Is the sniper case terrorism?

[opus512]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/28/sniper.terrorism.law.ap/index.html

MANASSAS, Virginia (AP) -- When the Virginia Legislature passed a bill this year authorizing the death penalty for acts of terrorism, lawmakers hoped their work would be a mere precaution that never had to be implemented.

But just three months after its enactment, sniper suspects John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad are being prosecuted under the new law.

"We envisioned Osama bin Laden. But what we're talking about in the sniper case is definitely terrorism," said the law's chief sponsor, state Delegate David Albo.

Experts say the public terror created by the three-week series of shootings and the sniper's demands for a $10 million ransom make the law an easy fit.

In fact, the law is one of the reasons U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft sent the pair to Virginia for prosecution, giving the state precedence over Maryland.

Ashcroft wanted the pair to face the "ultimate punishment," and Virginia's new law increases the chances of obtaining the death penalty in a state that trails only Texas in the number of people executed in the last 25 years.

I've been waiting for them to say it and they finally have. I can't view it as act of terrorism in the same vien as the WTC attacks, or Oklahoma City.

Certainly people were 'terrorized' by the snipers, but IMO it was more a serial killing, the money demand was never anything to be taken seriously, I htink it was more to throw the law off the trial.

Taken to the extreme, a school bully could be a 'terrorist', as he terrorizes other children in the schoolyard. I think there are more then sufficient laws already in place to more then convict the two of multiple murders, why add on more?

Wouldn't it be the same arguement as was made against inacting 'hate crime' legislation?

[EG]

put down the crack pipe....

it wasnt an act of terror?

shooting school kids?

I beg to disagree.......

domestic terrorism just like OKC

[Hydra]

The guy was a murderer, not a terrorist.
If he's a terrorist, you guys have been under attack for a very long time.

[EG]

Originally posted by Wamphyr
The guy was a murderer, not a terrorist.
If he's a terrorist, you guys have been under attack for a very long time.

you say tomatoe I say terrorist........

[Hydra]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


you say tomatoe I say terrorist........

Rapists are terrorists too now I take it? How about people who hold up the local gas station?

[Babel-17]

Unless I'm shown otherwise I'm operating under the belief that those dudes had strong pro militant Islamic fundamentalist beliefs ..... compounded with their murderous acts classifying them as terrorists is no big stretch.

Being psychotic or delusional etc. does not free them from that label imo.

[EG]

Originally posted by Wamphyr


Rapists are terrorists too now I take it? How about people who hold up the local gas station?

those guys didnt commit rape nor robbery........

dont mix the fruit

[opus512]

Well, I still think they more fit the pattern of serial killers then terrorists, and I still think there are more then enough applicable laws already on the books to not only convict them but sentance them to death. Instead, they are going to try them under a bunch of new laws, untested in court, and take a chance on screwing the case up. Of course they won't walk, and when they don't, they will bend the law and Constitution so much to fit their desired outcome, it won't be pretty. Why take the chance?

[Perpetualis]

What difference does it make if they are serial killers or terrorists?


They are directly causing the deaths of innocent citizens.

Who gives a crap if they are doing it for the great alah or for the little voices in their head?

IMO lables like murderer and terrorist are interchangable. They may differ in motivation but in principle they are the same thing and should be treated as such.

Leave the politics out of that shit....

[FluxCapacitor]

IMO, terrorist implies that the person(s) are trying to make a political statement or further some anti-government cause with their killing. I don't know exactly why these people were killing, they said money but that didn't seem to be the reason from the beginning. Whatever their reasons, I don't think there was anything particularly anti-government about it, so this should be treated as a multiple-murder case.

It probably doesn't matter anyway. They're going to get the death penalty regardless.

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512
Well, I still think they more fit the pattern of serial killers then terrorists, and I still think there are more then enough applicable laws already on the books to not only convict them but sentance them to death. Instead, they are going to try them under a bunch of new laws, untested in court, and take a chance on screwing the case up. Of course they won't walk, and when they don't, they will bend the law and Constitution so much to fit their desired outcome, it won't be pretty. Why take the chance?

negative...........

[GrimFaceOfReality]

To me, whether they were terrorists or serial killers hinges on their demands for cash. The minutes you start making demands, financial or otherwise, while killing people and terrorizing communities, you are no longer a killer but a terrorist as well.

[MegaB]

When all is said and done. Anyone who puts the frightners into you, is terrorising you. Therefore the term terrorist. I think that is utter bulls**t.

[opus512]

Originally posted by Perpetualis
What difference does it make if they are serial killers or terrorists?


The difference, IMO, is that there are already more then enough laws on the books to try, and convict, them, why take the chance charging them under new laws that have never been tested in court before?

Besides that, it opens up a whole slew of possible new definitions of 'terrorism' now, same as, for example, everyone using the RICO law for things it was never intended to be used for, muddying the meaning and intent of the law.

[EG]

LOL there are how many states wating in line to get these losers?

just send em to Texas....

[ImaGirl]

what does it really matter whether or not they're terrorists? they're shit heads who think they should just go around killing people they dont even know....WHAT THE CRAP?!

[opus512]

Originally posted by ImaGirl
what does it really matter whether or not they're terrorists? they're shit heads who think they should just go around killing people they dont even know....WHAT THE CRAP?!

What matters is if the authorities rely on untested new laws and screw up in court.

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


What matters is if the authorities rely on untested new laws and screw up in court.

LOL.... they have states waitin in line for these losers

[opus512]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


LOL.... they have states waitin in line for these losers

Uhm, double jepordy? If one state screws it up, they screw it up for all of them then the feds would have to step in and sue them for violating the victims civil rights or some bullshit.

Not saying it's going to happen, I just don't see the big rush to try them under new laws, except for a behind the scenes push from the Jr administration to get some precedents going on his new rules.

[GrimFaceOfReality]

Originally posted by opus512


Uhm, double jepordy? If one state screws it up, they screw it up for all of them then the feds would have to step in and sue them for violating the victims civil rights or some bullshit.


Not exactly true - each state would be trying them for different crimes committed in each state. If they were to be acquitted in Virginia for the 3 murders committed there, Maryland could then prosecute them for different murders committed on its territory, then Alabama, and so forth. Even if every state were to fail, Federal government could still prosecute them for all the federal violations.

That said, I agree that Virginia is making things overly complicated. Just try them for murder and be done with it.

[msan_msw]

Any crime which uses a gun is a terrorist act. People with guns are potential terrorists and should be rounded up and held in a camp. A terrorist is a terrorist you know...

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


Uhm, double jepordy? If one state screws it up, they screw it up for all of them then the feds would have to step in and sue them for violating the victims civil rights or some bullshit.

Not saying it's going to happen, I just don't see the big rush to try them under new laws, except for a behind the scenes push from the Jr administration to get some precedents going on his new rules.

each murder case can be tried seperate ..so no double jeapordy

[opus512]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost


each murder case can be tried seperate ..so no double jeapordy

I doubt if they try them one case at a time, too much money, take too long.

Hopefully they just won't screw anything up, but the kids "confession" is already going to get surpressed because the stupid cops wouldn't let his appointed gaurdian in, in fact, they "escorted him from the building' :rolleyes:

Things like that is why I don't have a lot of confidence in the system.

Anyway, I still think it's a push from the feds to try them under the new laws so they can get some precedents behind them for later.

[EG]

Originally posted by opus512


I doubt if they try them one case at a time, too much money, take too long.

Hopefully they just won't screw anything up, but the kids "confession" is already going to get surpressed because the stupid cops wouldn't let his appointed gaurdian in, in fact, they "escorted him from the building' :rolleyes:

Things like that is why I don't have a lot of confidence in the system.

Anyway, I still think it's a push from the feds to try them under the new laws so they can get some precedents behind them for later.

Justice 1 Snipers 0 is my prediction...

[EG]

Originally posted by msan_msw
Any crime which uses a gun is a terrorist act. People with guns are potential terrorists and should be rounded up and held in a camp. A terrorist is a terrorist you know...


so then any religous group could be potential terrorists? :P