FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The ‘Terror’ Act of Woolwich

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It is an object study.  Two men in a car, which is driven into another man.  The attacked individual is then hacked to death by a meat cleaver or kitchen implement in broad daylight.  There may be several instruments used.  There are religious chants – or at least the sort popular opinion might expect.  The individuals then ask bystanders to take photos and shots.  This is their day.  It should be preserved for history.  Police then arrive and shoot the two men, one of them critically.  Eyewitnesses claim that one of the individuals was carrying a firearm (Time, May 22).

All of this has amounted to a “terror” attack.  It took place in the south-east London area of Woolwich yesterday.  Police were called to the scene of the incident on John Wilson Street at 2.20 p.m.  But London has been witness to violent crimes before, as it will continue to be. The descriptions of this event have propelled an event of terrible violence into another category: one of terrorism.  Yet hardly anything has actually been said to warrant the term.  Then again, as Cicero claimed in his second oration against Verres, O tempora! O mores!

While the misuse of political terminology has become standard, tolerated fare in the twenty-four hour news cycle, it is worth looking at these unfolding events again to heed how terms of security can be misused.  The “framing” of an event can have significant implications for policy.  It doesn’t require the ponderings of cognitive linguist George Lakoff to remind us how effective those tactics can be.  Don’t call it tax evasion.  Call it tax minimisation.  Don’t call it a criminal act – call it a “terrorist act” before all the facts are known.  The agenda is dictated in advance.

Then come the fundamental problems for those dealing in the business of defining terrorism, a field marked as much by charlatanism as it is by usefulness – practitioners cannot agree on any specific term.  Dozens are floating about in the spectrum of terminology.

The eyewitness accounts that are coming in suggest that a brutal crime may have taken place, a theatrically bloody act of public spectacle. James Heneghan told radio LBC 97.3 that he and his wife saw two men (yes, he did say black) “hacking this poor guy, hacking him, chopping him.”  The assailants “were oblivious to anything, they were more worried about having their photo taken, running up and down the road” (Metro, May 22).

Identification evidence is notorious, and tends to provide defence lawyers with ample grist to a busy mill. It may well be that another such case may be forming.  According to another eyewitness, this time Fred Oyat, living in a high-rise near the location of the attack, there were four gun shots, and “four knives on the ground – big kitchen knives.  The knives were very bloody” (Time, May 22).

The attacks of September 11 2001 were treated as the singular events of their time.  In many ways, this was a disservice to history.  Previous eras of terrorism have befallen the tottering human race, mostly inflicted by governments rather than two-bit revolutionaries.  The specific attacks of 9/11 have been deemed everything from “acts of war” to “acts of terror”.  They have also been regarded as criminal acts, though this view was rapidly swept under the carpet when the dots were joined.

Many are wishing that the latter view might have held sway – the “war on terror” remains one of the most lexically nonsensical creations in the last twenty years.  It has produced extra-judicial solutions, legal fantasies and a security culture tolerant of torture (oh, apologies, enhanced interrogation – every occasion deserves it term).  It has also produced the atmosphere that transforms a violent act with a machete (or machetes) in a London suburb into terrorism.  The only term that comes closer in absurdity is that lamentable construct, the “war on drugs”, that other abused reference that suggests you can wage war against an inert object or a tactic.

The material here for this conversion from alleged criminal act to actual act of terrorism is sketchy but important to note.  Heneghan’s observations bolster the designation of terrorism – the assailants “were waiting for the police to arrive to be shot by the police.  That’s the only thing I can think.” There were supposedly cries of “AlIah Akbar” before the attack (Birmingham Mail, May 22).  Instantly, one thinks of the rhetoric of martyrdom – these religiously intoxicated assailants wanting to perish at the hands of the security establishment.  Not quite as dramatic as your standard car bomb, but necessity is the mother of invention.

The individual who lost his life was a British soldier – another box to be ticked in the security chart.  He was allegedly wearing a Help for Heroes t-shirt, a military charity for wounded British soldiers.

The location was just a few blocks from the Royal Artillery Barracks.  Another box, another tick.  There was political speculation over the incident – from local MP Nick Raynsford and even, if this can be verified, French President François Hollande.

To round this off, British Prime Minister David Cameron has joined the speculation, suggesting that there are “strong indications” that this was a terrorist attack.  “We have suffered these attacks before, we have always beaten them back.  We will not be cowed, we will never buckle.”  And whatever happened to that good old fashioned term of a violent crime (actual or alleged), whatever the motivation?

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures in politics and law at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John Campbell McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
Roberto J. González
Starting Them Young: Is Facebook Hooking Children on Social Media?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Between the Null and the Void
Andrew Levine
Trump After Bannon: What Next?
John Davis
Mud-Slide
Ajamu Baraka
The Responsibility to Protect the World … from the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Stirs the Methane Monster
Paul Street
Lazy Liberals and “the Trump Effect”
Carmen Rodriguez
Trump’s Attack on Salvadoran Migrants
Mike Whitney
Oprah for President, Really?
Francisco Cabanillas
The Hurricane After Maria
Luciana Bohne
World War I: Crime and Punishment
Steve Martinot
The Ideology of Pepper Spray: Force and Violence in a Can
Martin Billheimer
Beyond the 120 Days of the Silicon Valley Dolls
Patrick T. Hiller
An Olympic Glimmer on the Horizon – North Korea and South Korea Stepping Down the Escalation Ladder
Ron Jacobs
The Vietnamese War: a Different Take
Binoy Kampmark
Fuming in the White House: the Bannon-Trump Implosion
Joseph Natoli
What to Worry About and What Not to Worry About
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto, Bayer and Neoliberalism: A Case of Hobson’s Choice
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Bullying of Cuba
Kenneth Surin
Bigger in Texas
Arturo Desimone
The Untouchable Leader Who Stood Up to Gandhi
Peter Crowley
To Cheerleaders of Iran Protests: Iran is Not Our Enemy, a Sponsor of Terror or a Tyranny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail