The Austin guy committed suicide and in doing so he attempted to illustrate his problems with the IRS. The guy was not a terrorist only an insane person with an axe to grind with the IRS and access to an aircraft. The people in that building are lucky that he wasn't flying a 747.
Now if a group of the Tea party people got together and hatched a plot which resulted in a suicide attack on the same building and then took credit for it, it is a terrorist act.
If indeed the the tea party folks went around plotting suicide attacks then they would be labeled as terrorists.
I've watched the news lately about this guy in Austin who flew a plane into the IRS building there.
And I've heard commentators from the right and left both say that this guy was just some loon, that he wasn't a terrorist.
That what seperates this guy from a real terrorist is that he didn't have a real network of people behind him.
I found this quite strange, because the accusations of network connections of Islamic terrorists is long and loud, but the evidence for it is a lot weaker than one might think watching the MSM. In many cases, Islamic organizations who are the sworn enemy of each other are told to be collaborators. Sometimes just agreeing with another person's religious and political philosophy makes you a de facto part of such an organization.
Which makes me wonder, does that mean that this IRS bomber was really just an isolated loon? Given that this guy took his anger out on the IRS and considered the implimentation of taxes as unjust, does he not have "allies" or "compatriots" in the Tea Party movement, the Fair Tax movement, or the Libertarian party?
I'm not saying this to bash any of these philosophies (hell I agree with half of what the Libertarian party says), but is this not a double standard?
And here comes the point that will anger the conservatives here:
I was thinking of the differences between 9/11 and what happened on 2/18 in Austin. In both events you have someone flying a plane into a building, destroying it, killing and injuring people. If 9/11 was a terrorist act, then how is this not a terrorist act? What are the real differences, other than body count?
And then the difference dawned on me. The TARGETS. On 2/18 the target was the US Gov't, and the IRS at that. That's not "terrorism". 9/11 on the other hand, the main target was the World Trade Center, a building used to facilitate American business and commerence.
Meaning that the default definition (by the MSM) of terrorism is not someone who commits violent acts to intimidate or coerce. But someone who interrupts or interferes with American capitalism.
-- Modified on 2/21/2010 10:03:23 PM
I do not believe that a lone murderer is defined as a terrorist and I was not aware a group of tax protesters gave him standing orders to fly his plane into a building to kill.
Also, his motive was of personal retribution not to instill terror .
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code...
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear 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"
As you can see, as far as the US Code goes, it makes no difference if you're part of an organization or not to be a terrorist.
How do we know that Islamic terrorists are given orders? Could they not be a group of like-minded people with the same or similar goals?
Do Islamic terrorists not act out of personal retribution? The CIA even has a term for this. They call it "blow back".
I'm not saying that what Islamic terrorists do are just. But they do have their reasons for doing what they do.
There are objective traits, although, as with any other word, there are variations. Nonetheless, even though variations may exists, a table is not a chair.
As to terrorists, you are right about the target being a very important aspect. This trait is from the word itself. They have a goal to scare the population in order to achieve their goals. The short term goal is that the public will never know if they can go to a movie, a market, a cafe. This is why a loan nut really doesn't qualify. Once he is dead, the threat is largely passes.
Second, the traget is usually civilian. Market, mosque, hotel, city street. The goal is not limited to army base. (I have always maintained that attacks on the Army are only quasi-terrorist for this reason.)
The MSN does not create Moslem terror. Training camps, succesful missions, Bali night club, London and Spanish subway, Christmas plane, ad infinitum create terror. This isn't even counting the hundreds of failed attempts.
You can quibble about the degree, but the guy in Austin had not support and is gone. No one is training the next 1,000.
Finally, I don't know of any conservative of any prominence ever said that merely flying a plane into a building qualifies, per se. (YOu can always find a handful of people who say anything. That doesn't mark the movement.)
membership in an organization, as far as the law is concerned.
Federal law defines effectively defines “terrorism” in several different statutes and regulations. The definition as used in the statute precluding alien admission to the United States is anyone who “engages in terrorist activity.” That in turn is defined very broadly but one part of the definition is anyone who uses an “ (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”
So yes, flying into a building is terrorist activity per se as far as the law is concerned, if you do it intending to danger persons or property and not for monetary gain.
So it does not matter if it’s a federal or private building or whether the guy is a solo act or a member of an organization. He still has engaged in terrorist activity under this statute and the other statutes thatt incorporate this definition.
The real concern is not how terrorism is defined by US law but the absence of any published standards that govern who is a terrorist in foreign countries.
As best I can tell we are allowing agents on the ground to make this determination based on hearsay and whatever other info the agent has. But this is a life or death matter – the determination can means you are eligible to be vaporized by a predator strike or tossed into Gitmo forever.
Is Osama Bin Laden’s housekeeper a terrorist? Well, Bush decided he was and he was tossed into Gitmo until he got out in a habeas corpus hearing.
So again Phil you have yet opportunity to determine whether you “ad hoc is good” approach is wise policy.
For anyone really interested, the full definition:
(iii) "Terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter, the term
"terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an
aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or
continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a
person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any —
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain),
with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(iv) "Engage in terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter,
the term "engage in terrorist activity" means, in an individual capacity
or as a member of an organization —
(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an
intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist
activity;
(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for —
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II);
or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the
solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not
know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization;
(V) to solicit any individual —
(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;
(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that
the organization was a terrorist organization; or
(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know,
affords material support, including a safe house, transportation,
communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial
benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including
chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training —
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know,
has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of
clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or
(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to
any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not
reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.
(v) "Representative" defined As used in this paragraph, the term
"representative" includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an
organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces
an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity."
(vi) "Terrorist organization" defined As used in this section, the term
"terrorist organization" means an organization —
(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;
(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by
the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist
organization, after finding that the organization engages in the
activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or
not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities
described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).
(C) Foreign policy
By that statute the DEA,CIA ect... are a bunch of terrorists.
As far as the US Code goes, it makes no difference if the target of terrorism is civilian or not. It could be directed at organizations, gov'ts, businesses, churches, or people. For instance, nobody argued that Tim McVeigh was a terrorist when he was arrested. No one argued that Eric Rudolph was a terrorist.
You're correct that the MSM does not create terror, but in the minds of the American public, it can define it. What creates terrorism is generally insular groups radicalizing themselves. It matters not whether it's a Muslim organization, a Christian organization who bombs women's clinics, or if it's a white supremacist group that lynches people.
Do we know that the guy in Austin didn't have any support, or at least any others who agree with him? Was his actions nothing more than training to demonstrate to those who agree with him what they should do themselves?
The Austin guy committed suicide and in doing so he attempted to illustrate his problems with the IRS. The guy was not a terrorist only an insane person with an axe to grind with the IRS and access to an aircraft. The people in that building are lucky that he wasn't flying a 747.
Now if a group of the Tea party people got together and hatched a plot which resulted in a suicide attack on the same building and then took credit for it, it is a terrorist act.
If indeed the the tea party folks went around plotting suicide attacks then they would be labeled as terrorists.
Yep Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist not the guy in TX would had a personal beef, his motive was revenge for himself not to spread terror like Timothy McVeigh would had the support of the Militia movement and did it to time with the Waco siege and also done in protest of the Ruby Ridge shooting. He said he wanted to instill terror and keep doing it.
Apples to oranges with the motive in the two killings.
By the way WW the terrorists did hit gov BLG the Pentagon and wanted to hit the capital but their plane was forced down so yes gov was a big target.
-- Modified on 2/22/2010 7:38:17 AM
Yes, the Pentagon was hit. I know that pretty well, it's only a 20 minute drive from me. I had people in my home town who commute to DC who died in that building that day.
I drove past the Pentagon the other day on Washington Blvd. Across the street is Arlington National Cemetery. I sometimes wonder if the cemetery might have been the intended target on that day, given how freaking hard I imagine it would be to fly a 747.
However, the attack on the Pentagon was very much an "also" compared to the number of people killed that day in NYC. Of the 3,000 who died on 9-11, only 125 died in the Pentagon. Not to belittle those who died in the Pentagon, but NYC saw the vast majority of the devastation.
Both targets were more symbolic than anything. Flying into a packed football stadium would have guaranteed a higher body count, but that was not the main purpose of the attack.
I disagree..I think the 911 hijackers were going for a bigger body count but they hit at the wrong time.....or right time for those that were not at work..
used by the terroists in picking their target or measuring the success or failure of their mission.
The WTC had been a target of the Islamic terrorists for years, it was a symbol of all things American that the terrorists hated and still hate.