One week after he killed himself with one of his own explosives, the man responsible for a series of deadly bombings across Austin, Texas has a new designation: “domestic terrorist.”
That, at least, is how Austin’s interim police chief, Brian Manley, now views Mark Anthony Conditt, whose bombs killed two people and injured four others. On Thursday, at a panel hosted by Austin radio station KUT, Manley said that he agrees with others’ calls to label Conditt a domestic terrorist.
“I actually agree now that he was a domestic terrorist for what he did to us,” Manley said.
The new designation stands in stark contrast to Manley’s initial description of Conditt. In the immediate aftermath of Conditt’s death, Manley — who listened to a 25-minute recording left by Conditt, the contents of which have not yet been made public — said Conditt was clearly a “very challenged young man.”
Manley added that Conditt did “not at all mention anything about terrorism, nor does he mention anything about hate.”
Indeed, nearly a month after the first bomb exploded, Conditt’s motive remains unclear, even with the discovery of an additional list of addresses authorities presume were future targets. The two victims Conditt killed were black, but other victims were Hispanic and white. And while Conditt in 2012 described himself as a “conservative,” no other political writings or views have thus far come to light.
It’s possible that Manley is privy to more evidence about Conditt’s motives, and is simply withholding that information for the time being. But at the moment, the lack of any kind of socio-political motive — to say nothing of the fact that Manley waited over a week after Conditt’s death to change his description of the bomber — raises questions about his choice to describe Conditt as a domestic terrorist.
WATCH: Austin Police Chief Brian Manley says string of bombings in the city were "domestic terrorism," in how the events impacted the populace. Manley said an ideological reason behind the bombings still does not exist based on evidence in the case. pic.twitter.com/7AjBjn1GPs
— NBC News (@NBCNews) March 29, 2018
Legally speaking, it’s possible that Conditt’s acts fit within the broadest definition of “domestic terrorism.” As the law stipulates, domestic terrorism can encompass activities that appear to be intended “to intimidate… a civilian population” — a point that Manley seemed to make, as he specifically pointed to the effect Conditt had on the city.
In that broad, loose definition, though, it appears that any serial killer or mass murderer — the D.C. snipers, for instance — can theoretically be classified as “domestic terrorists,” even though they’re not generally understood as such. Neither does Conditt appear to fit any of the other legal stipulations that can classify “domestic terrorism” — actions intended to “coerce a civilian population” or “influence the policy of a government” — nor does he appear to fit the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, which applies the term to those who “espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Likewise, Conditt’s actions, reprehensible as they were, don’t appear to fit within the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of domestic terrorism. According to the ADL, domestic terrorism involves acts of significant violence — which can range from assassinations to armed robberies — in order “to further an ideological, social or religious cause, or to harm perceived opponents of such causes.”
As a spokesperson for the Southern Poverty Law Center told ThinkProgress, “We just don’t have enough information about the Austin bombing to make the determination ourselves about domestic terrorism.”
Manley’s decision to re-classify Conditt as a “domestic terrorist” is, of course, not the first time the question of designation has caused problems when it comes to domestic terrorism.
In 2015, ThinkProgress’ Josh Israel dove into the debate on terminology, noting that such designations aren’t just a matter of rhetoric but are also important for allocating resources for further investigations — and preparation for potential attacks in the future. But the debate on terminology over the past few years has become even more convoluted. For instance, officials described the man who killed eight people with his car in New York City last year as a “domestic jihadist.”
In all, Manley’s decision appeared to only muddy the definition of domestic terrorism, a term that was already fraught with competing meanings. Still, even if Conditt shouldn’t be necessarily viewed as a “domestic terrorist,” the rising threat of domestic terrorism — and the federal government’s lack of preparation for handling it — remains stark. Part of that has to do with a dramatic roll-back on efforts and funding to counter domestic extremism, while another part has to do with the overall rise in far-right extremist violence.
Just a few months ago, FBI head Christopher Wray told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the FBI had approximately 1,000 open investigations into domestic terrorism. In just the year prior, 176 people had been arrested relating to suspected ties to domestic terrorism — some of whom plotted far larger slaughter than Conditt.