Redefining Domestic Terrorism

Erika Dennery

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terrorism

March 31st, 2018

Redefining Domestic Terrorism

For many years domestic terrorism has been defined by the Patriot Act as an attempt 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 mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” This definition clearly outlines what it means to be a domestic terrorist, and yet men and women alike are being put behind bars for committing acts that don’t seem to fit the stated definition. When this occurs, the government is clouding what the true definition of domestic terrorism is and they are creating confusion as to what it means to be a domestic terrorist; with this in mind, the government needs to put more recognition on violent terrorism in the country in order to address threats to public safety rather than threats to big corporations along with their money making agendas.

Animal rights activist Kevin Johnson knows all too well what it is like to be charged and convicted with terrorism, but not for reasons that one may typically assume. While indeed Mr. Johnson did break the law he never hurt a single person or a single piece of property, his actions of releasing 2,000 minks from a fur farm simply harmed the big agricultural companies that were profiting from the fur sales. This crime may seem petty but the government in fact was able to charge Kevin as a terrorist, due to laws put in place to retrain people from committing such acts. Though Johnson certainly should not have gotten away with his crime scott free, is it really fair to deem him a terrorist for his actions of saving thousands of innocent animals from torture, traumatization, and eventual death? Arguably, the Parkland shooter Nicolas Cruz and people like him should be considered true domestic terrorists, however, simply because Cruz didn’t break any “anti-school shooting” laws his murder of 17 innocent people doesn’t warrant the government's official label of “terrorist” yet the man who saved suffering animals from their impending doom does? What logical sense does this make?

The government’s focus on prosecuting animal rights activists and similar activists, those who cause no harm other than to companies that are making a profit, is taking away from the time the government could be spending protecting the country from those who actually wish to hurt people rather than to protect animals, the earth, etc. Kevin Johnson wrote, “Put succinctly, I am a terrorist not because of what I did, but because the government dislikes why I did it.” Therefore, is it fair to argue that the government is willing to let it slide when a white man kills his fellow Americans in cold blood because he isn’t disrupting big companies and their profits? While the person causing the most terror to the citizens of the United States is certainly the armed white male it seems as if the government feels more threatened by the unarmed activist attempting to promote change; therefore they have altered what the true definition of domestic terrorism should be so that they may punish those harming the corporations they care about rather than those harming the citizens themselves who should be the top priority.

It is in this lack of a solid definition of domestic terrorism that those who commit acts against their fellow man get away with “murder” while activists like Kevin Johnson become the evil “terrorist”; something about that isn’t right. The United States needs to produce a more solid definition of domestic terrorism that doesn’t lump nonviolent activists into the same or sometimes even worse of a category than the violent killers in our nation. If the government truly wants to make a difference in the lives of the millions of people it is supposedly dedicated to protect then it must address threats not only to their financial gain, but threats to the very people who continually put their faith in the system.