[this was presented concurrently with the slide show in the accompanying document]
The history of this country is based on the use of violence to obtain, to maintain or to challenge power.
Narratives from positions of power de-emphasize their use of violence or rationalize it as a necessary
evil in maintaining society. Narratives about the use of violence by those with limited or no institutional
power are often either absent or presented in ways that reinforce the official record.
The PATRIOT Act defines acts of domestic terrorism as those which

involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;

appear to be intended

o
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
o
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
o
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or
kidnapping; AND
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
or more simply stated by Bill Ayers: “the use of violence intended to intimidate a civilian population in
order to accomplish some specified political end-point.”
We archivists often talk about the diversity of the American record. But with domestic terrorists, this
diversity usually plays out as documenting stories about the terrorists, but rarely stories by the
terrorists. In the September 11th Digital Archives, for instance, there are over 150,000 digital items, none
of which document the stories of the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
But why document domestic terrorists? What value do their stories have in our national narrative?
One value is accountability. Documenting groups who use terror as a means of achieving their ends
allows us to assess those groups’ actions and to evaluate the conditions or desires that compelled those
groups to use terror.
One reason that groups use terror is to make themselves heard when they believe that they have no
other way to converse with those in power. By documenting domestic terrorists, especially when
contextualized by documenting the groups they are terrorizing and the groups they seek to change,
archivists provide a more truthful and just record .
This record can become the basis for societal reconciliation. Reconciliation requires truthful acceptance
of events and relationships; open-hearted, respectful, and honest conversation about them; and
mutually agreed upon solutions among partners sharing roughly equal power. A diverse and complete
record is invaluable in the support of that goal.
This all sounds pretty groovy! Why would groups resist embracing the power that truthful
documentation brings?
One primary impediment is that most domestic terrorists are committing, by definition, illegal acts.
There is little incentive for groups to allow evidential documentation that would assist, and perhaps
promote, prosecution of its members.
In addition, domestic terrorists are not committing random acts of violence but are attempting to make
desired political changes. Documenting these activities would likely interfere with and make it more
difficult to conduct their operations effectively.
Like many community organizations, domestic terrorist groups distrust institutional power. They do not
trust mainstream archives to adequately or fairly document them and desire to control their group
narrative, especially with regard to how they are represented to their community.
Many of the individuals in these groups have a fundamental and stated desire to remain off the grid,
including all types of documentation. Many of them also desire to minimize or even eradicate the
documentation of their actions as their beliefs and tactics change.
So how does an archivist address these concerns while meeting the desire for a complete and diverse
record ?
An effective method for working with community archives is building trust and sharing responsibility for
documentary management. This is a risky proposition here. The likelihood of trust and cooperation
between terrorists and bureaucratic agents like archivists is slim. Remember the very mixed results
archivists had with non-terrorist anti-authoritarian groups like Occupy.
A tested method for documentation is the compilation of information in other sources. Surveillance
records, both legal and illegal have detailed information. The Portland Police Watcher files, document
nearly every group that ever assembled in Portland – from the Sierra Club to groups like the KKK or the
Aryan Brotherhood. Media accounts and law enforcement reports are other sources of documentation.
But these sources often tell a limited story mediated by very unsympathetic groups.
Social media can provide a more authentic story. Bergis Jules and Ed Summers show in their article
“Documenting the Now” how twitter collections can provide multi-voiced descriptions of a group’s
activities. This same strategy could allow more authentic domestic terrorist stories to emerge.
Another method is the documentation of terrorist activity when it is no longer a threat to the individuals
involved. For example, members of the weather underground began to provide information and share
their archives after threat of legal action had passed. This has the advantage of allowing the persons
involved to tell their own stories. But these stories can also be subject to nostalgia and self-interested
selectivity.
Court records are also one of the few institutional documentary sources which allow the terrorist’s voice
to come through. Much of what we know about Tim McVeigh’s and Ted Kaczinski’s stories is located in
court testimony and court evidence.
Documenting terrorists is not without issues. First and foremost are issues of safety. Physical safety of
both the archivist and the terrorist can be an immediate concern. But the long-term safety of parties can
also be compromised, even with well intentioned guarantees, as the Boston College Belfast Project oral
histories resolution revealed.
Another issue is the construction and control of narrative. In a post-custodial world, where collections
are not in the archivist’s control and the communities that own them contest with each other to shape
an event’s narrative , maybe the role of archival appraisal is in deciding which communities’ stories are
necessary to create a full and truthful record.
This requires the archivist to confront their own prejudices and biases honestly. Our founding fathers
were domestic terrorists once. Right or wrong, terrorists believe that their only recourse in the face of
unresponsive power is violence. That story needs to be told and heard. When it comes to the diversity of
the American record, the archivist’s role is to insure that the powerless and the oppressed have an equal
voice in our national record. The powerful don’t need our help being heard.