SUV drives into pit at UNC

Thank you Mark.

Thanks to the reporting efforts of no fewer than 10 people, the DTH's final story -- at least for tonight -- is up.

Ryan Tuck just got grilled live by a Fox News correspondent for running the controversial cartoon depicting Mohammed. The correspondent saw no value in allowing the cartoon to be run on the Daily Tarheel. Ryan answered that he appreciated his view and his ability to make it, but that he respectfully disagreed with that position.

I thought Fox News was needlessly hard on Ryan.

I agree with Mark: Ryan and the DTH staff are to be commended for coverage of this story, which remains the most complete and detailed.

Taheriazar is being charged with nine counts of attempted murder, nine counts of attempted assault; he is being held on $5.5 million bail.

The current DTH coverage is a reflection of their work ethic over the last couple years - timely, thorough, generally accurate ;-) and with detail not found elsewhere....

Rob, Emily, et. al. at the HS do some great reporting but they're spread thin. The CHN does great work but, again, their breadth suffers on constrained resources. By contrast, the DTH can and does deploy their greater resources effectively - and they should be commended for doing so this time.

In short, this story is notable for its noteriety but not for their journalistic efforts (which the greater reading public might not follow as much as the on-campus community).

That said, I believe their coverage of this story will set a benchmark in the greater community's mind - a benchmark I hope the DTH continues to strive to exceed.

In other campus journalism news, Good Morning America's footage on the SUV/Pit story came entirely from Carolina Week, the student produced cable news. Hasn't been uploaded to the Carolina Week site yet tho.

I'd like to see it. I hope and expect it's much better than WTVD11's "breathless", self-promoting coverage. I hope GMA was better.

The link is in the comment above and here it is again.
Enjoy

The Herald Sun had some more info on this story online today:
http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-708888.html

And we've got the latest from Ross Weidner, who was at the Court house for Taheri-azar's first appearance.

looks like he Wanted the trial more than the crime.

daniel

Thanks Dan for the live update.

I've added the 911 call now.

Taheri-azar is unnervingly calm about having just run over "like, 15 people, less...maybe less."

daniel

Wow! Taheri-azar is much calmer than the 911 operator.

It's interesting that Taheri-azar says clearly he left a one-page letter on his bed explaining his actions. This was something that got twisted a bit in first reporting.

Has the press seen this letter yet?

It's also interesting to hear his concerns about being in the car (which he left running) when the police showed up - that he didn't want them to think he was running away.

And the ending - "to punish the United States for their actions around the world." He doesn't single out Muslims.

Overall, his abnormal calm makes me wonder what his mental state was during the incident - he seems to have a very flat affect.

Thanks Dan.

I think this is a case of mental illness not terroism.If a white kid did the same thing and proclaimed he did it for Jesus we would treat him as mentally ill. Ithink what he did was awful and very scary and I want him kept away from the community BUT I hope his race and religon do not influence how his case is approached. I hope he does not wind up being questioned as a terroist and sent away for questioning . Is he being given a mental health evlauation?
Jacquie

Some unusual details on the anonymously posted 'blog Terrorism Unveiled via RantingProfs. I'd take T.U.'s anonymous reporting with a grain of salt.

I was a little disapointed that news of the UNC-Duke game got no front page coverage in todays DTH. Not that I think the editors did a bad job... If this guy had stayed home Friday I'm sure the good news would have been page one.

Taheri-azar seems like a misguided young person with a few screws a little loose; ala Wendel Williamson. I think Jacquie got it right. Thank heaven no one was more seriously hurt.

Mental health care is often seen as a luxery in our state. Incidents like this and the Wendal Williams shootings lead me to believe there is a greater public health risk.

What is his race?

Today there was a rally at the Pit. (Advertised in this mornings Daily Tarheel.) According the the DTH the rally was organized by the campus Republicans and other conservative groups. The event organizers claimed this event was to condemn terrorist and terrorism and "Call it [the event on Friday] what it is". They felt the media "had been reluctant" to call Taheri-azar a terrorist and his act terrorism. Thankfully local media - NOT FOX - has held back from inciting violence and acted with balance.

Tonight several local TV stations played bits of arguments between students at the Pit. Liberal and Conservative students were shown discussing the issue. I felt as if the local TV news wasn't taking sides.

My Opinion:
I am very concerned that this terrible incident at the Pit on Friday will be exploited by people who wish to spread hate and fear of Muslims. Local Muslim students have real reason to be afraid. Our entire community needs to stand up AGAINST this jingoism!

Chancellor Moeser sent out another email today providing updates about the event. Thankfully he also called for another rally to bring all people together after spring break.

Retaliation and vengeance is NOT the answer to these crimes!

Mark, Jacquie wrote "...BUT I hope his race and religon do not influence how his case is approached."

Are not most Iranian considered to be Caucasoids? Just wondering about what the "race" issue might be.

Taheri-Azar was born in Iran, by the way.

I don't think race here is the important concept. When whoever divided up the world, yes, folks in Persia would probably have been considered Caucasians (as were Ethiopians--likely because of their history and culture). But I don't think many anthropologists or biologists put much stock in the concept of race anymore. Perhaps folks are trying to express more cultural and religious identity?

I agree with Brian that it was really disturbing to read the efforts on the parts of campus Republicans to call this a "terrorist act." I'm not sure why they are so invested in that terminology. If Friday was terrorism in action, then so was Wendel Williamson in 1995.

Jaquie, Mark, et al--Taheri was reasonably coherent about his motives: “to punish the United States for their actions around the world.” There is little to be gained by dismissing this as 'mental illness', or even comparing it to someone who claims to be committing violence in the name of Jesus (there is little evidence that Taheri was especially religious). Recall that the United States has committed, is committing far graver crimes than those of Taheri. Just in Iran--the country of Taheri's background, the US overthrew the democracy and supported a massive torture regime. Not to mention the unfolding revelations about what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatanamo, Palestine. These things are relevant to understanding his action. Are the US troops torturing and beating people to death 'mentally ill'? Is our defense secretary? Is this revelant to judging their actions? Driving a car into a crowd of people as an act of protest is stupid, immoral and criminal, although no more so than much of what is carried out as US foreign policy. Maybe instead of prescribing more Ritalin, Lithium, or Prozac, the United States should stop committing these actions. And people should stop gratuitously and ignorantly insulting the Muslim faith, as well.

Ruby--it is not reasonable to believe that driving a car at people punishes the US. As I said, it is stupid, immoral, criminal. That does not make it insane. It is also stupid, etc to believe torturing people en masse in Iraq will bring 'democracy' to that country. Yet few bring up insanity while discussing US policies, or the soldiers, policy makers, pundits, etc. who produce them. Very few violent acts are reasonable. People frequently commit murder because they were fighting with a neighbor about money they were owed, or rude behavior, or who was sleeping with whom. None of that is 'reasonable', given the magnitude of the crime, or even just the likely consequences for the murderer. Usually insanity in criminal matters refers to people who have clearly lost touch with reality (for example, someone who claims Jesus told them to kill, or not infrequently, that they themselves ARE Jesus). Or perhaps people who cannot control their behavior in very rudimentary ways (for example, someone who could not sit still for a hearing, whose ability to control themselves never made it passed what we expect of a three year old). None of this describes al-Taheri, who appears to have made some very poor choices roughly as aware of himself and in control as anyone else is (if he were insane, he might have claimed when arrested that he didn't think he would hurt anyone by driving into them, for example--but he did quite the opposite). I think 'insanity' or 'mental illness' forecloses a discussion about the way the vicious, multileveled attack against the Muslim community worldwide (or, at the very least, attacks on a number of countries which happen to be populated by mostly by Muslims, backed by attacks on immigrant communities, as well as ideological attacks on Islam, etc), which also takes place even here in the Triangle, is likely to provoke extremely undesirable behavior in response. Certainly the stress created by that attack is likely to make people many people somewhat imbalanced, but, again, this is not what is generally meant by 'insanity' in the criminal context.

I think we'll all know if he's a crazy guy who knew his stated motive would grab headlines or if he's a real terrorist when we find out what kind of Web sites he's been going to. If he's been to a lot of jihadist sites or reading propoganda then he's a bonafide (or malefide?) terrorist.

And that'd be scary. B/c individual sympathisers without connections to any organizations would be impossible to predict, and therefore stop.

To be fair, Jason, not every scholarly definition of terrorism requires that the act be "organized," as you put it. That's why it's so hard to label things like Friday's attack and why most of the local media haven't jumped the gun in calling this "terrorism"; the people who the most about it can't agree on working definitions of what is or isn't terrorism. It seems reasonable to call Taheri-azar's attack terrorism under some definitions of the word; under others, it seems reasonable to simply call it a terrible crime.

(Disclaimer: Aside from the original DTH story, which I helped report but did not write, I've had no say in our coverage, and I've certainly had no say in whether the paper would call Friday's events "terrorism." Just adding my own two cents here about the journalistic dangers of labels.)

Also, as a side note, what on earth are we doing posting at 4:30 and 6:15 on Orange Politics?

So what, exactly, is terrorism? A good question, and one that can be partly answered by the Oxford English Dictionary. (I looked it up because I was curious myself.)

The first definition applies to the French Revolution. Here's the general, second definition:

2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

Then I looked up terrorist. The first definition again applies to the Jacobins and the French Revolution. The second definition goes like this:

b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.
In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects.

Some of the more heavily used definitions:

“Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.” (Webster's)

“The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” (Defense Department)

“International terrorism is terrorism conducted with the support of a foreign government or organization and / or directed against foreign nationals, institutions or governments.” (State Department)

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (FBI)

As you can tell, it fits some, but not others.

What I found particularly interesting was the very end of the Washington Post's coverage of the 'Anti Terror' rally in the pit:

"Stephen Mann, an 18-year-old freshman, said he was not singling out Islam with his call to label Friday's incident terrorism. He said a member of any religion who did what Taheri-azar is accused of doing should be called a terrorist.

"If you try to hurt someone in the name of a cause, that's terrorism," he said."

...so if I am to believe that the United States has a mission in the Middle East, a 'cause' - even if that cause is the spread of Democracy - then does that mean that the US Army is performing a terrorist act each and every time it hurts someone?

Well, under most definitions No, but not because the actions are morally correct, rather because they are carried out by state sponsered actors.

you see how we can get lost in all of the semantics...

On top of that, there's the question of why Tehari-azar isn't charged with Going Armed to the Terror of the Public.

does it really matter? he tried to kill people. put him on trial for that, and keep his in-court comments on a tight leash.

daniel

one more thing...

if the Federal Government does recognize this isolated act as Terrorism, then wouldn't that revoke the Bush administration's right to say that there have been no terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11 2001?

i always suspected that was the reason the Beltway Sniper eluded those charges, but it's equally possible that it was because John Mohammed's last name wasn't his first (as it is in our local case)

daniel

d siler- good point on that first one.

And does anyone else know of an incident where terrorism was effectively claimed as the motive on US soil since 9/11? I think we can all agree that's what Taheri-azar is saying (listen to his 911 call, his statements in court, and law enforcement). It's more a matter of if we believe him or not.

“Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.” (Webster's)"

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (FBI)

Both of these definitions involve an act of intimidation. I don't think that Tehari-azar was trying to intimidate - in fact, I believe he said he was trying to punish the US and its citizens. If he wanted to intimidate he would have tried to get away and instill in people the fear of additional, unanticipated acts. If he had said he wanted to punish people for their mistreatment of illegal aliens, rather than muslims, would anyone be so quick to call this an act of terrorism?

d siler--The scholars William E. Odom and Robert Dujarric (very conservative guys, probably happy with the Bush administration's foreign policy) note "US support for resistance forces in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation, for resistance to the communist [sic] regime in Nicaragua, and for many other such actions qualifies as 'terrorist' operations by any legal definition of the term. That is why efforts to draft a law against international terrorism in the US Senate in 1979 were eventually dropped: no variant could be devised that the United States had not violated." (America's Inadvertent Empire, note 5 to the introduction, p. 225) Of the definitions you quote, none rule out the possibility of state sponsored terrorism. Ruling out such a definition would be very surprising by a US government agency, since they are often tagging Iran, Syria (and Iraq, remember that?) and other governments as 'sponsors of terrorism'. The US government and its armed forces does not commit an act of terrorism every time it wounds someone in Iraq and elsewhere--only when it directly targets civilians (unfortunately, many documented cases). Famously (outside of the US), the US was found guilty of 'unlawful use of force' against Nicaragua in the World Court, but it simply ignored this verdict.

Mark--I think the social context for criminal behavior should always be considered--never more so than when the actor explicitly declares political motives. Declaring Taheri-azar or Bush and Cheney sick in the head just doesn't tell us much about why they commit acts of violence to advance political goals.

Chris--I would agree that by most definitions Taheri-azar's action would qualify as terrorism (surely everyone would describe Baruch Goldstein as a terrorist, although he acted alone), but the term is so debased and misused in the US public sphere that's its easy enough to understand people's apprehensions about it being applied here (I haven't heard Taheri-azar describe himself as a 'terrorist', then again, does anyone so describe themselves?). There has been a wave of church burnings in the South since 9-11--was that terrorism? A strong argument can also be made that the 'Minutemen' who 'patrol' the US border are a terrorist force. And a great deal of the activities of the police and prison officials would qualify as terrorism under the Webster definition (“Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end”), but is never ever described as such.

Steve Sherman wrote, "The scholars William E. Odom and Robert Dujarric (very conservative guys, probably happy with the Bush administration's foreign policy)."

I've known LTG (Ret) Bill Odom for over 30 years and I would not label him a very conservative guy. He worked in the Carter NSC as an assistant to Brzezinski. Recently, he wrote that the invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history” and said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists. Not exactly praise for Bush's foreign policy!

As for this incident being a terrorist act or not, I would argue that in the practical application of the term, this was not a terrorist act.

George C- So would suicide bombers not be terrorists since they won't be around to attack again? Also, in his 911 call, Taheri-azar does say that his actions are directed at the United States government.

Who would have thought it'd be so hard to come up with a definition that would include what we would all call terrorism? I'd hate to think this is another "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" debates.

In fact, I think we might do our Viewpoints page next Tuesday over at the DTH on whether this was a terrorist act. I get the sneaking suspicion the government won't settle this one way or another between now and then/

Was Timothy McVey a terrorist? How about the Branch Davidians (against their own members)? How about Eric Rudolph? How about school bullies?

What is interesting to me is not so much whether this was a "terrorist" act, but why the label matters so much to people.

Why does the label matter so much?

(I'm not saying it doesn't matter; I'm just looking to understand why people have a lot of energy behind the assertion that it is or it isn't.)

Steve, I believe you make my point for me. I included the 18 year old's definition of terrorism because I think it shows how far apart each person can be, and how one's personal beliefs can be blinding.

Joan leaves out the Terror (not terrorISM) definition because it deals with the French REvolution, but if you compare Robespierre to Bush, the tactics for controlling the population by holding them/us in thrall are strikingly similar.

I think a main point that needs to be stressed is that there has been no debate since 9/11 about what terrorism actually is, which has let ruling parties control the definition to suit their need.

daniel

Chris Cameron,

You ask me "So would suicide bombers not be terrorists since they won't be around to attack again?"

My answer would be that I would consider them terrorists if they were, or were thought to be, part of an organization that threatens to perform similar acts. However, Taheri-azar didn't say that he is part of a larger organization, he didn't state his intentions to commit further acts, and he is safely (I hope) in custody of police officials.

While I don't deny that the people in the pit at the time were terrified, I'm not sure that people are walking around today wondering when Taheri-azar or one of his friends is going to strike next. Thus I do not consider Taheri-azar a terrorist in the same way that the 9/11 bombers were. And although you can make the argument that they (the bombers) themselves were not going to be around to intimidate, there were no doubts that additional members of their organization were stil alive and still bent on harming US citizens.

I think that there is a difference between Taheri-azar and such "professional" terrorists. But in the end, it's probably just semantics.

Eric, I think the label matters because when an act is labeled terrorism, the government is able to employ methods and means that are not available to them in other criminal cases. These methods and means are at the heart of the concerns that some have over the Patriot Act. I fear that a non-judicious use of the term "terrorism" will put us on a very slippery slope where the government will be more willing to employ the methods and means that lead to an erosion of our civil rights and personal freedom.

To the extent that we give away our freedom in the vain hope that its sacrifice will purchase us a little security, we are playing into the hands of the terrorists. And, as Benjamin Franklin famously predicted, in making that sacrifice we will in fact wind up with neither freedom nor security.

North Carolina recognizes the common law crime "going armed to the terror of the people". Does that make a person committing that crime a terrorist?

Anyone hear the coverage of this issue on NPR tonight? An act of terrorism is a federal crime. Thus far, Taheri-Azar is not being charged with a federal crime.

One scholar put together a list of academic definitions of terrorism -- the definitions alone filled over 100 pages.
That said, there were some common themes.

I call it terrorism in my column today and juxtapose it with "hit-and-run" (which the student body president uses on the frontpage). I think the label is important for several reasons: it changes our interpretation of events and the way we make sense of it, it changes our collective response, and it provides different questions to ask ourselves.

The other thing I'm hesitant to do is dismiss him as mentally ill. By our standards, yes, he is sociopathic because he has chosen not to act in ways that are acceptable in our society. In our concept of the world, no, driving SUVs into people isn't an appropriate way to problem-solve. The problem, however, is that although he is physically within our society, he actually identifies with an Islamist society. [Note: I carefully say Islamist, not Islamic.] Following the philosophers and the codes of that society, his likely concept of history and violence are outside of our framework -- but these acts become rational, justifiable, and even REQUIRED acts. The acts become sacred, a religious ritual and sacrament. Dismissing him and others like him as mentally ill fails to incorporate a growing world concept where these actions are logical and justified. Not saying he won't be found mentally ill by our standards (it is our society's rules that define "mentally ill" here, not his), or that he isn't also mentally ill (another distinct possibility, although I think he's not) but I think that merely his acts are no more necessarily descriptive of mental illness than any other seemingly irrational act of ideological, political or religious conviction (communion, self-immolation, martyrdom at large).

Just my thoughts.

what would it do to your assesment of his motive/mental state to find out that his mother works for the US Government abroad?

daniel

Well, obviously his mother should now be fired, at a minimum, and probably detained as an enemy combatant. This stuff runs in families, doesn't it?

This stuff runs in families, doesn't it?

Eric,
Is your question serious? Or are you just playing devil's advocate? If so why? Please elaborate.

Lots of the things you write on OP seem to contradict your personal blogs general tone. This form of questioning could be misconstrued as baiting commenters.

Just a friendly question. :)

It's sarcasm, Brian. It's a sarcastic response to Ginny's "War Of The Worlds" viewpoint, which so confidently describes "us" and that mass of "others" who are nothing like "us."

Sixty years ago, our government acted on a "War Of The Worlds"/ "us-versus-the-other" approach much like the one Ginny preaches, and (among other things) tens of thousands of wholly innocent U.S. citizens ended up behind barbed wire.

It's astonishing to see the same sorts of ideas percolating again, and from a side of the political spectrum where one might expect something different.

My response to that here was sarcasm.