It says “or”, not “and”.
Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
**John **is right. The three characteristics are (1) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; (2) appear intended …; (3) and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
True, one could imagine a scenario where something is both of those things. But unless the word “terrorism” is just a kind of casual descriptor of something one regards as especially heinous, the operative question is why it matters what we call these things. And it matters because ISTM that this should be a term reserved for serious threats to national security that endanger the public at large, so that it justifies exceptional measures of prevention (including surveillance), investigation, apprehension, and prosecution. The search for the Boston bombers turned into practically a military operation, and whether it was official or not, there was de facto suspension of some civil rights in the process.
This understandably bothered some people. The question is, do you think such exceptional measures are justified? If you do, then there’s a real danger in calling every major crime an “act of terrorism” and escalating an erosion of civil rights. If you don’t, then the term doesn’t have much meaning and I don’t really care how you use it. The most it could possibly mean in this case is that the dude gets a life sentence or maybe the death penalty, which seems likely anyway regardless of what label you want to put on his crime.
That quote does not show all three of the characteristics, just two of them. The (i) - (iii) are all part of the 1st characteristic.
ETA: Richard beat me to it, and I was wrong anyway. The quote DOES show the three characteristics.
You’re misreading it too. Regardless, Roof clearly fails to meet the definition of a terrorist.
As noted, it meets the legal definition. But I don’t know how you get from that the idea that I want to call all major crimes an act of terrorism. I don’t think the shooter at Sandy Hook, who killed many more people, was a terrorist.
As noted in my conversation w/ Richard Parker, I do NOT like the kind of reaction the US has had to terrorism. But… since there is NO WAY we are going to stop calling muslim terror acts “terrorism”, we should be consistent and show the world that we don’t think terrorism is reserved for violence committed by muslims.
Show me an example, in America, of attacks against blacks or Muslims, where a single participant of the crime (single event) was labeled a “terrorist.”
He didn’t know you were related or he wouldnt have brought it up. I like “Race Cowboy” myself, or “livin in the Jew SA”
Perhaps it would help you to look at the actual statutory language: 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
OP here, not wanting to be a drive-by:
Gee, post a thread on the Dope, go out to weed the garden and clean the car, come back, actual discussion underway. Haven’t anything to add at the moment, but do continue on without me. The whole point was to start a conversation.
Serious question: do you think the KKK is a terroristic organization?
Do Klan activities (church bombings, lynches, cross-burnings) meet all three criteria?
Why should I do that?
Which of those criteria do you think are NOT applicable to Roof’s crime? You analysis that “he did none of those things” is rather striking since one of “those things” is that the act must take place within the US. Did you think this crime took place outside the US?
He was tried and convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civilian laws defining terror related charges weren’t applicable. The Army could have turned his prosecution over to civilian authorities where he could have had civilian specific terror charges added. The Army chose to keep it in house.
Well, technically the people murdered weren’t “black” and they obviously weren’t Muslims, but the victims of the infamous Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin were rather clearly attacked because they were minorities.
The man who committed the murders, Wade Michael Page, was a lifelong White supremacist.
It was treated by the police as an example of domestic terrorism, the FBI sent in the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder referred to it as, “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred, a hate crime.”
Now perhaps I’m wrong, but I highly doubt things would have been different if that had been a Mosque.
Okay, he did not;
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
he did not;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(nor) did he;
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
of course, his act did occur as defined below…
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
He shot a group of innocent worshippers. Call it a hate crime, call him a thug, call him a murdering asshole, that all fits, but not terrorist.
Of course he did, assuming the reports are correct. He said he killed them simply because they were black, and that he was trying to start a race war. It’s quite possible, as more of his writings are releases, that he was trying to do the other things, too.
So then please explain why Wade Michael Page was a “terrorist” but Roof isn’t?
Read post #76 where I responded to your question as to when someone had ever been “labelled a 'terrorist”.
The acts of a delusional psychotic are hardly designed to intimidate or coerce, they are designed to satisfy his doctrine of hate. Calling him a terrorist is so “Fox news.”