Were Alleged Dix Plotters "Terrorists?"

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: 4th Estate Debate

(AP Photo/Mel Evans)

Andrew Tyndall raises an interesting question: Is it right to call the men who allegedly plotted to attack the Fort Dix army base "terrorists?" Tyndall says no, because the term terrorism "refers to violence against civilian targets for political aims."

On the "Evening News" last night, Correspondent Bob Orr referred to a "homegrown terror cell," and over at ABC Charlie Gibson spoke of a "terrorist plot." Today CBSNews.com is calling the attack "terror" in its headline. Writes Tyndall: "It is hard to escape the conclusion that 'terrorist' is used as a sloppy synonym for 'Moslem gunmen.'"

I asked Orr for his take.

"I think you're talking about guys that surveiled targets, trained with weapons, and stated more than once that they wanted to kill Americans," he said. "So at a minimum they were terrorist wannabees. Now, there are difference kinds of people who sponsor terror. We're not saying they're Al Qaeda."

Orr noted that federal officials have been calling the men "terrorists."

"I think it's an academic debate on what you think qualifies," said Orr. "I would suggest one person with an automatic weapon in a crowded area could terrorize people."

Orr added that there was not much of a debate when putting the piece together about whether the group should be called a terror cell. "These were guys who aspired to terror, no doubt about it," he said.

You can find definitions of the word "terrorism" here.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

12 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 12 Comments


by mattcat25 May 10, 2007 1:01 PM EDT: This is good, terrorism is all of our responsibility. Muslims are of suspect and that's the way it is%u2026I've stated before that terrorism is a Muslim problem and, if the Muslim community does not want to be categorized as terrorists they need to assist in identifying, informing, and even combating those that desire to take the lives of innocent people.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 10, 2007 12:54 PM EDT: This is good, terrorism is all of our responsibility. Muslims are of suspect and that's the way it is%u2026I've stated before that terrorism is a Muslim problem and, if the Muslim community does not want to be categorized as terrorists they need to assist in identifying, informing, and even combating those that desire to take the lives of innocent people.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 10, 2007 12:50 PM EDT: This is good, terrorism is all of our responsibility. Muslims are of suspect and that's the way it is%u2026I've stated before that terrorism is a Muslim problem and, if the Muslim community does not want to be categorized as terrorists they need to assist in identifying, informing, and even combating those that desire to take the lives of innocent people.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 May 10, 2007 12:12 PM EDT: This is good, terrorism is all of our responsibility. Muslims are of suspect and that's the way it is%u2026I've stated before that terrorism is a Muslim problem and, if the Muslim community does not want to be categorized as terrorists they need to assist in identifying, informing, and even combating those that desire to take the lives of innocent people.; Reply to this comment


by exile8 May 10, 2007 12:37 AM EDT: I'll tell you my take: a lot of it was an excuse to get NJ US Attorney Christie on camera doing something other than engaging in politically-motivated witch hunts against Democrats.

It would be great to see the media pursue that angle, but I'm sure John Edwards' haircut and the Clintons' marriage beckon.

Am I right, hacks?; Reply to this comment


by CBSTV May 10, 2007 12:10 AM EDT: It's to the political advantage of the current administration to label any crime "terrorism." Their powers and ability to reign in society stem from the citizenry being scared.; Reply to this comment


by sanfelz May 9, 2007 10:31 PM EDT: After the Virginia Tech killings, some commentators said that incidents such as these six are alleged to have planned would only happen in "gun-free zones". Since Fort Dix is not "gun-free", Mr Christie must know that these baggers,cab driver and pizza deliverer could not be crazy enough to make such a plan. Maybe this is just Christie's next stop on his publicity tour as he prepares a run for an elected political office.; Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 May 9, 2007 9:06 PM EDT: This is how I responded to Bob Orr's comments at the i Tyndall Report /i .

Leaving aside whether the accused actually did what Orr said or are merely accused of it, Orr%u2019s definition of %u201Cterrorist%u201D as someone who conducts surveillance, trains with weapons and wants to kill Americans seems far too broad.

A murderer, like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, for example, can want to kill Americans but is a common criminal not a terrorist, because his motive was personal not political. Similarly, attacks on the US military in Iraq have the goal of killing Americans, but are not acts of terrorism--they are acts of warfare.

%u201CTerrorism%u201D is such a loaded word and a term of art in political debate so should be used with precision. The Bush Administration, for example, insists that the attacks of September 11th, 2001, were so heinous precisely because they targeted civilian workers and airline passengers going about their daily lives.

(continued); Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 May 9, 2007 9:04 PM EDT: (continued)

Soldiers are not in the same category: they are trained to defend themselves; they expect to be targeted by enemies; society grants them much more leeway than civilians to use lethal force. For an army base, preparing itself against infiltration and attack (even by pizza deliverymen) is a routine part of a day%u2019s work. Such threats are neither surprises nor sneak attacks.

Even if federal prosecutors sloppily expand the definition of %u201Cterrorism%u201D to include military targets there is no reason for journalists to be imprecise%u2026in fact all the more reason to resist imprecision.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller May 9, 2007 7:18 PM EDT: Terms are definitely important to framing a debate for political reasons, but I can't think of a term that more accurately describes what this groups is alleged to have planned. I'm more concerned about the administration's history of faking, hyping or jumping the gun and compromising investigations of terrorist cells than I am the name, in this specific case. My desire to catch the terrorists does mean I like to see them exploited for partisan politics, or to distract from the government's failures in catching the people who attacked us on 9/11.; Reply to this comment