Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I really hope those attending the Boston Marathon make it through this.
- Thread starter hover
- Start date
- Status
It does seem that way. Hard to believe they did it just for the heck of it. But we don't really know. Yet.
Regarding definition of a terrorist: it used to be some guys hijacking a plane. Then it was 911. Now?...
Seems the definition might need revising.
Seems the definition might need revising.
^Or we could get rid of the word altogether and return to the old-fashioned practice of charging criminals for the crime they committed and moving them through the legal system by that means instead of by a title.
Seems like it'd be more expedient, fair, and it would stop a major point of semantic contention from disrupting what could otherwise be productive civil discourse.
Seems like it'd be more expedient, fair, and it would stop a major point of semantic contention from disrupting what could otherwise be productive civil discourse.
Yes, which is the point I was making that sparked the debate between Matticus and myself.
That's what I was trying to say. Cut out the BS politically charged buzzwords and simply arrest and charge people for what they've done. You said it better.
What's worse - a regular murder of a black person or the murder of a black person while the person committing is yelling "Ni##er" the whole time?
The way the law exists now, the hate crime is viewed as worse and carries a stiffer penalty. According to this logic, they should be prosecuted as equals?
I'm just trying to point put that there are already provisions in out legal system that allow for who and why the crime is being committed and not just for the crime alone.
And so, this bombing, committed expressly in the name of terror, like a hate crime on a larger scale, absolutely deserves a title applied to the person who committed it.
Again, the person committing a hate crime is still innocent until proven guilty and gets his day in court. Why, because it's the American Way. We're going in circles here.
Sure, but the TITLE enables us to interrogate certain folks without the bother of attorneys and Miranda and all that. You sure you want to give that ability up? I'm not so sure. But I understand if you do.
I think it hardly makes any difference to the victim. It's not going to make them any less dead. It shouldn't matter to the legal system either. Criminals should be judged only on their actions, not their thoughts. With the exception being in determining if a crime was premeditated or not so that the appropriate sentence can be given.
I think in terms of national security and conflicts between nations or unchecked factions within nations, in terms of defense and identifying international "enemies of the state" and their tactics (as opposed to individuals or groups with other agendas or sociopathic/sanity issues), it is important to work with a more specific and less ambiguous definition for the word "terrorist."
In that sense, no, not anything that terrifies someone constitutes "terrorism." Terrorists are a specific type of criminal or threat.
Of course they did it for a reason: Their religious views and anti-American sentiments.
And we do know. The suspect told this to investigators himself.
That's an accurate observation and a reasonable point made from it. I'm just opining that, in cases where they cast a wide blanket, such provisions cause more social trouble than they remedy. They ask the public to focus on distinctions that won't likely solve any problems at the cost of attention that could be spent exploring more pragmatic solutions.
I mentioned it initially because our focus on the semantics of terrorism were bogging down the other aspects of this thread's discussion that I found more engaging. I suppose any disagreement left at my statement on what approach is best for our society is inherently a political one, so I won't continue to elaborate and drag the thread down that road.
Yes. That just comes down to an understandable, and I'd like you to know respectful from my end, political disagreement. Something we don't really have an opportunity to get into within TB's rules. I'm so interested in semantics and public discourse that I think I often walk too closely to the politics line for comfort in TB.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you are trying to simplify something that is inherently complex.
There is no one size fits all here, as dreamy as that sounds. There are a variety of facts and circumstances around crimes that need attention. The terror component of this one, for example.
But "thought crimes" are an inherently un-American principle, are they not?
I mean isn't it also somehow a kind of idealism to think we can suspend constitutional principles for some and not for others and be able to do so accurately based on what they think or believe?
- Status
