30-12-2004 00:36									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sava Just about all crime "terrorizes"... that's not the point. Gepap pointed it out nicely... terrorism tries to advance a certain political agenda. And no one yet has countered or addressed Gepap's point. So my statement stands, and yours fades into irrelevancy.

Of course all crime terrorizes. But I can't help if political halfwits only narrowly define terrorism.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

Nowhere does it say, social or political end.

The end can simply be to create havoc, remove rivals, or terrorize people.

So your use of is very funny.

ACK!

	30-12-2004 00:36									#32
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap So you are saying, Criminal=terrorist? Gang members join gangs to be part of something- criminal gangs exist to protect criminal enterprises- thats an economic, NOT socio-political agenda.

No, i think its more like organized crime, including violence directed at members of a community generally, not specifically those being stolen from, is terrorism. Theres clearly a difference between a gang shooting up a park and a mugger taking your wallet. A difference as great, or greater than that between a gang shooting up a park cause theyre mad about the womens dress, and shooting up a park cause theyre mad that folks gave info to the police on their drug ops.

	30-12-2004 00:37									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Sava is a terrorist.

	30-12-2004 00:39									#34
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark If you fall under the control of a new state, which collects taxes from you, does it matter if youre still allowed to vote for the leaders of an old state, which has manifestly failed to protect you? And isnt the establishment of a new state a political act? Of course gangs dont generally stop you from ALSO paying taxes to the old state, so they dont meet modern criteria for a state.

Except that street gangs don't attempt to recreate a new state.

quote: Im not in disagreement with you gepap - i understand what you mean, im just not sure how you would draft a law that would encompass everything you want to ban, but couldnt be used against gangs (suppose an Islamist group DIDNT attack people who wore the wrong clothes, but those who failed to pay the charity required by Sharia? What if a gang killed those who didnt wear gang colors? etc - theres a real grey area here)

You use the existing laws against murder, manslaughter, extorsion, witness tampering, weapons possesions, assualt, so forth and so on- and then you can add a hate crimes addendum if you want.

There is more than enough law to handle the situation you mention. This is an issue of a DA trying to get a harsher penalty than the existing law gives him by creating a charge.

	30-12-2004 00:42									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark No, i think its more like organized crime, including violence directed at members of a community generally, not specifically those being stolen from, is terrorism. Theres clearly a difference between a gang shooting up a park and a mugger taking your wallet.

So what? gang violence is closer to warfare then to singular crime- does that make gang violence recognized warfare? Should we treat gang members as prisoners of war if caught!? The suggestion is absurd, and so is calling them terrorist.

quote: A difference as great, or greater than that between a gang shooting up a park cause theyre mad about the womens dress, and shooting up a park cause theyre mad that folks gave info to the police on their drug ops.

Just the fact that the killing can be indifferent, and the action taken by an organization does not make gangs into terrorist orgs anymore than it makes them armies.

	30-12-2004 00:43									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski Of course all crime terrorizes. But I can't help if political halfwits only narrowly define terrorism. According to Webster's Dictionary: Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end. Nowhere does it say, social or political end. The end can simply be to create havoc, remove rivals, or terrorize people. So your use of is very funny. ACK!

The FBI definition trumps this.

	30-12-2004 00:44									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap The FBI definition trumps this.

The FBI defines it for the FBI's purpose.

ACK!

	30-12-2004 00:45									#38
	Put an end to popups!

Dictionary definitons aren't legal ones.

	30-12-2004 00:46									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap Except that street gangs don't attempt to recreate a new state. You use the existing laws against murder, manslaughter, extorsion, witness tampering, weapons possesions, assualt, so forth and so on- and then you can add a hate crimes addendum if you want. There is more than enough law to handle the situation you mention. This is an issue of a DA trying to get a harsher penalty than the existing law gives him by creating a charge.

I meant how would you draft a law against TERRORIST acts, that cant also be used by a DA against gangs.

You could of course refrain from having any specific law against terrorist acts.

	30-12-2004 00:49									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Dictionary definitons aren't legal ones.

New York state defines terrorism differently than the FBI.


That should be obvious.

By New York's definition this could be terrorism.

If they guy is tried, convicted, appeals are overruled. Then NY's definition is right.

If not, they are wrong.

ACK!

	30-12-2004 00:50									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You're being pedantic.

	30-12-2004 00:52									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap So what? gang violence is closer to warfare then to singular crime- does that make gang violence recognized warfare? Should we treat gang members as prisoners of war if caught!?

Well of course even a gang territory were recognized as a state, they arent legal combatants, the criteria are clear. Similarly the modern criteria for being a state are fairly clear.

The criteria for being a terrorist you have put forth are, however dependent on the intentions of the group perpetrating the act. Its one thing to use such criteria in international relations, quite another in a criminal court.


Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal
Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people!
Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism
Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc
Defense Attorney: Prove it.

	30-12-2004 00:52									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker You're being pedantic.

And?

If he had quoted the FBD, instead of the FBI, I would have nowhere to go.

ACK!

	30-12-2004 00:56									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people! Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc Defense Attorney: Prove it.

Show statements by the person, or show that the person is a member of an organization with the stated goal to enforce sharia.

	30-12-2004 01:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?

	30-12-2004 01:03									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people! Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc Defense Attorney: Prove it. Show statements by the person, or show that the person is a member of an organization with the stated goal to enforce sharia.

Is that enough, if it cant be proved that THIS particular act was intended with to enforce sharia? If someone who supports the enforcement of Sharia mugs someone, is that terrorism? What if someone advocates the establishment of Sharia law by PEACEFUL means? "My client is a member of the muslim brotherhood, which calls for establishing sharia through elections - he just also happens to a be a member of an extortion gang, that happens to blow up buses - its up to the state to prove a connection"

"Or yes, my client has called for violence to establish Sharia, but no where can it be proven he called for women to dress a certain way - the only aspects of Sharia he called for were collection of certain tithes and taxes - I dare the prosecution to show how thats differetnt from protection paid to the Crips, without invoking my clients religion against him"

Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention.

	30-12-2004 01:04									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by St Leo If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?

Only if you believe in a religion that requires you to drive a hummer

	30-12-2004 01:06									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention.

Um... that is why you have a jury. To decide on the facts. And the criminal's intention is decided in most criminal trials (where the crime is not strict liability). In fact that is the meaning of the word mens rea (the guilty mind).

	30-12-2004 01:12									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention. Um... that is why you have a jury. To decide on the facts. And the criminal's intention is decided in most criminal trials (where the crime is not strict liability). In fact that is the meaning of the word mens rea (the guilty mind).

Help me - isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc)

	30-12-2004 01:16									#50
	Put an end to popups!

quote: isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc)

Sometimes. Sometimes, not; however. Questions of whether an accused really intended to commit a crime can get really complex and bogged down in very minor things. And motivation is also taking into account in deciding if a death was really murder or manslaughter (like when a guy runs over someone with his car). All mens rea issues can be tricky, but are essential to our criminal law system.

	30-12-2004 01:20									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

There's only one thing in that article that bothers me, and that's the fact that "terrorists" are treated differently at all:

quote: If the charges did not include the terrorism stipulation, he would face a sentence of 25 years to life if found guilty. With the stipulation, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Why exactly is that? Is it somehow worse if I kill someone in a terroristic fashion?
I would think that this would really only be applicable for bombings with multiple victims anyway. In that case you could sentence them to X times 25 years anyway (plus attempted murder charges for all those who didn't die), so what's the point?

	30-12-2004 01:22									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc) Sometimes. Sometimes, not; however. Questions of whether an accused really intended to commit a crime can get really complex and bogged down in very minor things. And motivation is also taking into account in deciding if a death was really murder or manslaughter (like when a guy runs over someone with his car). All mens rea issues can be tricky, but are essential to our criminal law system.

But why introduce more such tricky questions? Especially when youre likely going to force juries to make judgements about such sensitive questions of religion and group affiliation. I fear that the kind of definition you and Gepap seem to be arguing for would result in juries having to distinguish whether wearing gang colors is more or less a social agenda than women covering their faces in certain ways. Which would lead them to examining and judging the customs and texts of certain religions. Which is NOT a way I think we want them to go. Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay.

	30-12-2004 01:31									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: But why introduce more such tricky questions?

Why not? We already ask the jury to decide the motivations of criminals. I don't see how this would be different.

quote: Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay.

I totally disagree. I want 'terrorism laws' which were passed after the panic of 9/11 to be as narrowly construed as possible.

Though, if you do oppose hate crimes because people are deciding motivation, you should oppose terrorism acts, because even in a wider definition, people have to decide the motivation of the person. Is it to advance the agenda of the group or just personal gain?

	30-12-2004 01:36									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: But why introduce more such tricky questions? Why not? We already ask the jury to decide the motivations of criminals. I don't see how this would be different. quote: Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay. I totally disagree. I want 'terrorism laws' which were passed after the panic of 9/11 to be as narrowly construed as possible. Though, if you do oppose hate crimes because people are deciding motivation, you should oppose terrorism acts, because even in a wider definition, people have to decide the motivation of the person. Is it to advance the agenda of the group or just personal gain?

I would think you could define a terrorist act by the definition of the act and the impact on victims. If you blow up 50 people on a bus, that would tend to promote terror, in a way that a targeted crime does not. The defense would have to PROVE that the victims knew they could be individually saved by say, paying protection. Similarly I think hate crimes could be so defined. Painting "death to blacks" on a bridge could be distinguished from painting "charlie and mary 4ever" on a bridge without examining the painters motives. As for murder, Im not sure that a special hate crimes designation there is really required.

	30-12-2004 01:42									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

While I don't really give a damn what laws they use to attack gangs... this one is stretching it. If the feds or local governments want to go after gangs, use the existing laws that ACTUALLY APPLY, or create some more targeted laws instead of pulling this kind of crap.

	30-12-2004 01:51									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I actually support this - the use of terror and violence is abhorrent and makes life horrendous for people in the area. The threats often target children, and the gangs often act in a paramilitary fashion. I don't believe the law was intended that way, but I applaud the application. Terror is terror, whether applied by a man in a turban from far away, or closer to home by a group of thugs who shoot a ten year old.

I have trouble with "intent" laws, at least until we have relible, court administered truth detection methods. Why did they engage in the violence. Coecive acts to force the actions of someone who was not directly the victim, i.e. the parent or people on the block of the murdered ten year old. Oops, that was an accident. Tough.

Anyone willing to engage in that kind of brutal victimization needs to be locked up permenently, because there is too much of a chance they will repeat that kind of offense. They are feral, and need to be removed from society for the safety of society. Also note plea agreements. While I loathe them, that is how US justice currently works.

The driver will probably get a offered an agreement removing the life in prison charges that will get the gunman locked away forever. It works for my stated goal, which is to protect society from violent individuals who have minimal hope of rehab. I would much more prefer my tax dollars going to lock up individuals like that then drug users whose primary crime is being addicted.

	30-12-2004 01:57									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I do care about what the law was written for, but I also care about what applies to it after the fact. Both should be covered, and both are.

	30-12-2004 02:08									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution. I do care about what the law was written for, but I also care about what applies to it after the fact. Both should be covered, and both are.

I'm not about to say "follow the letter of the law", but I oppose people using one law to try and bust somebody for something else. I want gangs to face tougher penalties and such. But they should be charged under GANG LAWS, not TERRORISM LAWS.

And I feel that way about the Constitution as well. Take the second amendment for instance. An amendment giving states the right to maintain armed militias isn't a green light for people to own assault weapons or weapons grade plutonium... for instance.

	30-12-2004 02:18									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

TAKE THAT BACK. I refuse to have the same opinion as you!

	30-12-2004 02:18									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I would think you could define a terrorist act by the definition of the act and the impact on victims.

And what about the requisite mens rea? You have to have a guilty mind. If they aren't doing an act to promote terror for social or political gains, it doesn't fit.

quote: All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm a textualist, so .