Through the Looking Glass: When Terrorism Isn't Terrorism

Unbelievable:

The Iranian-born Taheri-azar managed to hit nine people with his SUV. Fortunately, he didn't succeed in seriously injuring any of them. After fleeing the scene, Taheri-azar made the peculiar decision to call 911, tell the dispatcher his precise location, and wait for police to arrest him. He told the 911 dispatcher that his actions were designed to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world," and further intimated to police that the United States was "killing his people across the sea." Taheri-azar continued to elaborate on his apparent Islamist motivations during his arraignment the following Monday, telling the judge that he was "thankful you are going to hear this trial to learn more about the will of Allah, the creator." Yet Taheri-azar does not face terrorism-related charges.

To be sure, this is not a clear-cut case
of terrorism. Despite Taheri-azar's own words, there are some questions about his motivations. For a start, it seems strange that a dedicated jihadist would call 911 to turn himself in. And Taheri-azar's background doesn't fit the standard jihadist profile. He was reportedly kicked out of his fraternity for being "a recluse and antisocial," and one of his erstwhile fraternity brothers described him as a heavy drinker who was "almost always high."

REGARDLESS OF TAHERI-AZAR'S TRUE MOTIVE, this case points to a real legal problem: Even if his statements trumpeting jihadist motivations are true, authorities can neither charge him with a terrorist offense, nor seek a sentencing enhancement based on his terrorist motives. This points to a significant blind spot in dealing with terrorism in the United States.

The UNC reaction is about what you'd expect:

Kohn notes the attack, "really surprised and shocked the campus," but says it's too early to call it terrorism. "It's too early to make that judgment. We need to know what his links were, if any, to groups. We need to know his background, any statements he made. Until that time, we should not rush to judgment. It would be premature to do so."

One of Kohn's students disagrees with him and helped organize an anti-terrorism protest on campus. Jillian Bandes, a former student fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, put the event together with UNC senior Kris Wampler.

Wampler is no stranger to activism on the UNC campus. In 2002, he was part of a group that sued the campus over a rule obligating incoming freshman to read a book on the Koran. Wampler's group eventually lost their case but the university did agree to remove the "required" label from the book's recommendation. "The university is very pro-Islamic, and it's been that way the whole time I've been here," Wampler said in a phone interview.

According to press accounts, about 50 protesters showed up advocating a charge of terrorism against Taheri-azar last week. A number of counter-protestors showed up as well, some holding signs that read "forgive."

The same day of the protest Taheri-azar appeared in court to face his charges. When Orange County District Court Judge Patricia Devine asked him if he had any questions, he replied, "I actually don't have any questions. I am thankful you are going to hear this trial to learn more about the will of Allah, the creator." In addition, Taheri-azar said he intended to defend himself. Photographs showed him smiling as he left the courtroom as he described his attack as "the will of Allah, the creator."

This is where willing obtuseness and creeping legalism gets us.

This is quite simple. We are at war with Islamic terrorists. When American idiots join the Taliban, they are committing an act of treason. When students try to further terrorist aims through attempted murder of their classmates, they have committed an act of treason, no different than Nazi saboteurs or Benedict Arnold.

Why do we continue to refuse to take these people at their word when they say they intend to kill us in the name of Allah?