4 ms·

OT: interesting you put Charlottesville in that list. Do we have any reason to believe James Fields planned to drive his car into a crowd of people that day? I

by zaroth 9y ago

OT: interesting you put Charlottesville in that list. Do we have any reason to believe James Fields planned to drive his car into a crowd of people that day? I think to call it a terrorist attack would require establishing it was planned / premeditated. From what I can tell the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove even a hate crime, let alone terrorism.

burkaman 9y ago
That is not a meaningful distinction. A car attack planned 30 seconds in advance is as dangerous as one planned 3 weeks in advance.
- zaroth 9y ago
  The law certainly finds a meaningful distinction between spur of the moment versus premeditated attacks. Also a terrorist attack is carnage for a specific purpose, not just any carnage at all. I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. I'm not trying to defend any particular action, just that it does seem very distinct from, for example, a bucket of TATP and nails left in the subway. I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville.
  - tomjakubowski 9y ago
    I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. Oh, please. Take one minute to watch the (graphic, disturbing) videos from the scene and observe that, before the attack, the Charger was nowhere near the "mob" when he made the decision to gun the engine to plow through it. Fields started his attack run from well down the street, perpendicular to the marching counter-protestors.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - burkaman 9y ago
    > I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville. Why? Unless you have some kind of power over the defendant, there's no reason to reserve judgement until after the trial. Are you unwilling to make a judgement about, say, Julian Assange until he's tried in a court of law? Did you reverse your opinion about Joe Arpaio when he was pardoned? I have a lot of faith in the justice system, but verdicts are wrong all the time, and should be one of many factors in how you view the world.
    - angersock 9y ago
      The purpose of a court of law, at least historically in the US, is to make sure that evidence is brought out and the situation explained and explored. We should not dismiss that lightly.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        I'm not dismissing it, but unless you have power over someone involved, there's no reason to pretend you don't have an opinion until after the trial, or to unquestioningly accept the verdict. In this particular case, there's enough evidence already available to draw a nonbinding conclusion. Of course you should still pay attention to any new evidence or testimony in the trial, and don't dismiss the result if it disagrees with your early conclusions. But it's ok to think OJ was guilty, it's ok to think Arpaio is guilty, it's ok to have an opinion about Julian Assange even though he hasn't been tried.
- angersock 9y ago
  I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advance. The problem is that if random acts of violence are conflated with systematic terrorism, we grossly inflate the numbers in such a way as to be constantly crying out for further surveillance and erosion of rights. And when the attacks keep happening, because they're spur-of-the-moment lunatics, we will proceed to clamp down harder. So, no, we have to draw the difference between the two.
lostlogin 9y ago
Planning has nothing to do with it according to The Patriot Act 2001, however Charlottesville doesn't seem to have been defined as terrorism. "The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. 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 U.S." Everyone's favourite source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism However far right violence has a track record of not being labelled as terrorism quite as easily as attacks by Muslims. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/the-numbers-dont-lie-white-far-right-terrorists-pose-a-clear-danger-to-us-all.html https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/t...
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Terrorism is violent crime intended to further an ideological goal by intimidating opponents. The amount of planning involved is irrelevant.

by zaroth 9y ago

burkaman 9y ago

That is not a meaningful distinction. A car attack planned 30 seconds in advance is as dangerous as one planned 3 weeks in advance.

zaroth 9y ago
The law certainly finds a meaningful distinction between spur of the moment versus premeditated attacks. Also a terrorist attack is carnage for a specific purpose, not just any carnage at all. I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. I'm not trying to defend any particular action, just that it does seem very distinct from, for example, a bucket of TATP and nails left in the subway. I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville.
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. Oh, please. Take one minute to watch the (graphic, disturbing) videos from the scene and observe that, before the attack, the Charger was nowhere near the "mob" when he made the decision to gun the engine to plow through it. Fields started his attack run from well down the street, perpendicular to the marching counter-protestors.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- burkaman 9y ago
  > I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville. Why? Unless you have some kind of power over the defendant, there's no reason to reserve judgement until after the trial. Are you unwilling to make a judgement about, say, Julian Assange until he's tried in a court of law? Did you reverse your opinion about Joe Arpaio when he was pardoned? I have a lot of faith in the justice system, but verdicts are wrong all the time, and should be one of many factors in how you view the world.
  - angersock 9y ago
    The purpose of a court of law, at least historically in the US, is to make sure that evidence is brought out and the situation explained and explored. We should not dismiss that lightly.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      I'm not dismissing it, but unless you have power over someone involved, there's no reason to pretend you don't have an opinion until after the trial, or to unquestioningly accept the verdict. In this particular case, there's enough evidence already available to draw a nonbinding conclusion. Of course you should still pay attention to any new evidence or testimony in the trial, and don't dismiss the result if it disagrees with your early conclusions. But it's ok to think OJ was guilty, it's ok to think Arpaio is guilty, it's ok to have an opinion about Julian Assange even though he hasn't been tried.
angersock 9y ago
I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advance. The problem is that if random acts of violence are conflated with systematic terrorism, we grossly inflate the numbers in such a way as to be constantly crying out for further surveillance and erosion of rights. And when the attacks keep happening, because they're spur-of-the-moment lunatics, we will proceed to clamp down harder. So, no, we have to draw the difference between the two.

lostlogin 9y ago

Planning has nothing to do with it according to The Patriot Act 2001, however Charlottesville doesn't seem to have been defined as terrorism. "The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. 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 U.S." Everyone's favourite source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism However far right violence has a track record of not being labelled as terrorism quite as easily as attacks by Muslims. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/the-numbers-dont-lie-white-far-right-terrorists-pose-a-clear-danger-to-us-all.html https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/t...

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Terrorism is violent crime intended to further an ideological goal by intimidating opponents. The amount of planning involved is irrelevant.