Domestic Terrorism in US

BPSCG said:
What, that a lone crackpot goes on a shooting rampage and gets a bullet himself for his troubles?

Is there something to debate here?
Click to expand...

Yes. For example, whether the "War on Terror" is spending too much time worrying about supposedly potential terrorists overseas while not doing enough to prevent actual terrorism by people here on our own soil.

Or: It seems that everyone agrees that hunting him down and taking him out, if necessary, was a good and proper solution to handling this terrorist. Yet, we seem to have little concern about OBL still roaming around, and, in fact, moved on to a different country. Why don't we give OBL the same treatment we gave this guy? If the kid had made it to Mexico, do you think we would have just half-arsed it?
 
Mycroft said:
But you do see a bunch of people placing the responsibility for the rioting Muslims on the newspapers and not the Muslims who are rioting.
Click to expand...

Where? I've not seen one person posting that here. Or are you talking about in the mainstream media? If so I'm not surprised you can always find a crackpot somewhere to say what the media wants.


Mycroft said:
To make a parallel here, one would need to place the responsibility for the shootings on the homosexuals who provoked them. In my opinion, that would be a despicable point of view, and I’m glad nobody here is arguing for it
Click to expand...

No one here may be arguing that (like no here is arguing for the equivalent argument with the Muslim violence) however a lot of people do think that and a lot of people think that in your society. Indeed in some court cases in your country "gay rage" e.g. getting angry at being approached by a homosexual has been used as a defence or as mitigation for beatings and murders.
 
pgwenthold said:
Yes. For example, whether the "War on Terror" is spending too much time worrying about supposedly potential terrorists overseas while not doing enough to prevent actual terrorism by people here on our own soil.
Click to expand...
Please. When did a single murder rise to the level of terrorism?

Next you're going to complain that DHS should be doing something about the terrorism inflicted on women by their drunken abusive husbands.

Or: It seems that everyone agrees that hunting him down and taking him out, if necessary, was a good and proper solution to handling this terrorist. Yet, we seem to have little concern about OBL still roaming around, and, in fact, moved on to a different country. Why don't we give OBL the same treatment we gave this guy?
Click to expand...
If we were giving OBL the same treatment, you'd really be complaining. What did it cost to run this guy to ground? A few thousand bucks? If that's what we should spend on OBL, then we're way over budget.
 
Darat said:
Indeed in some court cases in your country "gay rage" e.g. getting angry at being approached by a homosexual has been used as a defence or as mitigation for beatings and murders.
Click to expand...
Not successfully in the past several years to my knowledge.
 
BPSCG said:
Please. When did a single murder rise to the level of terrorism?
Click to expand...

So that is another thing to debate. Why wasn't it an act of terrorism? (see Manny's response - it qualifies)

As I said, if it were a muslim who was not a member of Hamas but walked onto a bus of Jewish people and started firing indiscriminately, would you think it is not terrorism if only one person got killed?
 
pgwenthold said:
So that is another thing to debate. Why wasn't it an act of terrorism? (see Manny's response - it qualifies)
Click to expand...
Fine, it's terrorism then. So why is that terrorism, but coming home and beating your wife every night isn't? If I kill a Swede because I want his wallet, it's not terrorism, but if I kill a Swede because I hate Swedes, it is? Or do I have to kill a lot of Swedes? What if I kill a lot of Swedes for their wallets?

As I said, if it were a muslim who was not a member of Hamas but walked onto a bus of Jewish people and started firing indiscriminately, would you think it is not terrorism if only one person got killed?
Click to expand...
So what does it take to turn a murder into terrorism?
 
BPSCG said:
Fine, it's terrorism then. So why is that terrorism, but coming home and beating your wife every night isn't? If I kill a Swede because I want his wallet, it's not terrorism, but if I kill a Swede because I hate Swedes, it is? Or do I have to kill a lot of Swedes? What if I kill a lot of Swedes for their wallets?

So what does it take to turn a murder into terrorism?
Click to expand...

All of which are valid questions. Seriously.

I think part of the problem is that as the War On Terror(tm) continues, the actual definition of "terrorism" seems to be getting vaguer and vaguer.
 
In general terrorism is the use of violence and the threat of violence against civilians by a group to achieve political change. At least that is how I understand it. I don't quite see how this shooting rises to that level.

[FONT=Goudy,Times New Roman,Times,serif]Terrorism is defined in the [/FONT][FONT=Goudy-Italic,Times New Roman,Times,serif]Code of Federal Regulations [/FONT][FONT=Goudy,Times New Roman,Times,serif]as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
Click to expand...
from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
Okay, you're doing the moral equivalence nonsense again. If you can't see the difference between a lone crackpot committing a murder and having to travel halfway across the country in a futile attempt to find supporters...
Click to expand...
... and people waving placards in London, which is what Skeptic was talking about, then there's no hope for you. Incidentally, you do realize that my post was a satire on Skeptic's post, don't you?

However, I do claim "moral equivalence" between a Muslim who "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (to adopt Jefferson's metonym) and a conservative who does the same.
 
So why is that terrorism, but coming home and beating your wife every night isn't?
Click to expand...

There is a difference. If you beat your wife, you are threatening your wife. If you go out and beat people because they are female, you are threatening all females. Even if the there is only 1 person beaten once in both cases, the number of people made to feel threatened is different. Because threatened people change and limit their actions, some think sentencing should account for this. I know I alter/restrict my life to feel my family is safe from these specific threats, coming from a pretty significant culture in the US.

I don’t buy the “we can’t punishing thought” argument, as we rightly do that all the time in sentencing, in, say, considering intent, and planning in a murder, or manslaughter. But I still can’t find a strong desire to treat such crimes differently. A crime in which a person (who is incidentally Swedish) is beaten, threatens everyone who looks like they may have a wallet, most everyone. A crime directed particularly at Swedes concentrates the threat on all Swedes. In one case you’re threatening a huge number of people to a small degree; in the other you threaten a smaller number to a larger degree.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t it be in the attempt to “intimidate…the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
 
roger said:
In general terrorism is the use of violence and the threat of violence against civilians by a group to achieve political change. At least that is how I understand it. I don't quite see how this shooting rises to that level.
Click to expand...
"Unlawful use of force ... to intimidate ... the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
Wouldn’t it be in the attempt to “intimidate…the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Click to expand...
Sure, if the quy was publishing manifestos stating that unless X, Y, and Z occurs, the killings will continue, or somesuch.

I'm not interested in word definition arguments, and I'll even agree that I see merit in what you are saying, but not quite enough merit. Let's reserve the word terrorism for acts performed by groups for stated political ends, not for the random acts of lone nutjobs.
 
Dr Adequate said:
"Unlawful use of force ... to intimidate ... the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing, or making some other point.
 
roger said:
In general terrorism is the use of violence and the threat of violence against civilians by a group to achieve political change. At least that is how I understand it. I don't quite see how this shooting rises to that level.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in your quoted regulation that requires a group. And it allows for social change.

Now, the only question that remains was whether he hoped to achieve social change. By targeting gay folks, it was certainly a _social statement_ that was made.
 
roger said:
I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing, or making some other point.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out that all of the elements in the definition are present in this case.

1) Unlawful use of force? check
2) to intimidate? check
3) civil population, or element thereof? check
4) in futherance of social objective? see above. He was clearly making a social statement in doing it

It apparently has all the properties of a terrorist act.

But you don't need that to see it. Just imagine it was an arab who got on a bus full of Jews in Jeruselem and opened fire. Would anyone question whether it was a terrorist act? Even if only ("only", heh) one person died?
 
The Patriot Act lists several different acts that qualify as terrorism including:

involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury
Click to expand...

It also removed the statue of limitations for these acts and applies them retroactively:

(b) NO LIMITATION- Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person.

(b) APPLICATION- The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section.
Click to expand...

LLH

*edited minor grammar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom