Seattle, Hate Crime & Terrorism

In the news today, six Jews were shot in Seattle by a Muslim suspect. Based upon what I've read so far, this is not only a hate crime, it is terrorism too. In fact, I don't see much difference between the two.

Several years ago, when I was a host at Cafe Utne, I came up with the Boohabian Hate Crime Standard. It went a little something like this:

To win a hate crime prosecution, the prosecution has to show a clear   expression of group hatred through the felony. It is not a "hate crime"   merely because the perpetrator hates people of that group. The crime has to   be intended to communicate that hatred of the group to the victim. The idea   that police search for hidden hate motivations is antithetical to the notion   of hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't enhance your punishment merely for   thinking bad thoughts. They enhance your punishment for committing your   crime in a manner that creates added psychological injury to the victim and   society.

The bolds are in the original; I would probably find another way to express the term 'psychological injury' today. What I mean by that would extend to such things as ritualized execution such as beheading or burning at a stake. In South Africa, a necklace would be considered a hate crime according to my standard. But in any case, the import of the method is that it is used to communicate something either to the victim or to those who would discover the victim. A hate crime is means to an end and the passion of the perpetrator is not satisfied by the act itself but upon the import of the inevitable discovery of the act. In this case, it's clear that walking into a building in broad daylight and shooting up the place was intended to be an act in clear view of the public.

Terrorism is merely the coordination of hate crimes by a conspiracy or syndicate.

I think that the formality of that coordination is important in dealing with matters of justice. In the case of Seattle, I think there is no question that this is a terrorist act, but that the formal ties of the individual are not evident, and may not be provable. But there is no formal 'right blogosphere' and any blogger might behave consistently with that definition and yet not be a part of the 'Blogdom of God' or 'Fighting Keyboardists'. That's an informal conspiracy which could be considered influential but not controlling. So it's not fair to call the Seattle killer a 'lone nut'. It's difficult for me to believe that his plot was merely coincidental, and I would hope that his testimony thus far can be publicized in order to show this. I don't want any formal action to investigate such an informal conspiracy, I simply want acknowledgement that he wasn't acting out of some sort of clinical delusion - that he, for example, thought he was at the zoo killing escaped rabid penguins. That he knew he was on a mission to kill Jews in the context of the situation in the Middle East.

I think it's important for me to go down this road because it outlines the guidelines that I would want the government to pursue in its war on terror. I think it would be reasonable, although relatively fruitless, to take this guy's phone records and trace them back to a possible influencer, or network. But I wouldn't want his family or associates to suffer anything more than a normal questioning in search of formal terror cells. Such an investigation should not yeild any ghost detainees, for example.

There is no question that the message has been heard - I'll be checking Richard Silverstien.