Charlie Kondek
11th July 2003, 14:10
This could start a flame war.
What is a terrorist?
Lee Malvo and John Muhammad, the Virgina snipers, are being tried as murders AND as terrorists under new state terrorism laws. What do you think about that?
Personally, I think it's complete rubbish, on par with redefining crimes as "hate crimes." But worse: I think when we redefine what terrorism is, we broaden what are already obtuse legal enforcement powers from security agencies that should not exist in the first place.
Malvo and Muhammad are serial killers, plain and simple, no matter how much they dress up what they do as Islam or anti-government or whatever. We had a great thread around here (I'll dig for it) by a researcher into these matters on what terrorism really is and does. It said terrorists recruit or martyr themselves to recruit for legitimate armies. For whom were Malvo and Mohammad recuruiting? Were they a terrorism organization of one? By the new definitions of terrorism, one person can be a terrorist organization under himself.
Of course, what worries me, and I speak for many of us here, is how we define terrorism today and tomorrow. Today it's a pair of murderous snipers. Tomorrow it's the guns-rights people. Then, the globalization protesters. Then...
Enjoy speaking your mind on e-budo while you have the right.
Story (italics mine):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/08/national0621EDT0496.DTL
John Muhammad's lawyers file motion seeking dismissal of capital murder charge
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
07-08) 03:21 PDT MANASSAS, Va. (AP) --
Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad's attorneys sought to have a capital murder charge stemming from the state's new anti-terrorism law dismissed, arguing that under the statute all potential jurors are conceivably victims.
The new anti-terror law makes a murder defendant eligible for capital punishment if the crime was intended to intimidate the public or influence the government.
Under that criterion, attorneys Peter D. Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro claimed Monday in a motion filed with the Prince William County Circuit Court, that every resident of the county where the crime took place would also possibly be a victim.
"Given that unique charge, which draws within its reach as victims the entire population of Prince William County, we submit that it is a legal impossibility to impanel a jury, from among the citizenry at large who are the very victims described by the Commonwealth in the terrorism indictment," Greenspun and Shapiro wrote.
Muhammad is charged with two counts of capital murder -- two stemming from the Oct. 9 slaying of a man at a Manassas gas station and another for allegedly killing more than one person in a three-year period.
Last month, Circuit Court Judge LeRoy F. Millette ruled against a claim by Muhammad's attorneys that the anti-terrorism statute was unconstitutionally broad and vague.
Prosecutors have told the judge they will not try to prove that every resident of the county was intimidated by the shootings, but that Muhammad's intent was to intimidate the community as a whole. (What the hell does this mean? - CK)
Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert said in court last week that he believed most potential jurors would be able to set aside their personal feelings and render a fair verdict.
Lawyers for Muhammad's alleged co-conspirator, Lee Boyd Malvo, also have argued against the new anti-terrorism law. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jane Marum Roush decided to move Malvo's trial out of northern Virginia to the city of Chesapeake, about 200 miles away, in order to guarantee a fair trial.
Malvo, 18, and Muhammad, 42, have been linked to 20 shootings, including 13 deaths, in Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington, D.C. Both could get the death penalty.
What is a terrorist?
Lee Malvo and John Muhammad, the Virgina snipers, are being tried as murders AND as terrorists under new state terrorism laws. What do you think about that?
Personally, I think it's complete rubbish, on par with redefining crimes as "hate crimes." But worse: I think when we redefine what terrorism is, we broaden what are already obtuse legal enforcement powers from security agencies that should not exist in the first place.
Malvo and Muhammad are serial killers, plain and simple, no matter how much they dress up what they do as Islam or anti-government or whatever. We had a great thread around here (I'll dig for it) by a researcher into these matters on what terrorism really is and does. It said terrorists recruit or martyr themselves to recruit for legitimate armies. For whom were Malvo and Mohammad recuruiting? Were they a terrorism organization of one? By the new definitions of terrorism, one person can be a terrorist organization under himself.
Of course, what worries me, and I speak for many of us here, is how we define terrorism today and tomorrow. Today it's a pair of murderous snipers. Tomorrow it's the guns-rights people. Then, the globalization protesters. Then...
Enjoy speaking your mind on e-budo while you have the right.
Story (italics mine):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/08/national0621EDT0496.DTL
John Muhammad's lawyers file motion seeking dismissal of capital murder charge
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
07-08) 03:21 PDT MANASSAS, Va. (AP) --
Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad's attorneys sought to have a capital murder charge stemming from the state's new anti-terrorism law dismissed, arguing that under the statute all potential jurors are conceivably victims.
The new anti-terror law makes a murder defendant eligible for capital punishment if the crime was intended to intimidate the public or influence the government.
Under that criterion, attorneys Peter D. Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro claimed Monday in a motion filed with the Prince William County Circuit Court, that every resident of the county where the crime took place would also possibly be a victim.
"Given that unique charge, which draws within its reach as victims the entire population of Prince William County, we submit that it is a legal impossibility to impanel a jury, from among the citizenry at large who are the very victims described by the Commonwealth in the terrorism indictment," Greenspun and Shapiro wrote.
Muhammad is charged with two counts of capital murder -- two stemming from the Oct. 9 slaying of a man at a Manassas gas station and another for allegedly killing more than one person in a three-year period.
Last month, Circuit Court Judge LeRoy F. Millette ruled against a claim by Muhammad's attorneys that the anti-terrorism statute was unconstitutionally broad and vague.
Prosecutors have told the judge they will not try to prove that every resident of the county was intimidated by the shootings, but that Muhammad's intent was to intimidate the community as a whole. (What the hell does this mean? - CK)
Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert said in court last week that he believed most potential jurors would be able to set aside their personal feelings and render a fair verdict.
Lawyers for Muhammad's alleged co-conspirator, Lee Boyd Malvo, also have argued against the new anti-terrorism law. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jane Marum Roush decided to move Malvo's trial out of northern Virginia to the city of Chesapeake, about 200 miles away, in order to guarantee a fair trial.
Malvo, 18, and Muhammad, 42, have been linked to 20 shootings, including 13 deaths, in Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington, D.C. Both could get the death penalty.