Boston Marathon bombing

[mean]

"Threatening the population as a whole," is a bit broad and could be taken to mean nothing less than a threat to literally every man, woman, and child. I don't think that's what you mean, but burning a cross in someone's front yard could be seem as a threat to the entire black population of a community. Is that enough of a threat to be terrorism?

Or is it the message? The message being sent by said burning cross may be political (e.g., black people shouldn't be allowed to vote). Is that terrorism? It could be personal (e.g., I don't want black people to live in my neighborhood). Is that terrorism?

Determining the severity of punishment based on what a criminal may have been thinking, rather than what they did, strikes me as kind of ridiculous if not dangerous. That cat is obviously already out of the bag, but I'm not sure I like it.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The trouble is to apply the term "terrorism" quite liberally would make just about any crime an act of terror. In the case of spouse abuse the abused is terrorized so is the abuser a terrorist? A few years back with the Waldo rapist putting fear into women in a specific area is that man now a terrorist?

So yes, to make a crime into a terrorist act the state would have to get into the mind of the perpetrator and make a decision about the reason for the crime. So in this Boston Marathon bombing case the victims might have been people associated with the race but the intent was to strike against the American society as a whole. To change the circumstances a little bit, say the brothers took their assault rifles and shot into the crowd killing and injuring the same number of people but with the reason being they were upset because they couldn't travel to where they wanted to go because of the race would they still be considered terrorists?

[KCMax]

Why do we need to differentiate the term "terrorist" anyway though? Why do we need to treat terrorists different than other criminals?

[WSPanic]

Why do we need to differentiate the term "terrorist" anyway though? Why do we need to treat terrorists different than other criminals?

Because, if the media doesn't know the proper term to use, I won't know how to appropriately respond.

[mean]

There is only one appropriate response: Widespread Panic.

[chaglang]

Not quite sure. But I wouldn't paint the definition of terrorism and terrorist with broad strokes. Do that then just about any crime could fit within the definition. Instead I would start by defining a terrorist act as anything that threatens the population as a whole, something that is not directed at just a narrow segment of our society.

That’s fair, but wouldn’t it exclude people like anti-government types like Timothy McVeigh? The other issue I can see is that it leads you down a path of arguing over population percentages in order to determine what is and isn’t terrorism. And it puts you in a position of saying “Well, they’re only X% of the population”, which seems like some cold calculus.

Not sure how I would finish it at this time but I would tend to have a limited use of the term. Much like the definition of "hate crime" is fairly narrow "terrorist" should also be.

Im2kull had an interesting point, that hate crimes are the act and terrorists are the actors. I’m not totally in agreement with that, but I do think that there can be quite a bit of overlap between hate crimes and terrorism. The presence of an organized or systematic effort might be the hinge.

… burning a cross in someone's front yard could be seem as a threat to the entire black population of a community. Is that enough of a threat to be terrorism?

Yes, if it’s done as part of an organized effort to intimidate African Americans. If not, I’m thinking it’s more of a hate crime.

Or is it the message? The message being sent by said burning cross may be political (e.g., black people shouldn't be allowed to vote). Is that terrorism? It could be personal (e.g., I don't want black people to live in my neighborhood). Is that terrorism?

Interestingly, those are both civil rights violations.

Determining the severity of punishment based on what a criminal may have been thinking, rather than what they did, strikes me as kind of ridiculous if not dangerous. That cat is obviously already out of the bag, but I'm not sure I like it.

Agreed. I don’t think we should be punishing people based on what they may or may not be thinking. But for the purposed of compiling a list of terrorist acts, or for the purposes of an investigation, I think that there are reasonable inferences that can be made based on the target.

The trouble is to apply the term "terrorism" quite liberally would make just about any crime an act of terror. In the case of spouse abuse the abused is terrorized so is the abuser a terrorist? A few years back with the Waldo rapist putting fear into women in a specific area is that man now a terrorist?

No and no.

So yes, to make a crime into a terrorist act the state would have to get into the mind of the perpetrator and make a decision about the reason for the crime.

Not really. Isn’t that an important part of the investigation and trial, to determine motivation?

So in this Boston Marathon bombing case the victims might have been people associated with the race but the intent was to strike against the American society as a whole.

Maybe. The tricky thing about the Marathon bombing is that there’s no obvious political motive, unless “Islam” counts as a motive. And that seems far, far more dangerous than anything else we’ve yet discussed. We get hung up on the weapon because we’re so inured to violence of almost every other type, but not every person who throws a bomb is a terrorist.

To change the circumstances a little bit, say the brothers took their assault rifles and shot into the crowd killing and injuring the same number of people but with the reason being they were upset because they couldn't travel to where they wanted to go because of the race would they still be considered terrorists?

No. No political motive. And then we’re just thankful they didn’t shoot up a school.

How different this discussion would be if we were having it 15 years ago? Part of our reaction to 9/11 seems to be that our default definition for a terrorist is a foreigner, probably Islamic, with an explosive device. The focus is on national origin, religion, and weapon, which is extremely narrow and ignores the motivation for the crime. Meanwhile we differentiate between terrorists and “domestic terrorists”, which makes no sense. Our language and assumptions have shifted to a point where our understanding of terrorism is that it’s something done by others to Americans. Acts that don’t fit that definition – some abortion clinic shootings, for example – are never defined as terrorism, though they should be.

[bobbyhawks]

The term is being used to bypass our criminal justice system. That is why it is important to not let the categorization of criminals as terrorists get out of hand. An admission of fear by a certain party or group of people should not be all that is required to achieve this designation. Terrorizing and being a terrorist are not necessarily one in the same. Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an act of war by a sovereign nation that caused terror on a national scale, but it was not a terrorist attack. Police intimidation in certain communities across the world is not terrorism, but it does terrorize.

[KCMax]

I do find it kind of interesting that some of the people who were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government are eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.

[chaglang]

The term is being used to bypass our criminal justice system. That is why it is important to not let the categorization of criminals as terrorists get out of hand.

Agree, though I think the problem is with how our criminial justice system deals with terrorists, as opposed to a problem with the application of the term. Nevertheless, still a problem.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Acts that don’t fit that definition – some abortion clinic shootings, for example – are never defined as terrorism, though they should be.

And that is where we have a big difference. The above is a very narrow target. If abortion clinics were on every corner then that would be different but they are not. For me a terrorist and a terrorist act would be any time, any place. Instead of the marathon it could have been a baseball or a football game, or a marathon here, or a subway station, or any other public place/event.

Why do we need to differentiate the term "terrorist" anyway though? Why do we need to treat terrorists different than other criminals?

Using "terror" adds gravitas to the criminal act. Otherwise 9-11 is just some random act of violence perpetrated by some religious zealots.

[bobbyhawks]

I do find it kind of interesting that some of the people who were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government are eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.

Exactly. They are dead set against a list of people who own guns or checking to see if someone is crazy before they buy one, but they are fine with a list of mostly innocents that allows the government to read email and wiretap without a warrant. Which invasion of privacy is worse? Also, which right to privacy is more explicitly guaranteed through our consitution?

The term is being used to bypass our criminal justice system. That is why it is important to not let the categorization of criminals as terrorists get out of hand.

Agree, though I think the problem is with how our criminial justice system deals with terrorists, as opposed to a problem with the application of the term. Nevertheless, still a problem.

Totally fair point, but we have to make laws based on the justice system we have today rather than laws that bolster the one we would like to have. No president will be willing to give up the new EC superpowers once they are appropriately scared via briefing of the CIA and Pentagon on day one of duty. I'm not even sure a majority opposition in Congress would undo that.

[chaglang]

And that is where we have a big difference. The above is a very narrow target. If abortion clinics were on every corner then that would be different but they are not. For me a terrorist and a terrorist act would be any time, any place. Instead of the marathon it could have been a baseball or a football game, or a marathon here, or a subway station, or any other public place/event.

I don't think you meant to be ironic, but the people who attack abortion clinics are doing so in an effort to prevent them from (theoretically) being on every corner. But I think that you're simply looking at bulk numbers to determine what is a terrorist attack and what isn't. By that logic, attacking a 7-11 would be more likely to be a terrorist attack than attacking an abortion clinic. It shouldn't matter how narrow the target is, if it's part of a systematic use of violence to intimidate a group of people. And keep in mind that the number of people affected by that attack is much larger than the people who were actually injured. Neither of us were injured in 9/11.

"terror" adds gravitas to the criminal act. Otherwise 9-11 is just some random act of violence perpetrated by some religious zealots.

Totally disagree. We're not just doing this to add gravitas. These are fundumentally different crimes, with different motivations and different goals. Using it to make heavier the book we throw at the criminal actually weakens the term.

[mean]

I do find it kind of interesting that some of the people who were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government are eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.

Anyone engaging in that kind of doublethink has likely already divided the world into "us" and "them", where "they" are subhumans undeserving of rights. Not that they see it that way, but in practical terms that's how it shakes out.

These are fundumentally different crimes, with different motivations and different goals. Using it to make heavier the book we throw at the criminal actually weakens the term.

If the crimes are identical, what difference do motivations and goals make, as far as how suspects are treated, if any? I'm going with "none", ideally.

[KCMax]

Interesting fact sheet (by Human Rights Watch) on trying terrorists in the regular court system vs. military commissions.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-cont ... s_Fact.pdf

I'm guessing the "regular court vs. military tribunal" debate has more to do with appearances, so politicans can make it seem like they are treating terrorism super serious! rather than putting them in the same court system as run of the mill criminals. It is interesting though, by treating terrorists as special, we're giving them exactly what they want.

The only real practical advantage I can see with military tribunals is "coerced" testimony is probably more admissible.

[mean]

Coerced testimony is probably more admissible, there will presumably be no real media presence, presumption is likely to be of guilt rather than innocence, and a conviction seems more or less assured. In my opinion (for whatever that's worth) the military tribunal is primarily a means of circumventing civilian juries which might deliver the "wrong" verdict.

[aknowledgeableperson]

To get back to the main topic the mosque that the older brother went to for prayers has refused to provide burial services for the deceased.

[AllThingsKC]

Nike's "Boston Massacre" T-shirt on eBay for $150,000 (and people have bid that much)

[aknowledgeableperson]

Looks like the brothers were planning on heading to NYC to do some damage there.

USnews.NBCnews.com

Senior law enforcement officials cautioned to NBC News that the idea was undeveloped. One senior official described the plan as “aspirational at most.”

The brothers’ decision was spontaneous and came after they carjacked an SUV and before a shootout with suburban Boston police early Friday, Kelly said. At that time, they had one bomb made with a kitchen pressure cooker and five pipe bombs, he said.

A photograph from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's page on VKontakt, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, appears to show him in Times Square. It is believed to be from November 2012. New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said authorities knew of two trips by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to New York in 2012 but said he did not know whether those visits were related to any plot against Times Square. NBC News intentionally blurred the faces of the people with Tsarnaev.

The brothers’ plan was interrupted only because they realized the SUV was low on gas, Kelly said.

[im2kull]

Why do we need to differentiate the term "terrorist" anyway though? Why do we need to treat terrorists different than other criminals?

Exactly. A criminal is a criminal, foreign or domestic. Labeling as a "Terrorist" doesn't change the crime in any way, shape, or form. Large crime or not, it's still a crime, and the perpetrator is still a criminal.

Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an act of war by a sovereign nation that caused terror on a national scale, but it was not a terrorist attack.

Are you sure of this? Can an act of terrorism not also be an act of war?

[im2kull]

I do find it kind of interesting that some of the people who were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government are eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.

Exactly. They are dead set against a list of people who own guns or checking to see if someone is crazy before they buy one, but they are fine with a list of mostly innocents that allows the government to read email and wiretap without a warrant. Which invasion of privacy is worse? Also, which right to privacy is more explicitly guaranteed through our consitution?

Who are "They"? That's quite an assumption you're making in saying that all of "Them" are for the 2nd amendment, and could care less about the 5th. You shouldn't make assumptions, at least not poorly thought ones.