[...] > > It just irks me that the way the government "defines" > terrorism doesn't take into account individual acting > nutburgers. His act is a terrorist act. His behavior is > terrorist behavior. But because we can't link him to some > foreign ideology, he's not a terrorist. > > It walks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. But it ain't a duck? >
'terrorism' and 'duck' are just labels. What matters is behaviour. If someone deliberately flies a plane into a building why should anyone give a shit whether they're called terrorists, Jemimah Puddleduck or Zoltan the Magnificent Mallard? It makes no difference to anything. They have committed a criminal act and if they survive they should be subject to the law same as any other alleged lawbreaker. Similarly, people plotting to commit criminal acts should be treated the same as others - the label 'terrorist' is irrelevant. By the same principles, people arrested on suspicion should be tried fairly within a reasonable period of time, not just labelled 'terrorist' and stuck in Guantanamo Bay to rot forever. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
