Matthew Shugart correctly notes in the comments section of an earlier post, if the goal of the New Jersey Six was to attack a military base, it was not a terrorist plot, as terrorism is, by definition, aimed at civilian populations.

One could call this a paramilitary operation (or some other term), but not terrorism.

I should have recognized that from the get-go.

14 Comments

1. Most definitions I’ve seen do not use “civilian.” They use “innocent,” which is not necessarily the same.

   Comment by Greg Weeks — Tuesday, May 8, 2024 @ 6:04 pm

2. Most definitions I’ve seen do not use “civilian.” They use “innocent,” which is not necessarily the same.

   I don’t know where you’re looking, but Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) explicitly refers to noncombatant targets.

   Comment by Ratoe — Tuesday, May 8, 2024 @ 10:14 pm

3. Does that mean that the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist attack either, technically? I think I’ve asked you that before, but I don’t remember the answer.

   Comment by Jan — Tuesday, May 8, 2024 @ 10:21 pm

4. [...] See Also: (Language warning) Wonkette Taylor Marsh; Drudge Retort (Red Meat For Yellow Dogs); PoliBlog Technorati Tags:  Bush, Congress, Current Events, Data Mining, Eavesdropping, Fort Dix, Headline News, Headlines, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, News, News and Politics, Patriot Act, Politics, Rants, RealID, Senate, Terror, Terrorism [...]

   Pingback by The Gun Toting Liberal™ — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 2:16 am

5. A “noncombatant” is not a civilian because it can refer to military personnel–it hews more toward “innocent” (which is used in many academic definitions–the U.S. government is not the only source of information). But the government’s own National Counterterrorism Center defines a noncombatant as “military assets outside of war zones and war-like settings.”

   I’m not trying to flog a dead horse, but especially in this case (i.e. a military base) definitions do matter. This always leads to great debates in my Intro to Comparative Politics class.

   Comment by Greg Weeks — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 5:05 am

6. Greg,

   I would actually prefer “noncombatant” to “civilian” (I guess today isn’t my day for precision in language).

   I don’t like “innocent” as it infers a value judgment about the very nature of the person targeted. For example: a suicide bomber might not consider his targets innocent, and therefore justifies his actions in that way. Indeed, since those doing the attacking always think that their attacks are justified, it seems the using “innocent” defines away the notion of terrorism in some ways.

   The noncombatant issue does make this case a bit fuzzy–insofar as the soldiers at Fort Dix are not in a combat zone, but it is a military base training and housing soldiers on active duty.

   And Greg: if you can’t flog on a blog, where can you flog?

   Jan,

   Yes, we have discussed the Pentagon before. I think that in the context of the attacks that day, the fact that the Pentagon wasn’t even the primary target (the White House allegedly was for that plane) and the fact that the Pentagon itself is more a bureaucratic entity than anything else, that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon qualifies as terrorism.

   Had the attack been solely aimed at the Pentagon and only the Pentagon and had it been the only attack, I suppose one could make a different argument.

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 7:28 am

7. Plus, using a civilian airliner for the attack would make the crashing of said airplane a terrorist attack regardless of what it was crashed into, it would seem, now that I think about it.

   Comment by Jan — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 8:22 am

8. [...] UPDATE IV: There’s debate at Steven Taylor weblog on whether the planned attack on a military base meets the definition of terrorism. Save and Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

   Pingback by Fort Dix Terrorist Attack Thwarted » The American Mind — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 8:37 am

9. Yup.

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 8:50 am

10. Is It ‘Terrorism’ if Soldiers are the Target?

    Matthew Shugart argues of the Fort Dix Six, “If they were really preparing to attack a military base, that, by definition, would not be terrorism.” Steven Taylor agrees,
    Well, no. There are numerous definitions of “terrorism”…

    Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 10:13 am

11. Regardless of where anyone comes down on the definition, I just wish there was more public debate about what terrorism should mean. Don’t even get started on “war on terror” either, which encompasses scary things in my kids’ closets.

    Comment by Greg Weeks — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 1:50 pm

12. Greg,

    Quite right on both counts.

    I was thinking of our little blog-comment debate this morning and was wishing that we, as a country, were having such debates. At a minimum it would be nice if the political class would do so.

    I admit to have swallowed some of the more dramatic definitions of some of these things after 9/11, but as times passes, reassessments are needed–or so one would like to think…

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 9, 2024 @ 2:26 pm

13. There are more civilians working and living on Ft Dix than soldiers, probably 2 or 3 times as many. Does that help with “noncombatant” terminology.

    Comment by Joe — Thursday, May 10, 2024 @ 5:15 pm

14. Joe,

    The point is that a primarily military target muddies the waters. I am not saying it makes the plot better or worse, just potentially analytically different.

    Are all attacks not undertaken during war “terrorism”? No, they are not.

    Are all attacks launched against noncombatants “terrorism”? No, they are not.

    TO some degree it would ultimately depend on the nature of the attack, and we really don’t know what it would have been. Had they attacked the front gates or soldier’s training fields or barracks, then that might be defined in one way and defined in yet another if they parked a car bomb by some on-base offices.

    Again, the point isn’t to diminish, it is simply a question of proper definition.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, May 10, 2024 @ 10:07 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=11913

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.