6 ms·
It's terrorism because it's directly in line with 18 USC 2331: (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human lif
by danieldon 17y ago
It's terrorism because it's directly in line with 18 USC 2331:
(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.
- grandalf 17y agoBy clause A someone speeding on the highway could be considered a terrorist. By clause B a person who writes his congressman and threatens not to vote/donate in the next election cycle is a terrorist (threat/coercion). If the key is intent, then a poet who writes an anti-government poem is a terrorist.
- robotblake 17y agoif a and (b1 or b2 or b3) and c terrorist = true end
- grandalf 17y ago(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State So an attack designed to destroy an unoccupied building would not be terrorism under the structure you describe above.
- pyre 17y agoI think that the law would still hold detonating a bomb in an unoccupied building as 'dangerous to human life' if you didn't follow all of the safety precautions that a real building demolition would have to follow. If you put a bomb in an abandoned building at set to detonate in 2 hours and then flee the scene, there's not guarantee that someone won't enter the building in the interim.
- grandalf 17y agoYou could make that same argument about someone driving above the speed limit...
- pyre 17y agoHow many people are breaking the speed limit in an effort to 'coerce the civilian popular and/or US government policy?'
- grandalf 17y agoThat's not my point, my point is just that the logical structure attributed to the definition is not accurate. The definition does not state that all of the clauses must be satisfied for something to qualify as terrorism, and as I showed above, satisfying a single clause is trivial (and clearly not terrorism).
- pyre 17y agoI think that you should ask a lawyer about that before jumping to those conclusions. This may be some sort of gap between legal-speak and plain English. There are a lot of terms that diverge in meaning between common usage (even 'traditional' definition) and legal definition. Logic would dictate that the meaning of that is "if A and (B[1] or B[2] or B[3]) and C", but it's not explicitly there.
- grandalf 17y agoIt looks to me like the definition is intended to be intentionally vague while appearing narrow.