Domestic political violence (USA)
I just watched the news conference where the "Local Authorities" say there is no reason to believe it is terrorism,:confused:
Read the Manifesto/Suicide note left by the pilot. Sounds like Domestic Terrorism to me.:rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html
I'm not sure it's terrorism
If you accept this (LINK) as a reaonable definition, the act barely qualifies under the third alternative. I think it's more this:
You can certainly do that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
I think choice of target + some political/religious motivation = a terrorist act. A different sort of terrorist than, say, KSM, but one nonetheless.
but I believe you, slap and Zenpundit are giving nutcases more credit than they deserve. You may certainly call it terrorism but I doubt anyone other than the specific victims at the time were anywhere near terrorized... :wry:
As you say:
Quote:
...None appear to have acted as part of an organized group or had a realistic hope that their actions would achieve any kind of political objective...
Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror. :cool:
I think the only reason to call those acts terroristic is for political purposes... ;)
So far as Chapter 113b - Terrorism ....
of Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing, together with some of its seemingly odd exceptions.
E.g., in 18 USC 2331, Definitions:
Quote:
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;
and 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities:
Quote:
(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction. - This section does not apply to - (1) the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war, which are governed by that law, (2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; ....
.....
(10) "military forces of a state" means the armed forces of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control, and responsibility; (11) "armed conflict" does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature; and (12) "state" has the same meaning as that term has under international law, and includes all political subdivisions thereof.
Do those provisions exclude AQ, if that group is considered a military force (waging unconventional warfare vs the US and others?), from prosecution under the Terrorist Act in a civilian court for say 9/11 or its other bombings ?
Of course that does not mean that AQ members cannot be detained (and yes prosecuted for war crimes) under Military Law.
And, yes, you probably could fit the suicide pilot into the domestic terrorist category; but for what purpose ? The guy is dead; and there seems so far no larger conspiracy.
Regards
Mike
I don't like the "terrorism" category:
I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.
I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.
After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.