So I came across an article written about Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn missing his second court date. And much to my chagrin, I learned that von Brunn is being treated in the inmate ward of Greater Southeast Community Hospital (now known as United Medical Center) located just blocks away from my doorstep. While the irony of a notorious white supremacist being treated in an all-black inner-city neighborhood is too much to ignore, the implications of it all seems even stronger.

I view the Holocaust Museum shooting as an act of terrorism. And with all the national hysteria over the prospect of trying suspected “enemy combatants” in American courts, I suspect that if von Brunn were of middle eastern descent, or a recently released Guantanamo Bay detainee, there would be civil unrest about his presence in a residential community hospital. And arguably, there would be no debate about whether or not his actions equated to terrorism.

Which brings me to my point: somehow smuggling von Brunn into a residential community hospital under the cover of silence, unbeknownst to the surrounding neighborhood is acceptable, yet the thought of bringing Ahmed Ghailani on U.S. soil isn’t.

Agree with it or not, I smell a double standard when it comes to this “matter of national security.” We seem to have selective fear and hysteria when it comes to domestic incidents of terrorism versus international incidents of terrorism. But our need to add the word “domestic” in front of the word “terrorism” is problematic all on its own. It reeks of second class priorities. It sounds like over-cooked steak sizzling on the back-burner.

I would argue that if you could taste terrorism, its foul flavor would be distinct and uniformed—irrespective of where it comes from. Likewise, there should be no reason to distinguish one kind of terrorism from another, yet we do it anyway.

As I see it, we have silently indicated that terrorism distributed from American hands is more acceptable than terrorism distributed from foreign hands. We would never try to justify the denial of Habeas Corpus to von Brunn the way we did for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.  And I suspect that James von Brunn would not be searched feverishly at a TSA checkpoint in an airport, nor would he or members of his family be removed from an airline. And if you have to ask why not, you don’t deserve an answer.

I suspect that our C.I.A. would never fly von Brunn to a remote lawless land under the cover of night to extract a false confession about the next attack of the neo-Nazis. And of course, we would never expend resources equal to the magnitude of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, fighting terrorism in America. Because as we see it, the dates of June 10th, June 1st, or May 31st of 2009 combined could never cost as much as September 11th, 2001 (not to minimize its significance).

If we are to ever have a candid conversation about terrorism, we need to revisit its meaning.  And President Obama should know that maintaining the same definition of terrorism as Fmr. President Bush isn’t change.

We should be asking ourselves why 926 American hate groups are not on the same lists as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or the Taliban. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center,

the number of active hate groups in the United States has risen 54% since 2000 due to continual increases in immigration, the economic recession, and the election of the first African-American president.

Why would we never find the names of the members of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Hammerskin Nation, or House of David on the same list as Asif Kasmani?

What about Oswald, Manson, Kaczynski, and McVeigh?

How is it that we can assign the actions of a few middle-eastern men to the ethos of entire countries, cultures and religions, yet fail to assign similar actions of our own citizens to the ethos of America? We get all up in arms about trying Guantanamo Bay detainees like Ahmed Ghailani on U.S. soil, yet we eagerly ease our minds knowing of Scott Roeder’s trial. Somehow we don’t feel as unsafe with Roeder in our midsts as we do with Ghailani. And under the veil of our own irrationality, neither Roeder, Brunn, Oswald, McVeigh, Kaczynski or Manson fit the image or the i.d. of “terrorist.”

Perhaps we should fortify our reproductive health clinics the way we fortify our international embassies. Perhaps we should revisit our portrayal of terrorism. Perhaps we should summon the urgency to rearrange our budget to include the national scrutiny and transnational paranoia of the 926 terrorist groups in America, threatening a pandemic of hate.

After all, how would we respond if Iraq invaded America to take out these 926 groups because they posed a threat to their national security and the security of the international community?

Perhaps America’s biggest threat isn’t in the defunct missiles of North Korea or the nuclear suspicions of Iranian militancy, perhaps it is instead in the bowels of America’s own neglect.

One thing is certain, I’ll be glad when von Brunn is out of my neighborhood.

Popularity: 1% [?]