For Sake of Civil Liberties, Use of Word 'Terrorism' Should Be Restricted, Not Expanded

The rhetorical use of the term "terrorism" leads to erosions of civil liberties and poor policy making.


Jagz Mario/flickr

The deadly car attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, has led some prominent politicians and former federal officials to label the assault an act of domestic terrorism. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.) tweeted that the killing was "domestic terrorism" and urged President Donald Trump to "call evil by its name"; former Attorney General Eric Holder declared that had "ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly."

That's true: It would. But after 16 years of a war on terror that has eroded civil liberties, we should be trying to roll back the broad use of the term terrorism to describe any sort of ideologically motivated violence, not expanding it.

Holder was sometimes more appropriately cautious when he was actually attorney general, resisting calls to label various criminal acts terrorism before an investigation could even be started. Most prominently, the Department of Justice's approach to the Fort Hood shooting was criticized by those who wanted it labeled a terrorist attack.

The FBI has specific legal criteria it uses to define international terrorism, domestic terrorism, and the federal crime of terrorism. To be terrorist, an act must appear to intend to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." The federal offense is defined as a criminal act "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct."

In political rhetoric, by contrast, the word is frequently deployed as a thought-terminating cliché—a way to promote the idea that some military or police activity should be permitted to occur outside of the constraints of the Constitution, particularly against certain classes of people. In the last few decades, and particularly since 9/11, those classes of people have tended to be Muslim.

Republicans have made a lot of hay about Democrats refusing to "name the enemy" in the war on terror, but this misses the point spectacularly, conflating rhetoric and word choice with the policies they are meant to prop up.

Similarly, when word spread earlier this year that the Trump administration might rename the federal government's Countering Violent Extremism program to something like "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," some on the left complained that this represented a victory for far-right extremists. Those critiques ignored the more salient point—that the program was ineffective, for much the same reason many counter-terrorism initiatives are. It aims its fire at "radicalization," leading to a kind of soft surveillance that former FBI agent Michael German told Reason's Jesse Walker was "intended to suppress ideas, which is likely to cause more problems than solve them. It encourages the identification, reporting, and 'treatment' of people with bad ideas, which will only lead to misuse of security resources and deprivation of civil liberties."

Kino Lorber

It's hard to understand the kind of person that would look at the extent of failures in the "war on terror"—a loss of civil liberties, a proliferation of terrorist safe havens around the world, and an increase in domestic "lone wolf" attacks, all at a great cost in blood and treasure—and decide that what America needs is a broader definition of the term. Since 2001 the militarization of domestic police has been accelerated. Constitutionally dubious law enforcement tools like the ones packaged in the PATRIOT Act have been systematically abused far beyond their originally declared scope. Drones have blurred the rules of war. The U.S. regularly launches "signature strikes," where the exact identity of the targets is unclear to the officials ordering the strikes. The U.S. has targeted and killed American citizens overseas without so much as indicting them in a federal court. This is the wages of terror.

As Glenn Greenwald noted after the Charleston shooting, the refusal by many politicians and pundits to call the attack "terrorism" revealed that the term was ultimately meaningless propaganda. (Holder did call the attack an act of domestic terrorism, but its perpetrator, white supremacist Dylan Roof, ultimately faced different charges.) Greenwald argued the term could be applied to the shooting, but he was not out "to seek an expansion of the term 'terrorism' beyond its current application" or the abuses and manipulations the term enables. "But what I also don't want," he wrote, "is for non-Muslims to rest in their privileged nest, satisfied that the term and its accompanying abuses is only for that marginalized group."

He has a point. So let's be more reluctant to use it in either case.

At the beginning of his term as attorney general, Holder sought to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. This was the right instinct. Terrorists are criminals with political ideas, but they are still criminals. The term terrorism is used to strip those criminals—and many noncriminals—of longstanding legal protections. And its ultimate effect has been to make it politically harder to defend the idea of treating "terrorism" as a law enforcement issue, often while creating the space for even more terrorism.

NEXT: No, Virginia State Police Weren't Outgunned By Militiamen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought terrorism was what Freddie Kruger did to people.

    I’m not terrified of going in public on American streets. I’m nervous a lot and certainly keep my wits about me at walmart and at concerts.

    perhaps it should be called nerve racking-ism.

    or there sure are a lot of cops around here-ism

    1. That’s why the horror genre sucks now.

      Terror means nothing but criminals that knee-jerk reactionaries want to publicize.

  2. “But what I also don’t want,” he wrote, “is for non-Muslims to rest in their privileged nest, satisfied that the term and its accompanying abuses is only for that marginalized group.”

    If I’m going to be accused of white privilege, I damned well better be benefiting from it!

    1. So far, my white privilege has given me the distinct advantage of:
      a mortgage, high costs of child care, a retirement account that seems verged on the precipice of utter collapse, an increase in crime in my neighborhood, high cholesterol, a car loan, expensive groceries, and the never ending battle of trying to watch sports and having to pay either directtv or Comcast which both suck.

      The SJW are right; this is the sh*t!

      1. Stop bragging.

      2. Check yo privilege!

  3. If the regulatory bureaucracy cannot grow, the citizenry cannot be terrorized.

    It is imperative that definitions must be expanded and then changed to get the zombie horde to subscribe to the government remedies.

    Kind of like how they are currently changing climate change to weather extremes.

  4. And then you’ve got the “making terroristic threats” as a general add-on to assault charges – if you’re going to whup somebody’s ass, don’t be threatening them with an ass-whupping beforehand.

    1. At what point did the guy that drove through the crowd at 40mph make a terroristic threat?

      Did he do that la-la-la-la-la thing with his tongue?

      Seems like there was no time to perceive a threat as people were flying through the air.

      1. Did he do that la-la-la-la-la thing with his tongue?

        Yeah, he was singing Hush.

  5. Ed,

    You know who else used provocative Alt-Text to make his point, don’t you?


  6. Gosh… first thoughtcrime, now speechcrime! By far the strangest of these distortions is the way Republicans began calling communists, socialists, prohibition repeal activists and opponents of American Sharia blue laws “liberals” the day FDR beat Herbert Hoover in the general Election. That marked the beginning of the 20-year GOP Kampf, and since that day American conservatives–unlike from those in England, Canada and Australia–began expectorating the term to mimic Der Fuehrer’s “Judentum liberaler.” That is something libertarians would do well to avoid mimicking if we are to bleed spoiler votes from the People’s Democratic Party as in 1972.

    1. ‘Effin’ terrorist!

  7. How does the Left plan to confine the application of these broad “terrorist” definitions to the Right? Not being in power just now, they may want to tamp down their enthusiasm.

  8. To be terrorist, an act must appear to intend to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

    Sounds like it fits Antifa to a T.

  9. If a jihadist running people over with a car is terrorism, then so is a Nazi running people over with a car terrorism. But how about we stop worrying about the motivations (which are often hard to prove), and prosecute the actions, which are self-evident and abhorrent enough, and illegal and worthy of death sentences (and/or long jail time)?

  10. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

  11. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.