New York bombing: What is an act of terrorism?
Officials have been reluctant to label the explosion an act of terror
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.When a pressure-cooker bomb packed with shrapnel exploded in Manhattan on Saturday night, injuring 29 people, New York’s governor was quick to say it was “obviously” an act of terrorism.
But there has been some debate over whether the explosion constitutes an act of terror and some officials have been reluctant to label it as such.
Who says the explosion was an act of terrorism?
“A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism,” Governor Andrew Cuomo told a news conference. “A bomb going off is generically a terrorist activity. That’s how we’ll consider it. And that’s how we will prosecute it.”
Similarly, when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was interviewed on CNN he said: “You can call them whatever you want, they are terrorism, though.
“There's no doubt about that. They’re terrorism. Now, who’s responsible and what the motive was is something else that, hopefully, we're going to find out in the days ahead.”
Who says it wasn’t?
While calling the blast an “intentional act,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was careful to state that investigators had yet to find a connection to terrorism.
“We know it was a very serious incident, but we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this,” the mayor said on Sunday.
“Was it a political motivation? Was it a personal motivation? We do not know that yet.”
How is an act of terror defined?
Terrorism is broadly defined as the use or threatened use of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.
The Patriot Act defines “domestic terrorism” as “activities within the United States that ... involve acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended:
- “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation of coercion; or
- “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”
So far, no motive for the attack has been identified, which could go some way to explain why some officials are reluctant to label the bombing an act of terror.
No international militant group has claimed responsibility for the blast.
What do we know about the suspects so far?
The FBI is seeking 28-year-old Ahmad Khan Rahami in connection with the Chelsea bombing.
He has been identified as a US citizen of Afghan descent and is considered “armed and dangerous”.
Earlier, police reportedly obtained video showing the moment a suspect left one of the pressure cookers in the street. Surveillance video also shows the same man present on the street where another bomb exploded, injuring 29 people.
Five suspects have been detained and are being questioned at an FBI building in Lower Manhattan, according to FBI spokeswoman Kelly Langmesser. It is currently unclear whether any of the suspects, or the man seen on CCTV, are linked to Mr Rahami.
FBI experts have examined remains of the Chelsea device, the second one found nearby, and the pipe bomb that blew up at the charity race in Seaside Park, New Jersey, some 80 miles (130 km) south of New York City.
“The crudity of the devices in all three cases certainly doesn’t point to any group that’s been developing IEDs [improvised explosive devices] for years,” a US official involved in the investigation who requested anonymity told Reuters.
The official added that the apparent low level of planning had some investigators concerned the blasts were just a test of New York’s security.
“That's what worries us: was this some kind of test run, not just of the devices, but also of the surveillance in New York and the response?” the official added.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments