 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Everyone the US doesn't like is a terrorist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
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. |
Sorry, but that is NOT the issue. The question is why someone would blow up a bus filled with 50 people- you act as if someone who blew up a bus filled with 50 people would somehow be treated "better" than a terrorist- that act would count as 50 counts of first degree murder- in NY , that means a death sentence.
Intent matters, always has- why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. It matters if someone kills for money, or for social and political change, because that speaks directly to its social consequences- to how dangerous to the status quo it is- in the end, someone who blows up 50 people trying to get a payoff is in fact less socially dangerous than someone who blows up 50 people trying to overthrow the regime. That is why the system then punishes these acts differently.
The label terrorism loses all power if you make it so vague as to include acts that clearly have no socio-political motivations.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I would agree that the KKK in the past definitely was a terror organization, and that many of the member should have been incarcerated for life. My difinition of terror is different than yours. I shoot you because you informed on me. Murder. I shoot your child because you informed on me. Terror. Simple and straight foward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
A violent drive-by shooting intended to create terror to a given end or cause. |
I have problems with that, terrorism is not a consequence-based definition since if, say, 9/11 occurred as part of a strategic military campaign (we can use the Japanese Kamikaze attacks in WWII Pacific as a useful analogy) it would not be considered terrorism. To use an intent-based definition therefore, you have to establish the intent. Now, if you define terrorism as the intentional causation of terror to a certain end, you must surely differentiate between different ends, because there is a proportional difference in the scope, nature and severity of the crime, so it seems that for the purposes here, labelling something as "terrorism" becomes useless. I therefore submit that to use the term terrorism in a useful ways, means an exacting political change or a statement, or something that one cannot achieve militarily.
quote:
If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?
|
I would not categorise you as a terrorist. No more so than if you hijacked a lorry or a van. Popular culture, as well as a simple risk-analysis however, familially associates aircraft with terrorism, but look into that a little deeper and the association falls apart.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're being pedantic. |
 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Gangs attempt to occupy territory and deny the occupants the protection they're entitled to by a duly elected government. In some instances they "tax" the people for protection. They definitely deny people their due right to testify in a court of law. If that's not a political agenda, then what is?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
actually, its:
1. 1st Degree murder
2. 1st Degree murder.
in NY, both are capital offenses. |
what difference will it make if they continue prosecuting some gang members as terrorists so long as the courts and juries go along?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I agree, thats the only reason to make a distinction for terrorism OR hate crime. I didnt mean to privilege the victims perception. I meant that if a defendent could prove that a victim could have avoided a crime by, say, paying protection money, that would be evidence that it was an "ordinary" crime and not a crime that tended to "terrorize" society in the way that both political crimes and certain gang related crimes are alleged to.
|
So you blame for dying lies with the victims? The second you demand something on pain of death you have committed a crime- if you actually kill them, that is just a worse crime. Thats the difference- in your example, its either 1st degree murder (muder whil committing another felony, extorsion), or a terrorist act. Both would probalby lead to capital charges.
But the crime we are talking here is not 1st degree murder- which is obviously why the overzealous DA is trying to ship for a veredict by going nuts on the charges.
quote:
Maybe we dont need to distinguish these categories at ALL in this context - but if we do, I still think its better to do so in a way that minimizes the extent to which juries must judge the ideologies of the perpetrators. |
It pretty easy to spot an act of terrorism-one of the points of terrorism is to advertise itself as a socio-political act. Not much thinking for a jury at all in a case of real terrorism.
Last edited by GePap on 30-12-2004 at 03:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
It pretty easy to spot an act of terrorism-one of the points of terrorism is to advertise itself as a socio-political act. Not much thinking for a jury at all in a case of real terrorism. |
Al Quaida rarely ever advertises its terracts. full stop. Does this make said terracts not terracts at all according to your method of identifying terrorism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because it subverts the meaning of the original terrorism statue, and also undermines the old statue, and does all this without the consent of the legislature, which makes the law. |
How did the old statute become undermined? Who interprets the laws the legislatures pass? isn't it the courts? So long as letter of the law is being respected how is this subversion?
Seperation of church and state is an example of the courts 'subverting' the original meaing of a law (the constitution no less!) and yet since it is a good thing and doesn't violate the letter of the law nobody generally objects. Why should this be treated differently? Legislatures need to word the laws more carefully if they really care about not having any gang activity suppressed under their statutes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
WHAT! Every time an AQ attacks occur, I hear about it- and they sure as hell advertise themselves and praise attacks and make their political aims clear.
All of which is NOT true of street gangs.
What world are you living in? |
certainly not! AQ never admitted to 9/11 until they were caught red handed on tape! They praised the attacks but denied any involvment. You aren't familier with their MO?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because the DA is stretching the letter of the law, trying to make this crime fit into this statute, when its obvious it easily fits into another, older, existing statute. We have an overzealous DA trying to shop for a harsher punishement.
|
I see this is the crux of our difference. What is wrong with the DA shopping for a harsher punishment if his success will not violate the letter of the law? A judge and jury and due process will be involved so where is the harm? The DA has a right, indeed a solmen obligation, to use whatever tools are at his disposal in executing his duties to the public.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
There is no clarification of what the phrase means in the constitution- criminal statutes are more detailed than that-not the same. This is not a game of guessing what long dead men thought-this is looking at the statute on the books and deciding which is proper. |
The men involved in drafting the constitution were not generally dead much less long dead when the courts added seperation of church and state to the US constitution.
I should also point out that the first amendment is worded as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
You seem to be claiming that this is somehow vague which allowed for the courts to step in and clarify it to mean that no government entity of any branch of government shall make any statement, expression, or action that may be construed as endorsing or belonging to any particular religon whether congress makes a law or not.
I would like you to point out where the vagueness of the 1st amendment is and how the anti terrorism law was somehow less vague than the first ammendment was.
Last edited by Geronimo on 30-12-2004 at 04:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
A political agenda means wanting political change- a new regime. Extorsion, which is what you are talking about, is not taxation (which is legal) and there are laws against it already. And witness tampering is already a crime as well- as for it being political- again, what does witness tampering have to do with which regime or political ideology is in power? |
So the laws can overlap. How is this a problem? The DA is prosecuting under both statutes they choose the applicable one that will give the harshest penalty for which they think they can get a conviction. That's worked ok till now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2004 02:45
To be terrorism the crime must have a social and/or politcal motive behind it. Gangs are just in it for $$$ and drugs.
|