A Terrorist By Any Other Name (Univ of North Carolina alert)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 3/16/2006 | Eric Pfeiffer

[billbears]

I know this is going to irritate the 'faithful' but this should not be labeled as a terrorist act for several reasons. Here in North Carolina we have laws outlawing running over other people for any reason. One of them is called assault with intent to kill. At no time did he cross state lines to commit his crime. This is an internal affair within North Carolina. To 'add' federal charges would do nothing but slow the proceedings and give the national government even more control over the internal affairs of the separate and sovereign states.

Eventually, such actions will also invalidate the reason for laws within the states. Ask yourself, would you federalize every crime instigated against multiple victims? If so, why even bother having state laws? Because of this issue, the young man should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of state law.

Now, flame away...

[Dark Skies]

I may only speak for myself, but the reason I wanted the charge to be terrorism is because I think that was his motive and calling his crime by its correct name (if it is indeed terrorism) reminds the world of the insidiousness of islam.

If on the other hand, the perp turns out to be nothing more than a lonely nut, then so be it.

[billbears]

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By this definition any action against multiple individuals could be claimed to be terrorism. The church burnings of late in Alabama come to mind. Should we label that terrorism as well? Do you really want the national government intervening in any and all situations that may fit that definition to label it terrorism? Again, what would be the use or purpose of state laws?

[Dark Skies]

Do you really want the national government intervening in any and all situations that may fit that definition to label it terrorism?

You obviously aren't speaking to me since I have in no way said or implied that. There is only one kind of terrorism I am interested in...and that is islamic.

Go sell your states rights agenda to someone else.

[billbears]

There is only one kind of terrorism I am interested in...and that is islamic.

Ah I see. It's only labeled as terrorism if it's Islamic? I'm quite sure the parishoners of the 9 churches burned in Alabama were terrorized. If you're going to label it in one situation, you have to label it in another.

Go sell your states rights agenda to someone else.

Didn't realize recognizing the intent of the Framers and the relationship between the general government and the states was 'selling a states rights agenda'. You're right. Let's label this terrorism. Then when the next one comes along, even if it's a bit more murkier, we'll label that terrorism as well. Within a generation we won't even need state laws. Our leaders in Washington will know what's best for us and be able to prosecute all crime...

[LonePalm]

When I went to school there ('73-'77) I doubt there were three dozen muslim students on campus.

When I was born there in '55 I doubt there were any.

The campus was pro-Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Dark Skies]

Go sell your states rights agenda to someone else.

I mean go bug someone else...and stop pinging me.

[TC Rider]

If there had been some explosives in the car, the authorities would have had no problem deeming it a terrorist act.

Don't count on it. Remember the whackjob who blew himself up outside the football stadium in Oklahoma?