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
emptywheel @FallenJPAngel I keep saying this country will start doing something about climate change when Lockheed figures that out @kenvogel @tedcruz
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Cruz isn't stupid. He knows what the Kochs are purchasing, and he's all too happy to self himself as that product. https://t.co/LJhwZC5Pdj
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @rcjparry @walterwkatz @PolicingWatch @mattapuzzo Jesus would clearly shoot anybody that doesn't supplicate themselves to a cop.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rcjparry And as I said ass licking cop troll.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PhilPerspective @walterwkatz Three weeks is too long dammit! Can't wait for the Belgian!
7mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rcjparry Go fuck yourself
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Which is not to say that those people can't be cravenly neutered by paid, arguably fraudulent, shills like Lewinski https://t.co/YYmtpMZtjU
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @rcjparry Not because they are right, but because the field has been fouled with total disingenuous crap.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz @rcjparry right. certainty and smooth presentation of BS that, even when countered, turns into expert battle that cops win.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz No, jackass, I am stupefied that there are recalcitrant apologists like you for abuse of force and murder by cops. https://t.co/kqcgaxn0de
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rcjparry @walterwkatz @PolicingWatch @mattapuzzo How about you find one "actual scientist" who DOES agree. And, btw, Lewinski isn't one.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rcjparry @PolicingWatch @mattapuzzo @walterwkatz Also. no maybe after 30yrs of watching this fraud Im "not classy". Screw that Uncle Albert
19mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2013
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930