Why Not Define Terrorism and Terrorists?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by IndependntLogic, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    Why not just pass a law defining terrorists and what we can do about them?
    This isn't the 1700's. Terrorists aren't pirates or indians and they often aren't physically accessible. We got to OBL but remember, we looked at droning him because we knew the ISI of our "allies" Pakistan, were helping him. But Obama wanted the American people to know we got him. Okay good job there.
    Awlaki wasn't phycially accessible and he too, was hiding in another "ally" country that impeded our efforts to get to him (we be having some great allies, eh?).

    So why not define terrorism?
    If an organization takes credit for killing civilians, that's pretty strong evidence, they're terrorist.
    If a dozen or more countries define them as terrorists, it's not just our government going after someone they don't like.
    If someone openly joins a terrorist organization, they are immediately classified as an enemy combatant. US citizen or not, they now fall under the UCMJ and not the USC.
    Obviously, this is a very simplified outline but something along these lines would at least be a start.

    Or we can all sit around and bicker about the Civil Liberties that should have been afforded Osama bin Laden and al-Awlaki...
     

Share This Page