The recent attack on a predominantly African-American church by a murderous
racist has provoked a passionate debate about who is — and is not — a “terrorist.”
According to FBI director James Comey, the perpetrator of the Charleston massacre
— in which nine people were killed — doesn’t
qualify:
“Terrorism is act of violence done or threatens
to in order to try to influence a public body or citizenry, so it’s more of
a political act and again based on what I know so more I don’t see it as a political
act.”
Many are baffled by this, and point to what appears to be a curious double
standard: after all, if a Muslim commits violence the media and the authorities are unanimous in their verdict that
it was a “terrorist” act, and should be treated as such. And this is not just
a matter of terminology: it is legally significant, since the post-9/11 era
has given us a whole body of “terrorism”-related law that mandates severe punishment
for crimes so designated. A piece
in Newsweek avers:
“For
many, [Dylann] Roof does not evoke the cultural norm of a terrorist. ‘We often
have things labeled as hate crimes but there’s a big leap from the label ‘hate
crime’ to ‘terrorism,” explains Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director
for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. ‘We always wait when these incidents
are first reported to hear if it was carried out by a Muslim to find out if
it will be labeled terrorism.’”
Hooper’s complaint, echoed in some quarters
of the media, is seemingly well-justified: after all, Roof is quite explicit about the essentially political-ideological motive behind his heinous act. Before
opening fire he told his victims he “had to do it” because blacks are “taking
over the county.” An online manifesto discovered after the Charleston attack
explicates his racist views at some length. So why isn’t Dylann Roof a terrorist?