Boston PD Arrest 3 More Suspects in Bombing Plot -- Uh-oh!

Redress said:

The issue is not what I would call it, but rather what the government should call it. My point in this has been that there is nothing wrong with the government not calling the Fort Hood shootings "terrorism" since by the definitions the government has, it is far from clear that it was. The same holds true for abortion clinic bombings. "terrorism", as defined by the government, is a crime of motivation. Where it differs from other mass killings is in the intent of the person doing the killing. If the government cannot prove that the goal is influencing social or political change, or that the motive was political, which is how the definitions read, then it should not be called terrorism by the government. This includes abortion clinic bombings. In other words, it depends entirely on the motive of the abortion clinic bomber. Some are, some are not.

Click to expand...

As I got to reading more of your posts, I realized you were speaking from a "what government should call it" not "what I would call it". Which makes sense.

What people want to call it is of course and entirely separate matter. Define the term as you want and as long as it is not wildly off from the more standard definitions, I will not argue with you on that definition. But there is a significant difference between people, and the US government. The government needs to operate under what is written as law. It should not be making it up as it goes along, ignoring the law when convenient. Following that law is not somehow being PC, not looking to protect Muslims, or anything else. That is just bull**** perpetrated by people who want to bitch about Obama for anything and everything.

Click to expand...

Now, here's my one question with this...

You present some doubt and distrust of the government earlier by suggesting you wouldn't want them to just be able to label anyone a terrorist. Seemingly implying you see the potential for government abusing laws to their advantage.

Then can you at least see the other sides similar worry as to how the current definition ALSO leads for the possability for abuse. Who determines what clues of "motivation" are most looked into, deemed "credible" in a law enforcement and legal capacity, and makes the call on issuing the charges? The government? If it would be possible for those in the government to misuse the ability to label someone a "terrorist" if it was made broader...is it not reasonable to suggest that people could LASO misuse the ability on how to steer the investigation and what is declared the motive?

Essentially....yes, give the Government more freedom to declare people terrorists and they COULD just willy nilly said "Fort Hood, Terrorism!" even if it was not really. Similarly though, allow the Government to decide what motives are credible and what motives are looked into heaviest, and they COULD just avoid or play down those that would justify proclaiming it terrorism?

Granted, that may not have been the case...but that seems to be smoe peoples worry, and considering you used the same type of government mistrust as the basis for an earlier argument I would hope you at least see their views as being mildly reasonable.

Virtually NO university pays it's own way. All rely on tax money support - directly or indirectly - such as the support around them - roads, police, fire etc etc.

It is overdue to question the huge number of foreign students coming to this country - that we are essentially subsidizing - to then take their knowledge and technology back to their countries to compete with us for production and jobs - while at the same time millions of Americans can't attend college because they can't afford it.

The universities have so pushed for foreign students via legislation and favorable bureaucratic policy it is now considered virtually a constitutional right for anyone from anywhere to come to this country if to attend one of our universities. This is nuts and it is wrong.

And here is the scary part. The excuse the FBI gave for not doing more upon TWO warnings from Russia was to respond there are 750,000! people like them from other countries as potential terrorist risks - and then explaining unless they can prove a foreigner in this country is a terrorist, they can not be forced to leave - literally granting them full due process rights to an automatic right to be and stay in the USA.

Where the hell did that concept come from? ANYONE who is NOT an American deemed a potential risk should be required to leave. It is that simple.

Zyphlin said:

Now, here's my one question with this...

You present some doubt and distrust of the government earlier by suggesting you wouldn't want them to just be able to label anyone a terrorist. Seemingly implying you see the potential for government abusing laws to their advantage.

Then can you at least see the other sides similar worry as to how the current definition ALSO leads for the possability for abuse. Who determines what clues of "motivation" are most looked into, deemed "credible" in a law enforcement and legal capacity, and makes the call on issuing the charges? The government? If it would be possible for those in the government to misuse the ability to label someone a "terrorist" if it was made broader...is it not reasonable to suggest that people could LASO misuse the ability on how to steer the investigation and what is declared the motive?

Essentially....yes, give the Government more freedom to declare people terrorists and they COULD just willy nilly said "Fort Hood, Terrorism!" even if it was not really. Similarly though, allow the Government to decide what motives are credible and what motives are looked into heaviest, and they COULD just avoid or play down those that would justify proclaiming it terrorism?

Granted, that may not have been the case...but that seems to be smoe peoples worry, and considering you used the same type of government mistrust as the basis for an earlier argument I would hope you at least see their views as being mildly reasonable.

Click to expand...

It is not distrust of government per se. I tend to trust the police, but still feel they need to operate within the limits of the law. In fact, the law is what I "trust". We have legal procedures, usually spelled out in painful detail, as to how the government needs to do just about anything. We have courts and judges and procedures for both and ways to dispute any finding. The system is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good. Where I worry is when we go outside of those procedures.

This is not to say there is no potential for abuse within the procedures, but to my mind this is a much smaller worry than a government that does not follow it's own laws.

Redress said:

It is not distrust of government per se. I tend to trust the police, but still feel they need to operate within the limits of the law. In fact, the law is what I "trust". We have legal procedures, usually spelled out in painful detail, as to how the government needs to do just about anything. We have courts and judges and procedures for both and ways to dispute any finding. The system is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good. Where I worry is when we go outside of those procedures.

Click to expand...

You made this statement:

Redress said:

A government that can just declare any one a terrorist would be a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Which to me reads as trepidation that a government able to just "declare" anyone a terrorist is a bad thing. My assumption was you believed it would be a bad thing becuase it could be abused. Perhaps you meant something else, in which case I'd like to hear it.

That statement isn't apparently suggesting that the government would do so illegal...it suggests it can do it, as if it has the power. That would suggest that it would be legally allowed to do such...AND that such allowance would be bad.

Why would it be bad, if not for a mistrust in how the government would potentially use such power? It would still be "following the law".

Zyphlin said:

You made this statement:



Which to me reads as trepidation that a government able to just "declare" anyone a terrorist is a bad thing. My assumption was you believed it would be a bad thing becuase it could be abused. Perhaps you meant something else, in which case I'd like to hear it.

That statement isn't apparently suggesting that the government would do so illegal...it suggests it can do it, as if it has the power. That would suggest that it would be legally allowed to do such...AND that such allowance would be bad.

Why would it be bad, if not for a mistrust in how the government would potentially use such power? It would still be "following the law".

Click to expand...

No, a government that can just declare any one a terrorist would be a government not bound by laws, at least not in that area.

Redress said:

No, a government that can just declare any one a terrorist would be a government not bound by laws, at least not in that area.

Click to expand...

Sure it would. The law would be that if the government deems you a terrorist, that's the designation you are. Just because the law gives broad power to the government doesn't mean it's not a law. You just sat here for a multitude of posts talking in a very literal sense that we should call the law what it is and expect government to refer to things in a legal manner...then I give you a hypothetical going off your statement where the Government can legally, ie by the law, declare people terrorists based on their judgement and you proclaim an emotional "Well, that's just a government not bound by laws".

That's incorrect. But let me be most specific....

Would you worry about the Government if the law stated that should prosecutors decide any portion of the motivation for the act was to instill fear in one or more people then they could declare the person a terrorist? Or would you trust that the government would only use that wide discretion fairly and without agenda?

Now reports say Katherine Russell stopped cooperating with police

roughdraft274 said:

Exactly. The only smart thing to do is shut down any and all public aid in college expenses or any kind of education for that matter, just in case we accidentally give aid to a crazy person.

That's why you and I advocate for shutting down the entire military right? Because Nidal Hasan was a U.S. Army major and actually received pay from the us government, my tax dollars, and he was crazy and killed people. It only makes sense right?

Click to expand...

Well, that is the same logic that makes up 100% of the anti-gun argument.