Challenge: Define terrorism

VivaRevolution said:
You aren't grouping, you are redefining, and creating a entirely new category.
Click to expand...
How is creating a new category not grouping? That’s how language develops over time when there is new information to be grouped that doesn’t fit into a previous category
 
jonharrison said:
It isn’t. It’s a classification that many different crimes fall under. If someone threatens to blow up a synogauge, specifically to cancel a service, they will not be charged with the same offense as if they murdered the rabbi to achieve the same goal. Yet both acts are classified as terrorism.
Click to expand...

Is there a crime called terrorism you can be charged with?

WTF are you talking about?
 
jonharrison said:
How is creating a new category not grouping? That’s how language develops over time when there is new information to be grouped that doesn’t fit into a previous category
Click to expand...

There you go. Now make the case that we have new information that doesn't fit into a previous category?

You aren't under the impression that violent acts with the intent of psycological impact for politocal reasons, are new are you?
 
VivaRevolution said:
Is there a crime called terrorism you can be charged with?

WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...
If you call in a bomb scare you will not spend the same amount of time in jail as if you murdered someone. Even if both acts are specifically designed to achieve the same political goal, you will not be sentenced for the same crime for commuting either act. So my definition works because it classifies crime based on the motivation. What you are talking about is that someone can serve differing amounts of time in prison for the same act because one person is a “terrorist” and the other isn’t.
 
VivaRevolution said:
There you go. Now make the case that we have new information that doesn't fit into a previous category?

You aren't under the impression that violent acts with the intent of psycological impact for politocal reasons, are new are you?
Click to expand...
Not at all, but terrorist isn’t a new term either
 
jonharrison said:
If you call in a bomb scare you will not spend the same amount of time in jail as if you murdered someone. Even if both acts are specifically designed to achieve the same political goal, you will not be sentenced for the same crime for commuting either act. So my definition works because it classifies crime based on the motivation. What you are talking about is that someone can serve differing amounts of time in prison for the same act because one person is a “terrorist” and the other isn’t.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is it's own crime. You can move along if you want to claim otherwise.
 
jonharrison said:
Not at all, but terrorist isn’t a new term either
Click to expand...

But it is a new crime. One without due process. One that allows for extrajudicial murder by the state. One that completely undermines everything we used to say we believe in.
 
VivaRevolution said:
I challenge anyone here to define terrorism.

I believe the word terrorism is a trojan horse to create thought crime.

I believe that actions are crimes, and that motivation can be a compounding factor, increasing the degree of the same crime.

What we have done with the phrase terrorism, is create new crime based on motivations.

I cut off a guy's head because he pissed me off. Murder.

I cut off a guy's head because I am brainwashed by Saudi propaganda, and I am a terrorist(unless in Syria, then it's a moderate rebel)

Terrorism has no meaning. It is the definition of a Orwellian phrase, and babble speak.

What we call terror acts, are actually crimes.

Discuss.........
Click to expand...

I've often wondered the same thing.

If terrorism is defined as utilizing violence for political purposes, does that mean that sanctions on things like antibiotics (which largely affects children and the elderly) in order to punish the leader of a country, terrorism?
 
A term created to use as a political tool. It's a great "buzz" word.
 
jonharrison said:
Find me the statute saying you can be sentenced for “terrorism” and what the specific sentencing guidelines are
Click to expand...

Sentencing Terrorist Crimes
WADIE E. SAID*
The legal framework behind the sentencing of individuals convicted of
committing terrorist crimes has received little scholarly attention, even with
the proliferation of such prosecutions in the eleven years following the attacks
of September 11, 2001. This lack of attention is particularly striking in light of
the robust and multifaceted scholarship that deals with the challenges inherent
in criminal sentencing more generally, driven in no small part by the
comparatively large number of sentencing decisions issued by the United
States Supreme Court over the past thirteen years. Reduced to its essence, the
Supreme Court’s sentencing jurisprudence requires district courts to make no
factual findings that raise a criminal penalty over the statutory maximum,
other than those found by a jury or admitted by the defendant in a guilty plea.
Within those parameters, however, the Court has made clear that such
sentences are entitled to a strong degree of deference by courts of review.
Historically, individuals convicted of committing crimes involving politically
motivated violence/terrorism were sentenced under ordinary criminal statutes,
as theirs were basically crimes of violence. Even when the law shifted to begin
to recognize certain crimes as terrorist in nature—airplane hijacking being the
prime example—sentencing remained relatively uncontroversial from a legal
perspective, since the underlying conduct being punished was violent at its
core.
In the mid-1990s, the development and passage of a special sentencing
enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual section 3A1.4, offered the
opportunity for district courts to significantly increase the penalty for certain
activity that fell into a defined category of what was termed “a federal crime of
terrorism.” Coupled with the post-9/11 trend of the government using a
relatively new offense, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the ban on providing material
support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, as its main legal tool in
the war on terrorism, sentences for such crimes increased significantly, even in
situations where there was no link to an act of violence. The application of
section 3A1.4 invites a district court to find certain facts, under the
preponderance of the evidence standard, which bring the conduct into the
category of a federal crime of terrorism, thereby triggering greatly enhanced
punishment. A review of the reported decisions involving section 3A1.4
reveals, however, that only in rare cases do courts find the enhancement to be
improperly applied. This Article argues that, as currently understood, the
application of section 3A1.4 raises serious concerns about its fidelity to the
Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1j077rJt3X3ZCPbdSOo18a
 
It's like a "hate crime" where they try and make a crime worse based on the motive for committing that crime.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Sentencing Terrorist Crimes
WADIE E. SAID*
The legal framework behind the sentencing of individuals convicted of
committing terrorist crimes has received little scholarly attention, even with
the proliferation of such prosecutions in the eleven years following the attacks
of September 11, 2001. This lack of attention is particularly striking in light of
the robust and multifaceted scholarship that deals with the challenges inherent
in criminal sentencing more generally, driven in no small part by the
comparatively large number of sentencing decisions issued by the United
States Supreme Court over the past thirteen years. Reduced to its essence, the
Supreme Court’s sentencing jurisprudence requires district courts to make no
factual findings that raise a criminal penalty over the statutory maximum,
other than those found by a jury or admitted by the defendant in a guilty plea.
Within those parameters, however, the Court has made clear that such
sentences are entitled to a strong degree of deference by courts of review.
Historically, individuals convicted of committing crimes involving politically
motivated violence/terrorism were sentenced under ordinary criminal statutes,
as theirs were basically crimes of violence. Even when the law shifted to begin
to recognize certain crimes as terrorist in nature—airplane hijacking being the
prime example—sentencing remained relatively uncontroversial from a legal
perspective, since the underlying conduct being punished was violent at its
core.
In the mid-1990s, the development and passage of a special sentencing
enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual section 3A1.4, offered the
opportunity for district courts to significantly increase the penalty for certain
activity that fell into a defined category of what was termed “a federal crime of
terrorism.” Coupled with the post-9/11 trend of the government using a
relatively new offense, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the ban on providing material
support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, as its main legal tool in
the war on terrorism, sentences for such crimes increased significantly, even in
situations where there was no link to an act of violence. The application of
section 3A1.4 invites a district court to find certain facts, under the
preponderance of the evidence standard, which bring the conduct into the
category of a federal crime of terrorism, thereby triggering greatly enhanced
punishment. A review of the reported decisions involving section 3A1.4
reveals, however, that only in rare cases do courts find the enhancement to be
improperly applied. This Article argues that, as currently understood, the
application of section 3A1.4 raises serious concerns about its fidelity to the
Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1j077rJt3X3ZCPbdSOo18a
Click to expand...
That still doesn’t really challenge the definition of terrorism I provided initially, but I can now more clearly see where you’re arguing from. How is this any different from enhanced sentencing guidelines based on affiliations with known organized criminal groups? Individuals aren’t being sentenced to brand new crimes, their criminal activity is being catalogued differently and receives a harsher penalty. So I guess it’s a thought crime in that you spend an extra couple years based on your motivation? But it still requires the criminal to commit an act such as murder, assault, arson, vandalism, etc. Now I can understand the “providing funds to known terrorist organizations” as being somewhat of a thought crime, but there are a lot of federal guidelines about providing money to foreign nations hostile to the US as well, so it doesn’t bother me too much
 
jonharrison said:
That still doesn’t really challenge the definition of terrorism I provided initially, but I can now more clearly see where you’re arguing from. How is this any different from enhanced sentencing guidelines based on affiliations with known organized criminal groups? Individuals aren’t being sentenced to brand new crimes, their criminal activity is being catalogued differently and receives a harsher penalty. So I guess it’s a thought crime in that you spend an extra couple years based on your motivation? But it still requires the criminal to commit an act such as murder, assault, arson, vandalism, etc. Now I can understand the “providing funds to known terrorist organizations” as being somewhat of a thought crime, but there are a lot of federal guidelines about providing money to foreign nations hostile to the US as well, so it doesn’t bother me too much
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I can show you mission creep on this. This is just like section 213 of the Patriot Act, and the authors themselves saying they clearly wrote that section not to be interpreted as it has.

Time and again what starts off as seeming a reasonable reaction to extreme circumstances, look back 2, 5, 10 years later, and ask yourself if the intent of the original argument is still being honored, or if it has morphed into a power grab.

I think arguments for terror, have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
 
Politically motivated violence against non-state actors
 
So you're saying that you don't believe the motivation for a crime should be factored into sentencing?
 
For me, it's a physical act with intention to kill or injure numerous people with the goal of creating political, religious or sectarian turmoil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,036
Messages
55,462,879
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top