by Giovanni Neal
R3 Contributor
In America, the word terrorism is a heavily debated one. These days terrorism is not implied, we wait on our government to determine if something was an act of terrorism. Additionally, it seems as though being classified as a terrorist has more to do with one’s religious affiliation and race. I can think of three recent instances where the word(s) terrorism or terrorist was at issue. Benghazi, Boston and Assata Shakur.
On September 11th2012, the U.S Consulate in Benghazi was mobbed and four Americans were killed. I immediately thought terrorism. President Obama, however, blamed the attack on a video titled the “Innocence of Muslims.” The Innocence of Muslims made fun of Muhammad, who is never to be visually depicted. The short film sparked protests in Egypt that spread to other Muslim countries. In his explanation, President Obama forgot to use the word terrorism as if it weren’t already implied. He made it seem as though the attacks were just a result of protest of the film. But when does protest become terrorism?
After the attacks there was a right-winged inquisition to find out if the Benghazi attacks arose from a spontaneous protest like President Obama suggested, or from a calculated terrorist attack. The attacks happened on the anniversary of 9/11 after all. Does the definition of a terrorist attack rely on the attack being spontaneous? Or can you spontaneously terrorize? The Obama Administration was wrong about why the attacks happened; they were due to Al Qaeda involvement. During the hearings, I saw conservatives in Congress focused on one thing, and that was the word terrorism. We’ve figured out what caused the attacks, but instead of moving on the conservatives are ready to have another round of hearings. Why are they politically terrorizing the Obama Administration?
On April 15thtwo bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon. And right on cue our country started speculating on the suspects’ race and religion. The media encouraged speculation. I heard many conservative talking heads claim that the bomber “was a Muslim, Arab, terrorist,” before we even knew who carried out the attacks. Likewise, many liberal talking heads were assuming or praying it was a white supremacist or at least not a Muslim. It seems as though if a Muslim commits a violent act, the act is automatically terrorism. But if a disgruntled white man commits a violent act, the act is a result of mental illness. Adam Lanza killed thirty kids in the Sandy Hook massacre yet wasn’t considered a terrorist. He killed more people than the Boston bombers and the Benghazi mob combined. But no one’s labeling him a terrorist because being a terrorist is obviously not tied to how many people you kill.
The alleged Boston bombers are Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed during pursuit by the authorities and 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a U.S. citizen, was apprehended and held for days without charges or Miranda rights. The FBI questioned him before he was read his rights. Tsarnev revealed that he and his brother committed the bombings because of the United State’s involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They saw the invasions as an attack on Islam. Which is a valid criticism. One sect of Islam took credit for the 9/11 attacks and America seemed to go after entire countries and not the small group responsible for the attacks. Tsarnev is not the only one offended by America’s behavior, the Iraq War offended other Americans too.
Ultimately, the surviving Tsarnev was read his rights and charged with ‘use of a weapon of mass destruction, and with malicious destruction of property resulting in death’ in federal court. Conservative members of Congress wanted Tsarnev charged as an unlawful military combatant to prevent due process protections, such as right to an attorney. Tsarnev is an American, and the crime happened here so he was not charged as an unlawful military combatant. Does that mean this wasn’t terrorism? Even though the acts were tied to his extremist position on Islam? I am glad, however, that they are trying him in federal court instead of a military tribunal.
Tamerlan Tsarnev body is in limbo, because no funeral home wants a terrorist buried in their plots.
Last week, Assata Shakur’s name was added as the first woman on F.B.I’s Most Wanted Terrorist List. Shakur was a key member of the Black Panther Party, until a schism due to the Party’s lack of political education and history. Shakur then joined the Black Liberation Army, where her activism took a darker and more violent path. Starting in 1971 Assata Shakur was arraigned on seven various crimes, such as robbery, kidnapping, and murder. It must be noted Shakur was only convicted in 1977 for the murder of an officer on the New Jersey Turnpike on May 2,1973. Later in 1979 Shakur broke out of prison and fled to Cuba, where she sought asylum.
On the FBI’s website, most of the terrorist in the top ten bombed a facility or murdered multiple people within the last 35 years. Assata is wanted for the only crime she was convicted of and breaking out of prison.
And sure maybe Shakur would fit the definition of a terrorist, if she had been convicted of the string of crimes of which she was charged. And we must note that there is evidence in question on whether she shot the officer on the New Jersey turnpike. Another man was convicted of the same crime and her fingerprints were not on the weapon. Shakur was also injured after being shot by an officer, and wouldn’t have been able to operate a weapon. During her trial Shakur brought up the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program “COINTELPRO”, which was a series of operations by the FBI to disrupt, and discredit political organizations, such as the Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army or any other civil rights affiliated group. They did so with illegal tactics such as wrongful imprisonment, harassment, assault, etc. With the string of attempted convictions, one can only wonder if COINTELPRO was involved. I mean who are the real terrorists in her situation?
The omission of the word terrorism has been a thorn in the Obama Administration’s side since Benghazi. Being labeled a terrorist caused Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s to lose his rights or at least delay them. Now Tsarnaev’s entire legal future depends on the word terrorist, just wait until jury selection. Tamerlan Tsarnaev can’t get a proper burial because of the terrorist label. And Assata Shakur walks the activist terrorist line convincingly. There is a fine line between activism and terrorism. But in many terrorists’ minds they are activists. There too, is a fine line between a terrorist and mentally ill. A mentally ill person can take a political message, run with it and take it to a violent place, to terrorism. Overall, terrorism seems to get its roots from race, religion and the rhetoric surrounding it.
Rhetoric Race and Religion
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In