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, congrats on the book.
Mel Ayton - 5/14/2007
Political scientists are split on the definition of terrorism. Terrorism, by its nature, is difficult to define. As Walter Lacqueur observed, “Even if there were an objective, value-free definition of terrorism, covering all its important aspects and features, it would still be rejected by some for ideological reasons.” Even the agencies of the U.S. government cannot agree on a single definition. However, the common threads are:
*Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
*Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
*Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
*Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals, or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.
* In a criminal sense, terrorism involves the “deliberate evocation of dread,” and this dread sets a terrorist act apart from “simple murder or assault.”
Bruce Hoffman maintains that an act may be defined as terrorism only if certain features, including “violence committed by non-state entities,” are present. He believes that “even though Sirhan Sirhan’s assassination of a presidential candidate and United States Senator Robert Kennedy . . . had a political motive . . . it is debateable whether the murder should be defined as a terrorist act since Sirhan belonged to no organized group and acted entirely on his own, out of a deep personal frustration and a profound animus that few others shared.” However, Sirhan’s act was not committed simply out of a personal frustration but was provoked by a belief in Palestinian rights which was universally shared throughout the Arab worl