Mad Bombers and Americans

I just finished listening to a radio interview with an “expert” in terrorism talking about the (failed) Times Square bombing and it left me mumbling very ungentlemanly epithets at the radio. And it’s not because I think I know more than experts in this field, it’s because this expert was stating that – it is now becoming much harder to distinguish the terrorist from the average American citizen.

Stupid, mumble, dumb, mumble, mumble… Well, no less average terrorist citizen than the likes of: Bruce Ivins, Timothy McVey, David Berkowitz, Ted Kaczynski, or Mark Chapman…mumble, mumble. This is news?! But it’s the comparison that gets to me.

Attempting to define anyone according to the political, academic, or military context a person is found in, is like saying a walnut is a different walnut because of the location it was found. A nut is a nut. To me, it’s the same as saying a person is a different person depending on where that person is when we make the definition. THAT’S nuts. And in this case, I believe how we classify nuts has real impact on how we see ourselves as citizens, and how the rest of the world sees our actions, as a government.

What’s happened to the word, “insane?” Can’t we just say that the TS bomber (Times Square) was just insane? Don’t we believe his actions merit that?

Let’s lay all the cards on the table – I believe all the aforementioned folks, including the TS bomber, at the time of their actions were insane. If that makes sense, so the guy was nuts, so what? What useful purpose does that serve? And here I’m going to skip all the legal-punishment arguments – insanity vs. terrorist convictions – life in prison vs. the possibility of the death penalty. I don’t need the aggravation.

My question is, why do we want to label the TC bomber actions as “terrorist,” instead of ‘insane?” Even as we see that it is getting much more difficult, if at all possible, to distinguish the “terrorist” from the “average citizen.” I think there are three possible answers: accountability, strategic investigations, reasonableness.

1. Aw, he’s just insane, does not sound as decisive or impressive as, he’s a terrorist. “Terrorist” is more newsworthy (better headlines, more money), it commands more political respect when a politician “takes on the terrorists,” and it appeals to our pack-animal instincts – it’s them or us.

2. It sure must feel helpless for the FBI/CIA to find out that, regardless of address, appearance, and status, almost anyone can terrorize. But at least if we can hang on to a definition – terrorist – we can keep some hope that by using deductive reasoning, we can figure out who these guys are and catch’em! And it makes for better TV – e.g. 24 Hours, Sleeper Cell – that reinforces the idea (in all of us) that the FBI, CIA, and Interpol are on the right path.

3. Hey, to begin with, if these bad people can carry on a reasonable conversation, they can’t be “insane.” They’re not babbling verbal salad, they carried out a strategic plan, and can even give you reasons for doing so. Not insane by reason of reasonableness.

So what’s insanity? Big argument amongst professionals in the field of psychology/psychiatry. And like the legal issues, I’m going to ignore the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” and skip over this aggravating argument. But – I will say that just because you are reasonable does not mean you are not insane.

How we see the (reasonable) world around us, is the reason why it is becoming harder to tell the terrorist from the US citizen – because within the context of appearance, lifestyle, and legal status, they look just like us, which is to say, as strange as any other American. And they are just going along in their life, and POOF! Suddenly change, and for that one or two days/weeks/months, become the TERRORIST.

No…they were showing signs of insanity way before they acted, you just were not there, or did not have an eye for their particular forms of insanity – the fact that they were becoming increasingly isolated in their social behavior, or had been abused as a child and were looking to act out that learned aggression on someone in their present adult life. Whatever. They’re nuts.

They’re nuts, I’m nuts, you’re nuts – we’re all nuts, in some way, some of the time – sometimes it’s hormonal, or lack of sleep, or too much sugar (look up Twinkie defense), or prolonged isolation, or child abuse, or alcoholism, or lack of social acceptance. But sometimes we’re all insane, and can still be reasonable, and can still function in the real world, and can still manage not to kill someone – with intent.

Terrorists kill with intent, I don’t need to tell you. My point is, the deliberate nature of their act does not make it any less insane (remember, legal arguments aside). The other point I want to make is that we ought to treat them as such – insane. No, No, No, not give them psychotropic drugs until they pass some psychological test, then send them home. There are, and should be, legal consequences fitting the crime. But look at labels from a political image and strategic point of view:

US COURT COMMITS TIMES SQUARE BOMBER TO INSANE ASYLUM

Kind of stands out for starters doesn’t it? And from a strategic point of view, it kind of undermines their – whomever they are – attempts to elevate their actions. Before, they were TERRORISTS. Now they are INSANE. Pity the poor crazy bastard. Cause that’s what they are.

Meanwhile, the counter terrorist groups must shift from fighting war on a front, to scanning for, and infiltrating those who would act – as terrorists. But both still believing they are fighting a war, rather than insanity.