Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio. Hey brain Stuff, Lauren boge Baum here with another classic episode from our archives. This one has to do with the definitions of terrorism and why it's become such a politically loaded term. Hey brain Stuff, Lauren Vogelbaum Here. When the news of another mass murder in the United States breaks, people are forced to stumble their way through a series
of inescapable emotions. The psychological stages, much like the well known stages of grief, go something like this, shock, revulsion, fear, curiosity, anxiety, anger, numbness, and finally depression and perhaps acceptance. Somewhere along that arc two comes the inevitable question was it terrorism? The question is way more easily asked than answered. That's partially because the legal definition of the word terrorism is as murky as the motivations of the people who commit these drastic crimes.
We talked with Dr Jane Kramer, a professor of political science at the University of Oregon. She told us every terrorism textbook and every terrorism class begins with the definition problem. Most people have to be satisfied with no definition. The Miriam websterizing of the term terrorism has become so tricky in fact, so fraught with politics and legal pitfalls that, even after decades of trying, the United Nations can't come up with an agreement on what constitutes terrorism or what
a terrorist is. That's not all that surprising, maybe, considering that what one group might call a cowardly and despicable act, another might term a patriotic or even holy duty. At least within the borders of the United States, the legal
definition seems a little less troublesome. Several federal laws list some variation of the terms, but the US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Still, even among Americans,
it's not that easy. When an avowed white supremacist killed nine black members of a church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June seventeenth, it was immediately considered by most as a hate crime and a terroristic act, But then FBI Director James called me wouldn't call it terrorism. In a press conference three days after the shooting, he said terrorism is violence done or threatened in order to try to influence a public body or citizen, so it's more of
a political act. Again, based on what I know, I don't see it as a political act. The unwillingness to immediately flagged people like this perpetrator as terrorists, or even the Las Vegas shooter who killed fifty eight and wounded another five hundred plus on October one, can rankle those who see the issue, often falling along racial and religious lines.
For example, when a native of Uzbekistan killed eight people in New York City on October thirteen by driving a rented track into pedestrians and cyclists, the FBI slapped federal terrorism charges on him in less than two days. Officially tagging acts like this as terrorism or not requires thought
towards the legal and moral implications. For example, no terrorism charges were filed against Army major Nidal Hassan, who killed thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, in two thousand nine, even though Hassan told investigators that he shot the soldiers because they were quote going against the Islamic Empire. According to the New York Times, the reasoning the Army could more easily and swiftly try him on charges of murder and attempted murder without the hassle of proving he was
a terrorist. Hassan is now in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, awaiting execution after being convicted of thirteen counts of murder and thirty two counts of attempted murder without designated Hassan a terrorist, though his victims can't get combat related benefits or received Purple Hearts because the attack was considered workplace violence and not combat. The labeling or specific not labeling of terrorists
isn't a particularly new phenomenon. More than thirty years ago, then President Ronald Reagan pushed a foreign policy that included financial backing for a group of so called freedom fighters and Nicaragua the Contras. Some accused the United States of state backed terrorism. Many other presidents and heads of state all over the world have taken similar steps in the name of national interest. The objection to calling someone a
terrorist lies largely within the word itself terrorism. Dr Kramer said, it's a loaded term. It's meant to make somebody evil. When everybody after this last incident notices that Trump wouldn't use terrorism. After Charlottesville, where a white supremacist killed counterprotester head their hair on August twelve, seventeen and immediately uses it After New York it was like, Wow, we only use it from Muslim or dark skinned people. That's why
this is coming up all the time. It's loaded. It's probably not surprising that many politicians, not just the president, used the concept of terror as a way to influence minds and gain votes. The defeat of the terrorist Islamic State was a big issue in the twenty sixteen election. Immigration reform has also been tied to keeping terrorists from our shores. Dr Cramer said that's why politicians use the word, but academics try not to. They're trying to win supporters
and make sides. Academics are trying to analyze things. That's the difference. Today's episode was written by John Donovan and produced by Tristan McNeil and Tyler Clang. For more on this and lots of other political topics, visit how Stuff works dot com. Brain Stuff is a production of Our Heart Radio. Or more podcasts in my heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.