Claire McCaskill: Why Aren’t We Calling Sandy Hook Terror?

Janet Napolitano is testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, purportedly on the budget. Not surprisingly, she’s getting a ton of questions about the Boston Marathon attack and immigration.

But in a smart series of questions that will undoubtedly be controversial, Claire McCaskill challenged Napolitano to explain why we so quickly called Boston a terrorist attack, but wouldn’t call Sandy Hook a terrorist attack. Noting that we still don’t know the motive behind either attack, McCaskill asked (these are my immediate transcriptions),

Other than weapon, is there any difference between Sandy Hook and Boston?

[snip]

We are so quick to call Boston terror, why aren’t we calling man w/high capacity magazine a terrorist?

[snip]

As I look at it w/eyes of prosecutor, I find it troubling that one is treated to cause so much more fear than other.

[snip]

It’s possible both had same motive, just one chose military weapon, the other chose homemade explosive.

It’s a provocative, but necessary question. The crime of terrorism relies on having a political motive. In both these attacks, we don’t know motive. But two days after Boston, we’re treating it as terrorism, while the attack that killed 20 children in their school still isn’t called such.

My inclination would be to call neither terrorism. McCaskill is right that the term just serves to generate fear.

But I’m glad she asked the question.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

7 Responses to Claire McCaskill: Why Aren’t We Calling Sandy Hook Terror?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler I do! It has been very good to me. Remember I'm on your side, But @jadler1969 has better shot than you think.
53sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @chinahand But it's prolly also likely if DOJ tries to take more charges w/o forcing reporter testimony.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler Meh, if this thing goes beyond the Chevron analysis, you have lost. And Bagley/Tribe won't save you.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @chinahand Well, IMO it's how they got from 1 or 2 charges to 7 &--importantly--jurisdiction for all in EDVA.
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler Post hoc evidence not relevant.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @bmaz I'm sure it is important. Internet records prolly are important. @astepanovich
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @astepanovich @emptywheel She does view it as "important" though.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler After the fact? If they are arguing that as significant on King? Yes, absolutely.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @brianbeutler Them self servingly arguing that is of no necessary moment. b/c they support "your view" doesn't make "serious"
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @brianbeutler @ThePlumLineGS You are doing fine, and so is Greg! That is why I read you.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @OrinKerr: Judge in the Barrett Brown case explains the sentence calculation: http://t.co/UzE0un7gb1
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich Yes. But credit card program would not, as described, count as bulk, even if it collects all intl transfers @Robyn_Greene
22mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2013
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930