Skip to main content

View Diary: An act of domestic terrorism (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  While I agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, QuestionAuthority

    with your overall argument there is a hole in it. All terrorist domestic or otherwise apprehended within our boarders are put on civilian trial.  The only exception I can think of  will be the Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, this will be a Court Martial.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:00:41 AM PST

    •  So then there is a difference . . . (0+ / 0-)

      between domestic and foreign terrorism.  One is planned and carried out on domestic soil by citizens of the United States, and the other is planned by foreign nationals on foreign and domestic soil and carried out on dommectic soil . . . Both acts of terrorism have to occur against the U.S. right?  I mean, if it happens to another country then it is their issue, right?  So, I'm still confused as to why this case in Oregon is not bandied about by the pundits on Cable News . . .

      As for Major Nidal Malik Hasan's case, it happened on a military base, their jurisdiction.  Makes sense to me!

      •  Ok I have looked (0+ / 0-)

        a little closer into this case in Oregon and as to why it is not getting any serious national play.

        1. They are not being charged as domestic terrorist , but rather as murders and thieves.


        The multiple counts of aggravated murder, which can carry the death penalty, stem from different theories involved in each death: that the suspects caused the intentional death of multiple people in the same incident, caused the death of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, caused the intentional death by explosives, caused felony murder in the course of committing a first-degree robbery and caused felony murder in the course of committing criminal mischief with an explosive.

        1. The DoJ is not involved in this case in fact the only federal involvement was OSHA, briefly, because the bomb tech failed rather spectacularly at his job and carried the bomb into the bank to check it out after he had declared it a hoax. Proceed to open it in the bank and have it explode

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:00:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the extra information (0+ / 0-)

          But please don't speak so ill of the dead.  The bomb tech was doing his job and made a mistake, a costly mistake, but you make it sound like it was his fault the bomb went off, which is not the case at all.

          Despite the charges leveled on the two "bombers" by the courts, does this incident not fall under the US Code for terrorism?

          US Code, Title 6, Chapter 1, section 101, Statute 16:
          (16) The term "terrorism" means any activity that -
                   (A) involves an act that -
                     (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
                   of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
                     (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
                   States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
                   States; and
                   (B) appears 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.

          The fact that they were not charged as terrorists does not mean they weren't terrorists.  I think their actions are clearly a terrorist act if you follow the US Code.  The only reason they were not charged as terrorists is that proving such a case would be difficult.  There is no group, no larger conspiracy.

          In my opinion, such an action was more of a terrorist act than was Maj. Hasan's.  Don't get me wrong, what Hasan did was horrific, but if you use the definition of the US Code for terrorism, his actions just don't fit.  And even though his heinous acts were not really terrorism it didn't stop the pundits from calling him a terrorist.

          •  I wasn't attempting to speak ill of the dead (0+ / 0-)

            however just laying out the facts and the facts are the bomb tech did screw up.

            In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

            by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:43:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, yes he did . . . (0+ / 0-)

              He didn't react to it as seriously as he should.  I live close to Woodburn.  It's a sleepy bedroom community south of Portland with a large outlet mall and a tulip farm.  So it is kind of understandable that the officer would be lax in his handling of the bomb.  He never thought of it as a real threat.  That aside, the bomb would have gone off even if it had remained in front of the bank.  But I fear that the defense will try to put the detonation of the bomb on the officer's shoulders.  

      •  If they were known to be part of a much (0+ / 0-)

        larger group this would make the news big time.

        Gangs in many of our larger cities are much bigger problems and organizations than this case in Oregon, and Gangs are not a big issue in the major media.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:03:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Maj. Hasan was an active duty serviceman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo that's entirely appropriate. He goes into the Military Justice system for a courtmartial.

      "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

      by QuestionAuthority on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:43:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  correct (0+ / 0-)

      Zaccahrias Moussaoui is foreign, with a "Funny sounding name", worships a different God or at least one by a different name, is brown skinned, and he wasn't shipped to Gitmo and was given a civilian jury trial. This issue isn't as clear cut as many want to make it.Moussaoui

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site