Domestic Terrorism in US

[TragicMonkey]

Rachel Maddo claimed this morning that they have his website, which were more of the general neo-nazi stuff, I think. Nothing specific about gays, I don't believe, but does a neo-nazi really need to claim that he is anti-gay?

Actually, yes. Neo-Nazis are much more focused on Jews and ethnic groups.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, as far as I can tell he was just trying to kill people that for some strange reason he hated. But if I was to concede the point, so what. I don't see that he was trying to achieve some objective, which the statute mentions. The terrorist is trying to achieve an objective, not make a statement. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd offer the following as an objective that might apply in this case:

"I'll continue killing gays until gay marriage is made illegal in all states"

So "I'm going to shoot gays because if I do there will be fewer gays in the world" is not trying to achieve an objective?

Showing that world that "gays are bad and deserve to be whacked" is not a political or social objective?

 

[Mycroft]

As I said early on, I thought the goal of the War on Terror was to _prevent_ terrorism.

In fact, one of the big criticisms of Clinton is the policy of "wait for the attacks to happen and then arrest those responsible." Bush's agenda has been to strike them before they strike us. Does that only apply to those we can go after with the military?

Do you believe our FBI does not monitor and investigate hate groups who might perpetuate this kind of attack?

 

[Manny]

As I said early on, I thought the goal of the War on Terror was to _prevent_ terrorism.

Absent a Minority Report kind of dealie, precisely what do you suggest which would prevent whackjobs from walking into bars with hatchets? Homeland Security agents in gay bars (which, OK, would be funny as heck)? Following anyone with a neo-Nazi website 24-7? Hatchet control laws?

 

[roger]

So "I'm going to shoot gays because if I do there will be fewer gays in the world" is not trying to achieve an objective?

You are just making that up, right? I didn't see any press release to this effect.

He's some random guy who decided "I'm going to kill me some queers" and went off and did it. Then he shot his girlfriend in the head. Then shot at some cops. I can't identify any clear objective beyond commiting the violence itself.

If you can't see the difference between what he did, and what a group does that organizes sleeper cells, trains for years, plans attacks, issues press releases of demands (their objectives), including threats that the violence will continue or escalate if they are not met, then us posting the same thing 3 more times isn't going to change anything. It seems clear to me that 'objectives' in the statute is referring to the latter, to you it isn't clear. I'm probably not going to respond further about this specific point.

ETA: that first sentence is probably rude. I apologize.

My point is that the statute is very short, thus tersely worded. And that no, based on the evidence so far, this guy did not have an organized plan to thin out the population of gays, or of inflicting systematic terror in gays and their families if his wishes are not carried out.

I think you are speculating on what the guy's motives are. If you know, and they are as you stated, and it was part of a plan that he was going to carry on to achieve some goal, then yes, it was terrorism.

 

[pgwenthold]

Absent a Minority Report kind of dealie, precisely what do you suggest which would prevent whackjobs from walking into bars with hatchets? Homeland Security agents in gay bars (which, OK, would be funny as heck)? Following anyone with a neo-Nazi website 24-7? Hatchet control laws?

I don't know, but then, that is why the government has a Department of Homeland Security, who's goal is supposedly to secure our homeland. In this case, they have clearly failed (a terrorist attack has occured).

I don't see anything wrong with questioning whether there is something we could be doing to prevent such things. Perhaps the answer is "not really," but I can guarantee that _my_ lack of an answer and _your_ lack of an answer (for that matter, anyone's here lack of an answer) is not sufficient for me to conclude that there is no solution. Now, if the government wants to contract me to consider the issue in depth, I'll do it, but that's not my job. Thus, your "what would you suggest" is irrelevent.

I don't need to be an expert in automotive mechanics to know that my car isn't working right, but I do need a mechanic to fix it.

 

[Manny]

I don't know, but then, that is why the government has a Department of Homeland Security, who's goal is supposedly to secure our homeland. In this case, they have clearly failed (a terrorist attack has occured).

Ah, so it's impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks and therefore it is futile to try to stop any of them.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to have a conversation with. Goodbye.

 

[pgwenthold]

You are just making that up, right? I didn't see any press release to this effect.

Granted, I did make it up, but more to illustrate that your suggested motivation "killing gays will lead to outlawing gay marriage" is a vast overstatement of what is needed to constitute an attempt to achieve social change. "If I kill gays, there will be fewer gays and perhaps fewer people will become gay" is more than sufficient to be a social goal.

Do I know his motives? No. However, I know that he intentionally went to a gay bar, verified that it was indeed a gay bar. Apparently he was interested in killing gays.

Why? Of course there are lots of possible reasons, but given the history of anti-gay violence in our country, it's not a stretch in the least to think that he was singling out gay people for some reason. It almost doesn't make any sense to single out a given group "for no reason." "Shooting queers" means you have a reason to do it - because they are queer.

I have admitted this is not the same as an Al queda cell on 9/11. However, that's not my equivocation, it's the world's. As I say, over and over, if this were an arab who let loose on a bus of Jews in Jeruselem, it wouldn't be questioned as terrorism. You would never dismiss it as some whacko who just wanted to kill a bunch of Jews for no reason.

 

[Darat]

I've been out of town for a week, and I come back and see all these threads on muslims and their response to the cartoon.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see anything about the most recent terrorist attack in the US. Last week, an 18 year old kid goes into a gay bar and starts shooting indiscriminately. Ultimately, this weekend, the cops track him down and took him out.

Terrorist? You dang straight! What else would you call it?

Not a suicide bomber, granted, but definately a terrorist. If it were a muslim who walked onto a bus of Jews and did it, there wouldn't be any question that he'd be called a terrorist. But when it is a neo-nazi who walks into a gay bar, it gets nary any attention?

A thread here that seems to illustrate your point: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51628

 

[epepke]

Um, maybe it's just me, but is there any real certainty the guy attacked the gay bar because it was a gay bar? None of the reports mentioned any previous anti-gay statements, although they do refer to "posters with anti-semitic slogans" and a swastika tattoo. And today I read about an ambiguous note he left saying he'd "do something violent". I think that suggests he didn't have a specific target. He just planned to go nuts, which he did. If he had been a hardcore homophobe, would he have sat down and drank in the gay bar first?

He could easily have been a closeted and self-hating gay himself.

But seriously, there isn't much discussion here because there's little to discuss. There's nobody here spring-loaded to declare that it's somehow understandable because of the plight of the oppressed white Alabamans.

ETA: Besides, up until pgwenthold made the OP, wasn't the US definition of terrorism pretty much universally the subject of derision? And so now it's being used as a subject for argument? What does this amount too beyond neener-neener boo-booism?

 

[pgwenthold]

ETA: Besides, up until pgwenthold made the OP, wasn't the US definition of terrorism pretty much universally the subject of derision?

Pretty much, yeah. And I think this whole thread more or less exemplifies the problem. By the US definition, this was an act of terrorism on US soil. But given that, why the general lack of interest? Of course, the short answer is that it really wasn't what most people consider to be terrorism. But then we need to tell the government. It's their definition that leads to that conclusion.

Yet, despite all that, whereas this event was ignored on this board, Darat notes that a similar incident in Jeruselem does get a thread. Makes me wonder about some people's goals. Are they really opposed to terrorism and violence, or just when arabs do it?

 

[BPSCG]

Absent a Minority Report kind of dealie, precisely what do you suggest which would prevent whackjobs from walking into bars with hatchets? Homeland Security agents in gay bars (which, OK, would be funny as heck)? Following anyone with a neo-Nazi website 24-7? Hatchet control laws?

We need a federal hate crimes law that cover sexual orientation, which Barney Frank is trying to get. Massachusetts has such a law, but there's no overriding federal one.

So even though Massachusetts has laws against antigay "hate crimes," this guy went on a rampage in a gay bar there. If only there had been a federal law. that would have stopped him.

BTW, the murderer met his end in Arkansas.

Arkansas is one of only four states with no hate-crime laws whatever. Bravo for life's little ironies.

 

[luchog]

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 arabs that blow up busses full of Jews in Israel belong to organized groups who espouse particular socio-political aims, vociferously. Where was this individual's charter? What group was he affiliated with? What were his specific goals?

Where is the line between "hate crime" and "terrorism"?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Where is the line between "hate crime" and "terrorism"?

Until recently I would have said that terrorism is: "an act of violence, preformed for political purposes."

Recently the term has grown to mean: "any act I disagree with".

LLH

 

[BPSCG]

Until recently I would have said that terrorism is: "an act of violence, preformed for political purposes."

Recently the term has grown to mean: "any act I disagree with".

I thought that was the definition of "fascism."

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I thought that was the definition of "fascism."

No that is: "any ideology I disagree with".


A nazi is: "any person I disagree with".

LLH

 

[Tmy]

Right. And in this case, the goal of "the nation" was to track this guy down, no matter how far he ran, and capture him to make him stand trial, or, failing that, kill him.

Now, compare and contrast to the treatment of an Islamist terrorist when he gets away to a Muslim country. Is he captured and extradited for trial?

More silliness from the moral equivalency brigade.

What about the guy who suppsoably shot his wife and baby in Boston and is now sitting pretty in England.


I was wondering. Can the govt spy on american neo nazis wh/o a warrant under the patriot act?

 

[Mycroft]

Pretty much, yeah. And I think this whole thread more or less exemplifies the problem. By the US definition, this was an act of terrorism on US soil. But given that, why the general lack of interest? Of course, the short answer is that it really wasn't what most people consider to be terrorism. But then we need to tell the government. It's their definition that leads to that conclusion.

Yet, despite all that, whereas this event was ignored on this board, Darat notes that a similar incident in Jeruselem does get a thread. Makes me wonder about some people's goals. Are they really opposed to terrorism and violence, or just when arabs do it?

It seems to me this instance got a thread. This one.

 

[rwguinn]

As I said early on, I thought the goal of the War on Terror was to _prevent_ terrorism.

In fact, one of the big criticisms of Clinton is the policy of "wait for the attacks to happen and then arrest those responsible." Bush's agenda has been to strike them before they strike us. Does that only apply to those we can go after with the military?

The US Constitution still holds sway, Patriot Act or no. Prohibitions against
"Prior Restraint" are still in existance. You can't arrest a guy for thinking--in the US. Acting against someone or someones who have demonstrated a willingness, ability, and desire to commit mayhem is a different thing, however.
As I pointed out in a different post, it is how the society reacts to these circumstances and acts that helps define it. The Gay killer evoked nothing but disgust and anger from mainstream US society. Same for the Church burners.

 

[BPSCG]

What about the guy who suppsoably shot his wife and baby in Boston and is now sitting pretty in England.

Is he a terrorist now, too?

Next up: Michael Jackson, terrorist.