View Single Post
Old
04-22-2013, 02:14 PM
  #113
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 18,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyntBergie View Post
The problem for me comes down to defining terrorism I guess. Property destruction by an animal rights group could technically fall under the legal definition of terrorism I believe, and that wouldn't be an instance where you would want to see someone have their rights as a citizen stripped, at least I wouldn't. That isn't to say they're right in what they did.

When abortion clinics are vandalized, is that considered terrorism? Vandalism of churches and other places of worship?

I don't know the answers, that's why I'm asking. Based on my understanding of how "terrorism" is defined in the US legal system, all of these could technically be considered terrorism.

Seems like it could be a pretty slippery slope and one that ends up being decided by individuals. Not necessarily a clean, black and white answer it seems.
You're worried a/b precedence. So am I. No accident all those trauma surgeons were ready at those hospitals. No coincidence you saw all those disparate agencies act in concert so succinctly, under a single command structure, to achieve a single objective. Anyone who works in Public Safety will tell you, this was nothing short of a miracle. But it wasn't a miracle. All of the above prepared, trained, and planned for this. Additional to that, professionals work day and night to prevent this from ever happening. Yet, these two still couldn't be stopped once they put their plan in motion. Even despite a heads up from the Russians.

Slippery slopes go both ways. These two walking stool samples killed 3 people and injured 100+ w/ 2 pressure cookers. They also managed to shut down a whole city. I'm not even going into the ramifications of that. I'm worried a/b when it's a truck w/ 2000 pounds of explosives that kills hundreds. Or a genuine active cell, w/ multiple trucks. Say we get lucky, like we have been for 12 years, interdict and catch one of them. Want to treat fanatical terrorists like bank robbers and people who get caught w/ a joint in their car? This is what the public safety exception to Miranda is for. But I don't think it's enough.

Let them lawyer up, clam up, then watch a city block and hundreds of innocent people go up? All because we couldn't figure out how to draw the distinction between terrorists, and those who the laws were really meant to protect? The innocent.

It's 2013, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. A fission device and centrifuges are 1940's technology. Today it's only a matter of attaining the materials. Another 20 years? Wait until it's a whole city, maybe then it will be enough to draw the distinction. Because at that point? You can pretty much take the bill of rights, stick it in a vault, kiss it goodbye, and save it for a smarter generation.

I'm not saying they should crumple up the constitution. But they need to introduce some sort of legislation in specific regard to terrorism, and in all forms, ratified by the supreme court. And, do it before we're in a another situation like this.

Neely08 is offline