What qualifies as terrorism?

[D H]

How is this any less terrorism than a clinic bombing?

He specifically targeted the doctor, not the population as a whole. Clinic bombing is terrorism. Whether specifically targeting the doctor is terrorism is your opinion. Muhammud acting as a civilian specifically targeted military personnel performing their military duties while they were far removed from any combat zone. That is an act of terrorism by definition. Read the Patriot Act. If you don't like it, work to change it.

[bascule]

Muhammud acting as a civilian specifically targeted military personnel performing their military duties while they were far removed from any combat zone. That is an act of terrorism by definition. Read the Patriot Act.

 

Rather than telling us "go fish", perhaps you'd care to point out the specific provisions in the PATRIOT act which make this an act of terror by definition.

 

Reading the overview here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

I'm not seeing specific provisions as to how targeting military personnel makes a particular act an act of terror.

[D H]

Dang. I thought I saw it it section 401. That is one convoluted piece of something. Section 401 basic defines a terrorist act as an act of terrorism.

 

Slightly better is this:http://wits.nctc.gov/Methodology.do

Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents

 

The data provided in WITS consists of incidents in which subnational or clandestine groups or individuals deliberately or recklessly attacked civilians or noncombatants (including military personnel and assets outside war zones and war-like settings). Determination of what constitutes a terrorist act, however, can be more art than science; information is often incomplete, fact patterns may be open to interpretation, and perpetrators' intent is rarely clear.

 

The real reason for charging Muhammud with terrorist acts in addition to murder is that the federal prosecutors decided that the additional charges will help bolster the key charge of murder. The real reason for not charging Roeder with terrorist acts is that the local prosectors decided that the additional charges will detract from the key charge of murder. Moreover, does targeting a doctor constitute a terrorist act or just a hate crime? Does this show some kind of bias? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it just represents that prosecutors are realists.

 

 

To be honest, I don't like the idea of thought crimes as crimes in and of themselves. They certainly can be special circumstances that can upgrade the classification or punishment of a crime (e.g., make what would normally be construed as second degree murder into first degree murder, or make what would normally be construed as a crime worthy of a life sentence be punishable by death). A separate crime though?

[bascule]

The real reason for charging Muhammud with terrorist acts in addition to murder is that the federal prosecutors decided that the additional charges will help bolster the key charge of murder. The real reason for not charging Roeder with terrorist acts is that the local prosectors decided that the additional charges will detract from the key charge of murder.

 

So it seems "terrorism" is a label you slap onto a crime when it's convenient to your prosecution? That's a nice definition.

 

Moreover, does targeting a doctor constitute a terrorist act or just a hate crime?

 

Well, questions like this are at the heart of the topic of this thread. Why does shooting a doctor qualify as terrorism? If terrorism is defined as violence for the purposes of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies" then I see little difference between shooting a doctor because he performs abortions and you want the government to ban abortions versus shooting military recruiters because you don't want the government at war in the middle east.

[D H]

The article cited in the original post has a basic misunderstanding of the US legal system. There is no such thing as the US legal system. We instead have 52 legal systems (the federal system, each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia) at a minimum. Expecting the two crimes to be prosecuted the same was a false expectation. That the same crime committed in different jurisdictions is prosecuted differently should be no surprise.

 

That Roeder was not charged with terrorism in Kansas should be no surprise. The charge is dubious at best and it may well weaken the entire prosecution at worst. A jury in Kansas might take such a charge as indicative that the prosecution is persecuting rather than prosecuting Roeder.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So it seems "terrorism" is a label you slap onto a crime when it's convenient to your prosecution? That's a nice definition.

I already said I do not like the idea of thought crimes.

 

A dirty little secret about crime and punishment: Prosecutors do not prosecute every violation of every law. Every state has its own pile of laws that are never prosecuted because they are obsolete or unconstitutional. The laws still exist; they simply are never prosecuted. Police and prosecutors choose whether to proceed even amongst laws that are viable.

 

In the case of Roeder, why charge him with a crime that may weaken the entire case against him? The very last thing a prosecutor wants to do is to create a rogue jury by giving the impression of persecution rather than prosecution. Prosecutors are realists. You guys are a bunch of dreamy-eyed idealists.

[bascule]

The article cited in the original post has a basic misunderstanding of the US legal system. There is no such thing as the US legal system. We instead have 52 legal systems (the federal system, each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia) at a minimum. Expecting the two crimes to be prosecuted the same was a false expectation. That the same crime committed in different jurisdictions is prosecuted differently should be no surprise.

 

So you're basically saying we shouldn't expect charges of terrorism to apply consistently, only when the federal government wishes to intervene? I'd be fine with that.

 

Terrorism is certainly something that should be defined at the federal level, not the state level, and should carry with it a federal charge. I don't want 50 different definitions of terrorism.

 

That Roeder was not charged with terrorism in Kansas should be no surprise. The charge is dubious at best

 

Why?

 

In the case of Roeder, why charge him with a crime that may weaken the entire case against him?

 

Why do you feel it will weaken the case against Roeder but not against Muhammud?

 

The very last thing a prosecutor wants to do is to create a rogue jury by giving the impression of persecution rather than prosecution. Prosecutors are realists. You guys are a bunch of dreamy-eyed idealists.

 

Perhaps charges of terrorism aren't something we should leave up to individual prosecutors at a local/state level.

[D H]

So you're basically saying we shouldn't expect charges of terrorism to apply consistently, only when the federal government wishes to intervene? I'd be fine with that.

Yes. There is no expectation that crimes in general should be treated consistently among the states or between the states and the federal government. Why should terrorism be any different?

 

I don't want 50 different definitions of terrorism.

Why not? We have 50 different definitions of practically every crime. Why should terrorism be any different?

 

 

Why [is the charge of terrorism against Roeder dubious at best]?

Because he targeted one individual and one individual only. Compare this to others cited in this thread as terrorists. The unabomber and the DC snipers killed several people in a series of random attacks. Clinic bombers such as Eric Robert Rudolph used bombs to indiscriminately kill or injure anyone in close proximity to a birth control clinic. The intent was not just to kill/injure people but also to instill terror. A decent defense attorney could, IMO, get Roeder off.

 

 

Why do you feel it will weaken the case against Roeder but not against Muhammud?

Roeder's case will be tried in Kansas. Home of the more god-fearing christians than you can count and home of the perpetual attempt to make teaching evolution illegal. Cases like this must be treated delicately in Kansas lest the prosecutor create a rogue jury that finds Roeder guilty of assault and nothing else.

 

 

Perhaps charges of terrorism aren't something we should leave up to individual prosecutors at a local/state level.

Perhaps not. Why should terrorism be different from any other crime?

 

Perhaps (pure speculation on my part) the prosectors decided not to press charges of terrorism just in case the outcome is assault (and nothing else). By not charging him with terrorism in Kansas, the federal government can do so later and do so without placing Roeder in double jeopardy.

[bascule]

Yes. There is no expectation that crimes in general should be treated consistently among the states or between the states and the federal government. Why should terrorism be any different?

 

Because it would seem terrorism is a term applied to other things which are already crimes in the event they are crimes intended to influence public policy.

 

Therefore terrorism is something of a meta-crime and in that respect it is unique. Personally I don't think it should be considered a crime in and of itself, but if we are going to make it a crime, I'd prefer it be well-defined and enforced consistently, at least in America. Aren't "we" as a nation "at war" against the nebulous concept of terror? If "terror" is a national enemy, I hope the nation defines it the same way across the board.

 

Why not? We have 50 different definitions of practically every crime. Why should terrorism be any different?

 

The definition of things like murder and larceny are relatively clear cut compared to terrorism. What exactly is terrorism? You clearly had one definition in mind, and thought it was in fact spelled out in the US PATRIOT act when it was not, but does that make your definition wrong? Civilian actions on military personnel seem like a pretty clear case of terrorism in my mind too, but that doesn't fall under any legal definition of terrorism I'm able to find.

 

Terrorism is a nebulous enough concept to begin with, we don't need Texas or Alaska off creating their own definition of terrorism.

 

Because he targeted one individual and one individual only. Compare this to others cited in this thread as terrorists

 

Muhammud killed two people. Two people means terrorism?

 

The intent was not just to kill/injure people but also to instill terror. A decent defense attorney could, IMO, get Roeder off.

 

So terrorism is defined as "instilling terror"? In who? Certainly Roeder most likely brought several members of that church to a state of terror. Does that count?

 

It would appear the colloquial definition of terrorism, at least as cited in Wikipedia, would be creating terror such that it brings about changes in public policy. As far as my personal opinion of how Roeder vs. Muhammud's actions go, perhaps I'm just a pessamist, but I see a rash of abortion doctor assassinations bringing about the end of abortion in America (no doctors willing to perform abortions due to fear of getting shot) a hell of a lot sooner than I can see the military pulling recruiters off the streets due to fear of terrorists or actual policy changes coming about due to the killings of Army recruiters.

 

In all likelyhood, I think Roeder was much closer to bringing about the end of abortion than Muhammud was towards bringing the US military to a particular course of action that Muhammud would've found desirable.

[D H]

Personally I don't think [terrorism] should be considered a crime in and of itself.

I share your opinion. A person's thinking obviously is a key distinguishing factor in deciding what kind of crime was committed. Killing someone without thinking at all can be negligent homicide, killing someone in a fit of rage is voluntary manslaughter, and killing someone after careful planning is first degree murder. I really do not like the idea of thinking like a criminal being a crime in and of itself. Can one person commit conspiracy?

 

The definition of things like murder and larceny are relatively clear cut compared to terrorism. What exactly is terrorism? You clearly had one definition in mind, and thought it was in fact spelled out in the US PATRIOT act when it was not, but does that make your definition wrong? Civilian actions on military personnel seem like a pretty clear case of terrorism in my mind too, but that doesn't fall under any legal definition of terrorism I'm able to find.

Delving into determining what constitutes the crime of terrorism as a crime is a bit too much like delving into the process of making sausage. One thing that is in the Patriot Act (section 401) is that a crime committed by a member of an officially-designated terrorist group is terrorism. Roeder did not commit terrorism in that sense because none of the wacko anti-abortion groups have been officially classified as a terrorist group (AFIAK). This could provide one justification for claiming that bias does exist. Members of right wing wacko groups have killed quite a few people in the last two decades. So why aren't they classified as terrorist organizations? The answer is politics. They are Americans; Al-Qaeda, a bunch of furriners.

 

Home-grown terrorism was starting to get out-of-hand when Clinton was President. Clinton was a moderate. Obama, less so. If the home-grown right wing wackos persist down their path they are apparently following, I suspect some of the more virulent groups will be officially designated as terrorist organizations.