AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- When a man fueled by rage against the U.S. government and its tax code crashes his airplane into a building housing offices of the Internal Revenue Service, is it a criminal act or an act of terrorism?
For police in Austin, it's a question tied to the potential for public alarm: The building set ablaze by Joseph Stack's suicide flight was still burning Thursday afternoon when officials confidently stood before reporters and said the crash wasn't terrorism.
But others, including those in the Muslim community, look at Stack's actions and fail to understand how he differs from foreign perpetrators of political violence who are routinely labeled terrorists.
''The position of many individuals and institutions seems to be that no act of violence can be labeled 'terrorism' unless it is carried out by a Muslim,'' said Nihad Awad, director of the Washington-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.
Within hours of Thursday's crash, which several witnesses said stirred memories of the Sept. 11 attacks, both federal and local law enforcement officials, along with the White House, said it did not appear to be an act of terror. A widely quoted statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security also said officials had ''no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity.''
Yet at the same time, Stack's motives for flying his single-engine plane into a seven-story office building after apparently setting his house on fire were becoming clear as detectives, reporters and others found a rambling manifesto on the Web in which he described a long-smoldering dispute with the IRS and a hatred of the government.
In the note, Stack said he longs for a big ''body count'' and expresses the hope that ''American zombies wake up and revolt.''
''To keep the government from getting money, he burned his house. To keep them from getting money he crashed his airplane,'' said Ken Hunter, whose father Vernon, a longtime IRS employee, was the only person killed by Stack's attack. ''That's not the act of a patriot. That's the act of a terrorist, and that's what he is.''
Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence firm specializing in international risk management, said the rhetoric in Stack's rant clearly matches the USA Patriot Act's definition of terrorism: a criminal act that is intended to ''intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.''
''When you fly an airplane into a federal building to kill people, that's how you define terrorism,'' said Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican whose district includes Austin. ''It sounds like it to me.''
It doesn't to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, who instead sees an isolated, criminal attack carried out by a lone individual. He said branding the crash as terrorism so soon after the plane's impact could have provoked unnecessary panic and prompted residents of Austin and beyond to erroneously conclude that other attacks might be imminent.
''I did not want to use it because I didn't want people that have children in school and loved ones at work to be panicking, thinking that, 'Oh my God, is there going to be 10 more little planes around the country crashing into buildings?''' Acevedo said. ''I knew that this appeared to be one guy in one city in one event.''
Other experts agree. Ami Pedahzur, a professor of government at the University of Texas and author of the book ''Suicide Terrorism,'' said that while Stack's actions might be viewed as a copycat version of 9/11 attacks, they fall short of terrorism.
Pedahuzur said there is no evidence that Stack was involved in a highly planned conspiracy, and descriptions of Stack's state of mind in the days before the crash suggest the software engineer ''snapped'' after suffering an emotional breakdown. His manifesto was filled with rants that were just as personal as they were political, such as his complaint that corrupt politicians are not ''the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.''
Pedahuzur compared the incident to the criminal rampage depicted by Michael Douglas in the 1993 movie ''Falling Down,'' in which an unemployed defense worker angry at society's flaws goes on a rampage.
''(Stack) seems to be trying to cover up a personal crisis with some type of political agenda,'' Pedahzur said. ''It looks like terrorism, but basically it's a story of a person whose anger was building up. It's more of a personal issue than a large movement.''
17 comments:
To call Stack a terrorist would imply that he was trying to change something about society by his actions. To me, it looks like he was just looking for a way to go out in a blaze of glory. Furthermore, "Falling Down" looks like a really good movie.
I think that flying a plane into a building with government offices is a terrorist attack. I think that Stack was making an attack on the United States Government by flying his airplane into a government building. I can see why the chief of police in Austin did not want to call it a terrorist attack but I think that it ultimately still was.
I believe it should be considered an act of terrorism. His intent was to go in and hurt hundreds of people without even considering his own life. It was a direct attack on the IRS. The September 11th attacks were just a larger scale of terrorism.
He was not a terrorist. Yes, he is an idiot for offing himself (especially using a plane that probably cost him a pretty penny), but he didnt do it as an act of terror. He is just dumb.
Stack went a little crazy against the IRS and did what many people in this country want to do "bomb the corporate master that control their lives", and he used this action to vent his anger and people are just using his act of aggression towards big business as an act of terrorism towards America.
Joseph Stack is nothing more than a terrorist. He was filled with rage and planned this attack he didnt just think to himself "hey today im going to fly a plane around and we will see what happens". He posted a rant on the internet but was that enough? No he decided to set fire to his house and then fly a plane into the side of an IRS building. This was terrorism for sure because of the fact he did it to make a statement not just to further his own good. That makes him a terrorist in my opinion.
Terrorism is defined as "a criminal act that is intended to 'intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.'" This is precisely what Joseph Stack did. Angry with the government and its tax code, he decided to fly his plane into an IRS building as an act of defiance. But is there really any difference from the 911 attacks? Same anger with the U.S., same act of retaliation, same frustrated individuals, but from different countries. Although terrorism has a broad definition, it has taken on such a narrower meaning by Americans. For us, it really only refers to attacks by Al-Qaeda. We tend to forget that, if using its literal meaning, terrorism can refer to attacks by Americans as well. Therefore, Stack's suicide flight was indeed an act of terrorism, just not in the way we expected.
OOOOfff at least he wasnt a few years younger and took a gun to scholl, thats what this guy reminds me of, Dylan Kebold.
Whether or not it is an isolated incident, I would say that this situation is definately an act of terror. To take revenge against a government, a man flew an airplane into a building, inspiring terror. Which to me defines terrorism. So what if there wasn't a bitter, scheming group behind this act? If a lone person makes a hateful comment to someone degrading that recipient's skin color, that's still racist, even if the person isn't a member of the KKK. Why should this terminology be any different?
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo makes a good point. It would be irrational to label the act as a terrorism attack because that phrase embodies a much larger issue that this incident does not necessarily relate to. A terrorism attack is generally thought of as political and involves different religions or countries. This however seems like it could pass as a non political solo terrorism act. It is not the usual definition of terrorism but terrorism is definately involved. The intentions were the same and one cannot simply say it was the outcome of an emotional breakdown.
I don't believe the remark that terrorism is limited to Muslims. It's ridiculous. Anyone who seeks to do harm to the United States and instill fear in the hearts of Americans is a terrorist in my eyes. I've yet to read this "suicide manifesto" so I am not sure as to whether or not I feel this man is a terrorist, but if he was trying to copy 9/11 or even remind people of 9/11 through his suicide/murder attempt, then I believe he is a terrorist. Any creed, race, religion, or other demographic can be a terrorist, not simply Muslims.
What defines terrorism isn't whether or not there is politics involved, If he meant to cause harm on other people and therefor spread "terror" isn't that terrorism? Although maybe he was just nuts, like he burned his house down and so... maybe he was trying to cover up personal problems. Like he got hosed by the IRS and decided to kill himself and take his anger out on the IRS for the pain they've caused him. I don't know if its terrorism or not. But I also don't know why we care, I mean he flew a plain into a building.
I don't really see what the point of labeling this incident is. Whether you define terrorism as an organized crime motivated by religion or politics or a single man seeking vandetta against the government, it still doesn't change what Stack did. Terrorism or not, he still caused tons of damage and killed an innocent human being, and arguing semantics won't change past or future events.
I'm not sure if this act could be labeled as an act of terrorism. True, the suicide crashing resembles the events that took place on 9/11, the intent of the act seems to come from a totally different place. Terrorism as defined in the article is to use terror to influence a government, or its citizens' conduct. He crashed a plane into the house office of the Internal revenue service out of dislike towards the tax codes. It was not a planned out political vendetta, but more of a spiteful act. Regardless of whether or not he is a terrorist, such acts of destruction and harm should not be tolerated, and whatever the label, i hope our future holds fewer similar events.
This was obviously an act of terrorism. Terrorism is when someone or a group of people attack somewhere or someone to change how the public thinks and that is exactly why Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin. "In the note, Stack said he longs for a big 'body count' and expresses the hope that 'American zombies wake up and revolt.'" Using violence to incite "revolt" is terrorism.
I would characterize this act as an act of terrorism. Mr. Joseph Stack’s suicidal attack on IRS building was to use violence to intimidate and coerce change in public attitude towards IRS and US government, an act of terrorism, even though it lacked the features of an international conspiracy. Government officials do not want to call it a terrorist act probably to calm the fears and anxiety of citizens and not to open the wound of 09/11. In this climate of national insecurity Austin police Chief, Art Acevedo did not want to characterize this event as terrorist act to prevent widespread panic.
Since September eleventh the definition, interpretation and reaction to such acts has changed. To be politically and culturally correct act of Joseph Stack in crashing his plane onto IRS building in Austin, Texas is called a criminal act. This is possibly because it involved one man and not a group exhibiting their view towards government even though it meets the main criterion of the definition of terrorist act.
By legal definitions, every terrorist act is criminal act The act of terrorism is defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Joseph Stack’s action follows the definition of act of terrorism.
I disagree with Ami Pedahzur view to minimize this act and dispose it off as criminal act. I believe that any one person or group attempting to change government or its laws by means of violence causing death and destruction is a terrorist and their action is the act of terrorism.
In my opinion the difference between 'acts of terrorism' and 'criminal acts' is that terrorism is something done to destroy a group on a large scale; criminal acts are things done to satisfy ones self. Stack's actions were to evoke rage and and other emotions that he felt were isolating him. Even more simply, Stack seems like he just wanted attention and possibly even infamy. I highly agree with the ending quote, "It's more of a personal issue than a large movement."
Post a Comment