Terrorism?

[AustinHoya03]

My brother, the 'terrorist'

[hilltopper2000]

Not under any conventional definition. It sounds like he's a radical and an arsonist; if you are not attempting to hurt human beings, I don't think you can even be in the running for terrorism.

[EasyEd]

hilltopper2000 said:

Not under any conventional definition. It sounds like he's a radical and an arsonist; if you are not attempting to hurt human beings, I don't think you can even be in the running for terrorism.

So, if someone dynamites a refinery, derails a train, destroys an electric grid, blows up a school, brings a government building to the ground, machine guns the animals at a zoo, or anything else, as long as no people are harmed, it's OK?

This guy is a terrorist and the article takes the approach "as long as his intentions are good, it's alright. He ain't a terrorist".

[hilltopper2000]

Where is Orwell when you need him? Everyone is a terrorist now, so long as you don't like what they do. Israelis terrorize Palastinians, and vice versa; Americans terrorize Iraqis, and visa versa. Who is to say what is right or wrong in this mixed up, muddled up world?

Terrorism used to mean killing or injuring civilians (i.e., terroizing them) to force political change.

Expanding the meaning of words can be helpful in the short term to tar what we do not like (e.g., "George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist"; "Cheney is a fascist"; etc.). But altering the meaning of words ultimately undermines our ability to communicate and leads to imprecise thinking as well as muddled and uncivilized political discourse. I have no idea what the criminal definition of terrorism is, but this seems like a far cry from what is traditionally thought of as terrorism, and I think that was the point of the editorial.

[Boz]

This is a great ruling, should it come to pass.

I see it as the first step in my personal goal to apply the terrorism enhancement to anyone who plays frakkin' Bon Jovi in a bar.

That includes bands, DJs AND patrons (if there happens to be a jukebox handy.

There is definitely "intent to harm" implicit in their actions.

[no smiley; I am not kidding; if I can't smoke in a bar, you can't play that sh*t]

[AustinHoya03]

hilltopper2000 said:

Terrorism used to mean killing or injuring civilians (i.e., terroizing them) to force political change.

My opinion lies somewhere between both of yours. I think one can terrorize people without killing or injuring them. I would label ETA blowing up part of the Madrid airport a few months ago terrorism, even though ETA didn't intend for anyone to die. (However, ETA's actions were directed at a state, whereas this appears to be more of a dispute between an individual and a corporation.)

Some states have now adopted criminal statutes that allow prosecution for terrorism. As I pointed out after the Va. Tech shootings, the killer's actions fit the definition of terrorism under the Virginia statute. If I remember correctly VA law does require killing/injuring others -- apparently the federal statute doesn't (unless the writer of this op-ed is playing loose with the facts). I don't mind having statutes on the books that allow terrorists to be prosecuted. However, if a statute is broadly written and, as a result, broadly applied, it undermines our condemnation of the type of terrorism that does focus on killing people. I don't know much about the federal terrorism statute, but I would not be surprised to learn that it is fairly broad. I also wonder: if this guy is convicted of terrorism, does he end up on the no-fly list? Are his rights impinged upon in other ways vs. if he was merely convicted of arson?

So, my definition of "terrorism" is probably closer to ed's, but I share hilltopper's concern that we're using the label too freely.

[The Stig]

I think one of the big issues in this particular case is that somebody convicted of terrorism gets a much longer sentence than somebody convicted of simple arson. So if I burn down a slaughterhouse and don't say anything, I get three years. However, if I burn down that slaughterhouse and shout "death to the animal killers!", I get 14 years. That's problematic. I also think it's laughable that a bunch of tree huggers are the FBI's "No. 1 domestic terrorist threat" (quote from the article), despite the fact that (as far as I'm aware) they've never killed anybody. So either we're a lot safer from terrorism than some members of our government would like us to believe, or somebody at the FBI has been smoking way too much.

[HealyHoya]

In The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, the term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that--

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

(B) appear to be intended--

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

I may have fundamental diagreements with the policy underlying the law, but from the facts in the article it appears quite clear that it was entirely appropriate to charge this gentleman as a terrorist -- or, perhaps to state it in a more accurate manner -- it was appropriate to charge this man under federal domestic terrorism laws.

Domestic terrorism isn't an issue that can be claimed by either side (...wing) of either political party. From the right, we have anti-government, pro-Aryan, militia-survivalist groups. From the left, the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front and similar groups.

I distrust the Bush Adminsitration. I am wary of their tendency to expand legal rulings and interpretations to serve political ends. Nevertheless, domestic terrorism was a serious social, political and economic issue prior to 9/11 and efforts to thwart future attacks and hold responsible those found to have committed such acts that fit within the legal definition of dometic terrorism ought to be supported.

[hilltopper2000]

Interesting. I'm not sure that this appears intended to influence governmental policy through intimidation or coercion but perhaps we don't have enough facts. I can tell you that courts generally read language like "acts dangerous to human life" very broadly.

[SirSaxa]

ed said:

hilltopper2000 said:

Not under any conventional definition. It sounds like he's a radical and an arsonist; if you are not attempting to hurt human beings, I don't think you can even be in the running for terrorism.

So, if someone dynamites a refinery, derails a train, destroys an electric grid, blows up a school, brings a government building to the ground, machine guns the animals at a zoo, or anything else, as long as no people are harmed, it's OK?

This guy is a terrorist and the article takes the approach "as long as his intentions are good, it's alright. He ain't a terrorist".

That's an interesting interpretation... especially the parts about "It's OK?" and "it's alright"

Nothing in the article said it was OK or alright. It simply said the normal laws regarding arson should be enforced, but the "terrorism enhancement" to impose a much higher penalty did not realistically fit the circumstances of this case.

Nowhere does it say the actions of the individual involved were "OK".

And nothing in the description of the incident indicate it should be referred to as "terrorism".

[HealyHoya]

thestig said:

I think one of the big issues in this particular case is that somebody convicted of terrorism gets a much longer sentence than somebody convicted of simple arson. So if I burn down a slaughterhouse and don't say anything, I get three years. However, if I burn down that slaughterhouse and shout "death to the animal killers!", I get 14 years. That's problematic.

Perhaps problematic to you but certainly not an unprecedented rationale for a law.

If I plan to kill a man and then walk up to that man quietly and shoot him in the head I'll be charged with murder. If I plan to kill a man and then walk up to that man, say "I'm killing you because you're gay" and then shoot him in the head I'll be charged with murder with a hate-crime enhancement.

There are countless other examples where motivation has tremendous relevance to the charge, additional sentencing enhancements, and so forth.

I'm not defending the Bush Admininstration in general or this case in particular, but...

[theexorcist]

The below are my views only.

It's terrorism. It is trying to achieve political ends through violence. The idea that people weren't injured or killed doesn't matter - everyone who works at a slaughterhouse walks in the next day thinking that they might be targeted. They endure a little more fear.

I was in the Pentagon the day the plane hit. I was in the Pentagon the next day, too - and for a few years after that. Every single time the klaxon sounded for us to evacuate since that day, my heart skipped about six beats.

Europe - notably the UK - has a problem with animal rights extremists who target scientists and labs. The result has been less scientific research performed by fewer researchers at a higher cost. There has been a specific, measured cost to performing experiments on animals, despite the fact that such research is legal. Terror has imposed a cost, and changed how people operate.

The best example is actually cited by the writer - Eric Rudolph. What would the response of people be if someone bombed places where abortions were performed, even if the bomber took great pains to make sure no one got hurt? You're frightening people - putting in their head that, the next time, they might be in there when the bomb goes off.

The morality of the policy being protested is immaterial. I oppose abortion, but I consider Eric Rudolph's actions terrorism. If you oppose something, fight it in the court and in the legislature like a reasonable person.

Caroline Paul's brother may be a Trekkie who cried at some 80s comedy. But he's a terrorist, too.

[SaxaCD]

Holy crap! Caroline Paul from GU? Her twin sis always impressed me with her acting chops in the movie "Christine", and of course, "Baywatch"... and that's all I'm going to add to this topic!