If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "So everyone is a terrorist"   (nytimes.com) divider line 155
    More: Asinine, Chief Judge, penal codes, Lutheran Church, federal courts, street crimes, Mexican-Americans, Jonathan Lippman, threats  
•       •       •

22564 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Oct 2012 at 12:35 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 01:08:25 PM  
Haha! I knew this would happen! I would link to the thread from a few days ago where I said this exact thing would happen, but I don't want to damage my gloat sphincter.
 
2012-10-10 01:08:47 PM  

cleek: here's the USA PATRIOT act's definition of "domestic terrorist":

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.'. 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html#802

pretty goddamned broad.

thanks W !


Thank the Congress that voted it in, and the subsequent POTUS who let it go through again.

The biggest problem I see with the definition is the OR in the conditions. I'd argue that you'd need all three for it to be considered terrorism.
 
2012-10-10 01:09:35 PM  

Ordinary Genius: Congratulations! everyone in this thread is now on a watch list.


I consider the day to be a failure if I don't do something to get me on a watch list.

/potential terrorist
//I have more than 7 days of food
 
2012-10-10 01:11:48 PM  
This reminds me of the early days of Internet when the federal government tried to prosecute a copyright infringement case as "wire fraud".
 
2012-10-10 01:11:52 PM  
Without touching the issue of how laws are actually written, and just speaking conceptually...

I could see classifying members of serious gangs as "terrorists". I could also see not doing so. To me it depends how tightly you bind the definition to the intents of their actions. Traditional terrorists and gangsters use the same psychological mechanisms to do what they do. For the terrorists, it's classically aimed to effect political (or similar) change. For terrorists, the intimidation and violent demeanor is used to grant effective impunity for illegal activities. In either case, the intimidation/terrorizing is directed at any and all people and groups who would oppose their activities thorough legal channels.

To me, that's actually pretty similar.
 
2012-10-10 01:12:04 PM  

Parthenogenetic: That could get you Gitmoed! Or maybe your wife,


I wish I could gitmo from the wife, if you know what I mean....
 
2012-10-10 01:12:07 PM  
When I eat hotdogs from the stand that's close to work, my digestive system becomes a WMD.
 
2012-10-10 01:12:13 PM  

Aeon Rising: hold on
"`(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"

Doesn't that rather precisely describe our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's air strikes and much of our foreign trade policies?

Oh wait, that limits to harm done to the USA locally, not how the USA treats others.


Governments are allowed to act in such ways. They have governing documents and hundreds of people devoted not only to making each other look bad in their applications/interpretations of those laws, but also to apply and interpret the laws. People operate under all kinds of ridiculous biases, and are prey to very simple and subtle means of manipulation or bad thinking.

Also, do you really think that a government "[intending] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" is even a logical possibility (the government cannot influence itself), let alone a bad or extrajudicial use of government power (geopolitics works via international agreement and compromise - do you know of any other way)?
 
2012-10-10 01:12:49 PM  
serious inconvenience=terrorist SO

please use other door=terrorist
 
2012-10-10 01:13:05 PM  

Theaetetus: WizardofToast: Ordinary Genius: Congratulations! everyone in this thread is now on a watch list.

o/ o| o/ o|

Look, Department of Homeland Security! I'm waving to you!

Yes, but where's your other arm, Terrorist?


You know what's sad but hilarious? Some politician claimed that anybody can be a terrorist if they have missing fingers/hands because they're obviously experimenting with explosives. Like about a year or two ago.
 
2012-10-10 01:14:00 PM  

YixilTesiphon: cleek: thanks W !

And Biden, and basically everyone in the Congress in 2001, and Obama for re-upping it, and basically everyone in Congress when that happened...when both parties get together to do something, America's getting farked.


And yet we seem to believe that congressional gridlock is a *BAD* thing. Go figure.
 
2012-10-10 01:14:11 PM  

asynchron: Without touching the issue of how laws are actually written, and just speaking conceptually...

I could see classifying members of serious gangs as "terrorists". I could also see not doing so. To me it depends how tightly you bind the definition to the intents of their actions. Traditional terrorists and gangsters use the same psychological mechanisms to do what they do. For the terrorists, it's classically aimed to effect political (or similar) change. For terrorists gang members, the intimidation and violent demeanor is used to grant effective impunity for illegal activities. In either case, the intimidation/terrorizing is directed at any and all people and groups who would oppose their activities thorough legal channels.

To me, that's actually pretty similar.


FTFM, gosh darnit.
 
2012-10-10 01:14:29 PM  
You forgot the question mark, completely changing the point of the rhetorical question.

It makes a difference between asking a question and answering one. Such as, "Subby is a functional retard". See, that is a statement. If I put a question mark after it, it changes, "Subby is a functional retard?"

Granted, either would work in this situation, but when quoting someone, you want to make sure you get the quote correct.
 
2012-10-10 01:14:36 PM  
is every crime is a hate crime?
 
2012-10-10 01:15:32 PM  

dittybopper: Parthenogenetic: That could get you Gitmoed! Or maybe your wife,

I wish I could gitmo from the wife, if you know what I mean....


You want her to tie you up and pour water into your nose and mouth?

Kinky.
 
2012-10-10 01:18:33 PM  
i wasn't around at the time, but I wonder how people reacted to the first RICO case... it's appears to me to be a little over-reaching at times.

/ oh well, media created drastic times call for drastically melodramatic legislation.
 
2012-10-10 01:20:16 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: I terrorized my cat with the vacuum yesterday. Not intentionally, mind you. But to my cat, I am a terrorist. He later terrorized me, though, by throwing up on the bed, so it's all good.


That cat thinks the vacuum sucks.
 
2012-10-10 01:23:15 PM  

chopit: dittybopper: Parthenogenetic: That could get you Gitmoed! Or maybe your wife,

I wish I could gitmo from the wife, if you know what I mean....

You want her to tie you up and pour water into your nose and mouth?

Kinky.


That's not water...
 
2012-10-10 01:23:34 PM  

dittybopper: YixilTesiphon: cleek: thanks W !

And Biden, and basically everyone in the Congress in 2001, and Obama for re-upping it, and basically everyone in Congress when that happened...when both parties get together to do something, America's getting farked.

And yet we seem to believe that congressional gridlock is a *BAD* thing. Go figure.


Yeah, what's with that? I heard some talking head blabbering about how "what Americans want is everybody in Washington to come together to get things done."

No! Please! Do fewer things! More photo ops, more golf, more parties with Jay-Z. We have a 12-year backlog of Washington doing too much shiat. Just stop so we can wrap our head around some of these. Nobody even knows what's in Dodd-Frank yet.
 
2012-10-10 01:26:23 PM  
Everyone is a terrorist?

The article must be about the same area of the US that does the stop and frisk thingy.

\why does the Northeast hate America?
 
2012-10-10 01:26:33 PM  
ran roughshod over a stretch of the Bronx, and he was convicted for his role in a shooting at a church christening party that killed a 10-year-old girl.

Sounds like typical terrorist behavior to me.
 
2012-10-10 01:28:40 PM  
I feel safer.
 
2012-10-10 01:38:42 PM  
I'm just gonna throw this out there:

DoD definition of terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

And Title 22 US Code definition: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

So, no, as this was not politically or ideolgoically motivated, by the main terrorism-defining bodies in our country this is not terrorism.
 
2012-10-10 01:53:23 PM  
Dancers yes..terrorists, would depend on the music and the motivation

laphamsquarterly.org
 
2012-10-10 01:54:37 PM  
Gang members are not trying (to):


`(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"



Or are they?
 
2012-10-10 01:58:41 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Ordinary Genius: Congratulations! everyone in this thread is now on a watch list.

As if half of Fark wasn't already.


it would be ironic if one of the watch list criteria was having alts here.
 
2012-10-10 02:01:29 PM  

JohnCarter: Dancers yes..terrorists, would depend on the music and the motivation

[laphamsquarterly.org image 730x547]


www.papermag.com
Terrorists.
 
2012-10-10 02:03:17 PM  
Conventional Wisdom would say this guy is just a piece of crap thug who needs to go to jail for a very long time. But now a days it was only a matter of time before some politician took great advantage of the patriot act.
 
2012-10-10 02:05:36 PM  
Everyone is a terrorist.
Everyone is a racist
Everything is offensive
Everything is bullying.
 
2012-10-10 02:05:49 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Also, do you really think that a government "[intending] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" is even a logical possibility


Nope, but that doesn't stop the attempts to change the way other governments behave through violence, unless you really believe the recent and ongoing wars are attempts to compromise with the target states.
 
2012-10-10 02:06:53 PM  

duffman13: DoD definition of terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


So... shock and awe to overthrow Hussein?
 
2012-10-10 02:09:24 PM  
And for the record, I was fine with going into Iraq, and was fine with going into Afganistan. What I am opposed to is obfuscating events with broad ill defined labels.

Or using the broad ill defined labels to guide laws and policies.
 
2012-10-10 02:11:26 PM  
The whole idea of extra categorization and new laws and special jails and use of military court system for terrorism is just stupid. We already have plenty of laws to deal with someone who kills, destructs, etc. They are just criminals and our system can handle them, including executing them in many cases. We have dealt with dangerous criminals, mass murderers, and organized crime and they are no different.

Just try them in regular system, execute them if warranted, put them in federal maximum security prisons, etc.

The whole idea of a new category of criminal is just such a blatant attempt to erode rights on all levels, and entirely unnecessary. We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.
 
2012-10-10 02:11:38 PM  
Not that I condone terrorism, or any "ism" for that matter. "Isms" in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an "ism", he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
 
2012-10-10 02:16:41 PM  

jabelar: The whole idea of extra categorization and new laws and special jails and use of military court system for terrorism is just stupid. We already have plenty of laws to deal with someone who kills, destructs, etc. They are just criminals and our system can handle them, including executing them in many cases. We have dealt with dangerous criminals, mass murderers, and organized crime and they are no different.

Just try them in regular system, execute them if warranted, put them in federal maximum security prisons, etc.

The whole idea of a new category of criminal is just such a blatant attempt to erode rights on all levels, and entirely unnecessary. We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.


They are afraid.
 
2012-10-10 02:17:50 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Everyone who said that it would come back to bite us letting government and law enforcement have special powers to go after "terrorists" and that soon such laws would be abused to go after petty criminals, come up and claim your prize.


Andy Rooney (who otherwise went a few bricks shy of a full load a number of years back) said on 60 minutes the Sunday after 9/11 that we would do more damage to ourselves than those terrorists did by crashing planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Prize goes to him, I think.
 
2012-10-10 02:20:33 PM  

Wodan11: Not that I condone terrorism, or any "ism" for that matter. "Isms" in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an "ism", he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.


And yet, despite our knowing better, these things are like some kind of epidemic disease. I recommend Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Jorge Luis Borges and Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
 
2012-10-10 02:23:11 PM  
mlkshk.com 

If you've ever lived in a gang-infested neighborhood, you'll know that they ARE terrorists...
 
2012-10-10 02:25:13 PM  
The test case was the DC sniper case. They convicted him on a terrorism charge.
Now they just need to apply it to anyone they want.
 
2012-10-10 02:26:58 PM  

Wodan11: Not that I condone terrorism, or any "ism" for that matter. "Isms" in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an "ism", he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-10 02:27:25 PM  

jabelar: We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.


Our inability to effectively deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, the enemy in the war on drugs and secure the southern border against increasing violence is stark evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-10-10 02:28:37 PM  

SubBass49: [mlkshk.com image 330x186] 

If you've ever lived in a gang-infested neighborhood, you'll know that they ARE terrorists...


And if you've ever lived in a Jew-infested neighborhood, you know that THEY can also be terrorists, amirite? Someone should do something about those people.

I mean, Jesus. I never use the slippery slope argument, but when have new laws that target vaguely defined groups of undesirables ever been a good thing?
 
2012-10-10 02:33:05 PM  

Bhruic: Go ahead and scoff. One should. One really should. Dumbasses like this... Indeed, it's hard not to laugh. Not because it's funny. Too bad it's not. Everyone knew something like this was coming. No one acted to stop it. That's the real crime. If only someone had acted. Only now it's too late. Now we're stuck with it. So we need to make the best of it.


You know what I love about this post? You could copy/paste this response verbatim into virtually ANY Fark thread, ever, and it would make just as much sense.

Especially in the Entertainment tab.
 
2012-10-10 02:33:29 PM  

Aeon Rising: jabelar: We know how to wage war against actual combatants, and we know how to deal with dangerous criminals, organized or not.

Our inability to effectively deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, the enemy in the war on drugs and secure the southern border against increasing violence is stark evidence to the contrary.


This is a common misconception, these are all huge successes. I guess a lot of people think that our foreign policy goals are to create happy stable countries around the world, but it is not. Our goal is to destabilize other countries. This is because geopolitical success and power is relative and it is easier to tear others down rather than build yourself up.

Our issue with Iraq was that it was relatively stable. Stability is the thing we consider dangerous. This is why Iran is in our sights now.

The reason why everyone is always confused about why we go into all these regions in the way we do is that they don't understand the actual goal. Once you look at it as purposeful destabilization, it is pretty easy to understand it all.

it is certainly sad that we take this approach, but it is understandable.
 
2012-10-10 02:38:50 PM  

cman: Mugato: They throw the word "racist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people under the bus. Mitt Romney is being called a racist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just say something stupid and you're a racist. The word has about as much meaning now as "epic".

FTFY


Couldn't wait to jam this thread up with dickery, huh??? I hope your real life is as miserable as your Fark persona, you dripping cock...
 
2012-10-10 02:41:00 PM  

NCg8r: cman: Mugato: They throw the word "racist" at everything now because it gets people's attention and makes headlines and probably gives an excuse to throw people under the bus. Mitt Romney is being called a racist. You don't need to make any politically motivated speeches or demands anymore, just say something stupid and you're a racist. The word has about as much meaning now as "epic".

FTFY

Couldn't wait to jam this thread up with dickery, huh??? I hope your real life is as miserable as your Fark persona, you dripping cock...


Well, my life is pretty damn miserable. My cock does not drip, however
 
2012-10-10 02:47:23 PM  

Aarontology: We should label all criminals as terrorists and give the government absolutely authority if we're going to by candy ass pussies about it.


Everyone that doesn't support absolute government authority is a terrorist.
 
2012-10-10 02:50:23 PM  

Vectron: Everyone that doesn't support absolute government authority is a terrorist.


Only the Sith terrorists deal in absolutes.
 
2012-10-10 02:50:32 PM  

cleek: here's the USA PATRIOT act's definition of "domestic terrorist":

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.'. 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html#802

pretty goddamned broad.

thanks W !


Wait a sec there.
Oh, TSA?
I've got some news for you.
 
2012-10-10 02:51:44 PM  

jabelar: This is a common misconception, these are all huge successes. I guess a lot of people think that our foreign policy goals are to create happy stable countries around the world, but it is not. Our goal is to destabilize other countries. This is because geopolitical success and power is relative and it is easier to tear others down rather than build yourself up.

Our issue with Iraq was that it was relatively stable. Stability is the thing we consider dangerous. This is why Iran is in our sights now.


coloradophotographer.com
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report