>>demonstrators
>>terrorists. I think this is possibly the worst definition
>>such a thing
>>could ever be given. Drop the "fluff" in this description
>>and you have
>>"the threat of unlawful force against people or property".
>>So someone
>>could become a terrorist by making a verbal comment about
>>key-scratching a politician's car. Way more than "wiggle
>>room".
> It's much more clear cut than that. The other half of the
> definition speaks to intent, and your hypothetical
> situation fails on the question of intent. Intimidation of
> governments and entire populations is the intent of
> terrorism. Taking Michael's example of homicide bombers in
> Israel, the express intent of the bombing campaign is to
> intimidate the civilian population and the government of
> Israel. Under those circumstances, just threatening to
> conduct these kinds of bombings should be enough to get
> someone brought up on conspiracy to commit a terrorist
> act, at the least.
It's true the dictionary definition he provided included a comment
about intent. And intention is a good part of our legal system - and I
think rightly so... unfortunately people screw with intent in court -
this is much of the purpose of court after all. Effective lawyers
often make a person's perceived intent near oposite of their actual
intent in the minds of a jury. Much less if we're talking about
removing the jury from the process for acts of terrorism in which case
you only have to convince the cop -- who will often (if not always)
make the decision which doesn't threaten his job by doing what
politicians and people with money want him to do. Or the judge who
generally _is_ a politician with money and will protect his own
interests and the interests of other wealthy politicians.
> I'll give you an example that is a little closer to your
> original one. Last year the ELF (Environmental Liberation
> Front), a militant environmentalist group, burned down a
> $20 million dollar apartment complex under construction a
> couple of miles from my house here in San Diego. They left
> threatening messages about conducting other such attacks,
> some of which they have since carried out. Is ELF a
> terrorist group, and was this a terrorist act, one of
> so-called eco-terrorism? I'm not sure what the real answer
> is, but my sense is that it is probably a criminal matter
> rather than an issue of national security.
I tend to agree.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
