When "Homegrown Terrorism" Is Not Exactly Grown at Home
Before I came to NPR, I covered terrorism and security for the Christian Science Monitor for several years. During that time, I learned a few things about the way the administration and law enforcement deal with the war on terror.
First, don't assume that because charges have been made that a conviction will result. The FBI's record at getting convictions on these high-profile cases is spotty at best. Here's a piece that I wrote in March 2006 that highlights cases where the government said it was terrorism but it wasn't. (Remember Capt. James Yee?)
Second, the language used by government prosecutors (and the media) in describing these cases is frequently incorrect. For instance, in the case of the six men accused of planning an attack on Ford Dix, N.J., I've heard the words "homegrown terrorism" thrown around a lot.
Only one problem with that description: None of these men is homegrown. All are foreign born. In fact, three are illegal aliens.
In Britain, when the phrase "homegrown terrorism" is used, it refers to young men or women born in Britain who turn to terrorism. For instance, this piece written by Munira Mirza last August for Spiked-online.com talks about the idea of "homegrown terrorism" as a British-born-and-bred phenomenon. Canada's Haroon Siddiqui offers a good description as well.
The difference is significant. In Britain's case it implies that a strong -- and much talked about -- disconnect exists between young British-born Muslims and the larger society. When you use "homegrown" in the way it's being used in the Fort Dix case, it implies that the same kind of problem exits in the U.S., which I think is a questionable assumption. I would argue that one reason there have been so few terrorist plots in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks is that young American-born Muslims are more integrated into society than their British counterparts are across the Atlantic.
1:46 PM ET | 05- 9-2007 | permalink
