F
- Status
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Now whether non-american citizens are entitled to due process upon apprehension is another story.
T
The_Wizard
Guest
It all depends on which side of the fence you are on! To the British, Lexington and Concord were criminal acts. To the American they were legal acts of war against a tyrannical government.
C
captainrick
Guest
Depends…
A nut case working alone shoots up a school, or bombs a building. Those are crimes,
ISIS declares itself a state and kills thousands, intending to take over nations. That is war.
A nut case working alone shoots up a school, or bombs a building. Those are crimes,
ISIS declares itself a state and kills thousands, intending to take over nations. That is war.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Just FYI: the word you want is spelled rougUe. The word you spelled is the French word for red, or the make-up used to redden one’s cheeks. All those rouge people made a funny picture in my mind 
But, to be serious, I agree with you. A terrorist act can be an act or war *or *a crime.
But, to be serious, I agree with you. A terrorist act can be an act or war *or *a crime.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I don’t think it’s an either/or question; I think it’s a continuum, so I couldn’t vote in your poll
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
It depends upon the affiliations of the terrorist, and it depends upon how you define terrorism. Most terrorism is conducted by the intelligence services of nation-states, and is carried out in all manner of deceptive ways, often by individuals camouflaged as lone criminals. It becomes murkier still when you consider that many, if not most, nations are actively waging war upon their very own populaces, as well as whatever international wars their involved in. Because people are so much easier to control when they’re in fear, it’s fair to say that most of the planet’s people are being deliberately kept terrified by governments, armies, intelligence agencies, police forces, criminal gangs, etc. And then you have to consider that war itself is a criminal act, of monstrous proportions.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I think it can be both so I didn’t vote.
D
DaveBj
Guest
You missed it, too. It’s “rogue.”Just FYI: the word you want is spelled rougUe. The word you spelled is the French word for red, or the make-up used to redden one’s cheeks. All those rouge people made a funny picture in my mind
But, to be serious, I agree with you. A terrorist act can be an act or war *or *a crime.
J
josie_L
Guest
I believe it’s spelt like so “rogue”.Just FYI: the word you want is spelled rougUe. The word you spelled is the French word for red, or the make-up used to redden one’s cheeks. All those rouge people made a funny picture in my mind
But, to be serious, I agree with you. A terrorist act can be an act or war *or *a crime.
J
josie_L
Guest
At first, I thought she was utilizing “rouge” because it is the colour associated with Communists, and then I realized she meant “rogue”.
S
St_Francis
Guest
That’ll larn me!
F
francisca
Guest
Wow, thanks for the spelling lesson guys.
St. Francis, you’ve imagined those “red people”, you sure have “a cartoon mind”!
Maybe I should have sharpen the question in this way:
Supposedly you were at the position of authority, let’s say you were the president of the US, or the Pentagon, or UN top official, or Vatican official: would you define Terrorism as War or Crime?
What’s “the benefit/ motivation” of that definition in relation to problem solving/ “other benefit” if any?
St. Francis, you’ve imagined those “red people”, you sure have “a cartoon mind”!
Maybe I should have sharpen the question in this way:
Supposedly you were at the position of authority, let’s say you were the president of the US, or the Pentagon, or UN top official, or Vatican official: would you define Terrorism as War or Crime?
What’s “the benefit/ motivation” of that definition in relation to problem solving/ “other benefit” if any?
F
francisca
Guest
They’re commiting crime according to any standard any where in the world. Due process isn’t the problem, they will be put to trial if so they are captured as criminals.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Back to the point of the thread:
I am neither a lawyer nor a diplomat; I do have some considerable experience in the field of intelligence (in the politico-military meaning of the word, not the psychological meaning). However, I do have an opinion, and I would remind the gentle readers that opinions are like armpits – everyone has two of them, and they usually stink.
In my opinion, an criminal act carried out by an individual or a group acting alone is a crime, even if a large number of people are killed (e.g., the nearly 100 who were killed by the insane gunman in Norway).
Once the actions of the individual or group are sponsored by an agency of a government or a pseudo-government, then those actions become acts of war (e.g., the al-Qa’eda-sponsored 9/11 attack).
But that’s just me.
I am neither a lawyer nor a diplomat; I do have some considerable experience in the field of intelligence (in the politico-military meaning of the word, not the psychological meaning). However, I do have an opinion, and I would remind the gentle readers that opinions are like armpits – everyone has two of them, and they usually stink.
In my opinion, an criminal act carried out by an individual or a group acting alone is a crime, even if a large number of people are killed (e.g., the nearly 100 who were killed by the insane gunman in Norway).
Once the actions of the individual or group are sponsored by an agency of a government or a pseudo-government, then those actions become acts of war (e.g., the al-Qa’eda-sponsored 9/11 attack).
But that’s just me.
F
francisca
Guest
I think the keyword is “quasi” there
Everyone thinks they are a hero. Are they really? That is the question.
F
francisca
Guest
So if I’m rich, I fund a group of people to commit crime together, I am declaring war? Even if my neigbours disagree with me?
F
francisca
Guest
I think if you are in the place of power, the way you treat your enemy will decide who you are.
It doesn’t matter if some “Uncle Joe” decide to declare a war, you are not uncle joe’s worthy enemy.
Uncle joe has commited many crimes even in the standard of legitimate war, so called “genocide”.
If you treat him according to the law, meaning fair and good process, then you are the hero, and uncle joe is the loser.
If you decide to blow his head off without any trial, then the people may think that uncle joe has a legitimate mission and is as much as a hero as you.
I’m just saying this because some people has mention the word “crusade” in the previous thread. I read it in other places too. It is rather worrying.
To stop the genocide is not a crusade. Capture them as war criminals and end it fast.
There should never be any killings in the name of “holy war” anymore. There isn’t anything holy about a war.
I just saying. and praying.
It doesn’t matter if some “Uncle Joe” decide to declare a war, you are not uncle joe’s worthy enemy.
Uncle joe has commited many crimes even in the standard of legitimate war, so called “genocide”.
If you treat him according to the law, meaning fair and good process, then you are the hero, and uncle joe is the loser.
If you decide to blow his head off without any trial, then the people may think that uncle joe has a legitimate mission and is as much as a hero as you.
I’m just saying this because some people has mention the word “crusade” in the previous thread. I read it in other places too. It is rather worrying.
To stop the genocide is not a crusade. Capture them as war criminals and end it fast.
There should never be any killings in the name of “holy war” anymore. There isn’t anything holy about a war.
I just saying. and praying.
M
mikekle
Guest
I was reading thru this thread and thought about something, the major drug cartels are actually considered terrorist organizations, and really they are, they are invading our country without stepping foot here, they send their products here because of the US demand for these drugs…yet when people are arrested for trafficking drugs, its never a terrorism charge…its always a civil drug charge, but if someone spouts off about Islam, buys a gun, etc they ARE charged with crimes relating to terrorism???
Furthermore, in the US, it is illegal to provide money to any terrorist organization, yet many many US companies hand out ‘monthly payments’ to the drug cartels, just for allowing their factories to operate in their turf in Mexico, I know about this first hand, I know an attorney for one of these companies, and learned about how the cartels set these things up, its common business practice down there, but highly illegal in the US, dont know about you, but Ive never seen any US companies being brought up on charges of supporting terrorism though (even though they give out millions to the cartels?)
Seems to me, this would be supporting your enemy during a time of ‘war’…right?
Maybe it does come down to how much money your group has, regarding whether you are pursued as a terrorist or just a common criminal? Its said the Mexican cartels bring in about 300 Billion each year, and Id say 95% of that cash comes from the US.
Furthermore, in the US, it is illegal to provide money to any terrorist organization, yet many many US companies hand out ‘monthly payments’ to the drug cartels, just for allowing their factories to operate in their turf in Mexico, I know about this first hand, I know an attorney for one of these companies, and learned about how the cartels set these things up, its common business practice down there, but highly illegal in the US, dont know about you, but Ive never seen any US companies being brought up on charges of supporting terrorism though (even though they give out millions to the cartels?)
Seems to me, this would be supporting your enemy during a time of ‘war’…right?
Maybe it does come down to how much money your group has, regarding whether you are pursued as a terrorist or just a common criminal? Its said the Mexican cartels bring in about 300 Billion each year, and Id say 95% of that cash comes from the US.
F
francisca
Guest
I remember watching a documentary about the arrest of Pablo Escobar, I think it was the time of George Bush Snr, a new interpretation of the law was passed for it. This new intepretation of the law is to say that if a person of foreign national seen as endangering the national security of the US, then US military is allowed to conduct an operation to arrest and execute that person in the country where he reside, or something like that. In the end, Pablo Escobar was arrested by the local police/ military, and not by US military. This intepretation of the law was used to execute Osama Bin Laden much later.
I think “national security” approach has left many unanswered questions. It only makes the problem bigger and bigger because everything happens in secret.
You can’t make our life more secure by spying on everyone. The people’s privacy is the best national security, because if you put people’s information in one massive database, and you use spying method to get those, the same method you use will be used by hackers to hack your database.
Companies design a system that allow spying for the sake of national security… and advertsiments too…
If humanity ever find it’s doom I’m sure it will be because of greed.
To give ALL power to national security people is a MASSIVE CHAOS of the SYSTEM in itself and is prone to abuse.
I think “national security” approach has left many unanswered questions. It only makes the problem bigger and bigger because everything happens in secret.
You can’t make our life more secure by spying on everyone. The people’s privacy is the best national security, because if you put people’s information in one massive database, and you use spying method to get those, the same method you use will be used by hackers to hack your database.
Companies design a system that allow spying for the sake of national security… and advertsiments too…
If humanity ever find it’s doom I’m sure it will be because of greed.To give ALL power to national security people is a MASSIVE CHAOS of the SYSTEM in itself and is prone to abuse.
- Status