The definition of terrorism

In the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy, many have been left confused. Without any knowledge of Stephen Paddock’s motives, the public has broken out into a debate as to whether or not he should be labeled a terrorist. The problem is that the word “terrorist” is much more complex than we think. So far, the information we have on Paddock is limited. We know the plan was long in the making, and it appears he was planning attacks on events similar to the music festival in Las Vegas. He booked rooms in Chicago overlooking Lollapalooza and even researched hotels near Fenway Park, the Boston Red Sox stadium. Along with this, the FBI found that Paddock collected guns and bump stocks, which fit around the grip and stock of the gun and increase its firing rate. All of this madness led to the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, with death tolls reaching 59 and more than 500 injured. When you look at an attack as horrific as this one, it’s only natural to try to make sense of things. After I found out about what had happened in Las Vegas, the uncertainty about it all was one of the most terrifying parts. As I scoured the internet, trying to get a grasp on why this horrible event just happened, I saw various contrasting headlines about Stephen Paddock. Some labeled him a lone wolf, some told us of his love of country music and enjoyment for gambling and then finally, some called him a terrorist. This label was the one I didn’t quite understand, because as I soon discovered, terrorism is a multi-dimensional world.We have yet to decide on a universally accepted definition of terrorism, although the United States federal government’s definition, defined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, is “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.”  Even so, there are still many different definitions of terrorism. According to Nevada state law, terrorism is defined as “any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.”  So while this does mean that Stephen Paddock would fall under the terrorist category in the state of Nevada, where his crime was committed, it still doesn’t discount the fact that he doesn’t fit the federal definition, which is why I believe that he isn’t a terrorist. The difference between mass shootings and acts of terror are slight, but the primary difference is that terrorist attacks are politically motivated. I say this begrudgingly, because as I do believe that Stephen Paddock deserves to be called the most horrible words that we can come up with, it wouldn’t benefit our society to expand the definition of terrorism to include acts of evil that don’t fit the definition. The term is too loosely thrown around and used in bias and corrupt ways; we need to take caution when deciding how broad we want this label to be. Rather than widen the definition, we should work on how we’re applying the term. The word itself holds a gross amount of racial bias behind it, and seems to be only used in the case of Muslims. We need to change this to stop this implicit bias. In many ways, the government has to work on what they’re labelling terrorism. For example, if Paddock was still alive, and we would eventually find out his hateful reasons for carrying out this terrible act of evil, but we still wouldn’t have been able to prosecute him for domestic terrorism. In fact, the statue doesn’t even exist. Those in law enforcement are hesitant to create one because they believe that they are already able to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent and bring the appropriate charges to handle a mass attack. Creating a statue would also be problematic because of its possibility to infringe on First Amendment rights, because there is a danger that the government could criminalize ideologies, theologies and beliefs that people are entitled to rather than specific criminal acts. The only way somebody can be charged with terrorism is if the act committed is international and connected to one of the various terrorist groups that have been distinguished by the U.S. State Department. A majority of these groups are radical Islamic groups. This in itself is frustrating, because this allows far right extremists like Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people in 1995, Dylann Roof, who killed nine African Americans in Charleston in hopes of starting a race war in 2015 and James Alex Fields, a white supremacist who drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters in Charlottesville in 2017, to go by without being stuck with the label that they deserve. It seems as if somebody can only be a terrorist if they have melanin in their skin, or are from a foreign place and speak a different language. We have acquired an unfair and one dimensional view on who terrorists are. The fact that there is no domestic terrorism statute shows the political bias of it all.There is a lot of racial bias behind this word, and the problem with this is that nobody realizes how powerful the label of “terrorism” is. It’s how America has been able to justify spying on its own citizens, waging a war and inflicting violence and oppression against entire communities.  It gives the government the power to suspend basic due process and enhanced powers to investigate, charge and punish. The label itself seems to be solely used as a political weapon that's being used to further certain agendas.  In order to try to create a false sense of security, they’ll try to hide the fact that terrorism isn’t soley abroad in other countries, but really it is lurking all around us. If we begin to see the word terrorism for how corrupt it is, we can make sure to prevent it from being misused and manipulated. Rather than broadening the definition, we can work to improve how it is being used and take away its power.