mple physical security and police techniques. Terrorists’ concerns are macrocosms about changing a larger order; other violent criminals are focused on the micro level of pecuniary gain and personal relationships. ‘Political’ in this regard encompasses not just traditional left-right politics but also what are frequently described as religious motivations or social issues.”
Mel Ayton: “From the definitions formulated by many government organizations and some leading political scientists, including Pillar, Sirhan’s act of murder can be described as terrorist in nature. Although there is no evidence that he was in league with Palestinian terrorist groups before Robert Kennedy’s murder, there is strong evidence to show that Sirhan was influenced by extremist propaganda, that he chose his target on the basis of political motive, and that he believed his actions were legitimate and were ideologically and politically inspired.”
Leonard Robinson - 5/14/2007
I'm impressed with your research (although frankly I'm not a big fan of Hoffman--trying telling the people of Chile, Argentina and Colombia that terrorism can only be "violence committed by non-state entities"--what a bunch of hogwash!). Anyway, just a few comments in response:
1) The first of the "common threads" seems conceptually confusing:
"Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change." That description could apply to any act of political violence, including interstate war (see Clausewitz's famous observation that war is the conduct of politics by other means).
2) The second "common thread" is, in my opinion, too broadly worded; it seems to me by that definition there is no difference whatsoever between terrorism and assassination--EVER! Surely you don't mean to argue that every assassination is automatically an act of terrorism?
3) This brings me to Hewitt's argument about "unaffilitated terrorists." Again, to me this definition, when applied to cases such as the RFK assassination, conflates two separate categories of political violence--terrorism and assassination. For example, just after being seized, Guiteau exclaimed: "I am a Stalwart of Stalwarts, and Arthur is president now!" If we assume that Guiteau in fact favored Arthur, does this mean that Guiteau was a terrorist because, through his act of violence, he sought to achieve a political objective? Is Booth a terrorist for striking at Lincoln in defense of the faltering Condederacy? In fact, can we not assume that the large majority of American assassins were terrorists? After all, scholarly analyses of American assassins have revealed that only a very small handful truly fit the category of "mentally ill."
In my opinion, a worthy definition of terrorism must have four essential elements: it must address the type of actor carrying out the violence, the type of target, the type of act, and the purpose of the act. Again, in my opinion to make terrorism (or for that matter assassination) a conceptually meaningful category, the definition must be as precise as possible. Otherwise, it becomes so broad and all-encompassing as to render it useless as an analytical tool. In the case of terrorism, if we are going to accept that individuals can act as "unaffiliated terrorists," it becomes critical to look not just at the act (the use of violence), but also the actor who carried out the attack and his victim. In the end, I'm just not convinced that an act of violence by a single individual against another individual, even if it has some political overtones (again, I'm not convinced that Sirhan was driven purely by politics to do this) adds up to terrorism. For that matter, even if the individual claims to have been motivated purely by politics, I'm still not convinced that, when the violence is "one-on-one," it counts as terrorism. (By the way, I suspect that Hewitt is linking the concept of unaffiliated terrorism to acts such as the OKC bombing, but not having read that piece, I can't say for sure).
In the end, I suspect this is another one of our "agree to disagree" points. Again