The heinous and distressing Boston bombing attacks last week have generated understandable anxiety. However, some of the reaction has been so extreme that it begs the question, are we overreacting?
Consider for instance Lindsay Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, who is suggesting "the surviving suspect -- due to the ties that these two have to radical Islamic thought and the ties to Chechnya, one of most radical countries in the world -- that the president declare preliminarily that the evidence suggests that this man should be treated as an enemy combatant."
So, Lindsay Graham is suggesting suspending due process for a US citizen based on what they think?
Let's break this down.
The first question is whether Boston was a terrorist attack. Well, it isn't clear that it should be considered as this article in the Guardian and this one by Charles Krauthammer suggests. To understand why, you have to first understand that there is a distinction between an "act of terror" and "terrorism". In general, an "act of terror" is an attack or killing of some sort that is calculated to terrorize people. "Terrorism" is when a political entity or group uses "acts of terror" as a tactic for its political ends. A deranged group of killers who commit an "act of terror" probably should not be considered "terrorists", no matter what their ideological leanings, unless their act had a political purpose and was linked to a political group. Latest reports on the Boston bombers are beginning to suggest that they were ideologically driven, but that they had no political ties and acted alone, calling into question the description of them as terrorists.
The next question is how worried should we be?
This article by John Cassidy in the New Yorker is a good review of the issue. Let me put some of the numbers into perspective.
First, if you just consider mass killings, then in 2012, according to the Washington Post, there were 84 people killed in various mass shootings. Since then there have been 8 that I know of, 4 allegedly by Christopher Dorner and the 4 in the Boston bombings (These numbers don't include the deaths of the perpetrators). Meanwhile, there are roughly 2.5M deaths every year in the US. So, the conditional probability that a person in the US will have died due to a mass killing given that the person has died is less than 0.004%. That is basically inconsequential.
What about if we just considered terrorist attacks and leave aside the question of whether Boston was a terrorist attack or not for a second? Here's how John Cassidy puts it:
As an aside, John Cassidy goes on to point out that there is evidence to suggest that terrorist attacks around the world are declining. Also, he points out that the bulk of Islamic terrorist attacks are actually not against the US or Christians but in Muslim countries against Muslims.
Anyway, the core point is that the Boston Bombing is likely better called a mass killing by deranged youth than a terrorist attack.and, even if we called it a terrorist attack, helped by the vigilance of our security forces, terrorist attacks in the US are rare as are mass killings of any sort. So, Lindsay Graham is probably being a little paranoid.
As an aside, there is a constitutional question underlying Lindsay Graham's request. This is an excellent article by George Will highlighting why such a suspension of constitutional rights based on color, race or beliefs is a bad idea.
Consider for instance Lindsay Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, who is suggesting "the surviving suspect -- due to the ties that these two have to radical Islamic thought and the ties to Chechnya, one of most radical countries in the world -- that the president declare preliminarily that the evidence suggests that this man should be treated as an enemy combatant."
So, Lindsay Graham is suggesting suspending due process for a US citizen based on what they think?
Let's break this down.
The first question is whether Boston was a terrorist attack. Well, it isn't clear that it should be considered as this article in the Guardian and this one by Charles Krauthammer suggests. To understand why, you have to first understand that there is a distinction between an "act of terror" and "terrorism". In general, an "act of terror" is an attack or killing of some sort that is calculated to terrorize people. "Terrorism" is when a political entity or group uses "acts of terror" as a tactic for its political ends. A deranged group of killers who commit an "act of terror" probably should not be considered "terrorists", no matter what their ideological leanings, unless their act had a political purpose and was linked to a political group. Latest reports on the Boston bombers are beginning to suggest that they were ideologically driven, but that they had no political ties and acted alone, calling into question the description of them as terrorists.
The next question is how worried should we be?
This article by John Cassidy in the New Yorker is a good review of the issue. Let me put some of the numbers into perspective.
First, if you just consider mass killings, then in 2012, according to the Washington Post, there were 84 people killed in various mass shootings. Since then there have been 8 that I know of, 4 allegedly by Christopher Dorner and the 4 in the Boston bombings (These numbers don't include the deaths of the perpetrators). Meanwhile, there are roughly 2.5M deaths every year in the US. So, the conditional probability that a person in the US will have died due to a mass killing given that the person has died is less than 0.004%. That is basically inconsequential.
What about if we just considered terrorist attacks and leave aside the question of whether Boston was a terrorist attack or not for a second? Here's how John Cassidy puts it:
"According to “Terrorism Since 9/11: The American Cases,” a new book edited by John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, since the World Trade Center attacks there have been fifty-two alleged Islamic plots to stage attacks on American soil or on planes bound for the United States. If Boston is added to the list, the total is fifty-three. Most of these plots only got to the stage of talking (often with disguised federal agents) before the authorities broke them up, but some went further than that, and a few—all shootings rather than bombings—led to fatalities.
... But compared to other types of violent deaths, the numbers are small. In 2010, to take a year at random, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in the United States, and 19,392 firearm suicides. In the same year, there were 544 homicides by suffocation and 89 by fire, plus 79 intentional poisonings and 52 intentional drownings. Statistically speaking, people in American had a higher chance of being killed by malaria than by terrorists. (These figures come from the Centers for Disease Control.)"
As an aside, John Cassidy goes on to point out that there is evidence to suggest that terrorist attacks around the world are declining. Also, he points out that the bulk of Islamic terrorist attacks are actually not against the US or Christians but in Muslim countries against Muslims.
Anyway, the core point is that the Boston Bombing is likely better called a mass killing by deranged youth than a terrorist attack.and, even if we called it a terrorist attack, helped by the vigilance of our security forces, terrorist attacks in the US are rare as are mass killings of any sort. So, Lindsay Graham is probably being a little paranoid.
As an aside, there is a constitutional question underlying Lindsay Graham's request. This is an excellent article by George Will highlighting why such a suspension of constitutional rights based on color, race or beliefs is a bad idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment