XX Factor: the blog

Dr. George Tiller's Killer Was a Domestic Terrorist

The murder of Dr. George Tiller in his church this Sunday sent a special chill down my spine; not the kind one gets when someone young, or important, or defenseless is gunned down in cold blood, but the kind one gets when domestic terror strikes. I don't mean to be too alarmist about the first killing of an abortion provider since 1998. Of course, any such assassination is illegal and wrong. But the lawlessness and vigilantism of this particular murder—or, as the anti-abortion zealout who allegedly shot him might put it, judgment—is very worrisome. Is total anarchy just around the corner?

Michelle Goldberg finds a reason to be worried. At The Daily Beast, she narrates how a strengthening pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-progress consensus (otherwise known as a Democratic president) has left anti-abortion and religious groups embittered at the loss of political power. Goldberg flags the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing fringe groups, and speaks with a hate crimes specialist who sees the far right becoming, as it had been under the last Democratic administration, "restless, apocalyptic, and ready for action."

Earlier this spring, conservatives went into paroxysms of outrage after a leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security warned of the possibility of right-wing violence. “Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members,” the report said. “Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.”

Tiller's slaughter may thus be seen as the result of growing radicalism combined with growing political impotence. Goldberg continues:

That’s especially true with regard to abortion. “They see the mainstream anti-abortion leadership as being traitorous or emasculated at best,” Levin says of the radical anti-abortion movement. After all, Rick Warren gave the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Notre Dame gave him an honorary degree and invited him to speak at commencement. A recent Gallup poll showed that, for the first time ever, more Americans identify as “pro-life” than “pro-choice,” but the anti-abortion movement still can’t find momentum. “They feel like their leadership is not carrying the ball on this and has basically become patsies or traitors,” says Levin.

Jonathan Chait thinks he's found "a unified theory of Obama"—which is that, while negotiating touchy issues both foreign and domestic, Obama likes to assume good faith, and thereby alienate individuals who are obviously pissing in the legislative or diplomatic soup. This may be true (Mark Schmitt has written persuasively on this subject as well); but warring over reproductive rights is something different entirely. If true villians exist, they create a moral space in which they must be stopped. And anti-abortion activists, including prominent hit men like Bill O'Reilly, had made Tiller, who performed therapeutic late term abortions and saved many women's lives, a villain.

We saw the seeds of this entropic, extralegal movement in the Republican men and women who yelled "terrorist!" at then-candidate Obama during campaign rallies. So while Obama has tried conciliation (the Notre Dame speech is a great example), the "common ground" he seeks may not exist—Tiller was the latest victim of this Manichean world view. What's worse, the search for common ground, however clever and symbol-laden, may actually encourage murder.

So, I'm sad to say, domestic terror is back.

UPDATE: Adam Serwer at TAPPED offers a working defintion of terrorism. Ann Friedman lays out Obama's policy options.

Comments

good post,I think

By: wallace530 | Fri, 09/04/2009 - 04:16

good post,I think so!abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos
abercrombie and fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap
abercrombie and fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos
abercrombie and fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and
links london accessories edhardylife a famous ed hardy store which sell directly ed hardy
clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and other cheap ed hardy,
ed hardy cheap Ed Hardy ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy.Provides the best tiffany
jewellery, including Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings at the lowest prices.Tiffany Jewellery is the best online United Kingdom jewelry stores where
you can buy the cheapest
tiffany jewellery & Co silver jewelry. Our huge selection of
tiffany uk and
tiffany jewellery and
tiffany jewelry

None of your elements have

By: Dubious | Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:31

None of your elements have anything to do with encouraging or discouraging the behavior of those who act outside the law to achieve their own version of "justice." The man was simply a fanatic acting outside the law. We find such crazies throughout history and in all spectrums... Don't you remember the Weathermen, the SLA, the Black Liberation Front, the KKK, or even the Unabomber?

Some of them, no. I wasn't born yet when the Weathermen disbanded. Others it's as you say- but yet others aren't. The KKK is a good example of the latter, a group that has been publicly excoriated but there's always been those individuals who will find them useful and give a wink and a nod to recruit them as pawns. I've read statements from ex-members who quit the KKK, not because they renounced their beliefs, but because they came to the conclusion the local politicians who'd been quietly encouraging them had just been using them as a tool for personal power, not any true sympathy.

That's the same thing that a lot of the debates about torture and Jack Bauer's methods offer up. There's the element of arguing that certain things aren't illegal, sure- but there's also the ongoing sentiment that the ends justify the means, and it's perfectly fine to break the law so long as you're doing it for the right reasons. Every time patriotism, freedom, or similar things are invoked, every time someone says torturing terrorists is okay because they're the bad guys and we're the good guys, every time someone says someone else had it coming because they did bad things?

That is encouraging mindsets like this guy's. That's saying that breaking the law is wrong, and terrible, and shouldn't happen... except if you're doing what's right. Because each of us defines what is right to ourselves. If we say it's okay- even if only with a wink and a nod while we denounce it- you will get people who do things like this and believe it's acceptable. It needs to be stopped.

After our society decided

By: Mark | Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:38

After our society decided that the ends justify the means, that torturing or killing the few in order to save the many is ethically acceptable, if not laudable, that a human being can act as judge, jury, and executioner outside the law- after 24, Guantanamo, water boarding and everything else we've done or said or encouraged or even just tolerated- we may not be able to convince these people that it is truly wrong.

-----------------

None of your elements have anything to do with encouraging or discouraging the behavior of those who act outside the law to achieve their own version of "justice." The man was simply a fanatic acting outside the law. We find such crazies throughout history and in all spectrums... Don't you remember the Weathermen, the SLA, the Black Liberation Front, the KKK, or even the Unabomber?

You cannot convince people that these kind of actions are wrong because these are people who are not capable of rational thought; they've become too invested in their beliefs.

The danger with events like

By: Dubious | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 20:16

The danger with events like this is that they make the idea possible. There are people who agreed with Tiller's murderer. They support him, they say that what he did was right. They say it was not murder, it was was acceptable because Tiller performed abortions.

In essence, this is advocating vigilantism, both as a direct means to stop someone from performing abortions (by killing them) and by threatening others- terrorism, in that it is intended to spread terror. How much of each played into this individual's goals is impossible to say, but I think assuming either he or his sympathizers will now decide it's enough is a bad idea.

There is a significant chance there will be a backlash because of this- people will push back hard in terms of opinion and freedom to act. It will be harder to oppose abortion rights because any pro-life position will be at least tinged with association with this murder. And equally powerful this is not likely to reduce the amount of abortions performed in the US by any significant amount.

Why is that dangerous? Because there will be a group of people, however small, who will feel that conventional means are futile. There will be a group of people who feel that they are helpless to prevent abortions from occurring. And perhaps most importantly, there will be a group of people who will decide that there is no other choice, that killing abortion doctors is necessary, if not outright acceptable.

I don't know that we can put an end to this- much like nuclear weapons, it may be impossible to stuff this genie back into the bottle. After our society decided that the ends justify the means, that torturing or killing the few in order to save the many is ethically acceptable, if not laudable, that a human being can act as judge, jury, and executioner outside the law- after 24, Guantanamo, water boarding and everything else we've done or said or encouraged or even just tolerated- we may not be able to convince these people that it is truly wrong.

At this point, we may have already taught ourselves the idea that so long as you are willing to pay the price, breaking the law to do what you think is right is acceptable. And that vigilantism is right. If we've done that, then we are very much in trouble. No matter if the person holding the gun is right wing, left wing, religious or not.

Actually BrokenArt

By: phpeter | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 16:10

Actually, what it means is exactly what my second point was, which is that this person believed, just as the article quotes others as believing, that killing was justified because he was a killer of babies. Not my point, I do not think it is justified, but that was most likely the rationale and that is how these people were quoted in the article. That is not terrorism, but rather a specific act to stop what this person believed to be the killing of innocents. You might not like it, but it doesn't appear to be a terrorist act. You also conveniently left out the very first part of the article where police believe this individual acted alone.

GM91426, your "Facts", as you wrote them in your post, are very misleading. If you look at the trends, nearly every single indicator shows a decline since 2001 of crime...let me repeat NEARLY EVERY SINGLE ONE. The numbers you dropped are more so misleading, they hurt what was an otherwise credible point that violence against these abortion clinics and Doctors is wrong, we agree on that.

Thanks GM91426 for helping to make my final point. You write, "As for your bizarre attempt to drag Baltimore into the equation--random crime doesn't have a political goal. That's why it's not terrorism. Coordinated anti-abortion has a political goal. That's why it *is* terrorism." Tell me how this murder had a political goal? You are assuming an awful lot if you think you can do that. I already wrote that I think this murder will set back the pro-life cause. Society is highly against late term abortions...WE ARE ALREADY POLITICALLY WINNING, what would be gained by this? My whole point is that this random murder most likely had no political goal, but rather the individual view that this Dr. needed to be stopped from killing babies. That is not terrorism. As I know you were smart enough understand, the B-More example was to highlight a more legitimate act of terrorism that would never be labeled as such because the crimes were carried out by non-white inner-city kids. The pro-life/religious people always make an easy target for labels like these because it is a convenient and nearly inarguable position. Now the pro-life people are in the position of having to argue they are not terrorists, how does a group people prove a negative.

I don't disagree with the fact that people have very strong and violent feelings about abortion, abortion is itself a violent. I disagree with them. For you to lump some fringe attackers, to a greater pro-life movement is incorrect and you know it. Most pro-life people eat dinner with you, work across from you, sit next to you in church and stand in line at Starbucks behind you...normal people who just happen to believe that abortion is wrong. Do you really think it is fair to start lumping those who you see everyday in with the people who kill randomly in a church in Kansas?

"Is total anarchy just around the corner?"

By: xxreader | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 15:09

Are you effing kidding me?

Pattern vs. isolated incident

By: gm91436 | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 15:06

Phpeter, there's a pdf you need to see.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/violence_statistics.html

As anyone who remembers the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn, the 1994 murders of the two Massachusetts clinic receptionists, and the 1998 murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian, not to mention the terror campaign of Eric Rudolph, this was clearly not an isolated incident. Even less so when one learns that, since 1993, there have been 14 attempted murders of abortion providers, 13 bombings of medical care locations, 62 arsons, 35 attempted bombings or asons, 28 butyric acid attacks, over 600 anthrax threats, 81 assaults & batteries… and countless stalkings and bomb threats. I think that's enough to demonstrate a bubbling undercurrent of violence. I mean, 600 anthrax threats is a lot of anthrax threats.

I'm sorry--you were saying about this being an isolated incident?

As for your bizarre attempt to drag Baltimore into the equation--random crime doesn't have a political goal. That's why it's not terrorism. Coordinated anti-abortion has a political goal. That's why it *is* terrorism.

Gunsmoke, I've never heard of anyone refer to Hamas members as "Freedom Fighters." You don't by any chance have a link to back up that absurd assertion, do you?

Organized Anti-Abortion Groups

By: BrokenArt | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 14:27

Scott Roeder, the man who is being held for killing Dr. Tiller, was part of a group of pro-life activists that believed killing abortion providers was justified. They all signed a statement saying killing abortion providers was justified. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR200906...

This means there are groups that feel intimidation and terror are legitimate ways for imposing their version of the world, ie one were all abortions are illegal. This then is domestic terrorism.

The left needs to get their definitions right

By: gunsmoke | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:23

I thought the left called terrorists (Hamas, Sunnis, etc) freedom or resistance fighters. The left didn’t object to the terrorists Obama called friends like Bill Ayers. It seems kinds stupid to poke fun at right wing hypocrisy when left wing hypocrisy is just as bad.

Nice

By: phpeter | Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:44

I think you have cherry picked a definition that suits your purpose, but lets discuss. You are presupposing that this was calculated, that this INDIVIDUAL thought that his political, religious or ideological means were going to be met by performing this act, that some political, religious or ideological result that suited his needs would come from it. He also could have thought that this was a murderer who needed to be stopped from killing, so in his mind it was OK to kill the Dr. Two very different points of view, but the reason the column is lazy and irrresponsible is that it assumes that because one Dr. was murdered (first one over a decade mind you) that pro-life groups are somehow on the edge and she leaves the impression that there is a bubbling undercurrent of violence. This is a silly way to look at the issue and very amateurish.

To discuss your point, a series of acts of violence aimed at random strangers and tourists in a particular part of town is more frightening and terror laden then one Dr. who got gunned down in Kansas. This violence specifically impacts commerce, tourism and the community, but for some reason, certain minority gangs are never labeled as "Domestic Terrorist". It is almost accepted because they are poor and have grown up in less than desirable circumstances.