Why isn't the co-pilot a terrorist

I saw this interesting article someone else posted yesterday: Why isn't the co-pilot who downed the GermanWings flight being called a terrorist? 

The author of the article, Zak Cheney-Rice (who has perhaps the most Republican-Slash-Fiction name ever), made some salient points about religion and race and the skin color of the pilot.  All of the author's points are spot on, and yet I think he made a critical linguistic error - that is, that the word "terrorism" isn't the right word to be using for anyone, regardless of race or religion, who simply commits mass murder.  Instead, it is a word reserved for those who act in such a way as to make others terrified.

In fact, the U.S. State Department is pretty clear about their definition:
"the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" (source).

They are missing the purpose for these attacks.  Using this definition alone, the U.S. has long been responsible for terrorism (that is, our clandestine agents have made premeditated, politically motivated, violent attacks against non-combatant targets frequently in the past 50 years).  If we assume that our nation is not potentially responsible for terrorism, then we also need to expand the definition.

The Patriot Act also provides its own definition with regards to terrorism on U.S. soil:
(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended
        (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
        (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (source)

And that seems to be more in-line with what I would expect of such a definition.  We could cobble those together to exclude references to U.S. or state law, perhaps adding a provision for the execution of peoples by a country in-line with that country's laws regarding such execution.  We could merge the definitions under 5B into the U.S. State Department definition.  

Regardless, the definition must always include a political motivation - an attempt to influence national or state policy.  We have no evidence of such a thing happening in the case of the pilot.  We have no indication that the pilot's motivation was anything other than personal.  He made no videos for youtube or statements on facebook indicating that he felt mass-murder might be necessary to accomplish a political goal.

Yes, we sometimes jump to audacious claims about Muslims who murder people, that they are "terrorists" when they are also not acting for political gain.  Such was the case here in Oklahoma when Alton Nolen beheaded a woman at work.  Immediately, many people made the claim that he was a terrorist, such as CNN commentator Mel Robbins.  The claims about this being terrorism apparently prompted the FBI to actually come out and say that this case had nothing to do with terrorism.  This is what Cheney-Rice got right.

The problem may be race, or it may be simple linguistics, but if we jump at every murder or act of mass violence and call it "terrorism," we forget the point of terrorism, that these acts are an attempt to divide us and conquer us through the use of fear.

Of course, violence itself isn't necessary.  The point of these attacks is to achieve political change by scaring a population.  Given that we immediately threw out Habeas Corpus and made it legal for our country to monitor everything we do through the Patriot Act, maybe the people who perpetrated 9-11 were successful terrorists.  Interestingly, though, they were only a part of the problem, as another group of people around the same time began engaging in a massive fear-based propaganda campaign, aimed at terrifying the populace and using that fear to motivate them into voting for laws that reduce personal liberty and security through increasing violence and economic depression.  Such an organization has far more in common with terrorism than a co-pilot who never expressed such a political interest.

So, perhaps our newest great political commentator is Russell Brand, for recognizing and not being afraid to say just as much.