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
JimWhiteGNV RT @AP_Sports: Why does A's pitcher Pat Venditte need this odd-looking glove? http://t.co/gNUb3AkVPZ (@JanieMcCAP) http://t.co/YWYy5Zcu9q
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @remesdh That's why this should be general rule. Both parties do it. No reason we should be surveilled if they're not.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @remesdh It was never proven but I'm fairly sure they went back and doctored emails on Plame outing, destroyed several days.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I blame @joshgerstein for Hillary's email failures. If he weren't so damned insistent on reading Bill's emails, she might have followed law
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Good thing Hillary didn't preside over agency that had 250,000 poorly secured emails stole--oh wait. She did?!?!
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Oh wait?!?! That's too extreme? Well, consider it fire insurance for transparency. My house has never burned, but I have insurance anyway.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel All govt agencies, all pols, will have email retained by NSA in a "lock box" with a "golden key" for 30 years (FBI retention term).
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel My new approach to surveillance activism is gonna be to require retention fr pols they demand of mere proles.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @johnjcook: we've known for two years that hillary conducted state business on an off-the-books email acct http://t.co/Xph2vpvePK
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel When multiple people simultaneously use the same dorky word in online twips about propaganda.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Guess there's no way to arrange for both Menendez and Rice to lose in a battle bt two of them AND to have GOP net loss? #AskingForAFriend
6hreplyretweetfavorite
April 2013
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930