Monday, July 16, 2007
Hate Crimes and Terrorism
Just a question for those who are gung-ho about the war on terror but who are against sentancing enhancement for hate crimes: what's the difference?
If [X] murders [Y] in order to intimidate African-Americans -- a hate crime -- how is that different than [X] murdering [Y] in an act of terrorism if the latter is different that say [X] murdering [Y] for whatever other reasons people murder?
It seems to me that if you are going to say crimes committed for the purpose of terrorizing a population are worse than other crimes, such crimes are worse whether the population being terrorized is an oppressed minority (pace Tony Snow, et al -- c.f. Jena) or whether the population is "the 'Murkin people". So how can you be in favor of going nutso over terrorism (which may not be a bad strategy -- if terrorists figure they've got you, well, terrorized, then they don't need to inflict any more harm, eh?) and not be in favor of making a deal out of hate crimes?
Anyway, it stands to reason that domestic terrorism is more of a concern in a protected-by-the-oceans country like ours than international terrorism. And this, contra the right, is born out by empirical evidence. So how come we're worried about the Islamicist hordes and meanwhile Eric Rudolph is not languishing at Gitmo but has access to attorneys and the intertubes? Not that Christofascists have worse souls or intent, but by their mere being already in this country, they can do more damage. So why not worry about the more pressing problem?
It isn't just politics and bigotry though (although this phenomenon helps explain bigotry): evolution has not exactly perfected our ability to accurately assess relative risks. This is a well known phenomenon and something those who think we are Intelligently Designed (or that evolutionary systems, e.g. social-Darwinian free markets produce optimal results) ought to consider ...
If [X] murders [Y] in order to intimidate African-Americans -- a hate crime -- how is that different than [X] murdering [Y] in an act of terrorism if the latter is different that say [X] murdering [Y] for whatever other reasons people murder?
It seems to me that if you are going to say crimes committed for the purpose of terrorizing a population are worse than other crimes, such crimes are worse whether the population being terrorized is an oppressed minority (pace Tony Snow, et al -- c.f. Jena) or whether the population is "the 'Murkin people". So how can you be in favor of going nutso over terrorism (which may not be a bad strategy -- if terrorists figure they've got you, well, terrorized, then they don't need to inflict any more harm, eh?) and not be in favor of making a deal out of hate crimes?
Anyway, it stands to reason that domestic terrorism is more of a concern in a protected-by-the-oceans country like ours than international terrorism. And this, contra the right, is born out by empirical evidence. So how come we're worried about the Islamicist hordes and meanwhile Eric Rudolph is not languishing at Gitmo but has access to attorneys and the intertubes? Not that Christofascists have worse souls or intent, but by their mere being already in this country, they can do more damage. So why not worry about the more pressing problem?
It isn't just politics and bigotry though (although this phenomenon helps explain bigotry): evolution has not exactly perfected our ability to accurately assess relative risks. This is a well known phenomenon and something those who think we are Intelligently Designed (or that evolutionary systems, e.g. social-Darwinian free markets produce optimal results) ought to consider ...
# posted by alberich @ 12:15 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
First, let me say that I support enahanced paenalties for perpetrators of crimes where it's reasonable to conclude that racial/religious/gender/sexual bigotry was a significant motivation of the said crime. The reason being is that it "indirectly" harms others of the victim's targeted group
Notwistanding the above, there is a logical explanation for supporting "the war on terror" and not "hate crimes;" "terrorism" instantaneously, and "directly" causes tangible harm ie. death/injury to multilple people, while "hate crines" do not.
Also, you seemingly associate "domestic terrorism" with non-Islamic terrorism as opposed to the international terrorism which is Islamic. Why?? There are Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S! Also, I would like to see your statistics that show your version of "domestic terrorism" as a greater threat than Islamic terrorism.
Notwistanding the above, there is a logical explanation for supporting "the war on terror" and not "hate crimes;" "terrorism" instantaneously, and "directly" causes tangible harm ie. death/injury to multilple people, while "hate crines" do not.
Also, you seemingly associate "domestic terrorism" with non-Islamic terrorism as opposed to the international terrorism which is Islamic. Why?? There are Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S! Also, I would like to see your statistics that show your version of "domestic terrorism" as a greater threat than Islamic terrorism.
terrorism" instantaneously, and "directly" causes tangible harm ie. death/injury to multilple people - kero9
Then why not charge people with X counts of murder, Y counts of assault, etc.? Why have this separate, distinguished crime of "terrorism"?
Also, you seemingly associate "domestic terrorism" with non-Islamic terrorism as opposed to the international terrorism which is Islamic. Why?? There are Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S!
Indeed. That would be a source of alarm (although many of those cells are not entirely home-grown, so to speak -- e.g. the alleged terrorists have been alleged to have been trained in overseas training camps, etc.). But how many of these "Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S!" that could fairly be called "domestic" (assuming that you'd call a plot like the 9/11 plot "international" and not domestic as even those terrorists were in the U.S. -- in which case, shouldn't we be focused more on law enforcement internally than fighting "those terrorists over there"?) have actually caused actual harm? As opposed to "Christo-fascist" terrorists?
I would like to see your statistics that show your version of "domestic terrorism" as a greater threat than Islamic terrorism.
I've been trying to find summary statistics myself. The reason why I state it's a greater threat (domestically) is that other than 9/11 (which was huge, but an outlier), how many other "successful" (and of those that have been foiled, how many have been foiled because of the war on terror vs. just being foiled as a result of a combination of luck -- favoring the prepared mind, admittedly -- and conventional police work?) Islamicist attacks in the US have their been? How many attacks by anti-abortion zealots, radical eco-terrorists (although these try not to kill people but only to damage property, whereas the so-called pro-lifers have murdered their share of people), etc.?
Then why not charge people with X counts of murder, Y counts of assault, etc.? Why have this separate, distinguished crime of "terrorism"?
Also, you seemingly associate "domestic terrorism" with non-Islamic terrorism as opposed to the international terrorism which is Islamic. Why?? There are Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S!
Indeed. That would be a source of alarm (although many of those cells are not entirely home-grown, so to speak -- e.g. the alleged terrorists have been alleged to have been trained in overseas training camps, etc.). But how many of these "Muslim terrorist cells here in the U.S!" that could fairly be called "domestic" (assuming that you'd call a plot like the 9/11 plot "international" and not domestic as even those terrorists were in the U.S. -- in which case, shouldn't we be focused more on law enforcement internally than fighting "those terrorists over there"?) have actually caused actual harm? As opposed to "Christo-fascist" terrorists?
I would like to see your statistics that show your version of "domestic terrorism" as a greater threat than Islamic terrorism.
I've been trying to find summary statistics myself. The reason why I state it's a greater threat (domestically) is that other than 9/11 (which was huge, but an outlier), how many other "successful" (and of those that have been foiled, how many have been foiled because of the war on terror vs. just being foiled as a result of a combination of luck -- favoring the prepared mind, admittedly -- and conventional police work?) Islamicist attacks in the US have their been? How many attacks by anti-abortion zealots, radical eco-terrorists (although these try not to kill people but only to damage property, whereas the so-called pro-lifers have murdered their share of people), etc.?
I agree that we would have been much smarter to use the resources we expended on invading and occupying Iraq on protecting our borders such as checking more cargo coming into this country.
Anyhow, I just read that the feds think that there will be an attack from a crazy eco group(the scope and and nature, I don't know) so maybe we should be profiling Birkenstock wearing people haha.
Actaully, perhaps the feds could hire someone with a foot fetish who wouldn't mind looking at feet all day.
Anyhow, I just read that the feds think that there will be an attack from a crazy eco group(the scope and and nature, I don't know) so maybe we should be profiling Birkenstock wearing people haha.
Actaully, perhaps the feds could hire someone with a foot fetish who wouldn't mind looking at feet all day.
Anyhow, I just read that the feds think that there will be an attack from a crazy eco group(the scope and and nature, I don't know) so maybe we should be profiling Birkenstock wearing people haha. - kero9
Actually, the issue of how to classify eco-terrorists is yet another way in which these definitions become politicized. Due to slight changes in the wording of the laws (NPR actually covered this one), some eco-terrorists have gotten some pretty stiff sentances 'cause they are terrorists. Meanwhile anti-abortion nutsos rarely seem to fall under the definition of terrorist ...
The eco-terrorists are terrorists, AFAIC, but their proven track record in avoiding actually killing people says something, don't it?
Actaully, perhaps the feds could hire someone with a foot fetish who wouldn't mind looking at feet all day.
Yep. Sounds like someone might have a job.
And no "king of the gods" (in case you're lurking around here) ... I'm not talking about myself here. You've got my fetishes all wrong and you know it. ;)
Post a Comment
Actually, the issue of how to classify eco-terrorists is yet another way in which these definitions become politicized. Due to slight changes in the wording of the laws (NPR actually covered this one), some eco-terrorists have gotten some pretty stiff sentances 'cause they are terrorists. Meanwhile anti-abortion nutsos rarely seem to fall under the definition of terrorist ...
The eco-terrorists are terrorists, AFAIC, but their proven track record in avoiding actually killing people says something, don't it?
Actaully, perhaps the feds could hire someone with a foot fetish who wouldn't mind looking at feet all day.
Yep. Sounds like someone might have a job.
And no "king of the gods" (in case you're lurking around here) ... I'm not talking about myself here. You've got my fetishes all wrong and you know it. ;)
<< Home
