What exactly is Domestic Terrorism?
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
32% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
14% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
5% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
11 votes
|
|
50% | |||
What exactly is domestic terrorism?
By GOPUSA Staff August 17, 2012 7:13 am
Text Size: A A A
It
seems like a simple question. The United States government has a
definition of what a domestic terrorist act is. It's pretty cut and
dry. What's a little more complicated is how it's applied and which
acts of violence are given the designation. It seems that if you are a
general nutcase, you can be labeled a domestic terrorist... but if you
are a Muslim and commit similar violence, you aren't... at least
according to the Obama administration.
Fox News
takes a look at four distinct events and reports on the incredible lack
of consistency used in labeling an act as "domestic terrorism."
According to the Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is
defined as an act of violence that is intended to "intimidate or coerce a
civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
So... what falls under this category?
According to the report, the shooting earlier in August at a Sikh
temple in Wisconsin does. The shooting this week at the Family Research
Council "is also being handled as an act of domestic terrorism, a
source told Fox News."
But look at what is NOT being labeled as "domestic terrorism":
A recruitment center shooting in the summer of 2009 by a
man who described himself as an operative for Al Qaeda in Yemen was not
handled as a terrorism case. It was prosecuted in an Arkansas state
court.And the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, when 13 were killed and
more than 30 wounded, has never been described officially as an act of
terrorism even though the alleged shooter shouted "Allahu Akbar," or God
is great, when he opened fire."Now, you know, we can have really a legal discussion about whether
it's a hate crime or an act of terrorism," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.,
chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News. "I
just wish there was some consistency here and certainly to me Fort Hood
would be the classic case (of) what should be a clear case of
terrorism."
Here's a video report:
Does it matter how an act of violence is labeled? It does when it
means additional resources will be used to bring suspects to justice and
to find out if others are involved. It also matters if politics and
political correctness are being used to gloss over acts of violence that
could be part of a trend or much larger plan.
What we should all be saying to the Obama administration is to forget
about political correctness and fight terrorism! And yes... that even
means going after al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.
Read More: http://www.gopusa.com
Top Opinion
-
Governement Terrorists
+7That would be the Terrorist camping in our White House. He'll be ganging up on us with his czars and the TSA. That's my definition, surely not his LOL
Here is my definition, that I would apply to proposed Constitutional reform. (By "reform" I mean "let's amend the Constitution if we must, and then stick to it and stop pretending that we're following it when we're not.)
My *conceptual* definition of terrorism is "an act of war when an irregular combatant commits it." An *irregular combatant* is "any combatant who doesn't wear a uniform." An irregular might act on behalf of a foreign State or on his own behalf or for a nongovernmental group.
My *operational* definition is "any act against a big-enough target, or any pattern of acts against sensitive-enough targets." We would have to work out the target thresholds (numbers of living-breathing-person targets, level of damage or attempted damage to property, things like that) later. (I have a problem with "Congress may by law provide" kinds of Constitutional texts.)
Why is this important? Why can we not prosecute sabotage or mass murder, on any scale, as common garden-variety murder, property destruction, etc.? Because sometimes it's part of a continuing campaign, and the resources that society needs to protect against that campaign are beyond the reach of the kind of municipal police department that most people would be comfortable with. ...
Here is my definition, that I would apply to proposed Constitutional reform. (By "reform" I mean "let's amend the Constitution if we must, and then stick to it and stop pretending that we're following it when we're not.)
My *conceptual* definition of terrorism is "an act of war when an irregular combatant commits it." An *irregular combatant* is "any combatant who doesn't wear a uniform." An irregular might act on behalf of a foreign State or on his own behalf or for a nongovernmental group.
My *operational* definition is "any act against a big-enough target, or any pattern of acts against sensitive-enough targets." We would have to work out the target thresholds (numbers of living-breathing-person targets, level of damage or attempted damage to property, things like that) later. (I have a problem with "Congress may by law provide" kinds of Constitutional texts.)
Why is this important? Why can we not prosecute sabotage or mass murder, on any scale, as common garden-variety murder, property destruction, etc.? Because sometimes it's part of a continuing campaign, and the resources that society needs to protect against that campaign are beyond the reach of the kind of municipal police department that most people would be comfortable with. (And definitely beyond the reach of a non-governmental Committee of Safety.) And also because when you prosecute anybody, you have to hang out the evidence in the open. That tips your hand to the defendant's accomplices, who are still on the loose and getting ready to plan the next mass murder, and the next, and the next.
The Senate of ancient Rome came up with an interesting instrument: *Senatus consultum de re publica defendenda* (Senate Resolution in Defense of the Republic). Its purpose: to declare war against one person, or a small group of persons, that did not deserve the title of "nation-state." But we have a problem. The US Constitution says, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." And Emmerich de Vattel did not, as far as I could determine, anticipate that a nation-state would ever have to declare war against one person or other nongovernmental group!
Vattel did, however, recognize simple rebellion. The Constitution also recognizes it. ("The protection of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be denied unless under circumstances of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.") But rebellion presupposes that the "rebels" are citizens or other nationals of the United States. What about those who are not?
Here, then, is my proposal: the Congress, whenever two-thirds of the members present in both Houses concur, may declare a person or persons in rebellion against the United States, or declare that a person or persons, who are not citizens or lawful residents, have invaded the United States, and the armed and other law-enforcement forces of the United States and of the several States are to treat them as invaders.
And if you don't have evidence to convince two-thirds of the Congress that a UBL is invading or otherwise unlawfully depredating against the United States, or that a citizen is rebelling against the government and committing murder or sabotage in aid of that rebellion, then don't throw the "terrorism" label around.
You need the two-thirds because you have to overcome the writ of habeas corpus, and to set a high mark for what is--let's not kid ourselves--a bill of attainder.