The Power of Words

The LA Times posted a short piece last week about a federal judge in LA issuing a protective order and closing a trial dealing with the prison murder of Jewish Defense League ("JDL") member Earl Krugel. The article caught my eye as judges do not normally close trials to the extent that this judge did--apparently it was because Krugel was killed by a member of some skinhead prison gang that is very dangerous. But my point here is not legal.

The JDL is a terrorist organization, plain and simple. Not so active these days, but in the 1980s nd 1990s the JDL and its members, including Mr. Krugel, were responsible for planting bombs on American soil. Specifically, mosques and business offices of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans.

Now how do you imagine that the LA Times described Mr. Krugel, who was in prison for plotting two bombings in America--one on a mosque in LA and one at a Arab American politician's office? As a terrorist? A criminal? A subversive? A thug?

The LA Times referred to him as an activist.

For the LA Times to even imply that Mr. Krugel's actions were somehow legitimate has he was a "vigorous advocate" is simply bad reporting. Krugel planned and intended to plant bombs on American soil. He planned to kill people while worshiping. He plotted to kill American politicians. How is this not terroristic? If he were an Arab plotting to bomb synagogues, he would have been shipped off to Guantanamo years ago.

Upon examination, this seems to be a pattern with the LA Times. They have been referring to Mr. Krugel as an "activist" in their articles concerning his crimes since at least 2003. Even when he confessed to planning to kill an American congressman.

I'm writing to the LA Times today to find out why they have continued to shy away from the "terrorist" word in favor of the infinitely more respectful "activist."

I guess I thought that planning to bomb Americans was a terrorist act no matter who did it. How silly of me!