I’ve seen/heard the term many times since the Boston bombings.
Does law enforcement (Homeland Security, etc.) have a specific classification?
The commonplace usage is obvious: someone whose extremism is not inspired by foreign agitation, and who didn’t come here from a foreign country. The 9-11 mob: foreign. Eric Rudolph: homegrown.
It can be a foreign or national organization which radicalizes local people in the targeted nation.
Where do the alleged Boston Bombers fit? They had been here about 10 years, right?
As their influence and radicalization and perhaps the training of the elder brother all had foreign elements – foreign web sites, and, if true, he traveled abroad to be trained – then he wasn’t completely “home grown.” There’s room for mixed cases.
(If the Unabomber was influenced a little – say, one per cent – by Nietzsche, that would mean he was not absolutely, 100%, home grown. But what a picky distinction that would be!)
(Damn, Nietzsche is hard to spell…)
Good common sense feedback but I was wondering how those responsible for preventing terrorism look at the subject…
Does law enforcement (Homeland Security, etc.) have a specific classification?
HB 1955 of 2007 (which didn’t pass) would have defined “homegrown terrorism” as:
The DHS Risk Lexicon doesn’t include a definition for homegrown terrorism or terrorists, as far as I can tell.
Thank-you Really…really, thank-you!!
That bill passed the House but the Senate seems to have ignored it. Interestingly, it had 10 D co-sponsors and 4 R so it wasn’t the typical product of the House that is ignored by the Senate (although the make-up of the two bodies was different then).
FWIW, my questions arose from the most recent Time cover story with the headlines and titles: HOMELAND INSECURITY - DO WE NEED TO SACRIFICE PRIVACY TO BE SAFER? Are we willing to do what it would take to stop every homegrown terrorist?
I wouldn’t have considered the Boston Bombers all that homegrown myself so I was curious if Time was using that term in an accepted manner.
No problem. I guess the distinction is whether they’re already terrorists when they get here (like the 9/11 hijackers) or become radicalized while in the US. I assume the younger Tsarnaev (at least) wasn’t a terrorist when he got here since he was like nine.
Even if the bill had passed, there’s nothing that would have stopped Time or anybody else in the country from using the term in any loose, informal, or completely wrong sense they felt like. We do so right now for terrorist itself.