Skip to main content

View Diary: The Terrorization of Crime (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well thst's vintage Greenwald (18+ / 0-)

    Whatever the Tsarnaev's motives - to create terror or just kill Americans. You really can't have a crime spree with a target being a well loved celebration and not expect flak.

    That cooler minds appear to be prevailing here is a very good sign.

    I used to be a public defender. So I got into a big time real life discussion with someone yesterday when they said to me, "Who would defend this guy?" And I said, "I would." A long discussion devolved into How could you, and the short of it is, I finally got them to understand why and how.

    John Adams did it for the British soldiers in the long ago pre-revolutionary "Boston Massacre" and we can do it today.

    I have confidence that we can handle it.

    In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I have defended (9+ / 0-)

      people who have done similar things.   The Adams example is a great one.

      When Greenwald says there is "no evidence" he is full of it.  The youtube videos alone are evidence.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:24:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So are all Christian extremists (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, snoopydawg, AoT, NYFM

        automatically terrorists when they commit a violent and destructive act?

        •  yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, fladem

          Just like Rudolph was...

          •  But Rudolph tried (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fladem, Nada Lemming

            clearly to influence policy, namely shutting down abortion clinics.

            What was these guys' agenda? What was their list of demands?

            A life philosophy isn't the same thing as a motivation.

            •  Rudolph never made any demands (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NYFM, Dr Swig Mcjigger

              and neither did McVeigh.  One was a rabid anti choice extremist, and the other an anti government, right wing nutjob.

              But Rudolph and McVeigh never made any demands and never claimed responsibility until their capture.

              Looks like this kid and his brother took credit for the bombing by telling the carjack victim that they did the bombing (even telling the victim that they spared his life because he wasn't an american).  These guys also got the instructions for their bombs by reading "Inspire", Al Qaeda's english language magazine that attempts radicalize young muslim men.

              •  The agenda? Whatever it is that violent Islamists (0+ / 0-)

                want.  Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than killing anyone in the West.

                Today's NY Times

                The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon attacks told federal agents that he and his late brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs
              •  Eric Rudolph (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nada Lemming

                Well, abortion clinic bombings are kind of self-evident. That being said, it is indeed problematic that neither Mcveigh or Rudolph made any demands. That makes them pretty lousy terrorists.

                But at least they were clear about their political motivations afterwards. Something of which it's way too soon to have any clue about in this case, yet media members and politician casually label this attack as terrorism.

        •  Yes, as far as I'm concerned (9+ / 0-)

          The issue here is not a legal one, as some would have it. Legally these two are clearly terrorists, no question at all. The issue is one of rhetoric in the media. The media refuses to call Christian terrorists what they are. The right is rewarded for their violence by the expansion of their  political goals. Abortion is a great example of this.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 10:56:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok (0+ / 0-)
            Legally these two are clearly terrorists, no question at all.
            Then can you explain how exactly they fit the official definitions:
               Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

                The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives .”

                Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.

            http://www.nij.gov/...

            •  The legal definition is overly broad (0+ / 0-)

              and I'm not a fan of it, but this pretty clearly falls under and attempt to intimidate the public. I would prefer that the statutes include a requirement that the actions be in pursuit of some end, but they are not written that way.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  abortion clinic bombers and killers certainly are (9+ / 0-)

          by the very definition of the term terrorist and "hate crime" perpetrators.

        •  Yes, if he blows up a pizza parlor full of kids (0+ / 0-)

          No if he kills his wife

        •  You are drawing a conclusion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical

          and I am not.  I simply noted that there is some evidence that the acts in question may be terror.

          A Christian who blows up an abortion is also a terrorist.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Stunning display of ignorance. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, Enzo Valenzetti
      So I got into a big time real life discussion with someone yesterday when they said to me, "Who would defend this guy?" And I said, "I would." A long discussion devolved into How could you...
      Legal systems, how do they work?

      It is more important to be a confident and articulate speaker than to know jack shit about anything.

      by VictorLaszlo on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 10:17:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mine? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VictorLaszlo, marina, 417els

        Or the person I was conversing with? I've gotten that attitude for years- while I was doing it and afterward. I've been grilled on whether I knew the defendant was guilty & if I did, how could I. It got especially bad during the Bush years.

        But yeah there is a lot of ignorance about the legal system.

        In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

        by vcmvo2 on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:00:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not yours. The other participant. Sorry I didn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, NYFM

          make that clear.

          I don't know much about law, but I do understand that to ask 'How could you represent someone who probably did something really bad?' is to miss the point entirely.

          It is more important to be a confident and articulate speaker than to know jack shit about anything.

          by VictorLaszlo on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:09:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina, KenBee, VictorLaszlo

            I usually tell them it's part of the Constitution. Some people believe that a fair trial implies a perfect trial. The defendant deserves to get his best defense and to challenge witnesses against him.

            He also can remain silent (a point I always recommend). It's the State that has to make it's case.

            In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

            by vcmvo2 on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site