Is the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist?

[Pray_for_peace]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Basically it sounds like there’s no way to really exclude anybody from the definition, because it’s defined in whatever self-serving and arbitrary manner that the government (or anyone else) wants to define it. It’s a word that basically has no definition but a demagogic one.

Even if the U.S. statutory definition(s) of terrorism are not specific enough, it may not matter much, since most “terrorists” are prosecuted for other crimes, like murder or conspiracy or weapons violations, rather than terrorism.

The Department of Homeland Security provides funding for a an open-source database housed at the University of Maryland called the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), which contains information relating to domestic and international terrorist attacks from 1970 onward. Conveniently, “the GTD does not purport to represent the official position, inclusion decisions, or information holdings of the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute of Justice, or any other funding agency.” But their definition of “terrorism” is more nuanced than others mentioned here (see quoted text at the end of this post), and, interestingly, the Columbine shooting is included in the database, but it is flagged as a difficult-to-categorize case (it is marked in the database as “Doubt Terrorism Proper?”)

The existence of a “Yes” for “Doubt Terrorism Proper?” records reservation, in the eyes of GTD analysts, that the incident in question is truly terrorism. Such uncertainty, however, was not deemed to be sufficient to disqualify the incident from inclusion into the GTD. Furthermore, such a determination of doubt is subsequently coded by GTD analysts as conforming to one of four possible alternative designations: 1) Insurgency/Guerilla Action; 2) Internecine Conflict Action; 3) Mass Murder; or 4) Purely Criminal Act.

The GTD provides “Mass Murder” as the alternate designation for Columbine. Other mass murders, e.g., serial killers or “going postal” workplace shootings, do not appear to be included in the GTD, so in the view of the social scientists who administer the database there is a meaningful difference between Columbine and the other mass murders I mentioned.

As a final point, I noticed that there is no parameter in the database to select “yes” or “no” for “nutjob.” So maybe being a nutjob doesn’t matter? Or it is presumed?

In the absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism, GTD uses various coded criteria to cover a broad range of definitions of terrorism through a combination of inclusiveness and filtering. The goal is to have a data set that is useful to as many interested users as possible.

GTD Inclusion Criteria – GTD Codebook 3.0 May 2009

In order to consider an incident for inclusion in the GTD, all three of the following
attributes must be present:

1. The incident must be intentional – the result of a conscious calculation on the part of a perpetrator.

2. The incident must entail some level of violence or threat of violence - including property violence, as well as violence against people.

3. The perpetrators of the incidents must by sub-national actors. This database does not include acts of state terrorism.

In addition, at least two of the following three criteria must be present for an
incident to be included in the GTD:

Criterion 1: The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic,
religious, or social goal. In terms of economic goals, the exclusive pursuit of profit does not satisfy this criterion. It must involve the pursuit of more profound, systemic economic change. This criterion is not satisfied in those cases where the perpetrator(s) acted out of a pure profit motive or from an idiosyncratic personal motive unconnected with broader societal change.

Criterion 2: There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. Such evidence can include (but is not limited to) the following: pre- or post-attack statements by the perpetrator(s), past behavior by the perpetrators, or the particular nature of the target, weapon, or attack type. It is the act taken as a totality that is considered, irrespective if every individual involved in carrying out the act was aware of this intention. As long as any of the planners or decision-makers behind the attack intended to coerce, intimidate or publicize, the intentionality criterion is met.

Criterion 3: The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities. That is, the act must be outside the parameters permitted by international humanitarian law (particularly the prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians or non-combatants).