When Does a Criminal Become a Terrorist?
In the Republican rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union address, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell quoted from Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown in stating that "we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them." The quote was from Brown's campaign and referred to the Christmas day attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight. Clearly, Brown, McDonnell and their Republican cohorts believe that America's approach to terrorists is too coddling and they long for the good old days of water-boarding.
The problem that no one seems willing to address, however, is how to determine when a criminal act is a terrorist act -- and when to suspend America's legal system. Abdulmutallab has all the characteristics of a terrorist (i.e., he's Muslim and brown-skinned) and the McDonnell/Brown contingent believes that his civil liberties should be abandoned because of that. Perhaps so.
But remember Lee Harvey Oswald? If "terrorism" is defined as the use of violence to make a political statement or intimidate and/or coerce the actions of a government, then Oswald could and should be viewed as a terrorist. Same goes for Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and John Hinckley Jr., who wounded President Reagan in 1981. Would Brown have urged that the legal and human rights of these three individuals be ignored? Or would only Sirhan Sirhan fall under his terrorist label?
JFK and Reagan were sitting presidents and RFK was a presidential candidate, so one could contend that the acts against them were acts against the United States and, hence, acts of terror. But what happens when a senator is assassinated -- is that a terrorist act? How about a cabinet member or congressman? How about a policeman or fireman? What exactly is the threshold to suspend liberty and due process?
Many people view the Ft. Hood killings as a terrorist act, but is that because it was on a military base? How different was Ft. Hood from Columbine High School? Deranged people do a lot of weird and horrific stuff.
"Terrorist" is a label that cannot have a hard and fast definition. Because of that, we cannot have a dual-approach to justice and legal due process. It works in a sound bite but does not work in reality -- or at least any reality that I would want to live in.
The problem that no one seems willing to address, however, is how to determine when a criminal act is a terrorist act -- and when to suspend America's legal system. Abdulmutallab has all the characteristics of a terrorist (i.e., he's Muslim and brown-skinned) and the McDonnell/Brown contingent believes that his civil liberties should be abandoned because of that. Perhaps so.
But remember Lee Harvey Oswald? If "terrorism" is defined as the use of violence to make a political statement or intimidate and/or coerce the actions of a government, then Oswald could and should be viewed as a terrorist. Same goes for Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and John Hinckley Jr., who wounded President Reagan in 1981. Would Brown have urged that the legal and human rights of these three individuals be ignored? Or would only Sirhan Sirhan fall under his terrorist label?
JFK and Reagan were sitting presidents and RFK was a presidential candidate, so one could contend that the acts against them were acts against the United States and, hence, acts of terror. But what happens when a senator is assassinated -- is that a terrorist act? How about a cabinet member or congressman? How about a policeman or fireman? What exactly is the threshold to suspend liberty and due process?
Many people view the Ft. Hood killings as a terrorist act, but is that because it was on a military base? How different was Ft. Hood from Columbine High School? Deranged people do a lot of weird and horrific stuff.
"Terrorist" is a label that cannot have a hard and fast definition. Because of that, we cannot have a dual-approach to justice and legal due process. It works in a sound bite but does not work in reality -- or at least any reality that I would want to live in.
No comments have been added yet.
