Today in: things that have actual definitions

Many people find that words have definitions. No duh, you say. But I submit to you the word LITERALLY. Literally has a definition! It means actually, in a literal manner, without exaggeration or hyperbole. And yet it is often conflated with the word "virtually", such that people use literally in a hyperbolic fashion to mean "very nearly". This frustrates many nerds like myself.

So. A lot of other words have definitions. My favorite word with a definition lately is "terrorism" or variants thereof. Let's see what this means, shall we? I'm using a super-pinko commie dictionary, by the way.

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

The definition by DOD is especially interesting because we have to discuss what practical impact this definition has. Do we define terrorism this way descriptively or proactively? Is DOD describing acts we've seen and labeling them "terrorism"? Or is DOD defining certain features of acts that we will prosecute as "terrorism" because we think these aspects make acts particularly dangerous or hard to prosecute? It seems to me that defining "terrorism", in the DOD, is about assigning a certain protocol to prosecuting the perpetrators of that act. As in, if this is "terrorism", then we proceed by doing x,y,z, but if it is not terrorism, then we go this different route of prosecution.

So! Terrorist acts on US soil lately may/may not include:
1) Joseph Stack flying his plane into an IRS building, and identifying the IRS and taxation policies as his inspiration in his suicide note. Neapolitano has ruled this incident a terrorist tactic, but not an act of terrorism. Seems like splitting hairs, but I can dig it. Let's see.
Argument for defining this "terrorism": Stack flew a plane into a government building. He mentioned the IRS in his note and had a long-standing dispute with them.
Argument against: Stack was not part of an organization. Stack does not appear to have had a coercive intent, but instead a more fatalistic, "I give up" motivation. He acted alone and seems to have had no ties to any group with a coercive agenda. Here's the note.
Conclusion: In terms of how to prosecute this person's act and prevent it from happening again, this country is at a loss. Stack killed himself in the crash, and nobody else was involved in his action or supportive of it directly or specifically. There's basically nothing that defining this action as "terrorism" would do for us as a country to make us safer.

2) Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting spree at Fort Hood, which killed 13 and wounded 32. A profile of Hasan on CNN argues that Hasan was a disgruntled, angry loner who is Muslim and of Palestinian descent. In contrast, many others argue that Hasan was akin to a suicide bomber: someone whose radical Islamist views led him to try to sacrifice himself and take out as many U.S. servicemembers at Ft. Hood as possible. There's an interesting article that teases out some arguments about the intersection of radical religious ideology, mental illness, and the similarity of Hasan to other workplace shooters.
Arguments for calling the Ft. Hood attack terrorism: Perpetrated by someone who is arguably a radicalized Muslim, who possibly had ties to radical Muslim clerics. He might have been ideologically motivated: that is, he is a Muslim, and his faith inspired him to commit violence.
Arguments against: It appears Hasan acted alone. Hasan may have been a revenge-motivated shooter, or a phsychotic person whose delusions, rather than his ideology, motivated his violent acts.
Conclusion: How does the label change the way we prosecute Hasan? Does calling him a terrorist meaningfully alter our strategy as a nation against al-Quaeda and similar extremist groups? If it reflects a desire to make our institutions stronger, let's call it terrorism. If the result is that the military becomes more likely to monitor people who, like Hasan, worry their coworkers with violent or irrational rhetoric, I'm all for that. However, if calling this "terrorism" makes our institutions more anti-Islam without becoming more effective, we should worry. Every act of violence committed by every Muslim isn't terrorism, even if, like the Ft. Hood shooting, it is horrible and deplorable and must be avoided.

3) Scott Roeder shot and killed late-term abortion provider George Tiller in his church. With a few exceptions, pro-choice people consider this terrorism, and all but the most extreme anti-choicers call this a disturbed guy acting alone.
Arguments for calling this terrorism: Scott Roeder was, despite their objections, a member of Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue is one of several far-right anti-choice organizations that assists people like Roeder in physical intimidation and coercion of abortion providers. They intimidate providers in order to "save babies" a.k.a. to decrease the number of abortions by eliminating access to abortions. This amounts to a calculated effort to obstruct women from exercising their constitutional rights.
Argument against: Roeder was a lone wolf acting without the knowledge or support of any particular group. Easily debunked by the previous McClatchy link, as well as this article identifying Roeder as a familiar presence in far-right circles.
Conclusion: How does it change the way we react to situations like the murder of Dr. Tiller to call Roeder a terrorist? First, it removes the possibility that we would change national policy to appease the Roeders of the world. Instead, we would defiantly defend a woman's right over her body as an American value that will not be stripped away by intimidation or coercion. We might also monitor or prosecute members of militant right-wing groups that incite violence with their rhetoric, in order to paralyze the structure that keeps producing murderers. These are far better outcomes than treating Scott Roeder and his ilk as lone wolves, since they are supplied and inspired by networks of radicals who believe murder is justified for doctors who help women end crisis pregnancies that might kill the woman, the fetus, or both if brought to term. Terrorism is the definition, because anti-terrorism should be the strategy.