Would an arsonist, in any other time, be labeled a terrorist?
Last week a federal judge in Eugene sentenced Kevin Tubbs to more than 12 years in prison for his role in nine environmental activism-related arsons from 1996 to 2001. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken labeled four of Tubbs’ crimes as acts of “terrorism,” a legal distinction.
The news of the day was seemingly not that Tubbs had been found guilty, but that Tubbs and a fellow member of “The Family,” an underground band of radical activists, had been labeled by Aiken as a terrorist. Headlines across the state cautiously attributed the title: The Register-Guard reported “Second arsonist labeled ‘terrorist’,” and The Oregonian dropped the word in question into a sub-headline and instead opted to proclaim, “Arsonist sentenced to 12 years.”
These choices were indicative of an unanswered question: What makes a terrorist a terrorist?
Aiken, for one, was clear on that matter in sentencing Stanislas Meyerhoff on Thursday.
“It was your intent to scare and frighten other people through a very dangerous and psychological act – arson,” she said. “Your actions included elements of terrorism to achieve your goal.
“The fact that your actions were completely irrational doesn’t mitigate this. Nor does the fact that no one was hurt.”
Journalism professor Debra Merskin said through media use particular words like “terrorist” can become psychological triggers that override the meaning of other associations.
“Thus it becomes quite simple to knit together associations that can frame a person or group of people in a particular way that serves the purpose of those in power,” she wrote in an e-mail.
Merskin said it’s important to consider that the word “terrorist” mainly provokes the mental image of Sept. 11, 2001 for most Americans.
“Where once this word might have meant someone who frightens people, who terrorizes them … the media and government reframed it,” she said.