澳彩开奖

But the dead bomber does not meet that description according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and domestic terrorism expert Daryl Johnson.听

Chief Manley said, 鈥淚 actually agree now that he was a domestic terrorist for what he did to us.鈥� Manley went on to say, 鈥淣ow that I have taken everything into consideration, his actions along with the impact that it had on this community, I have now changed my opinion and I do believe that he was a domestic terrorist.鈥�

However, the phrases 鈥渇or what he did to us鈥� and 鈥渁long with the impact that it had on this community鈥� that Manley used are not determining factors as to how acts of terrorism are defined, at least not by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, which have听听over terrorism cases in the United States.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as acts of violence, threats and intimidation, and other criminality perpetrated by groups or individuals inspired by, or associated with, primarily U.S.-based movements espousing extremist ideologies in furtherance of political or social goals.听

This definition covers a wide array of criminal activity, including violent attacks by听听against minorities,听听burning down buildings and SUV dealerships and deadly ambushes of police officers committed by听sovereign citizens.

And because the FBI鈥檚 definition of domestic terrorism deliberately includes the phrase 鈥減rimarily U.S.-based movements,鈥� home-grown terrorists such as the individuals who committed the atrocities in Orlando and San Bernardino 鈥� allegedly in support of ISIS 鈥� are defined by the FBI as international, not domestic, terrorists.听听

So why did Chief Manley change his mind at the panel discussion last Thursday and so adamantly refer to Conditt as a domestic terrorist? Daryl Johnson, owner of听, a private consulting firm for law enforcement, offered several possibilities:

Prior to taking his own life, Conditt recorded a 25-minute video on his cell phone in which he confessed to the bombings. Manley subsequently听听the confession: 鈥淗e does not at all mention anything about terrorism or anything about hate. Instead, it is the outcry of a very challenged young man talking about challenges in his personal life that led him to this point.鈥�

This statement seemed to offer a small measure of empathy toward the bomber, although Manley later stated this was not his intention.

鈥淧ublic officials will sometimes succumb to media pressure and public outcry鈥� Johnson said, adding that he believes the swift and disapproving reaction from Austin citizens essentially forced Manley to walk back his earlier comments.

Johnson also said that both elected officials and public servants will sometimes use the word 鈥渢errorist鈥� because of the 鈥渟hock value鈥� associated with the term, one which both quickly gets the public鈥檚 attention and conveys that the matter is being taken seriously.

Is the question of whether Conditt was a terrorist just a debating point for journalists and a small circle of academics who follow extremist ideologies? After all, the distinction may be irrelevant to most Americans, who see all attacks within the United States 鈥� whether committed by Timothy McVeigh, Al-Qaeda, Eric Robert Rudolph, or ISIS supporters 鈥� as domestic terrorism.

Johnson disagrees: 鈥淲e have to be very careful when we label someone a 鈥榙omestic terrorist.鈥� Yes, there are many things that can terrorize a community, such as mass shooters and criminal street gangs, but there must be a political or social motivation connected to the violence. So far, there does not appear to be an ideological component to these bombings.鈥�

Johnson also pointed out there are occasions when the word 鈥渢errorist鈥� is not used by law enforcement and public officials when it should be, and used听听of nine African-American church goers in 2015 as a prime example.听

Johnson concluded the interview by saying, 鈥淯nless Chief Manley is not revealing something we don鈥檛 know about Conditt, I would advise him to err on the side of not using that term.鈥�

听