Domestic Terrorism

[Aesir]

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past month and half, the term domestic terrorism has shown it's self yet again. For those of you who are unfamiliar with what domestic terrorism is;

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(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; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

Pretty vague if you ask me, in any case I bring up this issue because of a few things that have happened recently;

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/us-soldier-slain-arkansas-recruiting-center-drive-shooting
In this article an American Muslim convert is being convicted of terrorism for a drive by shoot which killed one us soldier and injured another. vaguely this is classified as domestic terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31031601/ This article is about a man who shot and killed a doctor who performed late term abortions. To quote from the article;

Right now, police believe the suspect acted alone but note that it is very early in their investigation. They will not release his name until he is formally charged Monday. He is expected to be charged with one count of murder and two counts of assault for threatening two bystanders who tried to intervene.

Why not on counts of domestic terrorism? He clearly fits the criteria set forth by the patriot act, It could also be because he isn't Muslim.

I pose a few questions;

Is the current law to vague?

AND!

Should both these men be tried as Domestic terrorists?


I reserve the right to add more questions later as the thread progresses.

 

[AltF4]

I'll be honest. This whole business of "Domestic Terrorists" bothers me a great deal. Once the government labels you a "terrorist", your life is over. They can just make you disappear with no trial, and no civil rights.

And while this is at least a matter of debate when talking about foreign countries and foreign citizens, how can we possibly allow this inside of the domestic United States? It is so obviously unconstitutional it's not funny.

Both of those people above cases are criminal matters. They should be prosecuted under criminal law. This is an awfully slippery slope we're on, once we begin to imprison US citizens without a trial.

My biggest fear is the definition of "terrorist" to slowly broaden to include mere political dissidents. Then, like China, we'll be throwing people in jail simply for disagreeing with the government. And we can see exactly that start to happen!

 

[Crimson King]

Domestic terrorist was such an easier term to understand when it related to Timothy McVey and the Unabomber. Both were violent enemies of anyone who didn't support their causes, and they were dangers to most political figures.

Now, it's so vague, like Alt said.

 

[Aesir]

My biggest fear is the definition of "terrorist" to slowly broaden to include mere political dissidents. Then, like China, we'll be throwing people in jail simply for disagreeing with the government. And we can see exactly that start to happen!

This here is basically what I'm getting at, the two cases above are criminal matters and they should be tried as criminals.

However what you're talking about here has been happening and even continues to happen. The Department of Homeland Security issued a criteria of what was considered a "right wing terrorist" a lot of those criteria were simply dissenting opinion of the policy. For instance it included but not restricted to; participating in "tea parties" and showing opposition to the current administration.

If you ask me at this point terrorism is just a guise to do whatever they want now a days.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I think, and I may be wrong, that this is vague on purpose. Its enforced by the fear of being labeled a "terrorist."

And as ALT said, being labeled a terrorist strips you of your rights. Many people know that, and don't want it to happen to them. Only because it is, almost, an unusual punishment. Something out of the ordinary.

It sucks that part of this was influenced by acts of groups outside of the U.S....

 

[Nysyarc]

I think, and I may be wrong, that this is vague on purpose. Its enforced by the fear of being labeled a "terrorist."

That's a very interesting opinion, however I still think the law is far too vague...

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

Is very different from:

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

And yet they are both equivalent requirements in the definition of domestic terrorism. Now I'm not going to go and suggest what the definition should be, at least not until I know more about the topic, but I do think that it needs to be made more clear what exactly an act of domestic terrorism entails.

As for both of those cases being tried as domestic terrorists... if I (a Canadian, white male) were driving in my car and shot a couple of Canadian soldiers, killing one, I would be convicted of a lot of things, including murder. But to think that it is an act of terrorism seems wrong. Is it because the person is Muslim, or is it because he shot U.S. soldiers, or is it both?

The other case does not seem like terrorism to me either. Sure it fits in with the vague law that it is place, but I disagree with that law. Obviously it is still murder, and the man should be tried as a criminal, but to label him as a terrorist doesn't seem right to me.

Now, on the other side of it, why should we care who gets labelled as a terrorist? If someone, regardless of their ethnicity, intentionally kills someone else, regardless of that person's ethnicity, the person who did the killing obviously is not a good person. What should the common citizen care if that person then gets labelled as a terrorist? As long as we abide by the law, no matter how vague, we have nothing to worry about.