And They Manage Not To Use The Word "Terrorist" At All!

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's funny how both sides of the politically ally both complain that not enough people are labeled as terrorists. Right wing people started this crap and now the left wing decided that it's also good to label every mass killer as a terrorist. I'm old enough to remember when nobody considered any mass shooter to be a terrorist. Considering that you get special prosecutorial powers and special detaining powers against terrorists, I can see the appeal for those in charge. Why everyday citizens what more people to be labeled as terrorists is beyond me. I think we'd be better off using the label, and the additional powers that go with it in as limited a manner as possible or getting rid of it and the 'war on terror' altogether. Once that was a popular idea, now even good well meaning left wing people want to expand the war on terror.

Its a frightening world.

I think the issue is that the label "terrorist" is slung about in an inequitable manner, with it being far more likely to be hung on Muslim murderers rather than non-Muslims here. It's not that people "want more people to be labeled as terrorists", it's that people want the term to be applied fairly.

[Rhondazvous]

It's funny how both sides of the politically ally both complain that not enough people are labeled as terrorists. Right wing people started this crap and now the left wing decided that it's also good to label every mass killer as a terrorist. I'm old enough to remember when nobody considered any mass shooter to be a terrorist. Considering that you get special prosecutorial powers and special detaining powers against terrorists, I can see the appeal for those in charge. Why everyday citizens what more people to be labeled as terrorists is beyond me. I think we'd be better off using the label, and the additional powers that go with it in as limited a manner as possible or getting rid of it and the 'war on terror' altogether. Once that was a popular idea, now even good well meaning left wing people want to expand the war on terror.

Its a frightening world.

Believe it or not, there’s no federal law against murder. Ever since the failed anti-lynching bill of 1918, the South has fought to defeat any bill that makes murder a federal crime.

Apparently they have to label it terrorism to get past this little rub.

[The Grand Nudger]

Taking a look at the ways in which murder becomes a federal crime you might see that it has little to do with "the south"s interests, specifically, and more to do with protecting agents of the state, the states jurisdiction over communications, and money.  Sure, there's also the war on drugs...and one piece of boilerplate stuff thrown in to make it not so glaringly obvious.

(in order for there to be a general, federal murder law congress would have to be granted powers not currently conferred constitutionally)

[CapnAwesome]

It's funny how both sides of the politically ally both complain that not enough people are labeled as terrorists. Right wing people started this crap and now the left wing decided that it's also good to label every mass killer as a terrorist. I'm old enough to remember when nobody considered any mass shooter to be a terrorist. Considering that you get special prosecutorial powers and special detaining powers against terrorists, I can see the appeal for those in charge. Why everyday citizens what more people to be labeled as terrorists is beyond me. I think we'd be better off using the label, and the additional powers that go with it in as limited a manner as possible or getting rid of it and the 'war on terror' altogether. Once that was a popular idea, now even good well meaning left wing people want to expand the war on terror.

Its a frightening world.

I think the issue is that the label "terrorist" is slung about in an inequitable manner, with it being far more likely to be hung on Muslim murderers rather than non-Muslims here. It's not that people "want more people to be labeled as terrorists", it's that people want the term to be applied fairly.

I think people have not thought it through though. There are very real world consequences to the label of terrorism. Terrorists can be detained indefinitely, their travel can be restricted just based on suspicions, politicians of various stripes want to shut down terrorist websites, and so on and so forth. People concerned about civil liberties should be in favor of a very strict limited view of who is a terrorist, especially with Trump in the office. In fact 10 years ago the normal dialog on Atheist forums and in left wing groups was that a war on terror was unnecessary and irrational. Now instead your see the argument that more people need to be labeled as terrorists and in fact I almost never see the former argument at all.

If you are concerned about the fairness of it, you can easily make the argument that some Muslim attacks are not terrorism. Either that argument is too hard to make, or the Authoritarianism that has obviously taken hold of the right has also taken hold of the left as well.

Personally I would never sacrifice a single civil liberty in the name of fairness of labeling, which seems irrelevant at the best.

[Rhondazvous]

Taking a look at the ways in which murder becomes a federal crime you might see that it has little to do with "the south"s interests, specifically, and more to do with protecting agents of the state, the states jurisdiction over communications, and money.  Sure, there's also the war on drugs...and one piece of boilerplate stuff thrown in to make it not so glaringly obvious.

(in order for there to be a general, federal murder law congress would have to be granted powers not currently conferred constitutionally)

Remember, I live in the South and consider Texas my home by choice, so this is not a personal diatribe against the South.

Preamble to the US Constitution

We the people … in order to
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general well fare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Do ordain and establish this Constitution …

How does making murder a federal crime violate this? And why has the South continuously filibustered any effort to do so for the last almost 100 years but doesn’t feel that its interference is relevant?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you are concerned about the fairness of it, you can easily make the argument that some Muslim attacks are not terrorism. Either that argument is too hard to make, or the Authoritarianism that has obviously taken hold of the right has also taken hold of the left as well.

I can make that argument easily: the Orlando shooting, labeled as terrorism.

Personally I would never sacrifice a single civil liberty in the name of fairness of labeling, which seems irrelevant at the best.

In which case I would expect you object to labeling crimes as terrorism, and rather prosecute them under the normal statutes, say, first-degree murder.

[The Grand Nudger]

Taking a look at the ways in which murder becomes a federal crime you might see that it has little to do with "the south"s interests, specifically, and more to do with protecting agents of the state, the states jurisdiction over communications, and money.  Sure, there's also the war on drugs...and one piece of boilerplate stuff thrown in to make it not so glaringly obvious.

(in order for there to be a general, federal murder law congress would have to be granted powers not currently conferred constitutionally)

Remember, I live in the South and consider Texas my home by choice, so this is not a personal diatribe against the South.

Preamble to the US Constitution

We the people … in order to
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Ensure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general well fare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Do ordain and establish this Constitution …

How does making murder a federal crime violate this? And why has the South continuously filibustered any effort to do so for the last almost 100 years but doesn’t feel that its interference is relevant?

It's not an issue of violation, as the federal murder laws that do exist attest to, it's an issue of empowerment.  Where the constitution has granted the federal government jurisdiction there -are- federal murder laws, where it has not, and where it empowers states, there are not.

The federal murder laws largely center around killing elected officials, judges, law enforcement officers, their immediate family, and murders committed during robbery (banks and boats...yarr).  Then there's murder by mail/phone, and trafficking related murders..as the fed has jurisdiction over interstate commerce and communications. The only federal murder laws that seem remotely for "we the people" are rape/sexual abuse related.

If the fed wanted to enact a general murder law, we'd need a constitutional amendment granting it jurisdiction. States push back against the expanse of federal powers on principle, as they depend for their very existence upon some manner of legal sovereignty. If the fed was allowed to become a one stop shop for law, states would be redundant.

[dyresand]

Oh look a they called this guy a terrorist

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/17/white-su...st-attack/

but yeah it's a good thing they caught the guy

[Autumnlicious]

Considering Salon is more partisan (left biased), I am not surprised.

However, just because the media accurately identifies a terrorist doesn't mean he will be charged as one.

Even if his intent was to carry out a Dylan Roof-inspired attack to inflict terror into Blacks.

[paulpablo]

Considering Salon is more partisan (left biased), I am not surprised.

However, just because the media accurately identifies a terrorist doesn't mean he will be charged as one.

Even if his intent was to carry out a Dylan Roof-inspired attack to inflict terror into Blacks.

One thing to point out is that he was attaching a synagogue, so I think his goal was to kill Jews.

And secondly the definition of a terrorist isn't just someone who has a goal of inflicting terror, it's someone who uses violence or intimidation for political aims.

It doesn't sound like he was a mastermind With a devious political plan here but maybe in his own stupid way he thought he was doing something political. He could have just wanted to kill some Jews but I'm not sure about that one.