ter·ror·ism
–noun1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
UPDATE 3/5/10-7:57 p.m., Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:
"Lone wolf" anti-government extremist opens fire at the Pentagon. But let's not call it terrorism."Double standard? Um, yeah.
It seems to be the new standard among journalists that terrorism is now defined only as conspiracy-based international terrorism. Lone-wolf domestic terrorism? That's now just "a single individual who had issues."
UPDATE II-3/6/10: From ThinkProgress:
Last night, a California man armed with two semiautomatic weapons and “many magazines” of ammunition opened fire on police officers at the entrance to the Pentagon, wounding two before being killed by police. The shooter, 36-year-old John Patrick Bedell, was “well dressed in a suit” and “very calm,” walking “very directly to the officers” before engaging them, a police spokesman said.
Bedell “appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings,” the Christian Science Monitor reports, who traveled from California specifically to attack the Pentagon. While police were hesitant to assign a motive, “writings by someone with his same name and birth date, posted on the Internet, express ill will toward the government and the armed forces and question whether Washington itself might have been behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”
[snip]
The Pentagon shooting is just the latest in a string of violence seemingly motivated by far right ideologies. Of course, last month, “[h]atred of the government motivated a man in Texas” to launch a suicide attack on an IRS office. And a recent Southern Poverty Law Center report found a 244 percent rise in the number of extremist hate groups. But when the Department of Homeland Security released a report last year warning about the threat from right-wing domestic terror, conservative politicians and commentators were outraged, claiming it was an assault on conservatism. Sadly, the report was right.
14 comments:
I may pester you with comments, good bartender, but I can't help but agree.
Just like the Austin plane-crasher nut, this freak and others like him get excuses and the media soft-shoe. Argh.
Sorry, I disagree with this post. This was a sick man, it was not an act of terrorism. Here is the statement his family released...
Bedell had been diagnosed as bipolar and was known to try to self-medicate with marijuana, his psychiatrist, J. Michael Nelson, told The Associated Press. His parents had contacted authorities in Hollister weeks ago to warn that he was unstable and might have acquired a gun, the AP said.
His family released a statement tonight saying they were "devastated."
"We may never know why he made this terrible decision," they said. "One thing is clear though -- his actions were caused by an illness and not a defective character."
Having a bipolar sister, I can attest that this type of behavior is possible. As for last week incident - the palne in the IRS building - that was more a domestic terrorist act then this.
I understand your point on terrorism, I may not agree with it fully, but this case is definately not terrorism. He was a lone mentally ill man who snapped. I would not call that terrorism, even if he were not white. He could have been muslim and all things the same and it would not have been terrorism. Manic/Depression (Bipolar Disorder) is a horrible disease and can cause people to do many irrational things. This guy simply was not a terrorist.
Just to clear, I don't think the disease should give anyone a pass to commit this type of crime. I will not lose a moment of sleep that he was taken out by the cops. I also don't have a problem with Texas giving these assailants the needle. The disease just explains the behavior, does not justify it. Still not an act of terrorism. And any lawyer, assigned or not that would represent any of the Gitmo detainies should be given the same needle in Texas. They are terrorist enablers. Fortunately it appears the trials won't be happening and those terrorist scum will have a military tribunal. You know, if Obama keeps this up, and somehow avoids HCR, I just may vote for him in 2012. Let's see immigration, DADT, DOMA, public option, and so on and so on, everything he says makes me dislike him, but everything he does makes me respect him. Go figure.
You lost me at the DOJ lawyers should get the needle. Of course, you're not an attorney and you don't know what we go through with equal representation regardless of crime. So be it. In this country, the right to be represented by counsel is written in indelible ink. If you don't understand that (as many in your party apparently don't) then you don't even represent American values, as espoused in our constitution and bill of rights!
In this country, for our citizens, that is the case. These vermon are enemy combatants, and as such are not afforded teh same rights as an American Citizen. What is it about that that you cannot understand. Our constitution protects us, not our enemies. Fortunately some on the left are coming to their senses and realizing the only way to try these people will be with a military tribunal. I'm sure they will all be sentenced to death as they should be.
Response, part one:
Tony, you lack of knowledge about our government is astounding, and your inherent prejudice, intolerance, and overwhelming misinformation is amazing.
Our Bill of Rights affords everyone in this country certain rights, regardless of whether they are citizens or not. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution specifically states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Since this country never declared war by congress, as is required, those being held at Gitmo (many of whom were released based on lack of any evidence against them} are being held on little to no evidence. And Gitmo is considered American soil by the United States, so therefore, the Sixth Amendment applies to them. These so called prisoners were not captured during war. America invaded Iraq without a congressional resolution authorizing an act of war. Any sixth grader that studies remedial history is taught about the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which understanding you completely lack. But, then again, I attribute that to the fact that you get all your information (or should I say, disinformation) from sources that simply lie -- facts never seem to matter to the types of media and people you look to for your so called education and information.
And, even for the sake of argument, if one were to really believe the detainees at Gitmo were captured during wartime, the Geneva Convention rules would apply.
See Part Two as blogger limits characters in comment section.
Part Two:
In both cases, under the Bush regime, they simply threw these principals out the window. (Just as they disavowed Americans their rights under the Fourth Amendment, and paid the telecoms huge amounts of money to spy on ordinary American citizens). The Gitmo detainees were never charged with a crime, were never given access to legal advice (until the United States Supreme Court ruled they were entitled to attorneys), and since they are not prisoners of war, but, instead "detainees" who have yet to be charged with any crime, they are therefore entitled to be represented pursuant to the laws of the United States.
Do some reading and stop letting your prejudices and your intellectual stupidity run your mouth off.
And, as for the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, again, the criminal courts is where he should be tried, just as others like him have been tried in the United States, convicted, and are currently serving out sentences in federal prisons.
I find it fascinating how you right wing idiots pick and choose what parts of American history to relate to and believe in, and what parts of our history you simply go "deaf, dumb and blind" about! (Like the earth is only 10,000 years old, and man and dinosaurs roamed together, etc.) If you like, I can suggest some good reading about the Civil War, World War I, World War II, etc. that could help you understand the role the United States plays in handling war criminals, and the difference in dealing with their prosecution vs. how the Bush Administration just willy nilly locked up people picked up and/or handed over to it by all sorts of people in Iraq and elsewhere, with absolutely no proof that these people had anything to do with harming the United States. In fact, I still can't find a qualified answer to why Iraq was even targeted when the people who flew those airplanes into the towers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia! Then again, Bush was determined to hit Iraq and take down Hussein before there was a 9/11 (again, if you are well informed and internationally attuned to facts as they have been laid out over the years, would know these things -- but, alas, you are part of the America that follows the "he said, she said" journalism that has begun to pass for "news"). Every government that was pressed into being part of that "coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq have all come out in the past couple of years and indicated that they were "mislead" by the Bush Administration and had they known the truth, would never have assisted the president in his plan to invade Iraq. Even the Bushies have pulled back on their WMD claims and now say it was "faulty intelligence" and not, you know, full out lies, that made them invade Iraq! Yeah, and I've got a bridge somewhere to sell you.
Since your career path never brought near the legal field, but instead, was mostly in sales, the snake oil aspect of your thought process seems to have overridden your ability to simply educate yourself outside of your apparently small array of interests. Clearly history and especially our legal history in this country is not one of your strong points.
But the Supreme Court held as early as 1800, in Bas v. Tingy, that Congress could "authorize war" by joint resolution without framing it as a formal declaration of war. On Sept. 14, 2002 Congress did precisely that by a combined vote of 516-1.
Again, Carrie, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the others are enemy combatants and not afforded the same rights as civil people. I will put my education and degrees up against yours any day. I would also compare my LSAT score with yours. Yes, I guess you did not know I was accepted to Seton Hall Law School in 1988. Please, come down off your high horse. Even those in the adminstration you helped elect have admitted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needs to be tried in a military tribunal.
Oh, another point. I certainly would go around calling John Patrick Bedell a right wing extremist, when he was a 9-11 truther nut job. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2763062/reports_say_pentagon_shooter_john_patrick.html?cat=75
Reports from several, credible sources say that the Pentagon shooter, John Patrick Bedell, was a 911 Truther, an anti-Bush zealot and, just for good measure, anti-military. Sounds like a lefty extremist to me.
Typo, that should have said I certainly would NOT go around.... sorry.
Your hubris is only accentuated by your arrogance. Stupidity is still stupidity, whether one has actually been accepted to a fucking law school! Sheesh, I was accepted by the State Bar of California to test without the necessity of even going to law school. Are we playing who's got bigger balls here? Cuz we all know that I have a bigger set than you.
I understand how the California Bar would allow you to sit for the General Exam, not the Attorney Exam. To quailify for the general exam one only needs to provide proof that one studied law or worked in a law firm for a period of time.
"Pursuant to Chapter 3, Rule 4.25 of the Admissions Rules, a general applicant must have (a) completed at least two years of college work or (b) demonstrated equivalent intellectual achievement."
Applicants who have not completed at least two years of college work may satisfy the pre-legal education requirement by attaining three passing scores on the following general examinations administered by the College Level Examination Program (CLEP):
English Composition or English Composition with Essay; and
Two of the following:
Humanities
Mathematics
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences and History
Applicant's must either be graduates of law schools approved by the American Bar Association or accredited by the Committee; or have completed four years in an ABA or Committee accredited law school or in a law school registered with the Committee; in a law office; in a judge's chambers; or by some combination of these methods; or meet the requirements for legal education in a foreign country; and have established exemption from the First-Year Law Students' Examination.
Since you could prove you studied in a law office, you would then be afforded the priviledge of taking the General Exam. In order to sit for the Attorny Exam one would need to graduate from a Law School. What was your score on LSAT?
You really are obsessed with this, and with me, aren't you. I notice now that you access my site with a phone as well as with your computer, as often as six to ten times a day.
Must be nice being retired at such a young age that all you have to do is troll my blog.
I'm not giving you my college grades, my LSAT scores, my proof of CLEP or anything, least of all, who my sponsor was to the State Bar. MY POINT is that I know the legal field having worked it for 26 some odd years now, and you don't. So, as far as your opinion goes with respect to the Gitmo lawyers, and your irresponsible statement that they should take a needle as well, this thread is officially finished as you have nothing left to add except bravado and a lot of hot air.
Post a Comment