On the one hand I support abortion. I don't feel the need to bracket that support with caveats and hypotheticals. I don't believe that it is a searing moral dilemma "for every woman." I don't have moral qualms with the so-called use of abortion as a method of birth control. It is a method of birth control.
On the other hand, I find the predominantly liberal advocates for abortion rights to be almost utterly unbearable. Consider this mewling appeal to Obama as Pontifex Maximus and politico-cultural plenipotentiary of the universe, Augustus of the East and West, Commander-in-Chief, dieu-donné, most blessed among men. The tone is at once hectoring and ingratiating, and worse yet:
This was a terrorist act, one in an ongoing campaign against Dr. Tiller, who was one target among many in a bigger campaign against women and the people who provide abortion services and safe havens for them—but no one in our government will call it terrorism. There are, in fact, a lot of things that don't get called terrorism in this country, but few of them approach the breadth of the long-term, flagrant campaign of intimidation, harassment, exhorted violence, attempted violence, actual violence, and murder of abortion providers and abortion-seeking women.A terrorist act? A terrorist campaign? They were threatening castration! Are we gonna split hairs?
Still, our government is unwilling to call this orchestrated, overt, unapologetic campaign against women and their healthcare providers terrorism, even as increasing numbers of doctors say offering the legal service to their patients is not worth the risk—the very definition of effective terrorism. Even as physician champions of women's right to choose are murdered in cold blood. Even as "pro-life" groups openly celebrate his death and take the position that he deserved it. Mr. President, in the history of my blog, I've gotten death threats right in my comments threads by people who know that the government will not take them seriously, people who have left links to pictures of dead fetuses and pictures of Dr. George Tiller pictured in a sniper's crosshairs. I am scared for whoever will be next, if the government continues to fail to take this terrorist campaign seriously
The putative left, we see, is just as eager as the nominal right to brand crime and violence with any hint of political motivation as terrorism, and therefore to remove it from the ordinary processes of criminal law and sanction, which are already quite draconian in these United States, and to animate parallel systems of harsher surveillance and punishment for the political compeers of such criminals. Thus Dr. Tiller's murderer is not simply a murderer, but the beachhead of a hostile force. Outlaw them! Spy on them! Watch their websites! Shut down the hate! Perhaps the more virulent believers should be preemptively detained, lest they act on their degenerate and violent beliefs.
It is very sad that Dr. Tiller was killed, and one hopes that some measure of justice is delivered to his accused killer, who is already in custody. But perhaps we should pause before demanding the creation and implementation of the future crime division.
133 comments:
if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. this kind of policy only affects would-be terrorists.
you're not a terrorist are you? otherwise why would this even concern you?
ain't abortion beautiful?
looking back 15 years ago to the last one i participated (passively) in, i realize how much more my life would suck had it not been for easy and cheap abortions!
Slow down a sec, IOZ. The acts in question meet any definition of "terrorism" you're likely to dig up: it's violence against civilian targets intended to produce fear in a population so as to achieve specific political ends. Am I missing something vital here?
That being said, I certainly don't support the idea that "terrorism" is a magical word that can be invoked to nullify the laws governing criminal procedure, human rights, civil liberties, etc. I'm also pretty skeptical of the much less sweeping claim that "terrorism" should allow crimes to be reclassified, or even that it should be a significant aggravating factor in sentencing. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder; I'm not convinced that "premeditated murder in furtherance of terrorism" should be punished any more severely or should be given different procedural treatment.
The act in question was a murder. I hardly see that I am the one racing ahead.
cunts.
Then let me reframe my objection: your post is off the mark insofar as the German nihilists who broke into The Dude's apartment were not, in fact, "Nazis", and it is therefore unfair of Walter to accuse Donny of "splitting hairs" when he questions this classification, whereas in the present case the group in question is in fact participating in an extended political campaign aimed at terrorizing those seeking and providing abortions by perpetrating violence against Dr. Tiller and those like him, to whit, shooting him in both arms and later coming back to finish the job, thereby bringing their actions within almost any commonly-accepted definition of "terrorism".
shut the fuck up Donny.
Of course, I agree with the rest of your post; when one applies the common definition of "terrorism" to various groups in American history (the KKK, etc), one realizes that the US has been dealing with "terrorism" for quite some time without (official) resort to secret prisons or torture, and that the country still seems to be standing.
Speaking more slowly, then: "terrorism" is a meaningless category, and empty signifier as our friend Jeffy might put it.
What's the matter with you, IOZ? The Hope for Change that God-Emperor Obama has graced us with is constantly under attack by rightwing rethugugpugthuglican terrorists Christian Talibano-Fundamentalists and Ralph Nader! Get with the zeitgeist, baby!
Murder, even for political or religious reasons, is not terrorism. It's murder. Since there are less than 1000 docs in the nation doing late term abortions, and the whole idea of terrorism is to hit masses of people, well, shitfuck, how does this qualify?
Most of what we see as terrorism in the US is mild aggravation. The original world trade center attack was an act of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism. The anthrax attacks were acts of terrorism.
Did the gang at the old Stonewall shudder and look over their shoulders when Matthew Shepard was killed? I doubt it, although it would have been with more reason. The guy is practicing a controversial method of birth control -- tend to agree with IOZ there -- in Wichita, Kansas. Not exactly Sodom and Gomorrah country. I admire people who take chances to do what's right; however, I listened to some of his pontifications yesterday, and I didn't hear a "dimes bit of difference" between his logic and rhetoric and that of the ultra-prolife.
then: "terrorism" is a meaningless category, and empty signifier as our friend Jeffy might put it
..tell that to the folks that work at the clinic where Tiller worked.
.. as Pontifex Maximus and politico-cultural plenipotentiary of the universe, Augustus of the East and West, Commander-in-Chief, dieu-donné, most blessed among men...
LOL !!
More entertaining sycophants, please.
Appreciate the cautionless slaying of the keepers of the violins, as always, but pace Norwood, an actual instance of terrorism strikes me as an inartful, unhelpful, and generally odd occassion on which to frame arguments on the inutility of the term terrorism.
...an actual instance of terrorism strikes me as an inartful, unhelpful, and generally odd occassion on which to frame arguments on the inutility of the term terrorism.Yeah, I guess. On the other hand, there's terrorism and then there's terrorism, ya know?
Also, why the hell is it that using html is fucking up line breaks all of a sudden?
Not to worry IOZ. Roeder has been charged with First Degree Murder and two counts of threatening with a weapon. I believe the last refers to his threatening two men who tried to stop him inside the church.
I don't subscibe to the useless bromides of the Shakespear's Sister set either. Nor in fact any of the Dem party tied in BlogSnotosphere. Nor many of the so called womens orgs... who long ago sold out to the Dem party. they huff they puff, they move on to the next money raising scam.
There are exceptions.
However, right wing religion and pro life has been given wide access across media to float their innocence. In fact, to chat up their "non involvment" with what happened. Despite OR telephone number being in the Roeder car when he was arrested. Despite his association with a religious newsletter that openly calls for justified killings of abortion doctors.
I jsut heard a ''reporter'' from Religious News Service appearing as the only reporter covering the killing on The News Hour on PBS.
Most of Liberal online snotland is using the killing to go after O'Reilly. I think they resent his veiwership numbers.
Access to safe and legal abortion will continue to decline. Which is the objective.
And Benny and Gansie just love Obama. Thru Observatore Romana they signaled their approval of his denial of the Free Choice Act. Which would roll back the heinous state laws, as they rack up across the nation and limit access....
Things are working out. For the right wing. Ably assisted by the Dem party aligned BlogSnotosphere.
Andrew Sullivan of all people will be on Olbermann and Cooper tonight to comment. Yes... how very appropriate. And he knows so much about it. Like other Dem party and ''fellow traveller'' blogs, he has ridden the killing for two days.
Let's just hope that the assassination today of an Arkansas military recruiter by homegrown hate-America Muslim convert Abdul Hakim Muhammad is aggrandized and minimized by the usual suspects in exactly the same proportions as the assassination of Dr. Tiller.
So far Obama, anyway, has yet to intone publicly about "heinous" beliefs-violence interfaces on behalf of the dead soldier, as he did with the dead abortionist.
Since when does terrorism equate mass killing, Crusader? Assassination falls easily within the definition, unless you believe the word signifies nothing at all.
Gosh, I sure hope and pray to Republican Jesus that Carlos Bledsoe's 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear assault rifles as stated in the Bill of Rights is respected by the Islamo-Facist Obama Administration. God praise and keep our dear soldiers and contractors and help them in their holy mission to civilize the heathen Arabs!
Under the only definition of "terrorism" that makes any consistent and coherent sense to me, "the use of aggressive violence in pursuit of political goals" (I make some allowances for defensive violence, not that there wouldn't be many arguments about that), than the murder of Tiller is most certainly terrorism, but the problem with that is that the coherent, consistent definition would also mean that much of what Obama and other state managers do on a daily basis is also terrorism.
I suppose one could attempt to redefine it as "violence by non-state actors," but that rather detracts from the rhetoric vilifying Iran, doesn't it? Not to mention, Hamas and Hezbollah, who are also, at this point, "state actors," however compromised those states might be.
"the whole idea of terrorism is to hit masses of people"
Uh, no. The whole point of terrorism is to use violence and the threat of violence to coerce concessions from one's political opponents - in this case, the goal is to intimidate doctors out of performing abortions by demonstrating that those who do may be targeted and killed. Terrorism isn't defined by scale.
I don't think terrorism deserves to be treated as some extraordinary legal case, separate from murder, arson, etc., and I don't think any special state apparatus needs to be constructed in order to deal with it. But that hardly makes "terrorism" a meaningless term, any more than "serial killer" is a meaningless term, despite the fact that we prosecute serial killers for murder, and not for the special crime of serial killing.
"much of what Obama and other state managers do on a daily basis is also terrorism"
And this is absolutely the case. Governments have always been the foremost practitioners of terrorism - back in World War II, the practice of mass-bombing civilian targets was rather frankly described, by those who designed and implemented the policy, as "terror-bombing." Over time our elected officials have just become a bit more squeamish about so openly embracing mass-murder. But there's no meaningful distinction between the logic behind the 9/11 attacks and the logic that justified the bombing of Hiroshima - or, for that matter, the logic that justifies the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Speaking more slowly, then: 'terrorism' is a meaningless category, and empty signifier as our friend Jeffy might put it."
A few questions...
Have you ever heard of the concept of "implied threat"?
Do you believe that making credible death threats should be a crime in and of itself?
I don't see any connection to Vietnam, IOZ.
i note that Christopher M is an excellent commenter. always inciteful, intelligent, on-point, even if at times didactic. ever worth reading.
he is, of course, spouting the rhetoric of radical totalitarian leftist nihilism, bent on the destruction of American traditionalism and exceptionalism.
why do you hate america so much, Christopher M?
The fact that Dr. Tiller was murdered inside a church, performing his voluntary Sunday service, makes this a hate-crime, hence a willful act of terroism.
Prof. Obvious
♫ there ain't no good guys ♫
♫ there ain't no bad guys ♫
♫ there's only you and me and we just disagreeeeeeee ♫
♫ Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa ♫
i doubt the progressive clamor over whether the government announces that this particular crime was officially terrorism is really an attempt to bring the force and power of the GWOT to bear here at home on their political opponents.
i'm guessing they just want the wry, ironic rhetorical victory they can post on their blargs.
I've got to second almost everything Christopher M. says as well.
Much as I enjoy learning what "the whole point" of terrorism is, the "definition" of terrorism, I'll just, you know, reiterate that terrorism is a label applied arbitrarily by governments and their supporters to actual and perceived enemies, usually those against whom they wish to pursue extreme and extralegal surveillance and sanction. It has no intrinsic meaning.
"terror" is an extremely handy concept to have when you have enemies. congrats to shakespeare's sister and co. for discovering this political truth.
Yes, but putting aside the term for a moment, do you believe that it's possible to use violence as a means of intimidating people other than the actual direct victim? And if so, do you think there's anything wrong with doing that?
Dunc - when did you stop beating your wife?
The use of violence, except perhaps in immediate self-defense, is wrong. The divination of philosophical, political motivations behind that violence in order to declare it uniquely dangerous and subject to harsher penalties and, moreover, to focus so-called preemptive sanctions on those believed to share such philosophical and political convictions is also wrong.
IOZ, can you give us some examples of words that do have "instrinsic" meaning? "Dialectic"? "Toothbrush"? "Frijoles"? Really, I feel like you're being obnoxious about this.
I'm sure we can all agree that "terrorism" is a category that's plenty fuzzy around the edges (like most words), but is organized (like most words) around an archetype exhibiting a list of specific characteristics. Those are: 1. violence, 2. carried out in order to make people afraid, 3. to achieve political goals. That covers a lot of ground, of course, so we aim closer to the core of the concept and maybe get 4. targeting non-military and non-state victims, and 5. executed by an organized but non-state paramilitary group. Hell, we could get even closer to the core concept if we included 6. involving blowing things up and/or taking hostages, and 7. carried out by swarthy people, preferably from the Middle East. But let's stick with 1-5 for now.
That includes the KKK, Irgun, Hamas, the Oklahoma City bombers, and so on. It may exclude the present example, as it's not clear that this murder was carried out by an organized paramilitary group. It excludes state violence, including Iran. It excludes most apolitical "organized crime" (how do you feel about that term?). It excludes most racial/religious/homophobic/etc hate crimes, as they're generally not carried out by organized paramilitary groups, nor are they usually calculated to achieve political ends.
To me, that's a pretty decent definition of a word that people use and understand. If certain actors have recently tried to actively expand its meaning or misapply it, that's unexceptional: that's what people do with language.
Do I think it's a useful category? Not particularly. It has come to be very closely associated in the 20th century with, first, Israeli violence against the British, and later Arab violence against Israel and various other occupying forces. But consider the word "lynch", which is closely associated with a specific group in a specific place and time (and would seem odd applied to a hanging too far outside of that context): I still think that "lynch" is a useful word.
I'm not even married.
"The divination of ... motivations behind that violence ... is also wrong."
Do you distinguish between murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, etc? Have I gone an ellipsis to far? Can we at least agree that not all homicides are equal, and that the intent of the perpetrator is an important factor?
Let me put it this way... Suppose I was to murder a gay man, and then string his mutilated corpse up in public with a sign reading "All you other faggots, this is what's coming to you!" - would that constitute a credible threat of violence against gay people in general, in your view? Do you believe that making threats of violence is in itself a form of violence, and therefore also wrong?
I'm not playing gotcha here, I'm just trying to figure out if it's the term or the principle you object to.
I'm also confused by what's underlying your disgust here, IOZ.
Let's you and I agree that the word "terrorism" is never used but to further the nefarious ends of the state. The US has been using this word to justify their bullshit for a long time, and they almost always apply it to, say, Arabs who are living on top of some oil they want. So what's the best response when someone inside their voting bloc commits an act that falls squarely within the definition of "terrorism" they're been using to justify imperialism? Should we keep our mouths shut? Or should we hoot and holler about how "terrorism" needs to be applied impartially, meaning that Billy Bob needs to get sent to a CIA black site for waterboarding?
I think that the latter approach is much more likely to get people questioning the wisdom of anti-"terrorism" laws, as they deal with the cognitive dissonance of what they always thought of as anti-Ay-rab laws being used against their friends and neighbors.
John J.
Congratulations on a powerful and amusing ad hominem tap dance around the proffered comparison/contrast. It may not actually have occurred to you, I suppose, that Army of Life fanatics like Roeder howl "Abortionist Murderers!" like Conservitards spew your "Arabs!", above, the way even home-grown Muslims like Bledsoe-Muhammad and and Senator Murtha cry "Murdering American Soldiers!".
We all have our favorites. Obama quickly deplored one sort, and ignored another. Is training and peer influence the kicker for you, do you think? Curb appeal? Cocktail-party cache?
" The whole point of terrorism is to use violence and the threat of violence to coerce concessions from one's political opponents - in this case, the goal is to intimidate doctors out of performing abortions by demonstrating that those who do may be targeted and killed. Terrorism isn't defined by scale."
I was like, accosted by a silver SUV with an Obama sticker the other day. I soooo wanted to blow that shit up.
whenever someone yells out at me when I'm out riding, "faggot!" I retort: "why, do you want to lick my asshole? come back here!"
and just the other day I laughed heartily out loud at some assclown that had wrapped his car around a very large tree.
we're all fuggin terrorists, you morans.
IOZ: Amen to that. Shit, you’re making me feel guilty about all the snide things I said in response to your Sigmund Fraud post.
Murder is murder. That's enough. We needn't launch any political crusades based on this.
Unless Oswald, the CIA, the FBI, the gov. of Cuba, Freemasons, the BSA, GSA, and Cincinnati Bengals were in on the conspiracy. And I really doubt they were. Well, all except the Bengals. Those bastards most likely played a part.
Dunc: the distinction between the "term" and the "principle" is just a debating game. The term is the principle. I would say that as a matter of principle I do not believe that the term, terrorism, constitutes a meaningful category, and if you have trouble with that, I'd suggest you read Mr. Norwood's lexical perambulation above, which proves the proposition by failed counterexample.
Your example of a "hate crime," as it would more likely be called in the presently popular terminology, strikes me as about as useful as the ticking time bomb in the torture debate, but for the sake of argument, you would have to demonstrate that the perpetrator of that crime was indeed planning future acts of violence to make it a "credible" threat, to use your words. If yes, then there are existing legal structures to deal with the planning and commission of a crime. If no, then no, I do not believe that expressions of hatred, political ideology, etc. should be used to intensify punishment or reclassify offenses, less yet that they should be used to justify actions against others believed or perceived to share such political, ideological, etc. commitments.
Hell, the King David Hotel? That was just vandalism.
The criminal justice skeptic in me gets IOZ's point in fullness. The political scientist in me is like, "Yeah, sure, but it's also this and this and..."
No to the gulag, yes to questions of motive and intent, even as I'm also skeptical of our abilities to establish them.
Hell, all war is is a bunch of murders, IOZ, too, when you rob them of all the ritual and linguistic baggage. All the words we're using here are just squiggles meant to represent sounds which stand for ideas, when you get down to it. Who cares about any patterns they fit in? English is a social reality, and Tiller's murder might as well have been a car accident.
OK, but there's still one component missing, which I think is implied but I'd like to have clear: do you agree that making credible threats of future violence is a criminal act? (I think the answer is "yes", as implied by "there are existing legal structures to deal with the planning and commission of a crime". In which case all we're arguing about is what it's called.)
"Your example of a 'hate crime,' as it would more likely be called in the presently popular terminology, strikes me as about as useful as the ticking time bomb in the torture debate"
Funny, because it was originally a black man, and the word "faggots" was originally "niggers". Of course, nothing even remotely like that ever actually happened outside the movies. Sure.
we're all fuggin terrorists, you morans.No, we are Freedom Fighters! They are Terrorists!
It is pretty funny if you torch an SUV or spike a tree, you are clearly a terrorist, if you kill a doctor who performs abortions, you are just an isolated crazy.
You're being deliberately obtuse, Dunc. Which is fine as far as it goes. I think that the KKK lynching blacks and actually planning to lynch blacks is criminal and sanctionable. I think that the KKK marching in Skokie, even if you think it represents the "threat of violence," is protected speech.
I think that an enterprise or plot to kidnap and murder multiple homosexuals is a credible threat of violence, but I think a killer who carves "all faggots must die" into the chest of his victim is still a one-time murderer unless you can credibly demonstrate that his threat represents a plan.
I think that a radically anti-abortion man who kills a clinic doctor is a murderer. That he was acting in part based on political convictions neither mitigates nor exacerbates that crime in my opinion.
There are more important things to worry about, IOZ.
IOZ, I love you. But you're wrong on this one. Terrorism is a very useful conceptual category. I find it hard to understand much of history without it, at least if we allow state actions to be terrorism. (And I do.)
But putting aside the state as terrorist, let us take the example of private terrorism before us. How do you characterize the history of lynching in the United States? Do you have some other word than "terrorism" to describe it? If so, what word do you prefer? (Is this just a semantic quibble over word-choice?) If not, do you believe there was no intention on the part of mob members to intimidate blacks? Do you believe that no blacks were intimidated by lynchings?
It is one thing to say that intent should have no use in the law. (Although you are wrong there, too, strict consequentialism is at least defensible.) It is another thing to say the term isn't meaningful.
As the post began with a Lewboski reference, so it shall end...
That's just fucking brillian if I understand your point, IOZ. That a fuckin swiss watch.
Leonard,
The term I use for lynching is lynching. You, like many other commenters in this thread, are making a conceptual error in presuming that terrorism is a description of a discrete and definable set of acts, rather than an appellation reserved for political opponents, sometimes those who engage in violence, sometimes not.
I would also point out that although it is true that violence, including some organized violence, has grown out of the organized anti-abortion movement, comparing these to the history of anti-black violence in the United States is tendentious, tawdry, and highly disingenuous. Aside from the plain disparity in the number of people affected directly by such violence, let's not forget that abortion is legal, and their murderers go to jail, which is a far cry from the impunity of southern lynchers and the legality of Jim Crow, etc.
"do you believe that it's possible to use violence as a means of intimidating people other than the actual direct victim?"
sure. however, i'm not sure it makes great legal sense to predicate the seriousness of a crime based on how easily frightened the community is. it's got some of the same issues that obscenity charges do.
as an aside, i was kind of shocked to see how many reported hate crime incidents in cases involving white victims there are.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_32
(the lack of anti-atheist violence is probably only surprising if you're richard dawkins)
"I think that a radically anti-abortion man who kills a clinic doctor is a murderer. That he was acting in part based on political convictions neither mitigates nor exacerbates that crime in my opinion."
Agreed. And that Roeder deserves the death penalty if he's convicted of the crime. Just the same as any other murderer who acts with premeditation. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
let's not forget that abortion is legal, and their murderers go to jail, which is a far cry from the impunity of southern lynchers and the legality of Jim Crow, etc.I read that Tiller was one of only three (now two) doctors in the U.S. who perform very late-term abortions. Why do you think this is? The free market? Late-term abortion just not as fashionable with the medical set as breast augmentation?
I think it's because lots of doctors are terrified of doing what Tiller does, because they're worried they'll end up like Tiller did.
So sure, abortion is legal. And Tiller's murder goes to jail. But there's also pretty clearly a long-term plan on the part of abortion opponents to ensure that while women may still have a right to an abortion on paper, they won't be able to find an actual doctor to perform the procedure. That plan is working, and part of it involves terrorism.
You... are making a conceptual error in presuming that terrorism is a description of a discrete and definable set of acts, rather than an appellation reserved for political opponents, sometimes those who engage in violence, sometimes not.I do not so presume. You are making a conceptual error in presuming my presumption.
More seriously, you err in positing a unnecessary disjunction. Terrorism is a description of a set of acts, and it is also a propaganda term of art. The two meanings do overlap some, but are by no means coincident.
He'll use words like war and genocide, but not terrorism? Are those always discrete and discernible, especially in this era of wars hidden behind other wars? I'll admit, terrorism is a loaded fucking word and you have to be very careful how you use it, but it seems odd to take a stand against vocabulary for the sake of this one word.
Of course, at least he's not using the word "democide." Which, along with seriously using the term "Islamofascism," is one of the surest ways to lose my respect completely.
"I think it's because lots of doctors are terrified of doing what Tiller does, because they're worried they'll end up like Tiller did."
it's also difficult emotionally and somewhat rare as far as procedures go. it's not solely because of death threats, or else there wouldn't be anyone performing abortions anywhere.
"I think it's because lots of doctors are terrified of doing what Tiller does, because they're worried they'll end up like Tiller did."
--steveb
conjecture and hysteria is fun, but it does not make a valid point. you are losing your bearing on your dream of progressive scientific governance. according to the always reliable wikipedia, late term abortions are considered those conducted after 20 weeks of gestation. these constituted around 1.4% of all abortions in the United States. There are bans of some kind in a majority of states. so, we have generally low demand, prohibition (which obviously contributes to some extent to the low demand), and much as you would prefer not to acknowledge this - moral issues.
but obviously the only thing at play here is the devious plan on the part of a fringe group to destroy people they oppose. right...
this whole debate is ridiculous. i love the constant role reversal when things don't go your partisan ways. now after the sacrosanct abortion provider has been murdered...its obviously terrorism for the pwogs and obviously just a crime for the neo-cons. we switch the fringe radical group to be some nutter muslims, and its obviously terrorism for the neo-cons and obviously just a crime problem for pwogs. the other great one recently was the 2nd amendment and its incorporation to the states. out the window goes states's rights for the right and states' rights become popular for the pwog. god bless the idiocy that prevails. it is quite entertaining when it does not involve direct confrontation with some sanctimonious blow-hard who can't see his own ass is own fire.
as ioz and the sycophants have been saying - everything related to politics and policy is terrorism if you want it to be.
Every woman has right to dream of having a baby. Tubal reversal allows a woman the ability to conceive naturally without any harm. Although tubal ligation is considered a permanent method of birth control, but at some later stage you think that you have done something wrong and you should not have done tubal ligation. But don’t worry; in approximately 90% of cases the procedure can be reversed.
"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."
And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."
But that's not terrorism, right?
the way even home-grown Muslims like Bledsoe-Muhammad and and Senator Murtha cry "Murdering American Soldiers!".
Um, Rep. Murtha isn't a senator. And served as a Marine, so I don't think he hates the military just because he points out that some of its members murdered people. Even under the definition of murder that doesn't include military action by default. Hey, it turns out that "murder" can be an ambiguous term, too. Let's stop using it.
And that Roeder deserves the death penalty if he's convicted of the crime. Just the same as any other murderer who acts with premeditation. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Well, I oppose the death penalty, but it's on the books in Kansas, so you have a point. Or you would, if Kansas prosecutors hadn't already verbally taken the death penalty off the table in this case.
Meanwhile, the black Islamist leftist antiwar shooter in Little Rock is facing a first degree murder charge and fifteen counts of "engaging in a terrorist act." So, you know, different strokes for different folks.
SteveB, "Terrorizing," is a legal term. (definition may vary based upon your jurisdiction.) here
A person is guilty of terrorizing if that person communicates to any person a threat to commit or to cause to be committed a crime of violence dangerous to human life, against the person to whom the communication is made or another, and the natural and probable consequence of such a threat, whether or not such consequence in fact occurs is: to place the person to whom the threat is communicated or the person threatened in reasonable fear that a crime will be committed; or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transport or to cause the occupants of a building to be moved to or required to remain in a designated secure area. Title 17-A, 210, 1. Terrorizing is usually a Class C or D crime.
the propaganda term of art, "terrorism," is meaningless, in that, unless the speaker carefully defines their terms, nobody really knows what the fuck they're talking about.
mds---
Sure, "murder" is an "ambiguous" terms to mugs like us, but it's a good bit more than "homicide", and I think you'll find every state has carefully codified definitions and caselaw explicating said definitions. Luckily, our even-handed Prez is a top-end practitioner (Harvard Law!), and was able to cut the ambiguity cord and quickly denominate Tiller's killing a "heinous murder" the same day (highest culpability criminal homicide), while three days after it happened, Pvt. Long's killing was a "senseless act of violence" (maybe not even a crime?). Only the Tiller case required an explicit warning from atop the Dangerous Beliefs soapbox.
Maybe after his personal review of the briefs, Obama thinks the Long case might actually be a manslaughter, or diminished capacity/partial responsibility, Because of Slavery and U.S. Foreign Policy; maybe even heartfelt if misguided self-defense or defense of another (not like that Roeder creep!). Perhaps Obama wants the media plus potential jurors in both jurisdictions to know what the Prez sez is Murder Most Foul On Arrival and what's a Tragic Event Facts Still Coming In. Like you said, different strokes for different victims....
the propaganda term of art, "terrorism," is meaningless, in that, unless the speaker carefully defines their terms, nobody really knows what the fuck they're talking about.
Sure, I get the point that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It would be hard not to get this point, because it's basically the only point IOZ and his followers have, and they keep repeating it.
But don't you think it's kind of a jump to go from from that to "terrorism is a meaningless term?"
Can't we think of a few other terms that are misused for propaganda purposes, like "freedom" and "democracy"? Are those terms also rendered meaningless by misuse?
Or how about the word "socialism"? Stalin used it, falsely, to describe a system of tyranny, and right-wingers today use it, falsely, to describe Obama's economic policy. So I guess we might as well banish "socialism" from our vocabulary? I mean, unless the speaker carefully defines their terms, nobody really knows what the fuck they're talking about, right?
Yes, the world is full of dishonest political hacks who abuse the language. Do you really want to hand them the power to remove certain terms from circulation? I can't wait to see what sort of double-plus-ungood political vocabulary that's going to leave us with.
"Terrorism" has been overused and misused; one cannot meaningfully argue anything to the contrary.
"Terror", however, actually still means something, although it's not the sort of generalized worry and dis-ease people feel as a result of actions such as Roeder's.
I took a class called "Terrorism" in college, a long time ago, before it was fashionable. I think the professor was from Albania. I don't remember much about it other than it was cool to say I was headed off to my terrorism class, being a sorority girl and all.
"So I guess we might as well banish "socialism" from our vocabulary? I mean, unless the speaker carefully defines their terms, nobody really knows what the fuck they're talking about, right?"
actually, yeah. unless i mean it very specifically, "socialism" is just a word to fight over, the usual sports bar diplomacy between donkeys and elephants and all the assholes who think if they yell at the tv enough barack will make the plays to carry the day.
You, like many other commenters in this thread, are making a conceptual error in presuming that terrorism is a description of a discrete and definable set of acts, rather than an appellation reserved for political opponents, sometimes those who engage in violence, sometimes not.
IOZ, despite your obvious wit and apparent intelligence, and a fairly faithful group of regular readers, it seems you will need to do more to convince people of the truth of this principle, which frustratingly is QUITE obvious to me.
Why people continue to argue this point ... it escapes me. There is no such thing as "terrorism" outside the use of that word to denigrate a political opponent.
-micah pyre
and SteveB continues to utter pure bullshit with a pompous tone, I see.
that's so very precious.
-micah pyre
Like you said, different strokes for different victims....
Oh, boo hoo hoo. Poor widdle Scotty Roeder is going to have such a hard time of it. Never mind the charges of murder and aggravated assault, with the maximum penalty pre-emptively taken off the table. The president used such harsh language. Meanwhile, AMM is looking at murder and fifteen separate counts of "engaging in a terrorist act," which exists in the criminal code despite the complete non-existence of one of the words. I'm sure he can rest easier tonight, knowing that most of what he's being charged with doesn't exist, and that the president used different words to describe his crime. And that he'll get to face a jury as a black Muslim who killed a soldier. Never mind what Roeder would think, I envy this guy.
Of course, the terrorism charges make more sense in the latter case, because this shooting will have a chilling effect on would-be recruits nationwide, let alone the quivering fear it's no doubt struck into the goddamn US military.
although it's not the sort of generalized worry and dis-ease people feel as a result of actions such as Roeder's.
Oh, fuck you.
You hear that, folks? It's frustratingly obvious to Micah here, so I guess we just don't get it. Duh, everyone knows that terrorism, unlike freedom, genocide, rights, and love, is a completely subjective construct and if you say it, it means you're a stupid cow convinced of the big lies.
Moo!
Uh, Ioz, I agree with the dissenters here: This is terrorism because one particular group(operation rescue) was influential and possibly encouraged this murder. However, I understand your view considering the racism towards U.S. Muslims after 9/11.
Uh, Ioz, I agree with the dissenters here: This is terrorism because one particular group(operation rescue) was influential and possibly encouraged this murder. However, I understand your view considering the racism towards U.S. Muslims after 9/11.
Hello, Admin! You are the best!!! Congratulations. Best regards from regular visitor of your site.
brides russian
http://mipagina.univision.com/russianbride/blog/2009/12/24/russian_bride - russian bride g string pics
mail order russian bride
http://mipagina.univision.com/lindadating/blog/2009/12/19/dating_online - artists dating site
russian brides in thongs
singles dating sites
dating sites in europe
http://forum.sproutit.com/users/3120/ - russian brides moscow
http://blackamericans.com/members/neentizidonee.aspx - mail order bride russian
http://www.primegrid.com/view_profile.php?userid=52748 - latin dating sites
bride russian
new dating site
russian websites girls
well, if you're disabled u have it pretty tough in the dating game but there are specialist dating sites for disabled people
---------------
filipino girls
Hello,
I just registered and wanted to pop in and introduce myself to the
. Let me just say that it is a wonderful forum that you have here.
Here are some other web sites and blogs that might be of interest to you.
[url=http://skintoday.info]skintoday.info[/url] - skintoday.info
[url=http://skintoday.info]skincareblog.info[/url] - skincareblog.info
[url=http://skintoday.info]skinsmart.info[/url] - skinsmart.info
[url=http://skintoday.info]skincareshop.info[/url] - skincareshop.info
skin care products and tips and tricks
Hi, firstly I’d like to say your site is great and very impressive. I would like to ask how can you create that!
free russian bride
naughty russian brides
dating chat site
pretty russian girls willing
totaly free dating site
http://www.2020people.com/node/9177 - russian girls marriage
http://community.videospin.com/members/preersLow.aspx - dating sites with chatroom
http://www.2020people.com/node/9179 - lesbian dating sites
http://flatheadronpaul.com/node/17376 - bluesapphire russian girls
http://www.2020people.com/node/9178 - hot russian bride
If you are open to having a guest blog poster please reply and let me know. I will provide you with unique content for your blog, thanks.
generic xanax buy xanax visa - cost of generic xanax
buy tramadol online buy tramadol online overnight mastercard - can you buy tramadol online in usa
xanax online xanax side effects to fetus - 2mg xanax vs 2mg klonopin
buy xanax online cod xanax (generic) 2 mg pills - cheap xanax pills
buy xanax online no prescription cheap xanax and alcohol problems - xanax xr overdose symptoms
xanax pill cheap generic xanax no prescription - xanax dosage dental
xanax online xanax side effects pregnant - xanax dosage 1.5 mg
buy tramadol cod tramadol dosage renal failure - tramadol hcl liver
buy cheap xanax xanax bars gg 2 4 9 - what does 2mg xanax feel like
buy carisoprodol carisoprodol overdose much - what is soma carisoprodol tablets
buy carisoprodol carisoprodol and xanax - carisoprodol aspirin
tramadol 50mg tramadol 50 mg white pill - order tramadol online tennessee
discount xanax xanax lower blood pressure - kind drug xanax
carisoprodol 350 mg carisoprodol drug type - carisoprodol drug category
buy tramadol online tramadol hcl user reviews - safe place order tramadol online
buy tramadol online buy tramadol online overnight fedex - tramadol online bluebook
buy tramadol online tramadol for dogs kidney failure - tramadol addiction time
xanax online xanax mg get high - xanax side effects in children
buy cialis online buy cheap cialis link online - cialis daily generic
buy cialis online cialis professional user reviews - cialis online
buy cialis online generic cialis 20 - cialis daily for bph
cialis online how to buy cialis online in australia - cialis online australia
xanax online buy xanax uk online - alprazolam 0.5mg effects
buy cialis online where to buy cialis online no prescription - cialis 5 mg online kaufen
cialis online safest place buy cialis online - generic cialis online
xanax online xanax generic effective - xanax drug
buy tramadol online cope tramadol addiction - buy tramadol online cod overnight
buy tramadol best place order tramadol online - tramadol 100mg injection
http://landvoicelearning.com/#97734 zydol 50 mg tramadol hydrochloride - tramadol online sales
http://landvoicelearning.com/#21906 buy tramadol with mastercard - ultram side effects withdrawal
order tramadol overnight dose of tramadol - tramadol while breastfeeding
cheap tramadol no prescription tramadol no prescription overseas - tramadol 50 mg abuse
buy tramadol online cod overnight tramadol addiction long term use - tramadol dosage buzz
buy tramadol tramadol for dogs for sale - tramadol hydrochloride 50mg high
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#96430 tramadol overdose long - tramadol 50 mg 319
http://landvoicelearning.com/#63987 tramadol 100mg/1ml - buy tramadol in usa
order tramadol online without prescription effects of tramadol overdose - tramadol 50mg no prescription
buy tramadol tramadol kidney disease - tramadol kali 083 dosage
buy tramadol tramadol 50 mg duration - tramadol online cod overnight
buy tramadol online tramadol dosage vicodin - can buy tramadol online usa
buy tramadol tablets tramadol addiction ppt - buy-tramadol-online
buy tramadol online ultram tramadol hydrochloride 50mg - tramadol online american express
order ativan online ativan or xanax - is ativan generic for xanax
buy ativan online generic lorazepam 1mg - ativan dosage equal to xanax
buy ativan online lorazepam 1mg tablets nhs - ativan online no prescription
buy tramadol legal order tramadol online - what's maximum dosage tramadol
buy xanax online xanax dosage white pill - vyvanse drug interactions xanax
order tramadol online tramadol for dogs dose - how is tramadol addiction treated
buy xanax online buy xanax online us pharmacy - xanax 039
http://ranchodelastortugas.com/#37284 how can i buy xanax legally online - xanax dosage overdose
buy tramadol online mister wong tramadol 100mg - buy tramadol online usa
buy xanax online xanax side effects uti - xanax 2mg images
buy xanax online clonazepam vs xanax drug test - can xanax overdose be fatal
google law firm
google law firm
Post a Comment