Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap

It pretty easy to spot an act of terrorism-one of the points of terrorism is to advertise itself as a socio-political act. Not much thinking for a jury at all in a case of real terrorism.

Al Quaida rarely ever advertises its terracts. full stop. Does this make said terracts not terracts at all according to your method of identifying terrorism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Al Quaida rarely ever advertises its terracts. full stop. Does this make said terracts not terracts at all according to your method of identifying terrorism?

WHAT! Every time an AQ attacks occur, I hear about it- and they sure as hell advertise themselves and praise attacks and make their political aims clear.

All of which is NOT true of street gangs.

What world are you living in?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Because it subverts the meaning of the original terrorism statue, and also undermines the old statue, and does all this without the consent of the legislature, which makes the law.

How did the old statute become undermined? Who interprets the laws the legislatures pass? isn't it the courts? So long as letter of the law is being respected how is this subversion?

Seperation of church and state is an example of the courts 'subverting' the original meaing of a law (the constitution no less!) and yet since it is a good thing and doesn't violate the letter of the law nobody generally objects. Why should this be treated differently? Legislatures need to word the laws more carefully if they really care about not having any gang activity suppressed under their statutes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


WHAT! Every time an AQ attacks occur, I hear about it- and they sure as hell advertise themselves and praise attacks and make their political aims clear.

All of which is NOT true of street gangs.

What world are you living in?

certainly not! AQ never admitted to 9/11 until they were caught red handed on tape! They praised the attacks but denied any involvment. You aren't familier with their MO?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


How did the old statute become undermined? Who interprets the laws the legislatures pass? isn't it the courts? So long as letter of the law is being respected how is this subversion?

Because the DA is stretching the letter of the law, trying to make this crime fit into this statute, when its obvious it easily fits into another, older, existing statute. We have an overzealous DA trying to shop for a harsher punishement.

Seperation of church and state is an example of the courts 'subverting' the original meaing of a law (the constitution no less!) and yet since it is a good thing and deosn't violate the letter of the law nobody generally objects. Why should this be treated differently? Legislatures need to word the laws more carefully if they really care about not having any gang activity suppressed under their statutes.

There is no clarification of what the phrase means in the constitution- criminal statutes are more detailed than that-not the same. This is not a game of guessing what long dead men thought-this is looking at the statute on the books and deciding which is proper.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo
If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?

If you're going to use that gold to finance more terrorism, yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is that enough, if it cant be proved that THIS particular act was intended with to enforce sharia?

It only has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You're being unreasonable

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


certainly not! AQ never admitted to 9/11 until they were caught red handed on tape! They praised the attacks but denied any involvment. You aren't familier with their MO?

It was obvious from day 1 9/11 was a terrorist attack-knowing who was responsible immidiately is significantly different from knowing whether an act was terrorism or not.

Just like the fact Timothy McVeigh did not go running to the papers about his bombing Oklahoma City did not hide the obvious fact that his act was a terrorist act.

And as much asd I love these utterly irrelevant comparisons, why don;t you guys stick to the actual CRIME we are talking about here, which is not some huge bombing, but a singular killing, and when is a singular killing terrorism or not.

[David Floyd]

Hmmmm...can't say I mind it when the book is thrown at a murderer

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Are DAs elected or appointed there? Elected DAs care more about looking tough on crime for the next election than good justice. To be terrorism the crime must have a social and/or politcal motive behind it. Gangs are just in it for $$$ and drugs.

BTW: the KKK would qualify as a terrorist organization, why don't we toss all the Klansmen into Gitmo?

Because being a member isn't enough. And the FBI DID crack down on the KKK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hmmmm...can't say I mind it when the book is thrown at a murderer

The DA is paid with Tax money, as are the jurists and the judge. You support one crime to prosecute another?

You criminal.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Because the DA is stretching the letter of the law, trying to make this crime fit into this statute, when its obvious it easily fits into another, older, existing statute. We have an overzealous DA trying to shop for a harsher punishement.

I see this is the crux of our difference. What is wrong with the DA shopping for a harsher punishment if his success will not violate the letter of the law? A judge and jury and due process will be involved so where is the harm? The DA has a right, indeed a solmen obligation, to use whatever tools are at his disposal in executing his duties to the public.

Originally posted by GePap

There is no clarification of what the phrase means in the constitution- criminal statutes are more detailed than that-not the same. This is not a game of guessing what long dead men thought-this is looking at the statute on the books and deciding which is proper.

The men involved in drafting the constitution were not generally dead much less long dead when the courts added seperation of church and state to the US constitution.

I should also point out that the first amendment is worded as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

You seem to be claiming that this is somehow vague which allowed for the courts to step in and clarify it to mean that no government entity of any branch of government shall make any statement, expression, or action that may be construed as endorsing or belonging to any particular religon whether congress makes a law or not.

I would like you to point out where the vagueness of the 1st amendment is and how the anti terrorism law was somehow less vague than the first ammendment was.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


. We have an overzealous DA trying to shop for a harsher punishement.

.

arent you the one who started the "Law and Order" TV show thread

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I see this is the crux of our difference. What is wrong with the DA shopping for a harsher punishment if his success will not violate the letter of the law? A judge and jury and due process will be involved so where is the harm? The DA has a right, indeed a solmen obligation, to use whatever tools are at his disposal in executing his duties to the public.

Because it does dilute the idea of what terrorism is, plus, who the hell has said shopping for harsher punishment is valid? maybe 25 to life with chance of parole, as the legislature wrote the statute, is the correct punishment for this act, NOt life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what is being sought.

The men involved in drafting the constitution were not generally dead much less long dead when the courts added seperation of church and state to the US constitution.

Courts can't add things to the consitution. Check the document. Its very clear.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


A political agenda means wanting political change- a new regime. Extorsion, which is what you are talking about, is not taxation (which is legal) and there are laws against it already. And witness tampering is already a crime as well- as for it being political- again, what does witness tampering have to do with which regime or political ideology is in power?

So the laws can overlap. How is this a problem? The DA is prosecuting under both statutes they choose the applicable one that will give the harshest penalty for which they think they can get a conviction. That's worked ok till now.