Wednesday, April 4, 2007

One if these things is not like the other....

One of these things just doesn't belong!

New York man pleads guilty to US terrorism charge
NEW YORK (AFP) - A New York martial arts instructor pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to provide material support to the Al-Qaeda network after a sting operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Tarik Shah allegedly agreed to provide hand-to-hand combat training to Al-Qaeda operatives in a meeting in 2005 with an undercover FBI agent posing as a recruiter for the Islamic extremist militant group.
Read the Article

Plea in NYC terrorism-support case
LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press
NEW YORK - A cabdriver from Maryland pleaded guilty Monday to conspiring to help a terrorist organization after admitting he attended training camps in Pakistan.

Mahmud Faruq Brent Al Mutazzim, of Gwynn Oak, Md., had been scheduled to go to trial April 24 along with a New York musician and a Florida doctor. A New York bookstore owner pleaded guilty to charges in the case in November.
Read the Article

Ariz. teen charged with terrorism
MESA, Ariz. - An eighth-grader faces a terrorism charge for confronting a girl with a knife and later being found with a backpack full of restraining devices and weapons, a prosecutor said.

The 14-year-old told police he planned to hold his class hostage, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said Monday.
Read the Article

Trust me when I tell you that I am one of the most ardent supporters of the Global War on Terror. I want our police, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies to have the ability to pursue, charge, and convict terrorists.

However, to charge a US citizen as a terrorist, particularly a young teenage boy with no ties to any terrorist organizations whatsoever, and who cannot conceivably be linked to a terrorist cause, is, in my humble opinion, absolute garbage.

We give the State the power to try and convict terrorists on charges of terrorism to keep us safe from terrorists. We do not give the State the power to try ordinary criminals as terrorists when their crime creates fear and panic in others.

Ex. A troubled youth who doesn't want to go to school and so calls in a bomb-threat should not be charged with making terrorist threats, IMO.

However, a troubled youth who wants to engage in Jihad against America and who calls in a bomb-threat in order to strike fear into a community should be charged as a terrorist.

A teenage boy who plans to kill his classmates and himself in order to martyr himself for Allah, is a terrorist.

A teenage boy who plans to take his classmates hostage because he is having trouble with another classmate, however misguided, is not a terrorist.

Maybe I am missing the boat on this, I'm not sure, but I don't believe we should charge ordinary criminals as terrorists unless their actions can be directly linked to some sort of subversive ideology.

An "Eco-terrorist" who sets businesses ablaze because he believes their environmental policies are unsound is using arson as a means to further his subversive ideology.

An Islamo-fascist who plants a bomb on a school bus because he wants to kill "kufar" and further his radical Islamic agenda is a terrorist.

A KKK member who burns down a black church is a terrorist.

A kid who brings a blasting cap onto school grounds as part of a school prank is not a terrorist, the prank would not advance a subversive ideology.

A man who takes hostages during a bank robbery is not a terrorist (unless he is stealing the money to give to terrorists or use in in furtherance of a subversive ideology).

Bombing an abortion clinic would be a terrorist act.

Planting a bomb underneath the car of someone who plans to testify in a criminal case... not a terrorist act. Murder/attempted murder, yes, but not terrorism. Get it?

I would love for others to comment on this. I want to know what other people think about this. Am I crazy? Am I right on?


Anonymous said...

so you are separating the intentions from the act and it's results. sounds a little like liberal bs to me.

fabulinus said...

Yes. Criminal law generally involves an actus reas (the act) and a mens rea (the "guilty mind"). Why have murder and manslaughter charges if we only care about the outcome? The answer is because we think intent is important. If you intentionally kill someone, generally speaking, this is murder (with exceptions). If you accidentally kill someone, that is homicide. What is the difference? The intent.

Traditionally, burglary involved breaking and entering the home/dwelling of another at night WITH THE INTENT TO commit a felony therein.

Including intent as a necessary element of a crime in not "liberal BS"

Without an intent requirement and certain attendant circumstances, nearly every crime could be categorized as an act of terrorism, which is why I think there needs to be an intent to further a subversive ideology in order to charge a US citizen as a terrorist.