3 ms·
That applies to a lot of situations if taken literally. You have to use a lot of care when labeling somebody with such a charged word. We wouldn’t want to see a
by hertzrat 6y ago
That applies to a lot of situations if taken literally. You have to use a lot of care when labeling somebody with such a charged word. We wouldn’t want to see a bunch of rioters from <pick a protest by whatever side that turned violent> sent to Guantanamo.
- freeone3000 6y agoI don't want that because I don't want anyone sent to Guantanamo. But this absurdist doublethink has to stop somewhere. The IRA were terrorists. The Weathermen were terrorists. And setting fire to a courthouse in order to change laws is, in fact, terrorism. If we can't apply laws to people we agree with, we do not live in a society of laws at all.
- tanseydavid 6y agoSetting fire to a courthouse is already against the law. What benefit is there in calling it Terrorism? Are there things which are currently legal that will become illegal under this 'domestic terrorism framework' that is being discussed? What are these things which are currently legal that will be addressed by a 'domestic terrorism framework'. Were the result Church Hearings justified or did they go too far in the restrictions they placed on law enforcement?
- jariel 6y agoMost of the protesters were just protesters. Some of them may have had quasi-violent intent, such as 'let's break in an make a point', but a very small few seemed to have some very dark intent. If you rile up enough people, then a small slice of them will be on the radical margins. It only took a ~5 Serbs to kill Franz Ferdinand.
- hertzrat 6y agoThat’s a scary observation. Those people weren’t the most important cause of world war 1, but they were the spark in an extremely dry barn that everyone kept adding gasoline to, daring the other side to spark it