I don't need no sympathy. I won't cry and whine. Life's my light and liberty and I'll shine when I wanna shine.
CNN is reporting that the plane was stolen and that the pilot had set his own house on fire earlier. The building is a federal IRS outsourced building with 199 IRS employees. "At this time we have no reason to believe there is a nexus to criminal or terrorist activity," said Matt Chandler, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. "We are in the process of coordinating with state officials and other federal partners to gather more information and at this time we will defer additional questions to local officials and the FAA."
Yep. Austin is big IRS hub. I was amazed how quickly the mayor and police chief got in front of the national cameras at lunch. Most dangerous place in Austin is between the police chief and a camera.
I don't understand how they reached a conclusion of "not terrorist" already. Guy hit an IRS building -- obviously some anti-govt sentiment/intention/political statement involved. Why isn't this at least possibly a terrorist act? Domestic terrorism (Secion 2331 of Title 18 U.S.C.) as amended by the Patriot Act:(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;`(B) appear to be intended--`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
The chief responded to that question with a very reassuring, "You're going to have to trust me."
From CNN. 1:47 p.m.: A message on a Web site registered to Joseph Andrew Stack appears to be a suicide note: "If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?'" the message says. "The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time." In the long message, the writer rails against the government and, particularly, the Internal Revenue Service.
Stephanie, in response to your comment about "not terrorist" - our gov't officials don't like using that term for events on our soil perpetrated by WASP's. Had this occurred with someone of any type of foreign name or skin tone or religious affiliation, the "T-word" would be all over the place.
LJ -- exactly. Thought that Obama's admin would be better about this, but I guess not. Disappointing.
Hmmm. I don't really have a problem with the T-word not being used right away when there's no clear connection to radical Islam. Probably better to say domestic terrorist with no apparent connection to radical Islam.If one reads his screed at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html?mep , he's pretty clearly some kind of nutty domestic terrorist though I'm not sure he really thought he could accomplish any of (i)-(iii). (Does anybody besides me call those "romanettes"?)Anti-Catholic, anti-taxes...something? But for the initial reports, it seems ok to me to say "not a terrorist" when everyone is wondering if it is some kind of Al-Q attack.
I don't know what difference it makes to potential victims whether the pilot is WASP or AQ. What DOES matter is whether there's reason to believe there are others involved or that there's reason to think it's part of a broader or mulit-pronged attack by many others. Completely fine if the Dept of Homeland Security wants to draw an early conclusion about THAT and to comfort the public with an announcement about that conclusion. But it's not cool to conclude this wasn't a terrorist act, albeit committed by a lone crazy as opposed to a crazy group. And it's really not cool with me when the T word only gets used to label Muslim crazies and not WASP crazies.
Yes, I have no problem calling a WASP terrorist attack a WASP terrorist attack. I just meant that we knew almost immediately that this wasn't some kind of AQ attack and that is probably what was meant when they said it wasn't "terrorist." Don't know who writes these rules.Do these labeling rules make difference at all to the (thankfully few) victims or their families? Not sure they would to me.I think we agree that the important thing is whether there was some indication that there were others involved and whether other attacks were likely. The right was up in arms about the press not calling the Ft. Hood attack "terrorism." I was not among them because he seemed to be working alone. I suppose one crazy can commit an act of independent terrorism but I worry about the joint maneuvers.If lone wolves (WASP or otherwise)are terrorists, then we can certainly call them that but we should quickly add that all evidence points to them working alone. The definition you cite from the PA certainly doesn't distinguish between individuals and groups but I'll probably always think in terms of lone wolf crazies and groups of terrorists in my feeble mind. But I can try to change.
Clearly not terrorism by any rational definition so you two can stop whining about how awful America is. Scooter you don't need to change.
He was mad was pissed about "capitalist greed" and Bush. If he's a terrorist, he's yours whiners....
Meaning terrorism must be conducted (or at least planned) by more than one actor?
Terrorism is an act of war against noncombatants to achieve a means that cannot be achieved by convential warfare. A terrorist is not mad at those he assaults because of some wrong done to him. Since there is no such thing as a one man war, I dont see how a lone guy without ties to or sympathy with some larger cause can be terrorist.
Because the terrorism statute doesn't require group activity.
Theo: So what? There's a statute that I don't agree with that says I have to pay income tax to support a bunch of crap I don't like.
Was Fort Hood terrorism?
And don't we have to work with the definition of terrorism in the statute whether we like it or not?My initial proposition was that it was premature for a fed official to announce it wasn't "terrorism" and that official ought to be using the statutory definition, agreed?
A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, D.C., area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.Coming as it does on the heels of November's Fort Hood jihadist massacre, this news could have major implications.
Blogger Stephanie said... Was Fort Hood terrorism? February 19, 2010 11:27:00 AM CSTYour administration thinks so:Blogger Stephanie said... Was Fort Hood terrorism? February 19, 2010 11:27:00 AM CST
oops: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has become the first Obama Administration official to publicly describe last year's deadly shootings at Ft. Hood, Tex., as a terrorist act, according to a search of news clips and transcripts. "Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning. "There is violent Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, [and] that is indeed a major focus of this department and its efforts."
Yep. As I said above, disappointing, unless there are facts I haven't heard. We need uniform application of "terrorism", regardless of religion etc.BTW, I didn't follow the connection between the Ft. Hood guy and the Fort Jackson Five that you mentioned above.
Post a Comment