqi civilian bombing the military is).

    The second are crimes that challenge dominant American values. Let me explain: Attacking African American voters is not terrorism, right-wingers like Chuck Norris calling for armed revolution is not terrorism, Timothy McVeigh bombing the Oklahoma City building is not terrorism. Why? Because the values behind all of those actions– racism, capitalism, and Christian fundamentalism—are business as usual.

    So, for example, if Dr. Tiller had been murdered by Muslim extremists proclaiming jihad against the West, the government would be labeling this “terrorism.” The exact same crime committed by Christian extremists is merely a “wicked deed in Wichita”

Related posts:

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Terrorism Definitions

  • Kee
    While this post brings up some good points, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion. Terrorism is a very complex issue, and its definition is still open to debate. However, most scholars agree that three criteria must be present in order for an act of violence to be considered terrorism:

    1. Terrorists are non-state actors: Under international law, only states have the ability to use "legitimate force". This means that acts of violence committed by individuals or groups not affiliated with any government are not valid and can potentially be considered terrorism. (On a side note, this is why the US military's actions in Iraq are not considered terrorism like the post suggests they should be. Since the military is a state actor, it is by definition excluded from being a terrorist actor.)

    2. Terrorists use violence for a political purpose.

    3. Terrorism involves seemingly random acts of violence against people (usually civilians). Targets generally have no strong connection to the political purpose the terrorists are trying to support.

    Dr. Tiller's murder fits the first two criteria: the killer was a non-state actor, and he was motivated by a political, anti-abortion agenda. However, Dr. Tiller was specifically singled out for being a high-profile abortion provider. His murder was hardly a random act against an uninvolved target. For this reason, Dr. Tiller's murder would be more accurately considered a political assassination rather than an act of terrorism. It's a simple matter of definition rather than a semantics game motivated by some sinister agenda.
  • melissawf
    I would compare this Roeder guy to Ted Kaczinski. Different areas of "activism" but same type of situation. One person who took their "passion" too far. I don't know if one exception to a whole activist group could be coined an act of terrorism which you would generally associate with an organized group of people whether it be 2 people or 100 or whatever.
  • Denis Alexander, can you give us an example, a link, some kind of proof, or anything that says the SHAC7 were "blowing up cars and setting homes on fire at UCSC" ?
  • simon
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_us...
    From the AP on 6/7/09

    Suspect in Kan. doctor's death warns of violence:

    "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said.

    again....how is this not terrorism?
  • VR
    Thanks Will. What is most ironic is that all the "liberals" on Rachel's show warned about using the terrorist/terrorism label too freely. Except, apparently when it comes to animal activists and enviros.
  • VR
    Great job Will - thank you!

    Rachel Maddow, from The Rachel Maddow Show, has been calling Dr. Tiller's murder "domestic terrorism." She also questioned why his killer was not picked up by the FBI before he killed. Another clinic had twice reported the killer to the FBI just prior Dr. Tiller's murder. I emailed Rachel to say they were too busy arresting animal activists for chalking sidewalks. Also, since the SHAC 7 were jailed for running a website, why aren't those who targetted Dr. Tiller via the Internet getting locked up; you should see their websites! What do you think about your reaching out to Rachel Maddow about this issue?
  • VR:
    I reached out to them about the Communications Management Units and the AETA 4 arrests, and got some interest (but nothing happened).
  • Carolyn Marie Fugit
    Dr. Tiller's clinic was just down the street from me. When I found out about his death Sunday afternoon, I was shocked, and I still haven't recovered. I follow a lot of what is being said online, and I can say that calling his assassination "terrorism" is something that many mainstream media people don't want to do because it expresses an opinion, the opinion that the people protesting his clinic are associated with terrorism. As opposed to "peaceful" demonstrations. They don't want to call people who wish they could be outside those clinics "terrorists". Only the most ardent will call Roeder and Operation Rescue [West] "terrorists," and even our near-constant local media doesn't say "assassination" very often (though it certainly fits the definition very clearly).

    Even though others mention the vandalism of ALF and ELF (and elsewhere home protests), it is interesting to note in the 40 or so years of ELF and Earth First and the likes, -no one- has died. In the early days of the anti-abortion movement, they carefully timed their clinic bombings so as to not hurt providers or patients. But in the 90's, it moved up. Until then, some of the tactics of the anti-abortion movement and animal rights activists were quite similar. I personally hate that Operation Rescue regularly stalks clinic workers and try to use their neighbors to harass them. If it bothers me there, then it bothers me when animal rights activists do it (and I'm certainly sympathetic to AR but not anti-abortion). I'm not pleased with all of the actions of AR activists, but I'm certainly more sympathetic. They're trying to save lives immediately.

    Which is why the anti-abortion rhetoric brings out people who start shooting providers. But not calling it domestic terrorism certainly doesn't keep them from doing it. So long as they're just lone people who aren't egged on by the national media ...

    It is interesting to be on the sidelines of the greatest domestic terrorist threat while having never hurt -anyone- and then sitting down the street from a terrorist act and having it not recognized.
  • well...
    peaceful AR activists and peaceful pro-life activists have much more in common than some people may think. we all get a bad name from those who use violence in the name of their cause, we are all being treated as potential terrorists. many peaceful pro-life activists have been arrested, just like the peaceful AR folks.

    it is becoming clear to me that the real enemy is violence. late term abortions are violent. animal cruelty is violent. killing abortionists is violent. blowing up buildings is violent. all of it only begets more of the same.
  • Denis Alexander
    Well, we'll see what the jury thinks... I bet a beer this will go like the SHAC trial. Same situation: the jury could easily see through the actions of the so-called activists and decided their actions were not protected by the first amendment... and you know very well that blowing up cars and setting homes on fire at UCSC is not "civil disobedience", it is attempted murder. Coming from the extreme right or left, terrorism is terrorism... and the 99% of the country in the middle should not tolerate that. I'll be back to collect my beer after the trial.
  • Denis Alexander
    First, I agree with you -- I believe the Tiller's case should clearly be branded a case of terrorism. But I also believe the AETA 4 were part of a gang that had nothing else in mind but to terrorize and intimidate researchers, and that's what they are charged with. They were not trying to educate the public about animal research. They only intended to achieve their political goals by threats and intimidation. That my friend, is called terrorism. So yes, both are cases of terrorism... there is no doubt about it.
  • Activism isn't always about educating the public, often it is about having a real, strategic impacts on the selected targets. For instance, using non-violent civil disobedience to block a logging road is not meant to elucidate the evils of logging old growth, it's meant to stop the dozers. That doesn't make it terrorism.

    If you have evidence of the AETA 4 being a violent "gang," you might want to give the FBI or DOJ a call, because they're certainly lacking that info and aren't bringing those charges.
  • Denis Alexander---vandalism is not terrorism. if you think it is then stop valuing material things as much as living beings.
  • Denis Alexander
    Such do a search for Tiller and terrorism on Goggle news. A lot of people, including the press, is calling this terrorism - One example - http://tinyurl.com/oh8ydd

    What activists are you saying never harmed anyone? The AETA4? We'll see that when the evidence is presented in the trial.

    I am all for free speech, but what I have seen tells me that AETA4 were more engaged in a campaign of intimidation and terrorism against UC researchers, where both physical and psychological harm were caused.

    The heart of the issue is, do you support the violence of the ALF to achieve their goals or not?
  • @Denis:
    Your link is to an *opinion* piece by a columnist, which follows exactly what I said in my previous comment. When it comes to terms like "eco-terrorism," they are consistently used in standard news coverage.

    If you are saying that the AETA 4 have harmed anyone... well, you're all alone on that one. The government isn't alleging that in the federal complaint or indictment. It's not part of any charge. They're charged with distributing fliers and attending protests while wearing masks.

    Finally: in a way, you are correct. Your comment--and the guilt by association tactics you are attempting to employ--are really what all of this terrorism rhetoric is all about. It's following the Bush administration's "with us or against us" rhetoric to say that anyone who questions these policies is with the so-called "terrorists."
  • Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers

    Will, a few years ago a friend of mine involved with NARAL told me that the term "partial birth abortion" was not a medical term. It was coined by the "pro-life" movement for the purposes of spin.

    Do you know if the term "late term abortion" is a legitimate legal or medical term?

    Just curious
  • @beforewisdom:
    That's correct, and I believe that's why most news outlets generally refer to it as a late-term abortions. That's certainly accurate, and I think it's the most fair way to describe it.
  • kristen
    I found your site from Stephanie on change.org...I look forward to reading further posts as you are now added to my favorites list...the whole topic of "eco-terrorism" is just one more thing that really pisses me off about the human race - shakes head in shame - you know it's going to be too late when most people come out of their consumerist coma and realize that money is worthless if there isn't a planet left to spend it on.
  • Denis Alexander
    Who is not calling it terrorism? You, Jerry Vlasak and the Animal Liberation Front? Of course it is terrorism, the same way that blowing up cars is. After all, the same laws that are now being passed to protect people from the ALF lunatics are modeled after those passed to protect abortion doctors. Blowing up cars, mailing razor blades with poison, etc, are not forms of 'nonviolent activism' as you put them. Why don't you get it?
  • Denis:
    Please follow the links in the post, do a Google search, read the paper... this murder is not being called terrorism by the government or the press, outside of some bloggers and abortion rights groups.

    Also, please point to one instance where I have ever said that mailing razor blades or blowing up cars is "non-violent activism." It's easy to try to associate any dissent with your opposition (I especially got a kick out you saying I'm in cahoots with the Animal Liberation Front) but it avoids the heart of the issue which is why are activists who have never harmed a human being considered a higher terrorism threat than individuals who murder in the name of their cause.
  • Teresa
    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was watching Rachel Meadow's show last night on the murder of Dr. Tiller (and all the other murders and attempted murders over the years in the name of "pro-life" - ha!), and so hoping for some eloquent comment on this - and in particular a contrast of the sentence Roeder got for having explosives and arms in relation to the SHAC 7 sentences.
  • Thanks so much for this blog post and the entire site! I've been thinking of the AETA for the last couple of weeks after seeing a NJ State Supreme Court Justice speak about a similar issue, and finally blogged about it, with links to your site:
    http://animalrights.about.com/b/2009/06/03/gree...
  • Thanks Doris! Just left a comment on your post, and I hope everyone checks it out. Great historical examples.
  • saltoftheplanet
    W. P., that's a good question.

    Labels, by those in control of defining them, are manipulated or designed to achieve a social engineering benefit that may not be obvious on the surface. Look at the labels the military puts on their actions. Public opinion can be nuanced by the changing definitions of words.

    Also, many activists who privately accept violence maintain a well groomed non-violent public profile.
  • saltoftheplanet
    The 3 reasons are wrong. Terrorism is not defined in economic terms. It is defined in terms of intent, methodology and effect.
    Terrorism is designed to make life as usual unacceptable. It is designed to leverage a relatively small action against a few into a large change by many (and may be an entry tactic to be followed by something more severe). It generally assumes conflict resolution is immaterial, only compliance is.
  • @saltoftheplanet:
    If that is how terrorism is defined in *practice* (as opposed to in dictionary definitions) please explain how all of the examples above are not being labeled as terrorism, yet non-violent political activism is.
  • saltoftheplanet
    "Mark Twain" said, "NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN SOLVED THROUGH VIOLENCE". Sorry. He's wrong.
    Want an example? It ended the rule of the Third Reich.
    How about another? It ended slavery in the United States.
    Both at great cost, but those episodes of history were none the less ended by violence.
    Unfortunately, the"great cost" is a problem. There doesn't seem to be an effective way to leverage a small amount of violence into a large benefit (and that would seem to define the intent of terrorism) If you want to change an enemy, that enemy must be largely defeated or eliminated.
  • saltoftheplanet
    "Terrorism" isn't defined in terms of profits. Terrorists typically seeks press and recognition and their actions are intended to have social consequences beyond the violent act committed. It is intended to affect behavior of other persons involved in similar objectionable activities (terrorize them) more so than anti-abortion activists who are more likely to simply want to end the actions of the targeted person. They are less likely to care if anyone found out and would probably prefer they didn't if possible. The Doc who was shot in church was shot in a public arena, but maybe because he had body-guards elsewhere. He was one of only a handfull of docs in the country doing late-term abortions.
  • Mark Twain
    A great example is ExxonMobil and they're recent ad campaign: truth is; they spend 25 million a year on lobby against climate change. They just put on green suits and gurgled out the same thing they want: fossil fuels lasting presence and cash.
  • Mark Twain
    matt- business make money off of everything. Its about being smarter than what your being sold. They are just using the capitalistic system that we set up in our country. Its all in line. Your not a business if your not making money. Its America dude.
  • Mark Twain
    Will- Thanks for the clarify. I understand what you were trying to say, just figured a debate could spark up as well. I think all of those things are Terrorism: hostages, destruction of property, planes, burning houses, all of it. The definition of terrorism is:The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Seems like all of those fall into that. I just think education is a much better tactic.
  • MARK TWAIN---businesses make alot of money off animals and the environment, they don't want to be reached.
  • Mark Twain
    I understand he doesn't support all tactics, but his tone seems to trivialize the workers who actually built the houses. It just seems silly to say "At the very worst, underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have released animals from fur farms, destroyed SUVs and set fire to empty buildings."

    At worst? So, you burned cars and destroyed families homes (cause more than the CEO live there)? Yeah, thats not horrible. I mean, for people who supposedly care about the environment to burn waste that isn't meant to be burned, I'm fairly sure that releases things into our air, just seems counter-productive. All I'm saying is that ALOT (not all) of these underground groups use tactics like vandalism and destruction of private property., to get their points across. And I appluad their motives, I really do. Change needs to be made in a lot of areas of society. What it comes down to is this "So, you want these companies to adhere to laws, yet you dont want to adhere to the same legislation as the rest of the citizens? " Seems strange, no? Trust me, I really like this site and his point of view, I just think that personal responsibility needs to hold more weight in our culture than it does. We are always trying to blame the Parent (or CEO) instead of the choices made by the consumers, who are propelling those industries forward. And...I love a good a debate:)
  • Mark Twain: To clarify, the "at the very worst" line was juxtaposing those actions with what most people consider terrorism, such as flying planes into buildings, taking hostages, murdering civilians, etc.
  • Athonwy
    Hey Will, great article as usual. I was also wondering where you had gotten to, and I'm sorry to hear about your health issues. Maybe it was all that traveling? :) Regardless, it was great to see you in Portland, and the talks you gave were very inspiring and insightful.

    Keep it coming.
  • Thanks Athonwy!
  • Will- Yeah, for sure. I'm sure many would rather imagine themselves as rich and successful, fighting of the pesky eco-terrorists, than they would like to imagine a situation leading to a late term abortion, regardless of the which one is more probable. (I'm sure a simple Google search would show how many more people receive and/or need abortions than are subject to "eco-terrorism")

    Mark T- Not to speak for the writer, but this blog has made it clear that it doesn't endorse or defend all tactics of animal and environmental activists. The point is though, that acts of property destruction are called terrorism when done by environmentalists, but acts of murder (even mass murder) are considered isolated acts when done by right-wingers.
  • Mark Twain
    great article though, your thoughts are well constructed though. I enjoy the read.
  • Mark Twain
    and...Oklahoma city was terrorism, just like that guy above mentioned. They are all acts of terrorism. Its called Mass Media. People need to make the own conclusions, its personal responsibility.
  • Mark Twain
    Just burning down houses? I mean, come on. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN SOLVED THROUGH VIOLENCE, it just elongates the problem. And murder against an American should be terrorism, I agree. But i dont agree with the guerrilla tactics used by some animal rights activists. God forbid they actually try to reach people instead of just making PR statements through vandalism.
  • Good call, as usual. I didn't even notice the lack of the word terrorism in the media reports of this.

    My mom, who is a pretty mainstream liberal (not a radical by any means), brought up a really good point when I was discussing the Green Scare with her.

    She said that the reason Americans are so quick to side with corporations and government when it comes to "eco-terrorism", black blocs, etc, is because most Americans are bullshitted by the American Dream to believe that they will one day be one power, and that these "extremists" that actually have the majority's interests in mind will one day be a threat to them.

    To bring this back to your post- anti-abortion violence does not threaten every day Americans' perceived future of luxury and power, so even pro-choice folks might not call it terrorism. But even environmentalists will call ALF and ELF acts terrorism because they believe they will one day be the victims of those acts when they "finally strike it rich"
  • Thanks for posting that, Michael. To expand on that, perhaps the inverse applies as well: whereas people can perhaps envision themselves in positions of power with luxury homes and Hummers, they don't want to envision themselves or a family member as being in dire straights and needing an abortion.
  • Ben
    The Oklahoma City bombing is widely accepted as terrorism. I'm not sure where you're coming from on that one.
  • Ben:
    That's directly from a top DHS official in Pennsylvania. Please click the link for a full post with more information.
  • Right-on, Will.

    In addition to the reasons you mentioned, I want to add one more:

    - Greater public opposition to abortion.

    There is a far higher percentage of humans in the U.S. who oppose abortion than oppose the slaughter of other animals (most indirectly participate in it through their food choices) and the destruction of the natural environment (most don't have the same sense of urgency). Therefore, drastic actions against abortion go down much differently in the eyes of the public than these others.

    If the government labeled the assassination of abortion providers as terrorism, there would be a backlash that unfortunately is not even there when the government labels rescues/liberations and sabotage as "terrorism."
  • Great point, Brandon.
  • Dr. Tiller's murder is a crime against women... we know the legal track record on protecting women, so it's no surprise that the killer is not a terrorist.
  • SuS
    Outstanding commentary once again, since I've also been asking people why Daniel San Diego is a terrorist but Scott Roeder is not. The thing that's depressing about this piece is being reminded that we live in a bizzarre country where these kinds of decisions are considered logical.
  • Someone
    "It’s not threatening the “American way of life.” In my reporting I’ve found that the word “terrorism” is typically applied to two types of crimes. The first are crimes that go up the chain of power (so, for example, the U.S. military bombing civilians is not terrorism, but an Iraqi civilian bombing the military is). "

    Derrick Jensen also put this well when he said: (http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premis...)
    "Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

    Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below....."
  • @Someone:
    Thanks for noting that. Derrick Jensen nails this. And I think the recent examples in this article show how correct those statements are.
  • I was looking forward to your take on this. Thanks, Will!
  • will, where have you been the past month!?!
    i've been missing your blog posts like whoa.

    p.s. excellent post.
  • Hey Dave,
    I'm back I'm back! Had some serious health stuff come up, which threw a wrench into everything. I'm trying to catch up! Expect more posts on this, and updates on Green Scare cases...
  • Another insightful post, Will. It's shameful that peaceful activists are slapped with the "terrorist" label, while people like Scott Roeder -- who had already been arrested for possession of illegal explosives, who had allegedly threatened doctors, who allegedly railed against abortion online, and who has now allegedly killed someone -- is not.
  • Thanks Mark!
  • Jimmy Jack smith
    The funny thing is that corrupt bankers damage the economy way more that AR activists. So you have right wing thugs on one side who are more violent but on the other side are the capitalists who exploited these thugs' beliefs to create the bush administration and used this power to loot the country.
blog comments powered by Disqus