Terrorism or Criminal Act of Violence? Thoughts on Boston Marathon tragedy.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

 

The FBI has this under the heading Definitions for how they define terrorism; "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations 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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). "

OK, I opened this with a quote from a reknowned orator, statesman and philosopher.  Yes, I understand that this may quote may be misattributed to Mr Burke, but it is who is most readily identified with it.  The reason I put that first, is that I wish to add a caveat to this statement.  While it is important for good men to do something; they should so not alter their lives in fear of evil that they no longer live freely.

So, why do I think it is necessary to add this thought to such a timeless idea?  Today, in my beloved United States, some cowardly person or persons placed and detonated some explosive devices in the city of Boston.  At least three devices were in the area of the finish line of respected and honorable sporting event called the Boston Marathon, and at least one other was found at a library.  As of the time of this writing, three people were murdered and well over 100 have been injured, almost 20 critically. 

While it is probable that this was an act of some terrorist group (or lone terrorist), as far as I know, no person(s) have claimed any responsibility nor made any social/political (and in my own definition related to the one above, I add religion) demands against the government/society.  Since that has not happened, again to my knowledge at the time of this writing, this is not an act of terrorism, but a terror inducing violent crime. 

What follow will be two-pronged.  One prong will address what I believe needs to be a clear cut delineation between the crime of terrorism and other violent criminal acts.  The other will be to address what I feel how good people must act to not let evil ones triumph.

I once upon a time did a lot of research into the realm of crime.  Violent crimes to be exact.  I believe that violent criminal acts, whether they are committed against one lone person, or cover vast scenes and affected many, are all terror inducing crimes.  A crime of violence by its very nature is meant to intimidate and coerce a person(s) to do something or allow something to be done by threat of or causing of actual bodily injury or death.  A person who is raped or mugged, the victims of a home invasion is terrified.  Their friends and family, their acquaintances, and the people who hear the story of and its aftermath of such events all may feel some form of terror.  To just name a few, the shooting rampage in the elementary school in Newtown, CT; the movie theater rampage in Aurora, CO, the knife wielding attacker at Lone Star Community College, the attacker with the bow and arrow at a college who injured several people.  All of these heinous acts of cowardice and carnage instill a sense of terror.  A wonder at the utter depravity and senselessness that this world contains.  And it can, to some, be a debilitating feeling of fear, along with anger, sadness and despair that come up out of all of the things we feel after such things.  Whether it effects us directly being a survivor, a loving supporter of a survivor or victim, or we are just part of the social grieving of these, it can be a terror inducing event.

So, what makes these other crimes, NOT acts of terrorism, even though they can induce terror in us?  I refer you back to the definition in Federal code that the FBI uses to make a determination if something is an act of terror or not.  The perpetrator(s) of the act, use violence or the threat of violence in an attempt to influence government policy or society as a whole to change in a political, social, or as I personally add, a religious way. 

As of yet, no claims of responsibility have been made nor any demands of social/political/religious change have been made.  Thus, the bombings in Boston, no matter how much terror they have instilled ARE NOT YET acts of terrorism by definition.  They are ugly, horrific crimes of unimaginable evil.  Yes, EVIL.  Even if you have no belief in the metaphysical spirit, evil should still be a concept which you fully accept as existing in this world.  Evil, and this is my own personal definition, is any intentional act which is done to willfully inflict a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, financial or some other harm upon any other person for your own gain, pleasure, entertainment or other selfish goal. 

Why am do I so fervently feel the need to stress upon you the difference between calling this a crime, and calling this a criminal act of terror?  Because when we label this an act of terror, certain safeguards to liberty and due process, which we have forsaken, rightly or wrongly, in the hopes of gaining some sense of safety and security, disappear.  And while, in the heat of the moment, some may say, "So What?"  so long as we get the bastards responsible for this hideous thing, there is a reason to answer that So What with a Because....  Do not get me wrong, every reasonable effort of professional criminalistics and forensics needs to be brought to bear.  From the collection, security, inventory, processing and storage of evidence to maintain a secure chain of custody, to the interviews, to the arrests, prosecution, and sentencing should be with all of the resources we have available.  But not at the expense of any due process of law.  Expedient justice is rarely ever just.  And as I noted, the forsaking of liberty for some semblance of safety and security in one instance sets a precedent for doing so again in the future.  Possibly for something that is still shocking to the conscience, but not as heinous as this event.  Then less so for the next, then less for the next.  Does this mean we are on a slippery slope?  Probably not.  Do those slopes always come to reality, just because we voice a concern that it appears as if they are?  No.  But, not voicing the concern is tantamount to the doing nothing that Mr Burke warned us about.

And I will use that as my segue into the second part of my long winded little adventure in wordsmithing.  Regardless of whether we are speaking of the BIG acts of terror, or the everyday acts that induce terror in us, we must not succumb to paralysis, fear and such severe alterations of our daily lives that we lose our own freedoms, not to a tyranical government, or even an overbearing nanny state government, but to our own inner limitations imposed by seeking absolute safety.

When things, large or small, such as these happen, we must, of course, process them in whatever way is healthy for us to do so.  Which means that for some of us, this will go quickly, and for some it may take a period of time that seems far longer to some than it ought.  Either way, unless it is to the point where it has frozen us into place, no one should be telling you that you havent waited long enough or are taking too long to process through the terror you have felt.  However once that process is complete, the changes that we make in our lives should not be so radically drastic that we have completely altered whom we are (unless you believe that who you are was directly linked to the violence you experienced - then maybe you are correct in making vastly more changes than I am going to speak of here).  You learn to become more vigilant of your surroundings.  Not to the point of paranoia, but also that you do not forget the time and place in which you are at and who is around you.  You learn to defend yourself.  While I am a proponent of individual firearms ownership, I do not mean you must get a gun.  If you don't like them, don't purchase or possess one.  But there are many other ways to learn how to protect yourself.  From just basic confidence building to empty hand martial combat techniques.  Learn how to render aid to yourself and to others who may be injured.  Just as law enforcement may not be able to arrive for some period of time (and when you want them, even two or three minutes can seem like hours, but also when they are overwhelmed, i.e. a bombing), the same can be said for emergency medical services.  They can be several minutes away.  They could be feet away, but are treating a critically injured person and unable to render aid to you or another.  Not because they won't, but they can't.  When they have more casualties than they have resources, you get categorized.  And if it isn't immediately life threatening, (and the dirty little secret, or is immediately life threatening, but more likely to be a futile effort to save you) you get to be second or third in line for care.  So, knowing how to help yourself or someone else helps Emergency Service Providers (Police, Fire, EMS, your ER staff).

Okay.  I've have probably either pissed you off, or bored you to tears.

Good thoughts, blessings and prayers for those effected by the tragedy in Boston today, be they the victims, the survivors, the witnesses to the horrors, the rescue personnel, the investigators, the families and friends, or our nation as a whole.