Why terrorism should not be criminalized

[sailaway21]

An interesting op-ed, published in the NYT no less, on why criminalizing terrorism threatens us all. I've long thought that it was not criminal but war-making, and here's a pretty good explanation of why the distinction may be more important than we at first might think. I'd wager that liberals and conservatives alike can get behind the ideas expressed by General Farmer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Stillraining]

Just cut his Ball's of then and drop his bleeding butt into shark infested waters 10 miles out to sea . If he makes it to shore he's free .

[CapnHand]

I have to agree with Sailaway on this one. There were many precedents in history when similar measures were called for. One example.

[retclt]

"It is time to stop pretending that the criminal justice system is a viable primary option for preventing terrorism. The Bush administration should propose and Congress should pass legislation allowing for preventive detention in future terrorism cases like that of Mr. Padilla. It is the best way to ensure both the integrity of our criminal law and the safety of our nation."

I agree.

I also agree with Stillraining.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[zz4gta]

Over time, we may well transform the law of conspiracy to the point where an agreement alone is a crime. This would render thoughts punishable, reward government overreaching and erode our civil liberties. All because the criminal law is being used not primarily to punish crimes but for purposes of detaining people we are worried about.

There's a big difference between me wanting to shoot someone, and putting together a plan and resources to do so. The above quote is quite a stretch. If I said I wanted to kill my boss, no one really cares. If I told you I bought the gun, and I'm practicing long distance covert precision shooting, you might just make a phone call to the authorities. Punishment for thought will never happen. People who plan to kill thousands of civilians are as much of a threat as those who have already done it.

However you can get a DUI for sitting in your care while its turned off if you've been drinking. Your not driving, but they say the "intent" was there. That bothers me more than the way this country handles terrorism.

[chucklesR]

So what then what would we prosecute under, conspiracy to commit murder? Gee that's a crime. Get in line and three years from now we'll pull you in and discuss it.

Conspiracy to commit violent acts that have the intent to overthrow gov or otherwise influence the gov to act as you wish ?

Isn't that at least a reasonable description of 'treason' given that in these cases the defendants were in fact US citizens?

If the perpertrators are not US citizens but are in fact operating for some other identified group or nation then (to me), that is an act of war in todays seeming definition of war (I prefer the legal, congressionally voted on version, not today's 'war' on which more later). In that case 'so sorry, they were killed while evading capture' seems to be the simplest most sure fire way, innocents being in the wrong place at the wrong time excepted (except what the heck were they doing there anyway?).

War, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, War on illiteracy, the war on (insert cause here). Crap.
We are not at war, we have not been at war since the end of World War II. War is a specfic legal term issued by gov's for gov's, much overused by media and politicians that SHOULD know better.

Does the war on poverty mean I (or the military) can go into inner city slums and rural trailer courts and start blasting away? Wouldn't that be the simplest way to erridicate poverty - kill those folks living below the poverty line, or blow up the companies that are paying folks wages that force living below the poverty line?

Can we just take a RPG to drug sellers, buyers and users - wouldn't that be the ultimate deterent?

Sorry - you can't pass the reading test, here catch this bullet to the forehead and le me fix that.

That's war folks, not throwing dollars into some cronies pocket (not that that doesn't happen in real war either).

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by zz4gta

There's a big difference between me wanting to shoot someone, and putting together a plan and resources to do so. The above quote is quite a stretch. If I said I wanted to kill my boss, no one really cares. If I told you I bought the gun, and I'm practicing long distance covert precision shooting, you might just make a phone call to the authorities. Punishment for thought will never happen. People who plan to kill thousands of civilians are as much of a threat as those who have already done it.

However you can get a DUI for sitting in your care while its turned off if you've been drinking. Your not driving, but they say the "intent" was there. That bothers me more than the way this country handles terrorism.

In order to prosecute a person for conspiring to commit a crime that was not fully carried out, the government has to prove that you not only thought about it, or talked about it, but that you took some action to carry it out. For example, you not only threatened to kill your boss, but you were found outside his home with a loaded gun, your passport, a large amount of cash, and airline tickets to Mexico.

Regarding the "DUI," you're not being prosecuted for driving while under the influence of alcohol. You're being prosecuted for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. You aren't being prosecuted because you intended to drive the car. You're being prosecuted because you intended to be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The law's rationale is that intoxicated people do not use good judgment, and they shouldn't be in control of a motor vehicle while in that condition any more than they should be in control of a firearm while intoxicated. Both firearms and motor vehicles are regarded as inherently dangerous instrumentalities, and their mere possession and control can be reasonably regulated.

[PBzeer]

Don't forget, if you crimminalize it, then it becomes a police, not military, matter. It's basically a backdoor attempt to handcuff the use of the military.