terrorism

[Chas]

Stupid statement is stupid.

These soldiers were murdered.

And it is a soldier's duty to risk his life in service to his country.

Simple statement is simple.

All dead soldiers are murdered, or die in accidents, or die to old age. In all regards: they die... and duty demands they die for their country. They are bound to this duty until the state, or the self, decrees that they are no longer soldiers.

Soldiers are not duty-bound to 'risk' anything... only to obey. It is their moral responsibility (a different type of duty), to die in the stead of those they would protect. A dead soldier has fulfilled this duty. A soldier that is not yet dead, has yet to fulfill this duty. But die they will... for die they must. They will die in service... or they will not be soldiers when they die.

Nope, still stupid. Soldiers are not murdered in battle. Those soldiers were not in battle, they were murdered by assholes.

Your statement that soldiers are duty-bound to die for their country shows a gross misunderstanding of duty.

[Violet]

Nope, still stupid. Soldiers are not murdered in battle. Those soldiers were not in battle, they were murdered by assholes.

What difference makes it if a man is shot until he is dead in a battlefield, or in a bar, or in a car?

The man is dead, all the same. The man was killed... all the same.

Your statement that soldiers are duty-bound to die for their country shows a gross misunderstanding of duty.

Or perhaps it shows a deeper understanding of duty than you recognize. Duty without recognition is, after all, very hard to follow. As it is up to every soldier to swear service to their state or to their kings or to their gods... it is only a question of whether they remain soldiers when they die as to whether they have fulfilled their duty as soldiers... or died as civilians.

A soldier is in service, bound to that service to defend against all enemies, domestic or otherwise. Do they die in this service? Then they have died as soldiers, and as soldiers have fulfilled the oath they solemnly swore. Do they not die in this service? Then they have died as free men, as no longer are they soldiers.

[abaris]

I wonder how many of you came even near a terrorist attack in their lives.

I came through Bologna, hours after the railway station was blown to pieces. On my way to a class vacation to Sicily after our academic high school graduation. The bodies were still there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre

I walked through the particular streets right after the Synagogue was attacked. Police was still milling around

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Vienna...gue_attack

And I had the dubious pleasure of being among the crowd during the shootout at the Vienna airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vi...rt_attacks

The Opec attack of 1975 I only know from tv and newspaper coverage. Although it happened only 4 kilometers from my home at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC_siege

As a child I lived through the terror Hype of the RAF, when stopping and frisking cars by heavily armed police was a daily occurence. And before Chas once again calls me uninformed, here's the link to what the RAF was in our parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

Still, I don't join in the hysteria. I still maintain what I said on page one. I'm more concerned by the governments taking away our civil liberties than falling victim to an actual terrorist attack.

[Violet]

I wonder how many of you came even near a terrorist attack in their lives.

You'll have to define how you're using 'terrorist' in this case. Does it require motive to create panic, action that causes panic, and panic having ensued... or is any portion of the three that needs not apply?

Mind... this would be a subject of interest to me. How does it feel to you to watch the world around you explode into a frenzy? Perhaps that needs a thread topic in and of itself.

[abaris]

Mind... this would be a subject of interest to me. How does it feel to you to watch the world around you explode into a frenzy? Perhaps that needs a thread topic in and of itself.

Oh, it would.

I can tell you, gazing into the barrel of a gun changes your life. Especially when you barely made twenty at the time.

You'll have to define how you're using 'terrorist' in this case. Does it require motive to create panic, action that causes panic, and panic having ensued... or is any portion of the three that needs not apply?

Well, look at the links I provided and judge for yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder how many of you came even near a terrorist attack in their lives.

You'll have to define how you're using 'terrorist' in this case. Does it require motive to create panic, action that causes panic, and panic having ensued... or is any portion of the three that needs not apply?

Mind... this would be a subject of interest to me. How does it feel to you to watch the world around you explode into a frenzy? Perhaps that needs a thread topic in and of itself.

I don't know about terrorism, I've never been close to an act of terror; but I lived through the 1978 revolution in Iran which overthrew the Shah, and I can tell you a bit about what it is to see your world get torn apart in violence.

[xpastor]

All dead soldiers are murdered, or die in accidents, or die to old age. In all regards: they die... and duty demands they die for their country. They are bound to this duty until the state, or the self, decrees that they are no longer soldiers.

This is an utterly stupid statement, especially the words which I have bolded.

I refer you to General Patton's very sensible summary of a soldier's duty.

The good soldier is not the guy who dies for his country. The good soldier is the guy who makes the other poor bastard die for his country.

[xpastor]

I have stated that inciting others to violent behavior is already a crime.

Can you cite that law in Canada, X-P. We have already shown you that such is not the case here.

Here are four excerpts from the Criminal Code of Canada on terrorism, public incitement of hatred, uttering threats, conspiracy. Depending on the exact nature of the offence one of these would probably apply.

---

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
...
2001, c. 41, s. 4.

Facilitating terrorist activity
83.19 (1) Every one who knowingly facilitates a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
...
2001, c. 41, s. 4.

Commission of offence for terrorist group
83.2 Every one who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.

Instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group
83.21 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out any activity for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
...
2001, c. 41, s. 4.

Instructing to carry out terrorist activity
83.22 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.


Providing or collecting property for certain activities
83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), or
(b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.
Providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes
83.03 Every one who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services
(a) intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity, or
(b) knowing that, in whole or part, they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.
Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes
83.04 Every one who
(a) uses property, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, or
(b) possesses property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.


Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.
Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.


264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
© to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
...
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.



Conspiracy
465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or
(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

© every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and
(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) [Repealed, 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61]

Conspiracy to commit offences
(3) Every one who, while in Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in a place outside Canada that is an offence under the laws of that place shall be deemed to have conspired to do that thing in Canada.

Idem
(4) Every one who, while in a place outside Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in Canada shall be deemed to have conspired in Canada to do that thing.

Jurisdiction
(5) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

Appearance of accused at trial
(6) For greater certainty, the provisions of this Act relating to

(a) requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings, and
(b) the exceptions to those requirements,

apply to proceedings commenced in any territorial division pursuant to subsection (5).

Where previously tried outside Canada
(7) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by virtue of subsection (3) or (4) and that person has been tried and dealt with outside Canada in respect of the offence in such a manner that, if the person had been tried and dealt with in Canada, he would be able to plead autrefois acquit, autrefois convict or pardon, the person shall be deemed to have been so tried and dealt with in Canada.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 465; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61; 1998, c. 35, s. 121.

---

U.S. Law may cover more than you think. Incitement to violence can be a criminal offence in the USA, but according to SCOTUS decisions it would require demonstrating "imminent bodily harm." That is not the case in Canadian law. Uttering threats is an offence regardless of the results as long as the normal meaning of the words is a threat, I assume that would cover BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM. Again, I think there may be more limitations in the USA than you guys are aware of. I looked at an ACLU commentary on the Patriot Act, and it seemed to circumscribe behavior even more than our Canadian laws. Another issue, as I pointed out previously, is that you guys have 50 separate criminal codes. I'm not going to try to sort that out, but it may mean that some or all states have laws parallel to uttering threats.

[Violet]

Oh, it would.

I can tell you, gazing into the barrel of a gun changes your life. Especially when you barely made twenty at the time.

Lots of things change one's life, but congratulations on avoiding a fate you did not deserve

Well, look at the links I provided and judge for yourself.

Don't be like that... there are MANY reasons for terrorism. I wasn't there, I didn't get to hear what they said... I didn't get to see how they behaved; their priorities. All I have is media to go on...

Media spins its own story, projects its own reasons.

[Minimalist]

Sorry, X-P. I didn't see your post until Alice bumped it up.

Incitement to violence can be a criminal offence in the USA, but according to SCOTUS decisions it would require demonstrating "imminent bodily harm."

The point of the SC is that, as with Brandenburg v Ohio, they are determining if state laws are constitutional. In that case, they did not.

But another try may be coming having to do with internet "threats." Almost by definition someone making threats over a computer can not meet the imminent bodily harm standard. The court will get another bite at the apple but, if they are consistent, this law has to fail also.