As we continue to digest the information surrounding Joseph Stack’s suicide act by flying his plane into an Austin, Texas office building, one of the biggest questions is if this was an act of terrorism. For starters, let’s check to see how Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
This is a fairly generic definition, leaving us with more questions than answers. Was Stack trying to coerce the IRS or the government? While he did leave a rambling letter behind, citing grievances against the government (and everyone else), I don’t think this definition is sufficient. So let’s turn to the Code of Federal Regulations and read how the country defines terrorism:
Terrorism includes 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.
Again we come across the word coerce, but we also see the word intimidate. It could be argued that Stack was intimidating IRS employees with a direct attack on one of their offices, making them concerned that another person with a complaint against the government might attack their place of work. If we recall the Air Force One fly-by over lower Manhattan last year, where it triggered panic by some New Yorkers by seeing a low flying jet pass along their shore, the fear of a repeat attack can last for years.
Our friends over at the Right Wing Nut House states:
But in this case, we have a terrorist without portfolio. His motivation, given the building housed a regional IRS office, seemed to have been revenge more than anything. His ranting about wanting to inspire people is just that – the mouthings of a madman who wanted to give his death a twisted kind of meaning. It’s not logical or rational. It is delusional.
As the author states earlier in the article, “Why can’t a nutcase just be a nutcase?” Could this simply be an over-glorified suicide stunt? We have examples of people attacking stores and schools in the hopes that law enforcement is forced to shoot and kill them.
Cato @ Liberty continues the conversation by saying:
Whether or not he meets the definition, it’s better to deny this man and those like him any credibility with the word “terrorist.” As my colleague Jim Harper said (twice) about the man who shot Dr. George Tiller, this is an unproductive debate that fulfills their desire to be something more than a pathetic murderer.
I would have to say that Stack’s action might be a terrorist act (based upon the term “intimidate” in the Code of Federal Regulations), but I do not believe he was a terrorist himself since he wasn’t dying for a cause. By mimicking the terrible attack of September 11th, he was hoping to give his death more meaning or maybe more validity. But in the end, this was an elaborate suicide attempt because he was unhappy with his life.
What do you think?
Loading ...
I would have to agree with your final assessment of his intentions. I think he basically wanted his suicide to “mean something”. Since it didn't actually end up meaning anything other than “what was the purpose of that?” or “kind of pathetic”, I believe he didn't reach his objective. He will go down in the annuls of time as someone who was mad at the government and flew his plane in to a building. But he will not go down as a terrorist mastermind, or even a revolutionary patriot.
I am upset with the government as well, but seriously. Is this they way to get things done? No. The way to get things done is to educate and debate.