From the Govt'l WTF Files: Defense bill to give terrorists access to Courts?

[Liability]

Forget about the member of al Qaeda.

New hypothetical:

Situation #1:
A radical leftwing organization blows up a bank, killing 50 people.

Situation #2:
A man finds out his wife is cheating on him, and blows up the bank she works, killing her and 49 other people.

Same questions as before.

There is no rational question there.

Both are criminals. Criminal law time in a civilian court.

IF, however, you incorporate the additional "facts" into the first situation that the left-wing organization was thereby attempting to coerce the government into an action which it otherwise would not have taken, and that the killing of the victims was done to induce terror in the people to compel the action by the government, you might be on to something.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Forget about the member of al Qaeda.

New hypothetical:

Situation #1:
A radical leftwing organization blows up a bank, killing 50 people.

Situation #2:
A man finds out his wife is cheating on him, and blows up the bank she works, killing her and 49 other people.

Same questions as before.

There is no rational question there.

Both are criminals. Criminal law time in a civilian court.

IF, however, you incorporate the additional "facts" into the first situation that the left-wing organization was thereby attempting to coerce the government into an action which it otherwise would not have taken, and that the killing of the victims was done to induce terror in the people to compel the action by the government, you might be on to something.

So "terrorism" is a matter of intent, like "hate crimes"?

 

[Liability]

Forget about the member of al Qaeda.

New hypothetical:

Situation #1:
A radical leftwing organization blows up a bank, killing 50 people.

Situation #2:
A man finds out his wife is cheating on him, and blows up the bank she works, killing her and 49 other people.

Same questions as before.

There is no rational question there.

Both are criminals. Criminal law time in a civilian court.

IF, however, you incorporate the additional "facts" into the first situation that the left-wing organization was thereby attempting to coerce the government into an action which it otherwise would not have taken, and that the killing of the victims was done to induce terror in the people to compel the action by the government, you might be on to something.

So "terrorism" is a matter of intent, like "hate crimes"?

MOST "crime" is a matter of intent (or at least SOME culpable mental state).

And so is terrorism. Hate crime is a kind of a silly notion that layers an additional intent (or other element or set of elements) on top of already criminalized behavior.

So?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There is no rational question there.

Both are criminals. Criminal law time in a civilian court.

IF, however, you incorporate the additional "facts" into the first situation that the left-wing organization was thereby attempting to coerce the government into an action which it otherwise would not have taken, and that the killing of the victims was done to induce terror in the people to compel the action by the government, you might be on to something.

So "terrorism" is a matter of intent, like "hate crimes"?

MOST "crime" is a matter of intent (or at least SOME culpable mental state).

And so is terrorism. Hate crime is a kind of a silly notion that layers an additional intent (or other element or set of elements) on top of already criminalized behavior.

So?

I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to see where you're coming from.

My issue comes when "terrorism" starts to include other things.

 

[Liability]

So "terrorism" is a matter of intent, like "hate crimes"?

MOST "crime" is a matter of intent (or at least SOME culpable mental state).

And so is terrorism. Hate crime is a kind of a silly notion that layers an additional intent (or other element or set of elements) on top of already criminalized behavior.

So?

I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to see where you're coming from.

My issue comes when "terrorism" starts to include other things.

I did not accuse you of being a dick or trying to be a dick. It so happens that you are asking questions that highlight the difficulty of treating terrorism differently than mere criminality. And it is (in my view) a very healthy thing to have some skepticism and to air it all out.

Neverthenonetheless, terrorism may have overlaps with mere criminality. If scumbag "A" blows up a bank, killing folks in the process, for the purpose of stealing money, the consequences of his behavior (at least to the victims and their families) is not noticeably different than the consequences of the behavior of some al qaeda piece of shit "B" blowing up a building for the purpose of creating fear and panic in the public so as to motivate the government to change course or take a specific action or refrain from certain actions. Stated differently, the respective intents and motives do not change the immediate outcome of the bombings. But, despite the overlaps, the different motives and intents do matter.