John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Rocker in his Concord home: Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.
This week, while I was having my teeth cleaned, I was looking up at a four-foot by five-foot poster on the ceiling, challenging me to “Find Waldo.” The tinted glasses my hygienist insisted I wear distorted the colors of the poster, making it even more difficult to locate Waldo in his signature colorful outfit.
Now, home in my writing spot, it occurs to me that the difficulty in finding Waldo could be compared with the search to find relief from the fear and terror that is infecting the country. As of mid-February, the Gun Violence Archive has counted 80 mass shootings in the United States since the beginning of February. Seven of them involved four or more fatalities.
Every incident prompts the question from the press and the public, “was it a terrorist act?” If the answer is, “yes,” it increases the fear that the civil criminal justice system may be an inadequate response to terrorism. Labeling an act “terrorism” makes a criminal act seem more dangerous.
There is international terrorism, domestic terrorism, and state terrorism. Motive is the key to defining terrorism. Terrorist motives, as defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), are “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
For example, the United States has been terrorized by 9/11, intimidating actions by white nationalists, mass shootings in malls and schools, and the January 6 event at the U.S. Capital. Right here in Concord, a noisy pickup truck cruising the streets flying huge flags and displaying racist slogans may easily intimidate others, raising fear and even terror.
Terrorism is being treated as a crime so heinous that no due process of the law seems sufficient. It gives free reign to counter the terror with more terrorist acts outside the legal system. For example, the responses of the United States and Israel have been to simply pronounce a suspect or a supporter of a terrorist organization, guilty of terrorism with no access to a trial. Israel conjures up “terrorist” so the military can restrict Palestinian movement, conduct home invasions to take away teenagers, and demolish homes. The United States has used drones to kill suspected terrorists. (Without seeking to arrest them and bring then to trial, some consider these actions as state terrorism).
Guantanamo Bay prison is still being used to hold, without formal charges or trial, a few suspected “terrorists” like Mansoor Adayfi. The New York Times reported that this innocent 18-year-old, former goat herder and security guard from Yemen, was doing research in Afghanistan. After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Afghan fighters ambushed his truck, kidnapped him and handed him over to the C.I.A. for a hefty cash bounty. He was disappeared to Guantanamo Bay, where he spent the next 15 years. He was stripped of his name, known only as Detainee #441. He was recently released without charges.
Proliferating the specter of terrorism, with its accompanying fear, weakens democracy. There are situations where labeling a person or group “terrorist” gives the government a put-into-jail-free card: free from the need for charges, a defense, a lawyer, a trial, or a definitive sentence if convicted. Also, including terrorism as part of a criminal act provides an unintentional consequence. It signals that the goal of striking fear and terror on their targets, to leverage their beliefs, is successful. As a result, for some individuals and groups, the label “terrorist” becomes a sense of pride. The justice system should resist falling into this trap.
Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, “The (U.N. Security) Council began to consistently emphasize the need for counter-terrorism measures to be in line with states’ international legal obligations, including human rights law. It also considered it vital to ensure that non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, would not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, in 2006, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, in which it stressed the importance of addressing the issues that can give rise to terrorism. These include unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims, discrimination, violations of human rights, and lack of good governance.”
The U.N. Security Council has it right, particularly on insisting that counter-terrorism measures be in line with states’ international legal obligations, including human rights law. Treating terrorism as criminal, using clear charges and the judgment of a fair trial, takes the “terror” out of terrorism. It also gives freedom to address the causes of manipulative violence, outlined in the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Understanding the roots of these causes can be an antidote for fear and terror. We will have found Waldo!