Religious Terrorism
There seems to be a deep-seated need by some folks to cast Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, as something — anything – other than a religious fanatic who killed in the name of his religion.
In spite of the ever-mounting information regarding his extremism, his self-declared status as a “Soldier of Allah”, his statements that he viewed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war on his religion… the arguments still continue.
“He was just like every other crazy that goes off the deep end and starts shooting people up”, they say. “It had nothing to do with his religion.”
It’s confounding.
Yes, Hasan is clearly “a crazy”. Sane people, as a matter of course, don’t commit mass murder, no matter the provocation. Yet to deny that Hasan’s “crazy” was not directly tied to his brand of Islam is the most bizarre form of denial to me.
It’s possible that all these people arguing that his religion was incidental to his crime are motivated by concern for the many millions of non-radical Muslims. If so, then I can at least understand the rationale (if not the denial). We should all be concerned about the possible tarring and denigration of others who do not ascribe to the extremists’ views, but share the religion nonetheless. Clearly those innocents are at risk, and it’s important to distinguish between this madman (and those who think like him), and the vast majority of Muslims who do not share these views.
But it is they who are incidental here, not Hasan’s religious views and related acts.
Trying to re-frame his many years of words and actions, which culminated in a despicable but logical end, is not doing ordinary Muslims any favors. Rather, it blurs the line between them — and frankly, that line should never be blurred. It’s crucial to distinguish them. Had this monster been a violent Christian extremist who’d been going off for years, and followed it up by shouting “Praise God” before shooting up a bunch of people, it would clearly have been connected to his twisted religious views.
And that would be different… how? Other than the religion under discussion, it wouldn’t be.
Friends, the murder of George Tiller was an act of terrorism. The bombings of his clinic, and the first shooting, were terrorism. Furthermore, I think they were precisely the same kind of terrorism: religious terrorism.
Religious terrorism is not exclusively the province of Islamic extremists, and it’s a blatant falsehood to claim that the terminology is not applied to fanatics following a different “path to enlightenment”. Or has everyone forgotten about the Army of God? The fact that the United States is currently at war with violent Muslim extremists certainly raises the profile of their crimes, but that’s about it.
Pretending that Hasan was not acting on his twisted interpretation of Islam does nothing to protect ordinary Muslims, anymore than pretending that Eric Rudolph wasn’t an extremist Christian protects ordinary, well-meaning Christians.
They’re terrorists — specifically, religious terrorists.
In this case, the religion is Islam, and Hasan’s version of it is heinous. He committed murder in the name of that religion.
It is what it is.
83 Responses to “Religious Terrorism”
[...] Specifically, religious terrorism. [...]
I want someone to try and explain to me why it always MEN who commit these kinds of horrific mass killings. When was the last time you heard of a woman doing something like this?
Yes, women can be venal, evil and destructive. But we don't tend to go around trying to kill complete strangers to prove a point. The weaker sex, indeed!
I can't help but laughing at the juxtaposition of your comment, VeratheGun, with your screen handle.
::smiling::
Vera,
There was a woman named Laurie Dann in Wilmette, IL who murdered a bunch of kids about 15 years ago.
But, yeah, most of these murderers are men.
Polimom,
I agree with your comment. Note also that Jim Adkisson who burst into my church and started shooting people because – according to his “manifesto” – wanted to “kill all the liberals” was also a terrorist. He was a political terrorist. Yet, few people seemed to want to treat him as such.
Oh my stars, elrod — I'm so sorry that it was your church.
Yes, terrorism takes many forms. We shouldn't be afraid of the term, though, and applying it.
Are people really doing this–pretending his religion had nothing to do with it?
All crazy violence comes from some twisted motivation.
It seems to me that by calling Hasan (or Tiller, or Rudolph) a terrorist, you're giving him too much credit. I think real terrorism is organized by groups (like the PLO or the IRA) who act with some frequency. I have no idea how many people follow the same brand of Islam as Hasan. Presumably, though, there are a lot them. And yet it seems at first blush that Hasan acted alone.
I'm in favor of a thorough investigation into this, including the questioning of other Muslims and Muslim groups Hasan associated with. (Presumably, when Jonathan Pollard was caught passing military secrets to Israel, the Jews he associated with came under extra scrutiny, however unfairly.) But in the absence of evidence, I don't see Hasan as anything but a crazy loner with more murder than religion in his heart.
While it is becoming ever more apparent that Maj. Hasan's religious beliefs played a major role in his [alleged] actions at Ft. Hood, I'm not sure he was a “religious terrorist” per se. Not because of the religious part, but because of the terrorist part. After all, the goal of the terrorist is to instill fear (terror) in an attempt to change the behavior of society: the destruction of life or property is secondary to this, a means to an end. While all the facts are not yet in, it would seem that Maj. Hasan's goal more military-oriented: attack the target, kill the enemy. So, he may very well have been a “jihadist”, but I don't see him as a terrorist. Very tactical (no long-term strategy here.) IMHO, the same is true with Scott Roeder (the one who killed Dr. Tiller [allegedly]) – his goal was not political in nature as much as it was stopping someone who he considered (rightly or wrongly) a killer. I would put Jim Adkisson in the same category: though his actions may have been politically motivated to some extent, again it seems to me his violence was an end unto itself (“kill all the liberals”).
As far as women vs. men goes: it should be noted that there are more females who are becoming suicide bombers – and in many of the Resistance movements in occupied Europe during WW the Second, women played a major part (including participation in acts of violence the occupiers considered to be “terrorism”.)
~EdT.
* The use of [allegedly] is a nod to the concept of “innocent until PROVEN guilty”.
EdT!! So nice to see you here, old friend!
“the goal of the terrorist is to instill fear (terror) in an attempt to change the behavior of society:”
You don't think there will be changes, if only within the military, as a result of this?
Madman? Religious madman? Religious terrorist?
For now, I'd say religious madman. Terrorism is based on producing fear that an act will be repeated, which, in turn, requires an organizational effort as GS points out. If Hasan was acting alone, albeit on religious beliefs, he is not capable of repeating the act. His actions might ratchet up a generalized fear of other religious nuts going off in the future, but as you point out Polymom that is a continuing fear that can be realized at any time from any religious belief taken to a demented extreme.
Should it be proven in the future that his actions were directed by an organization capable of repeating the actions through their influence over other individuals, I stand ready and willing to change my mind.
based on producing fear that an act will be repeated
You don't think that this has produced precisely that fear?
And I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that he had to have been personally directed in this act. There are radical imams preaching this course of action to their radical followers. Hasan was, in fact, in touch with one of them, as he (according to the FBI) seemingly worked his way through the moral implications of his life.
I mostly attend the UU church in Maryville, TN but I also occasionally attend the “mothership” UU church in East Tennessee – TVUUC (Tennessee Valley UU Church), which is where the shooting happened (during a production of Annie, of all times). We are a local offshoot of TVUUC.
Well, Polymom, I understand your point, and perhaps our differences are semantic. My point is not to deny the impact of religious extremism leading to violent tragedy, but rather to avoid loosening the definition of terrorism to include all acts of demented, religiously motivated acts of violence.
Yes, he had contact with religious radicals, though we do not know the entire nature of that contact or the advice/direction he may or may not have been given. As I said, I'm open to changing my mind in the future.
As for you totally disagreeing with me, may I be the first to welcome you to that very large club.
In the end, I suspect that your view will prevail and those like GS, facebook and I will be overwhelmed by an expanded definition of terrorism, my fear being that the expanded definition in the mind of the public will apply only to Muslim motivated killers and not to those of other religions (I know that is not your position).
“You don't think there will be changes, if only within the military, as a result of this?”
There most likely will be, though they (the changes) may not be the type Maj. Hasan would have been seeking. However, it is still a red herring: making society change to conform to their world view is the primary goal of the terrorist, with terror being the primary weapon used, and death/destruction being by-products. As I see it, Maj. Hasan's primary goal was was to inflict death upon others (and possibly bring about his own: I still think he may have been going for a “suicide by cop” on that day.)
This brings up another interesting point: are the suicide bombers really “terrorists”? Much like Maj Hasan, they are the 'foot soldiers' in this battle of world views, and as such they don't think strategically (more along the lines of “see the target – blow up the target, along with self – go straight to Heaven – collect the 72 virgins”). As has been noted elsewhere, the masterminds – those who plan the atrocities these folks carry out – they don't strap the bombs to their own bodies (maybe they don't like the idea of collecting 72 virgins?) While there is no doubt in my mind that the planners are terrorists, when it comes to the grunts it is not so black and white. Or at least, it is a topic for future conversations.
~EdT.
Oh wow, just discovered the “Reply” button. Anyway, it seems that “tidbits” and I are probably in agreement on this, despite reports of contact with radical imams, I am still not convinced that Maj. Hasan's was an act of “Islamic terrorism” or any type of terrorism for that matter. If the inevitable investigations bring out facts that support the theory that his intent was to instill fear in the military community (as opposed to killing as many of them as he could), then of course I am open to a change in opinion (no ideologue am I.)
~EdT.
“Yes, Hasan is clearly “a crazy”. Sane people, as a matter of course, don’t commit mass murder, no matter the provocation. Yet to deny that Hasan’s “crazy” was not directly tied to his brand of Islam is the most bizarre form of denial to me.”~author
*************
Yes, he is crazy. He is an american citizen, who sees a peculiar and bizarre interpretation of his holy book, shared with some others who have agreed [outside the command of their God/Allah] to see it the same way. He killed wantonly in the name of this skewed view.
Just like the people who shot George Tiller while he was AT CHURCH. It was a direct declaration of a “christian” offshoot fanaticism jihad. What say you about that crime eh? Oh, let me guess….it's different? No, it's domestic terrorism. And in both cases the defendant[s] should hang.
The real enemy is ignorance and wilfull disregard for all of the edicts of a peaceful religion. Crazy people will read only what they want to. A supreme being asks for the sacrafice of individual and animal agendas and instead directs the followers to aspire to sane and measured responses, thoughtful responses to life's dilemmas.
“This brings up another interesting point: are the suicide bombers really “terrorists”?
I think this question has direct bearing on the overall issue. If suicide bombers are not terrorists, then I'll happily agree that neither is Hasan. If, otoh, one thinks suicide bombers are terrorists, then we're back at square one.
At the bottom of it all, to be perfectly honest, is the terribly flawed terminology we've been using in this ideological struggle we're up against. Declaring a “War on Terror” was, essentially, declaring war on a tactic. Ludicrous.
“his intent was to instill fear in the military community (as opposed to killing as many of them as he could), then of course I am open to a change in opinion”
The fear is instilled in the American community. And I'll bet that a much different emotion has been more deeply instilled in the military community: anger.
We know that within every major religion there are those who will do “the devil's work” under the veil [and delusion] of “doing good”.
To be perfectly honest, I can't say I've noticed a lot of this out of the Buddhists, Sil.
“keeping up the drumbeat for Cheney's illegal wars abroad.”
Dang. And you sounded so rational, right up to the end there.
In terms of Hasan's attempt to instill fear and change, from what I've read there seems to be evidence that he wanted the military to offer blanket conscientious objector status to all Muslims. I may be overstating that, but that seemed to be the point of the lectures he gave at Walter Reed. I have no idea why he personally didn't seem to have made much of an attempt to apply for such status himself.
I think the disagreements here about the definition of terrorism are really just about how broadly to apply the term. In the broader sense I see it as similar to the definition of hate crimes (defining the crime in terms of the motivation) while some people are advocating a more narrow interpretation based on coordinated efforts of a whole group of people who might actually have some chance of effecting the political change that they seek through terroristic attacks.
What strikes me as true about political correctness though is that I don't remember anyone getting quite so worried about broad brushes being applied in other cases like Eric Rudolph, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Tillman murder. Don't most people consider those to be terrorist attacks even though they were committed by individuals? If so, then aren't some people applying a double standard when a lone Muslim attacker commits such an act? If so, then why is that?
“keeping up the drumbeat for Cheney's illegal wars abroad.”
Dang. And you sounded so rational, right up to the end there”~ Poli”mom”
******************
Translation: if you mention that Cheney might have interest in milking this story to keep the anti-islamic fear momentum going to keep his illegal wars afloat…you are “irrational”. Nip nip nip goes the heeling dog.
Subconscious mind says: “avoid being called irrational. Tone it down. Change the subject”. Mission accomplished. Not.
To be perfectly honest, I can't say I've noticed a lot of this out of the Buddhists, Sil.
LOL!
Are you saying that anything outside the Buddhist religion is subject to perverse and diabolical corruption?
I might be inclined to agree. So, how then do you think we should handle the defendant[s] in the Tiller murder?
I agree that there is a separate definition of terrorism. It is designed to instill fear. The fact that people are so concerned about defining this act may be a sign that terrorism is working to some extent.
I think Hasan was a weakminded man. He had a lot of issues and was a soft target for this Cleric. Hasan was a tool of terrorism, more than a perpetrator of it. That being said, he is still ultimately responsible for his actions.
“To be perfectly honest, I can't say I've noticed a lot of this out of the Buddhists”
IIRC, Shintoism is an offshoot of Buddhism. And, some might say that the Japanese in WWII were the first “suicide bombers”.
~EdT.
“Declaring a “War on Terror” was, essentially, declaring war on a tactic. Ludicrous.”
My feeling, exactly. Much like the “War on Drugs” in many aspects. I guess the idea was to rally the people behind the cause, and rationalize (justify?) the use of extra-legal means (military forces/weapons/tactics, altered or extra-judicial proceedings which reduced or limited the rights of the accused, etc.) What is even more interesting is the report that the bill that became USA-PATRIOT was written like 20 years prior, bu bureaucrats in the Dept of Justice. Then, after 9/22, it was trotted out and rammed down the throat of a Congress eager to “do something”.
Which is one of the reasons I counsel restraint, and suggest we find out the facts before deciding what Maj. Hasan's motivations were.
BTW, at least here I haven't heard a bunch of calls for internment camps (or forces expatriation) for all American Muslims. Yet.
~EdT.
“I'll bet that a much different emotion has been more deeply instilled in the military community: anger.”
I'll bet there are a bunch of angry Americans outside of the military, too. In fact, one could say that anger and fear are different manifestations of the same underlying emotion.
~EdT.
“…I don't remember anyone getting quite so worried about broad brushes being applied in other cases like Eric Rudolph, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Dr. Tiller murder. Don't most people consider those to be terrorist attacks even though they were committed by individuals?”
I don't know about “most people”, but I am sort of mixed. Some (e.g. the OK City bombing) were purely retaliatory in nature, while others (Eric Rudolph's bombings, the murder of Dr. Tiller) did appear to have an agenda associated with them (and as such probably come closer to fitting the bill of a “terrorist” act.)
“…aren't some people applying a double standard when a lone Muslim attacker commits such an act? If so, then why is that?”
Don't know if I am or not, but if so maybe part of the 'why' is that there are so many nut jobs out there demanding we force all Muslims to renounce their religion, or face either forced expatriation or even be put into internment camps. Not to mention demands that the Constitution be changed to plainly state that Islam is no longer to be allowed to co-exist with the USofA. That is simply frightening, and (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Rule), reminiscent of a particular Central European regime from the last century.
~EdT.
“…keeping up the drumbeat for Cheney's illegal wars abroad.”
Dude(tte?), they aren't “Cheney's wars”, they're our wars. And we would do well to remember that.
~EdT.
“So, how then do you think we should handle the defendant[s] in the Tiller murder? Should we treat them as they factually are, jihaddist “christians”? And their acts as those of domestic terrorists…which they factually were..”
That's an interesting question, Sil. To respond, I guess I wonder what you mean by “handle”. Do you mean how should they be prosecuted? Or do you mean, how should the US approach the overall problem they present?
“…part of the 'why' is that there are so many nut jobs out there demanding we force all Muslims to renounce their religion, or face either forced expatriation or even be put into internment camps.
To me, the answer here is to push back against this also. Loudly. Vehemently. And it's worth noting that to my knowledge, only a very VERY small, fringe segment is making such noises.
Given our recent history of exchanges, I can't help but believe that this is, in part directed at me. If not, then please forgive the inflated sense of ego. It's my one failing (okay, it's not even the biggest one).
I would argue that I don't have a need to see Major Hasan as anything (though I appreciate the psych eval). I do insist on dealing with the facts as they are known. That includes all of the facts, not just the ones that lead to a single satisfying answer.
The first thing to look at is the legal definition of terrorism. According to US law, an act of terrorism must be premeditated (which this obviously is), it must be committed by a member of a subnational group (or their clandestine agent), and it must be politically motivated. While it is clear that Hasan wanted to be a clandestine agent, but was apparently refused. Further, other than a general inclination to see the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a war on Muslims, there really isn't any indication of political motivations. I don't think it is enough to stand up in a court of law, and that is why he is being tried for murder rather than terrorism.
I don't minimize the role that religion played in his actions. Obviously, it is a large part of the explanation of his actions. But even if a person belongs to a terrorist organization, that does not automatically make every crime they commit an act of terrorism.
My concern in inflating the crime to one of terrorism is that doing so will make it more difficult to find the next soldier who moves down this road of madness. There were serious psychological warnings that were missed, or simply accepted as being religiously motivated. Calling this terrorism, in effect, glorifies his actions and blames them on his religion – and anyone who comes along with a different set of tricky words and key phrases can get overlooked because he didn't actually contact anyone in Egypt.
The other problem is that it moves our police efforts from actions to thoughts. The problem isn't that Major Hasan actually started shooting people, it was that he believed dangerous thoughts. And, while you have been clear that you understand Islam is not the only religion with militant problems, the fact is that no one in this country is willing to crack down on militant Evangelical Christians (look at the problems the Air Force Academy has had in this area). In short, blaming this on terrorism makes Hasan right that we are fighting a war on Islam – or at least one facet of Islam, and we are not a people known for making fine distinctions about such things.
My main problem, however, is that Hasan's actions simply do not meet the requirements to legally call this terrorism. If such details did not matter, they would not have been codified.
“…the answer here is to push back against this also. Loudly. Vehemently.”
Agreed.
~EdT.
“Declaring a “War on Terror” was, essentially, declaring war on a tactic. Ludicrous.”
My feeling, exactly. Much like the “War on Drugs” in many aspects.
I have a bit of a different take on it. I think the “War on Drugs” and “War on Poverty” are much more ludicrous than “War on Terror” although I see deficiencies in the latter as well.
But I always thought of it as shorthand for “War on the terrorist sponsoring organizations that have declared jihad on the US and other Western interests and any groups or individuals who might ally themselves with them.”
IOW, I don't see how it was avoidable to face a new reality, that there is now the capability for nonstate entities to declare war on disrupt the security of sovereign nations, and the old rules of warfare don't apply. I expected that there would be a more serious debate about how to adjust the rules to this new reality, but unfortunately just like the nomenclature is overly simplistic the debate has been so as well. I think the fault for that lies on both sides though, because the left is also overly simplistic in trying to apply law enforcement status and tactics in cases of terrorism that really are more akin to warfare (even if not committed by uniformed soldiers.)
Don't know if I am or not, but if so maybe part of the 'why' is that there are so many nut jobs out there demanding we force all Muslims to renounce their religion, or face either forced expatriation or even be put into internment camps. Not to mention demands that the Constitution be changed to plainly state that Islam is no longer to be allowed to co-exist with the USofA. That is simply frightening, and (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Rule), reminiscent of a particular Central European regime from the last century.
I understand the theoretical concern, and I don't doubt at all that there are some of those 'nutjobs' advocating those things. But do you have any citation from people who are actually saying these things? I definitely question the 'so many' part of your comment, as though these opinions have been anywhere close to common or mainstream.
What is your reference for that? I don't see those specifications here, which appears to be the codified legal definition.
I'd argue anyway that there could still be a broader context in which people would refer to an act of terrorism that didn't fit a legal definition, since sometimes these distinctions depend on the ability to provide proof in a court of law which may be more difficult. You could reasonably disagree with that, of course, and say that we should stick only to narrowly constructed legal definitions. My point though is that I've never seen anyone object as strenuously as you have to this in other cases that are commonly labelled as domestic terrorism which also don't meet your (or possibly the legal) criteria.
“I think the “War on Drugs” and “War on Poverty” are much more ludicrous than “War on Terror”…”
Also agreed. 'War on Poverty' extremely much so – after all, the tools used for fighting a war are totally inappropriate for combatting poverty (though I am sure there are those who would push for carpet-bombing the lower-income housing districts as a form of 'urban renewal'.)
Yes, I am certain the use of 'terror in the phrase 'War on Terror' was intended to describe this new reality you mention, however as Polimom noted 'terror' is in fact a tactic, a weapon, a tool, a means to an end. Re-phrasing 'War on Terror' to 'War on non-government terrorist organizations, and their supporters' would have been much more precise a description (if much less desirable as a catchphrase.)
“…the left is also overly simplistic in trying to apply law enforcement status and tactics in cases of terrorism that really are more akin to warfare…”
Actually, in this instance I am in agreement with 'the left' – these are criminal acts, and it would seem that the methods that are successful in fighting crime – investigation and prosecution – are also the most effective against this type of terrorism, as well. Also, if I recall, 'irregulars' are not due the normal protections under the Geneva Convention that uniformed soldiers are – IIRC their actions fall under criminal law. The distinction is important, as regular solders in a time of war are allowed to do things that are 'hanging offenses' otherwise.
~EdT.
Admittedly, 'so many' is a relative term. I based this on observation of the comments on stories/postings related to the Ft. Hood incident on the Houston Chronicle's website. Probably not the most statistically valid sampling method, but certainly enough to cause me some concern.
I never said they were 'mainstream', however I suspect that in the early-to-mid 1920s the views of a certain fringe political group would not have been considered 'mainstream' by much of the population of that Central European country, either.
~EdT.
I haven't the slightest intention of re-traveling last night's travesty with you. However, this phrase caught my eye:
“The other problem is that it moves our police efforts from actions to thoughts.”
Where do you stand on the Matthew Shepard Act? Or hate crime legislation, generally?
“…observation of the comments on stories/postings related to the Ft. Hood incident on the Houston Chronicle's website. “
You've no doubt noticed that I'm not writing there any more. To say that the environment there is poisonous is to understate it rather radically.
Relatedly: When I wrote at Polimom Says about the Tiller murder, a number of people (new to my blog) came to say how supportive they were of his murder. ::shudder::
So I have to agree that the radicalization is all around us. Nonetheless, we have to push back somehow.
Conscientious objector status only means you can't be forced to kill. That status would not have changed Hasan's job at all. Beyond that, conscientious objector means you object to killing, not to killing certain types of people.
Eric Rudolph had a very simple political aim – he was trying to change the country's abortion laws. Timothy McVeigh's actions were very politically motivated – just try reading his manifesto. With Tillman's murder, again, the goal is to influence this country's abortion laws. So it's pretty clear cut as far as the political connectedness.
I actually thought that Thurmon's points about 'thought crimes' were salient. It occurred to me in thinking about the Hasan case that even if the military had seen red flags and discharged him, the problem wouldn't have gone away (though he wouldn't have had access to the military base, and with regard to what transpired that would have met the military's obligation for protecting their soldiers.)
But what then? He's a civilian who potentially is becoming more radicalized, and seeking contacts with other radicals and terrorist sponsors, and at what point can preemptive action be taken against him?
Try reading your link:
If you want a further explanation of my points, you can read it here.
“You've no doubt noticed that I'm not writing there any more.”
I attributed that to your temporary absence from blogosphere in general.
~EdT.
Actually, in this instance I am in agreement with 'the left' – these are criminal acts, and it would seem that the methods that are successful in fighting crime – investigation and prosecution – are also the most effective against this type of terrorism, as well.
I honestly don't know where to draw the lines but this dovetails with my last comment about attempting to preempt terrorist acts. Most people do feel that greater leeway should be given to surveillance of someone who shows these tendencies, but the individual's civil liberties shouldn't be ignored either (and of course, our collective civil liberties when nets are cast too widely.)
Do you feel that there should be no difference in index of suspicion, and acts can only be dealt with in hindsight? I can understand that viewpoint but I have difficulty signing on to it even though I'm not comfortable with the alternative either.
And a separate observation is in regard to the need sometimes for secrecy which is impossible in an ordinary criminal trial. It's been said that the 9/11 planners studied the trials of the earlier WTC bombers and gained some valuable information, for instance.
I agree that bringing “thought crimes” into this is bang-on. And at long-last, I'm actually hopefully we're going somewhere worthwhile with this entire discussion. We shall see.
In general, I oppose hate crime legislation. The only reason I'd support the Matthew Shepard Act is that it allows the federal government to investigate crimes that lower officials will ignore. Just to go a step further, I also oppose DWI laws because the problem isn't being intoxicated, it's running over people and things, which is already illegal. If we'd just enforce laws against unsafe driving laws, there'd be no need for such things.
Nope. I need to compose a “So Long” post for them, actually. Maybe later today or something.”
“Where do you stand on the Matthew Shepard Act? Or hate crime legislation, generally?”
I still don't understand this entirely – 'hate crimes' are first and foremost 'crimes'. The 'hate' aspect is either (1) very difficult to determine, as it lies within the mind of the perpetrator, or (2) a risky path to travel down, as there is a desire to 'beat the truth out of the perp' which could lead to abuse (and, some might say, has led to abuse in the GWoT.)
Ultimately, I guess that the categorization of a criminal act as a 'hate crime' opens the door for more severe sanctions (e.g. a longer prison sentence), under the theory that someone who would commit such an act is incorrigible. OTOH, it give the state a means of 'piling on' charges, thus providing a powerful incentive to someone who would otherwise fight the charges in court, to settle via plea-bargain. It also allows the prosecutor, the legislators, the judges, and politicians in general to appear 'tough on crime', while doing little to actually prevent it.
~EdT.
Perhaps I should have been more specific- I was asking for a reference for the part where you said the code specifies that the act “must be committed by a member of a subnational group (or their clandestine agent)”.
I'm sorry to hear you aren't writing for the Chron. Their loss.
I don't know if the problem is radicalization, as far as the thought process goes, anyway. I think we have become too willing, as a society, to resort to violence. Of course, that is part of the process of radicalization. The problem is that our political culture has deteriorated to the point where we seem incapable of admitting that the other side may still be good people with political differences rather than bad people who must be defeated.