Is Tiller's assassin a domestic terrorist?
My latest story at RH Reality: Is George Tiller's Assassin a Domestic Terrorist?
« Anonymous Basiji describes prison rape in Iran | Main | David Simon, objectively pro-cartel »
My latest story at RH Reality: Is George Tiller's Assassin a Domestic Terrorist?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef0115721f91df970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Tiller's assassin a domestic terrorist? :
The comments to this entry are closed.
Is Tiller's assassin a domestic terrorist?
Yes.
If that had been a Muslim that had targeted an anti-abortion prayer meeting, we never would have heard the end of it.
Obama would have been pilloried, and if it had happened under Bush, Fox et al would be advocating for concentration camps.
Posted by: TB | July 21, 2009 at 02:05 PM
SA2SQ.
Posted by: Joey Maloney | July 21, 2009 at 03:57 PM
It's a deceptively simple question. Roeder almost certainly won't be charged with domestic terrorism, even though his crime seems to meet all the criteria for the offense under federal law. Partly it's a chickenshit move by the DOJ to sidestep a politically volatile determination. On the other hand, I don't really want Americans operating in America to be classified as domestic terrorists under the PATRIOT Act and so forth. It's really not necessary because you don't need expanded powers of surveillance or expanded powers to combat money laundering to deal with the violent anti-abortionists. They're not international criminal syndicates or even terribly sophisticated. What's needed is continual low-level enforcement of the existing laws.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | July 21, 2009 at 04:04 PM
The term terrorism is bullshite. So is the concept.
According to the jerks who use the term... if you are not in an army with a uniform... and you engage in violence against a "state" you are a terrorist.
I don't know what this is not a criminal activity and "prosecuted" as such. Why do we need the terror term for this?
The USA seems to have this idea that these non state groups are out there and "we" are hunting them and before the commit the crime, we detain them, or render them based on supposed evidence that no one can see. How creepy is that? Preventative detention and torture too.
I always thought that you were innocent until proven guilty. And if the feds can make a case for conspiracy to commit a crime... make it in a court of law and send the conspirator up the river for a stint behind bars. If they can't make the case... hands off.
Roeder was a asshole murderer who intended to kill and intimidate others which makes his murder even worse. Life with no possibility of release.
Posted by: SanderO | July 21, 2009 at 07:57 PM
"On the other hand, I don't really want Americans operating in America to be classified as domestic terrorists under the PATRIOT Act and so forth."
Generally I agree Linds ... normally, rising to that level takes a certain level of commitment and organization, sort of like when Neo-Nazi groups conspire on a series of coordinated bombings of gay nightclubs; which they tried on a couple of occasions back in the late 80s & early 90s, and were stopped.
Essentially I view the PATRIOT Act, and the DHS for that matter, as being cover your ass security theater, and none of the security types that I know or read take either very seriously (apart from their serious erosions of our inalienable human rights).
Posted by: TB | July 21, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Yes. Yes, he is. So is Eric Rudolph. They should be labeled as such early and often. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: ed | July 22, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Yes he is.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 22, 2009 at 04:53 PM
SanderO, what? The concept of terrorism has nothing to do with affiliation with a state. For your edification, here's the definition of domestic terrorism, from the US Code, title 18, section 2331:
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.
So, uh. When you say Roeder intended to "intimidate others which makes his murder even worse," it sounds to me like you're in agreement with the concept of the federal definition of domestic terrorism
My own thought? Hell yeah, Terry's a terrorist, and I want to see his crazy ass locked up in Guantanamo Bay while sporting a fashionable orange jumpsuit.
Posted by: Liv | July 22, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Liv, but these clauses are just criminal activity... no need to add the fear factor and give it the name "terrorism".
Why make the distinction?
Posted by: SanderO | July 22, 2009 at 09:21 PM
Then what counts as terrorism for you SanderO?
Posted by: TB | July 22, 2009 at 09:54 PM
The " benefit " of terrorism is that you cause fear in a large population by harming or threatening to harm a relative few. Leverage.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 23, 2009 at 09:10 AM