Why is that when a Muslim overstays his visa, he’s charged with terrorism, but when a Christian is caught with a pipe bomb and confesses to planning to blow up an abortion clinic, he’s not?
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Why is that when a Muslim overstays his visa, he’s charged with terrorism, but when a Christian is caught with a pipe bomb and confesses to planning to blow up an abortion clinic, he’s not?
Comments are closed.
To be fair, I’m assuming that he’s Christian. I’ve never heard of anybody planning or committing violence against an abortion clinic who isn’t Christian and doesn’t claim to be motivated by their Christianity, so I think it’s a reasonable assumption.
When we consider what a War on Terror could possibly be, the fact that terror is just a tactic can’t be avoided. It’s not a place. It’s not a philosophy. The use of terror, turning fear into a weapon, surely goes back to before any recorded history. And, declaring war on terror is propaganda, plain and simple. It also plays on fear. We have a president who color-coded our fear for us — orange alert!
Blowing up an abortion clinic is a classic example of using terror as a tactic. No matter who does it. It is meant to send a message, to intimidate. I’m sure it has made some doctors think twice about doing that line of work.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s divine messenger. So, some of the cultural conservatives, who stand happily under the GOP’s big tent, would probably rather see an exploding abortion clinic as an act of God. Some of them probably believe Pat Robertson leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, too.
No doubt, some of Osama bin Laden’s fans believe he could leg-press 2,500 pounds, if he tried. And, so it goes…
Waldo, you are incorrect. Moslems along with non-Moslems are routinely picked up for overstaying their visas and then released with a promise to appear at a hearing.
It is better to avoid hyperbole. Not every Moslem charged with immigration problems is deemed a terrorist. As I said, the vast majority of such persons are in fact released and disappear. They never do show up for their hearings.
In fact, I have never heard of any person of any ancestry charged with terrorism MERELY for overstaying a visa and nothing more.
What you may be thinking of is the reverse. A person is charged with terrorism, then found to have overstayed his visa or committed immigration fraud. The person may then be deported. That happened, for instance, to Sami Al-Arian’s brother-in-law if you are familiar with the USF terrorism case. Al-Arian eventually offered a guilty plea to one charge and is in jail. His brother-in-law agreed to be deported.
Al-Arian and his brother were both members of Islamic Jihad.
A co-defendant of Al-Arian’s was charged separately with terrorism and unrelated tax fraud. He had entered the US illegally. The co-defendant was acquitted of terrorism charges but agreed to be deported in order to resolve the tax fraud case.
It is better to avoid hyperbole. Not every Moslem charged with immigration problems is deemed a terrorist. As I said, the vast majority of such persons are in fact released and disappear. They never do show up for their hearings.
Practically no one who makes it into the US and stays there for awhile is even deported, let alone charged with terrorism. That is the reality. I wish it was otherwise.
As this man did not actually commit the bombing, then it legally can only be called a conspiracy (as for his intent, it most certainly does use terror, but it would probably be presumptious to make such a charge before he actually carried out, or chose not to carry out, the act). And I agree with Jonathon Mark; I suspect that such Muslims may be accused of terrorism, but I seriously doubt any are charged as such.
Where’s the link to that story? Or is that just a ‘straw man’?
A Christian terrorist is no less a terrorist, and as such there should be no double standard. Especially in the instance of attacks on Abortion clinics. I’m gonna chalk this one up to the inconsistancy of mankind (and I’m being reserved by calling it that).
That’s all beside the point.
I define terrorism as “the use of violence or the threat of violence towards civilians in order to force change of policy.” It has to be a political or ideological thing, not just violence out of, say, revenge or psychopathy.
(I always hit the comment button too soon.)
So, by my definition at least, there is no real distinction to be made between abortion clinic bombers and the planners of 9/11.
“In 1984, the Annapolis offices of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, where abortions are provided, was bombed. Michael D. Bray, a Bowie minister, was sentenced in 1987 to six years in prison after he was convicted of that bombing and of 9 others at clinics and family planning centers in 1984 and 1985.”
Sure, that was during less terrorism-turbulent times, and granted, nobody was injured (at least according to that little snippet), but six years? It was bargained down from ten, but even that sounds ridiculously low. I wonder how many people are being held indefinitely at Gitmo for crimes less severe than blowing up ten family planning clinics.