Why not call the Las Vegas attack an act of domestic terrorism?

'Terrorism' is an overused word that tends to obscure more than it reveals. But the reluctance to use it to describe the Las Vegas attackers is troubling.

|
Eric Verduzco/Las Vegas Review-Journal/AP
Las Vegas police officers are near the scene of a shooting in Las Vegas, Sunday, June 8, 2014. The spree began around 11:30 a.m. Sunday when a man and woman walked into CiCi's Pizza and shot two officers who were eating lunch, Las Vegas police spokesman Larry Hadfield said.

Details of yesterday's murder of two Las Vegas police officers and one other person are still trickling out so there's a good chance that some of the initial news could be false leads. 

That said, here's what we know: The shooters, a husband and wife team, shouted something about starting a revolution before firing on officers Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck; according to witnesses, a note pinned to one of the officers bodies proclaimed "the beginning of the revolution;" and one of their victims was draped with a Gadsden flag (the "don't tread on me one," which is very popular among far-right militias and anti-government extremists.)

They pinned a swastika on one of their dead victims, since they consider the cops to be Nazis. According to one of Miller's neighbors, he showed her a number of the Nazi symbols on the morning of the attack and said "I'm going to put one of those on every cop we kill." 

This all points in one direction: This was an act of domestic terrorism.

That's not what the headlines indicate. The vast majority of the American press prefers not to use the word "terrorism," which would be admirable were it not the case that were Al Qaeda paraphernalia to turn up at the home of the shooters, there would be no such restraint.

It's hard not to see a double-standard at work here. If it isn't Muslim, it isn't automatically terror. Or, at least, a higher bar must be cleared to say so.

John Schindler, an intelligence and security expert who teaches at the Naval War College, calls it "domestic terror." J.M. Berger, a leading US researcher into domestic extremism, also sees it that way:

Yes. The couple who carried out the attack had extreme anti-government views, according to neighbors interviewed by reporters. One neighbor told the New York Times that "all Jerad (Miller, one of the attackers) wanted to do is talk about overthrowing the government,” said Ms. Fielder. “I thought he was talking smack.”

The article continues:

The Facebook pages of the Millers are full of anti-law enforcement postings and violent threats.

A note on the Facebook page for Mr. Miller, dated June 7 — one day before the attack — said: “The dawn of a new day. May all of our coming sacrifices be worth it.” A post from May 7 asks people to send him “a rifle firearms.”

... “That these people would target police officers is not surprising given that they had associations with the anti-government movement,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project.

It appears the fantasy of this couple was that their shocking attack would serve as a sort of propaganda of the deed, something that would inspire copycats to follow in their footsteps and then, somehow, threaten the government. They deployed political violence on civilians to terrify those they deemed to be their political opponents.

That is, they were terrorists.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why not call the Las Vegas attack an act of domestic terrorism?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0609/Why-not-call-the-Las-Vegas-attack-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe