“Perhaps that is why they are called “mass murderers.””
They are all mass murderers and terrorists.
My concern is that if we we proclaim that the Boston Bomber is the worst criminal or terrorist that we have in US custody, we are slightly raising the status of the mass shooter.
Classify the Islamic bomber as a terrorist and classify the mass shooters as terrorists.
“Classify the Islamic bomber as a terrorist and classify the mass shooters as terrorists.”
That is not necessarily true. A terrorist commits the deed as an expression of a political or religious goal or mission; a mass shooter may be a terrorist, or he may just be a lunatic who commits his action without any coherent rhyme or reason, or just for the sake of sadism.
John Wayne Gacy was a mass murderer, but he did not commit his crimes for any political or religious goal (though he was a Democrat precinct official in the Chicago area, and even had his photo taken with Rosalyn Carter!). Ditto with Ted Bundy. And Henry Lee Lucas. And a good deal more. Adam Lanza was a lunatic who was on prescription drugs for being a lunatic, and if he had a political or religious agenda it went with him to his grave, because no one knows of one.
On the other hand, the Unabomber was a terrorist because he committed his crimes for a political reason. Same for Obama’s friends Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorn. Same also for Timothy McVeigh.
I’m trying to follow your logic here and it escapes me.
Are you suggesting that if the 19 year old was tried for terrorism, we’d then have to try the likes of Loughtner as a terrorist?
If any of you had listened to Levin tonight you would have a better understanding of why they ‘couldn’t’ charge this guy with terrorism. Yes, Lindsey Graham et al strike again. It is central to a resolution they passed in 2001. Under the definition of that bill, this guy doesn’t qualify to be charged with terrorism. Sick sick sick!!!