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?

The policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) resurfaced last week during President Obama’s State of the Union address. The 17-year old policy, controversial when President Bill Clinton signed it into law, is officially listed under Title 10, Section 654 of the United States code. The code reads as follows:

(b) Policy. – A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;

(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

In general, the policy states that if a member of the military expresses a homosexual desire or lifestyle, they are a disruptive presence within the armed forces. As the bill states, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” giving Congress the right to limit who can or cannot serve in the military for whatever reason them determine. But is it right to bar those living an alternative lifestyle?

This policy hasn’t barred homosexuals from joining the armed forces, but it has required them to keep their orientations secret. DADT didn’t cause this, as people were keeping their orientation secret for decades because it wasn’t socially acceptable. But now that we have high-profile celebrities openly discussing their alternative lifestyles and television shows with the leading character being gay, public opinion is softening towards what was once viewed as a perversion.

But is there a problem with military personnel living a secret life? Our friends over at Kn@ppster has this to say in their article “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — A Threat to National Security“:

If they’re in the military, then they are vulnerable — not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the military’s policy of requiring that that orientation be kept secret on pain of discharge.

Because they are vulnerable, the military is vulnerable. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” makes every man and woman in the military — of any sexual orientation, because a false allegation can be just as much a career-killer as a real one — a potential vector for infiltration by foreign intelligence services.

Could homosexuals under DADT become a national security risk? I don’t think that the fear of being exposed by a foreign entity would cause the service member to compromise national security. After all, these individuals have sacrificed their personal lives to serve and defend their nation. If they were so easily influenced, odds are they wouldn’t have signed up to begin with.

On the other hand, it only takes one person to cause a lot of damage. We have seen the damage done by a single compromised serviceman in the past. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood in November. Warrant Officer John Walker, Jr. passed cryptographic secrets to the Soviets for 17 years during the Cold War. These two individuals are just examples of how it takes just one person to negatively impact the armed forces as well as putting many at risk.

Has DADT caused any events such as these to happen? Is it just a matter of time? I’m not in a position to answer either of those questions, but there is always the potential of someone being compromised, regardless of their sexual orientation. In the mean time, the military and Congress need to go back and evaluate the policy and see if it is still viable today as it was 17 years ago.

In some ways, the Republicans had both the easier and harder task in their response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. Easier in the sense that they didn’t have to go into specific on the various issues, but harder because they had only a limited amount of time to respond and that they were following the President himself. Taking a look at Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell’s speech, I come away with the following thoughts.

McDonnell opens his response by addressing the history of Virginia and his political lineage to Thomas Jefferson (the second Governor of Virginia). Speaking from the Congressional Hall designed by Jefferson, McDonnell quotes Jefferson from his first Inaugural address, saying “a wise and frugal Government … shall leave [men] free to regulate their own pursuits of industry … and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” The purpose of these constant references to Jefferson, other than to highlight the position Jefferson had about a limited Federal government as well as his history to Virginia, is because Jefferson remains one of the Democratic Party’s icons. By linking himself to Jefferson and to small government, he is creating an image of how the Democrats have drifted away from their historical positions.

The first main topic McDonnell discusses is the current unemployment rate in the country. Chastising the currently Democratic-led Congress and the President over their economic proposals, he stresses that the best way for the economy to recover and for jobs to be created is by easing the burden on US companies. With proposals such as the $1 Trillion Health Care Reform proposals in Congress and the economic stimulus packages that will increase our national debt, McDonnell stresses how the economic burden will become too great for the nation. He highlights the Republican proposals on Health Care Reform that achieves similar goals as the Democrats without the large cost or complex legislation.

Switching the topic to energy, McDonnell references Obama’s comment on domestic energy production and Obama’s obstruction for nuclear power and oil exploration expansions. This expansion will lead to more jobs, meaning the need for a new educated workforce. He segways into discussing the need for student choice in schools and the need to award teachers for their “excellent performance.”

He concludes by addressing national security last. There were concerns about the President being too soft on national security when he entered office. McDonnell applauds Obama’s decision to provide additional support to the troops in Afghanistan as well as the successes of our troops in Iraq. Some recent events however, such as the Detroit plane bomber and the decision to try terrorists in the shadow of the World Trade Center, have justified some of their doubts about his ability to protect the nation.

It was a brief speech, but I think it was the best State of the Union response we’ve seen in quite some time. Bobby Jindal’s comedic response last year, as well as Tim Kaine’s head-scratching “there is a better way” mystery from four years ago have taken the credibility of the response away until the other night. The decision to hold the response in front of a live audience (even though they were all McDonnell supporters) was a good choice, especially since it gave the impression of a similar forum that the President enjoyed. However, as with all responses, the speech was light on details and over-generalized.

One of the best aspects of covering these speeches is to hear the give-and-take between the various parties. While debating political issues with people of all stripes, we can identify when someone is trying to spin an issue and when someone is being serious trying to resolve the issue. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of spinning, as Obama did with discussing the debt and McDonnell with national security. However, both are also serious about seeing the nation improve. While political ideologies are hard to work with, there is enough common ground on issues where I think the politicians can work together to leave our nation in a better condition than they found it. Small, targetted reforms will achieve this goal, but only if the politicians are willing.