Warning: long thread on the terrorism label and what happened on January 6 in Washington, DC. The label of terrorism should not be tossed around lightly. It can be overused, but its proper application performs important legal, moral, and signaling functions.

To be clear, complete consensus in academia/govt does not exist on the definition of terrorism. Still, common themes have emerged: violence (actual/threatened), political goals of the perpetrators, the desire to influence an audience, and the intentional targeting of civilians.

Based on these ideas, my view is that what happened yesterday was terrorism. I largely agree with the comments made by others (see @hoffman_bruce’s recent CFR article, for example) and believe that as more information becomes available, this case will become even stronger.

However, some have rejected the label of domestic terrorism for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. While this discussion merits more depth than is customary on Twitter, I want to offer a few responses to the definitional denialism being practiced by some.

Misconception: To be terrorism, an attack must be preplanned; what happened at the Capitol was the result of spontaneous action and protest, lacking the premeditation required of terrorism.

There was no shortage of warning about the looming threat posed by the January 6 gathering in Washington DC and state capitals around the country (see thread by @austincdoctor). These warnings included specific actions undertaken in preparation for confrontation and violence.

Even if this were true, terrorism does not have to be preplanned. While terrorist attacks may be the result of long planning, they may also arise out of combustible prerequisites which coming together at the wrong time.

Such combustion may occur because of a target of opportunity due to a lack of effective government counteraction to prevent it, the heated rhetoric of a reckless demagogue, or a number of other circumstances.

Misconception: To be terrorism, an attack must involve a formal organization; no claim of responsibility occurred and no formal group planned and carried out the specific attack. Therefore, no terrorism.

The requirement that a formal group such as al-Qa’ida or KKK is behind the perpetration of a specific act misses the fact that organizations and movements, both of which can create terrorist violence, need not exist together.

As we have seen in numerous examples over the past years, individuals motivated by organizations and rhetoric may take it upon themselves to carry out actions they perceived as supporting an organization or movement, even if they are not directly and formally connected to either.

Such coordination is not required to label something terrorism as long as the other definitional components are met. It is also worth noting that, in many cases, organizational coordination and planning of specific events often emerges only later on in an investigation.

Misconception: A terrorist attack occurs separately from other forms of political violence or expression, not together with it. Because the attack grew out of a protest, it can’t be terrorism.

Terrorism can have a symbiotic relationship with other forms of political expression, both violent and nonviolent. Although terrorism may seem distinct from voting, protest, and civil war, research has shown that terrorism occurs before, during, and after such activities.

Thus, the fact that a protest or rally occurred nearby does not negate the fact that a terrorist attack took place at the Capitol or make such an occurrence an impossibility. What happened inside and around the Capitol meets the definitional components.

By the same token, experts and policymakers need to take care not to allow the label of terrorism, rightly applied against those who broke into the Capitol, to be misapplied against those who protested (regardless of what one may think of the motivation for their protest).

Misconception: The legitimacy of a grievance influences whether something is labeled terrorism or not. Under this logic, because the people who carried out the attack “had had enough” or “had valid concerns,” the action does not constitute terrorism.

Some claim that the grievance of the stolen election (the veracity of this claim aside) justifies what happened and precludes it from being categorized as terrorism. However, applying the definition is not contingent on the legitimacy or amount of public support for a grievance.

Most terrorists believe fully in the justice of the cause motivating their action. This does not change the objective labeling of conduct undertaken under that cause, no matter how damaging or unfavorable that label might be. If it meets the components, it is terrorism.

Misconception: If supported by members of conventional political and media institutions, an event cannot be terrorist attack.

Terrorism, to borrow the language of Carl von Clausewitz, is a continuation or manifestation of politics by other means. Thus, in most circumstances, terrorists of all stripes enjoy the tacit if not overt support of other more “mainstream” political and opinion figures.

Indeed, the terrorists benefit from the ideas, rhetoric, and cover afforded them by such individuals (who range from unwitting dupes to knowing enablers). This allows the terrorists to legitimize and continue their actions, even when it shocks most others.

In sum, there should be discussion and consideration about applying the terrorism label to any event of political violence. But it is important to not avoid applying the label simply because it cuts against preconceived notions or feels uncomfortable.