Originally Posted by
tequila
I think that very few people in the public sphere would share your definition IF this guy's name had been Abu Snuffy and he'd left a rant about Israel or Afghanistan on a Facebook page somewhere.
Well, that may be true, but I wasn't using the "most people" standard. Most people regard terrorism as some violent crime, committed by someone who doesn't look like me, for reasons rooted in political grievances that don't resonate with me. In other words, it's not a useful term because it is too broad, nebulous, and subjective.
Originally Posted by
Stan
According to the
USA Patriot Act, Joe was a Domestic Terrorist (acts of terrorism in the United States carried out by American citizens).
I don't think that is clear.
Section 802(a)(5) says that
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.'.
I think a good argument can be made that this act appears to be intended as retribution against an agency that he was angry toward, rather than any of the three "appear to be intended" provisions of the act.
Besides, that's just a legal definition necessary for the operation of provisions in the Patriot Act. That doesn't make it a useful definition for anything not related to the Patriot Act.
Bookmarks