Abortion provider murdered

[Michael]

Wichita abortion provider George Tiller shot to death at Wichita church

President Obama said this afternoon that he was "shocked and outraged" by the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was shot while attending church in east Wichita.

Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said at a news conference late this afternoon that a suspect in the shooting was in custody and on his way back to Wichita.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," the president said in a statement issued by the White House.

The suspect, a 51-year-old male, was arrested without incident on I-35 in Johnson County about three hours after the shooting, Stolz said.

Police did not release the suspect's name.

The investigation is in its "infancy stages," Stolz said. He said the shooting appeared to be an isolated act.

Tiller, 67, was shot once just after 10 a.m. in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th St., where he was a member of the congregation.

Stolz said Tiller was shot in the foyer of the church. There were three or four eyewitnesses, he said. Six to 12 people were in the foyer at the time of the shooting.

Source (http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1225769.html)

This is really ugly business.

Do you consider this terrorism? If not, why not?

[dilettante]

Looks like they're holding one Scott Roeder in connection with the killing. Local police think he acted alone; the FBI is still investigating.

Source (http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1225769.html)

This is really ugly business.

Murder always is.


Do you consider this terrorism? If not, why not?

Depends on how broadly one wants to define terrorism. If there's no larger organization involved, I'd say it depends on the killer's motivation; was his primary desire to invoke terror in order to achieve social/policy change or was his primary desire simply to kill Tiller?

But really, if there's no larger violent organization behind him, I'm not sure it really matters whether he's a murderer AND a terrorist, or just a murderer. Either way, he should be put in a cell somewhere for a long, long time.

I imagine this will be front-page material for the next couple months, at least until Sotomayer's hearings. I'm glad to at least hear general condemnation of violence from most pro-life groups (even if they aren't shedding too many tears for Tiller).

[Birdzeye]

The Unabomber apparently acted alone, and I believe most people considered him a terrorist.

It seems to me that anyone, whether acting alone or with a group, who uses violence to achieve some objective (whatever that might be) is committing an act of terror.

Usually what we define as "terrorism" involves the death of one or more people.

[Korimyr the Rat]

He lay in wait in a place he knew that Dr. Tiller would, by Federal law, be unarmed and killed him in cold blood. It was an assassination.

And given the assassin's role in Operation Rescue, I am inclined to believe this was an attempt to intimidate other abortion providers, rather than to merely prevent Dr. Tiller from continuing to provide his services.

Fits the definition of "terrorism" in my dictionary.

But if I were pro-life-- if I considered the near-term babies killed by Dr. Tiller to be innocent children-- I'd have killed him too, and I'd have made sure to make a messy political example of it. How many "innocent children" must a man kill before your conscience compels you to put a stop to it?

The killing was unlawful, certainly, but in the eyes of Dr. Tiller's assassin, the law has been unwilling to either protect or avenge the lives of millions of children a year. It surprises me that people can honestly claim that they believe that unborn babies are "innocent children" and then not resort to any means necessary to prevent abortion.

[dilettante]

It seems to me that anyone, whether acting alone or with a group, who uses violence to achieve some objective (whatever that might be) is committing an act of terror.


Wouldn't that make every murder and assault (in fact, every intentional act of violence) "an act of terror"? That seems to water down the term to the point of uselessness.

[Americano]

Sounds to me like an obvious instance of pre-meditated murder.

[Michael]

Sounds to me like an obvious instance of pre-meditated murder.
That's obvious.

The question is, is it terrorism?

[dilettante]

The question is, is it terrorism?


Out of curiosity, why is that the question? In what sense does it matter?

[Michael]

Out of curiosity, why is that the question? In what sense does it matter?

I think this particular question is very important for a number of reasons.

1. American government makes the absurd statement that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. This is a lie since it ignores the anthrax attacks in 2001 at the very least.

2. American political sensibilities need to be awakened to the fact that America is home to its own form of 'home-grown' terrorism. Anthrax in 2001, Unabomber, McVie and the abortion murders (to name just a few obvious examples).

3. It is important to observe that terrorism is not just something that Islamic radicals do. American (white) Christian radicals are equally capable of doing it.

4. The absurd 'official' US terrorism definition is designed not to recognize terrorism as terrorism, but is designed to defend the US government from the accusation that many of its own acts are in fact, terrorism.

On this basis, a full frank and public discussion of what "really" is terrorism is helpful and important.

Indeed, don't you find it odd that the US Government considers itself "at war" with terrorism yet doesn't even blink when a case of domestic terrorism occurs inside the USA? Isn't that a bit odd? If the US government were even remotely consistent, a bunch of predator drones would be homing in on known anti-abortion activists' houses in Kentucky right now...

[Americano]

That's obvious.

The question is, is it terrorism?

The definition of terrorism has been so convoluted in contemporary society that people defending their homeland against occupation are now labeled such if they resist 'democracy'.

The killer's ideology was obviously the prime motivation behind his act, which takes it out of the criminal act of killing for material gain, so I'd classify it as a hate crime.

[dilettante]

I think this particular question is very important for a number of reasons.

1. American government makes the absurd statement that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. This is a lie since it ignores the anthrax attacks in 2001 at the very least.

2. American political sensibilities need to be awakened to the fact that America is home to its own form of 'home-grown' terrorism. Anthrax in 2001, Unabomber, McVie and the abortion murders (to name just a few obvious examples).

3. It is important to observe that terrorism is not just something that Islamic radicals do. American (white) Christian radicals are equally capable of doing it.

4. The absurd 'official' US terrorism definition is designed not to recognize terrorism as terrorism, but is designed to defend the US government from the accusation that many of its own acts are in fact, terrorism.

On this basis, a full frank and public discussion of what "really" is terrorism is helpful and important.

Hmmm. While I agree that the US rather "creatively" defines terrorism to its own advantage and that the American public could benefit from examining American terrorism more closely, I think using this particular event as an example is counter-productive.

While one could certainly find commonalities between "Anthrax in 2001, Unabomber, McVie and the abortion murders" and other attacks more commonly referenced as "terrorism", lumping them all together in the same box looks silly.

Even combining all those events, we're only talking about a handful of deaths (the Oklahoma City bombing, or even a school shooting would be a better comparison in this respect). But more importantly, none of these groups are part of existing organizations that survive them and continue to inflict violence on the populace. There may be other unabombers and anti-abortion killers out there, but odds are they're lone unconnected individuals who will (at most) create a handful of causalities several years down the road. That's a far cry from a multi-national, multi-million $ operation consisting of thousands of individuals responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens and in the process of planning more. Yes, they're both terror, and yes we should be concerned about both, but they're only superficially comparable.

In other words, I can't imagine anyone looking at Tiller's death and saying "This is just as serious/big a threat/threatening/shocking/scary as 911/USS Cole/the embassy bombings!"


Indeed, don't you find it odd that the US Government considers itself "at war" with terrorism yet doesn't even blink when a case of domestic terrorism occurs inside the USA? Isn't that a bit odd? If the US government were even remotely consistent, a bunch of predator drones would be homing in on known anti-abortion activists' houses in Kentucky right now...

This is what I mean. Suggesting that the US should respond to a lone gunmen in the same way it responded to Al Queda is absurd and looks silly. (Just to be clear: this isn't to justify the way the US did respond to Al Queda!). We might be able to squeeze both sorts of events under a philosophical definition of what "terrorism" is, but from a practical standpoint and a level of threat they're different animals.

If we want to highlight terrorism performed in America or by Americans, I'd go with inner city violence, racial violence, and the acts of the military and Blackwater overseas as MUCH better examples. In those cases we're talking large numbers of deaths created by large organizations of individuals which are still in operation.

[Dominick]

The biggest success of the War on Terror is to have rendered both the word and concept of terrorism meaningless and undefinable. Therefore I'm taking a pragmatic approach to the application of the word. Beware what you call terrorism because the Patriot Act and its siblings in European countries allow totalitarian measures to be taken against any perpetrator of 'terrorism'.
Thus, I would not call this terrorism if only not to put the entire pro-life (most ridiculous term ever) movement on the blacklist of the 'free world'.

[Margot]

My shiny Mac's dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Gunning down a man is scary. It's even scarier when it happens in the place he should be safest (talk about breeching the comfort zone!). Gunning down a man who preforms late-term abortions based on ideological reasons in a place of worship sends a very, very clear message. I'm going to have to say that this fits the bill when it comes to terrorism.

[Dominick]

The OED defines:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In other words : that which states do officially :angel:

[Birdzeye]

"I grieve for Dr. Tiller because he left this life, perhaps without proper preparation to face God," Terry said. "The thought of him leaving this life with blood on his hands for having killed so many thousands of children and not having been prepared to meet his maker is a dreadful, terrifying thought." -- Rndall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue

What a hateful, judgmental creep.

[drgoodtrips]

I think this particular question is very important for a number of reasons.

1. American government makes the absurd statement that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. This is a lie since it ignores the anthrax attacks in 2001 at the very least.

2. American political sensibilities need to be awakened to the fact that America is home to its own form of 'home-grown' terrorism. Anthrax in 2001, Unabomber, McVie and the abortion murders (to name just a few obvious examples).

3. It is important to observe that terrorism is not just something that Islamic radicals do. American (white) Christian radicals are equally capable of doing it.

4. The absurd 'official' US terrorism definition is designed not to recognize terrorism as terrorism, but is designed to defend the US government from the accusation that many of its own acts are in fact, terrorism.

On this basis, a full frank and public discussion of what "really" is terrorism is helpful and important.

Indeed, don't you find it odd that the US Government considers itself "at war" with terrorism yet doesn't even blink when a case of domestic terrorism occurs inside the USA? Isn't that a bit odd? If the US government were even remotely consistent, a bunch of predator drones would be homing in on known anti-abortion activists' houses in Kentucky right now...

As an interesting (tragic) underscoring of your point, one "Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad" (formerly Carlos Bledsoe), US citizen, was charged with 15 counts of "committing a terrorist act" for shooting up an army recruitment center in Arkansas.

I'm curious as to how these two cases will be covered/prosecuted, juxtaposed temporally as they are.

[Michael]

The OED defines:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In other words : that which states do officially :angel:
No. That definition is designed explicitly for States to deny they do it.

According to your definition there, governments who engage in violence and intimidation when it is official and authorized, are not engaged in terrorism.

[Michael]

Hmmm. While I agree that the US rather "creatively" defines terrorism to its own advantage and that the American public could benefit from examining American terrorism more closely, I think using this particular event as an example is counter-productive.
First of all, the self-serving American government definition isn't unique to the USA. All governments use similar definitions for the same reason.

This revisits the same debate I remember from 2002/03 - when it was long argued that the very term of "terrorism" is loaded propaganda since it wasn't being applied in any way that was realistic or consistent (except consistently serving the interests of the status quo of imperialistic western power).

That being said, and indeed, for that same reason, I think the raising of this topic in this context is what is necessary to get the discussion going.

Just trying to say that "this event isn't terrorism" requires (hopefully) you to address your own understanding of the definition of that term. That is a good thing and part of why this topic is important.

While one could certainly find commonalities between "Anthrax in 2001, Unabomber, McVie and the abortion murders" and other attacks more commonly referenced as "terrorism", lumping them all together in the same box looks silly.
For me, the definining characteristic of terrorism that makes it very different from other forms of murder/crime is the key element of publicity for a political cause.

For this reason, the identity of the victim is usually of little or no importance other than their symbolic association by basic membership in the group that is defined as the target group.

All of the examples cited are in fact, crimes characterized by symbolic (and real) violence for a political cause.

Even combining all those events, we're only talking about a handful of deaths (the Oklahoma City bombing, or even a school shooting would be a better comparison in this respect). But more importantly, none of these groups are part of existing organizations that survive them and continue to inflict violence on the populace. There may be other unabombers and anti-abortion killers out there, but odds are they're lone unconnected individuals who will (at most) create a handful of causalities several years down the road. That's a far cry from a multi-national, multi-million $ operation consisting of thousands of individuals responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens and in the process of planning more. Yes, they're both terror, and yes we should be concerned about both, but they're only superficially comparable.
Note: The Oklahoma City bombing is the "McVie" example cited above.

And again, going back to 2002/03 period, it was also noted that lightning strikes kill more people in the USA than terrorism does. Why is one more important and more dangerous and more worthy of spending a few hundred billion dollars engaging with? I think that answers your question above.

But another way to reply to your point is to say that 'Islamic' terrorism in the Middle East began as entirely isolated incidents by lone ('troubled') individuals. Slowly, over time, these isolated instances began to be assocated with groups - tiny ones at first, and then, over the years, we have much larger and well established networks of suicide bombers in various places around the globe - though most notably in the Middle East.

What I'm saying here is that assassinations of abortion doctors may be occuring as isolated incidents by lone individuals, but there is a larger background of people sympathetic to the movement (and a substantial history of violence associated with this movement) and there is great potential for this situation to be merely a less advanced form of the same terrorism game that has taken hold in the Middle East - perhaps only a decade or two away from catching up. Or perhaps not. One can't know one way or the other, but our data-set (limited as it is) does suggests that escalation is the most likely medium term trend here.

Here's a quick (and obviously selective) history of the topic...

Back in the last quarter of the 19th century, Russian-Anarchist violence and assassinations were always the act of 'isolated' and 'lone' perpetrators. Couple decades later, a Serbian triggered WW1 and a couple years later Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian state - all sharing common intellectual roots to each other.

Back in the 1930s/40s when the Jewish-Zionist-Nationalist were committing 'isolated' and 'lone' terrorist acts in Palestine and in Britain, there was virtually ZERO discussion of this. Two decades later, 'isolated' acts by 'lone' Arabs begin using terrorist tactics against the Israelis...

Do you see the pattern here?

In other words, I can't imagine anyone looking at Tiller's death and saying "This is just as serious/big a threat/threatening/shocking/scary as 911/USS Cole/the embassy bombings!"
It isn't. And neither was the first victim of a Russian-Anarchist assassin. Nor the first 'letter-bombs' the Zionists killed with. No one could have foreseen where those 'isolated' acts by 'lone' individuals might lead to down the road.

But now that we are beginning to see a pattern emerge, it behooves one to look at it seriously regardless of how 'silly' it might look.

When the first British government official was killed/injured by a Zionist letterbomb in the 1930's, do you think the British Government considered the possibilities of radical escalation over the next 60 years to be likely?

This is what I mean. Suggesting that the US should respond to a lone gunmen in the same way it responded to Al Queda is absurd and looks silly. (Just to be clear: this isn't to justify the way the US did respond to Al Queda!). We might be able to squeeze both sorts of events under a philosophical definition of what "terrorism" is, but from a practical standpoint and a level of threat they're different animals.
Given the scale of radical anti-abortion violence in North America in the last say, thirty years, compared with the scale of radical Islamic violence in North America in the same period might show rather comparable rates of violence and physical threat to American citizens. Just depends on how you choose to intepret the data.

Now I'm not saying that this is a big thing and a massive danger, but I'm pointing out the data suggests that one ought not to dismiss this stuff.

Indeed, there are few topics in the political world that interest me less than abortion politics. I honestly couldn't care less one way or another if it was legal or illegal, so my argument isn't driven by any passion at all. I honestly just don't care about the issue. I do care about the issue of terrorism though and I just call it as it see it. And I see it here.

If we want to highlight terrorism performed in America or by Americans, I'd go with inner city violence, racial violence, and the acts of the military and Blackwater overseas as MUCH better examples. In those cases we're talking large numbers of deaths created by large organizations of individuals which are still in operation.
Terrorism isn't 'just violence'. Violence for private gain or for pure emotive expression (i.e. hatred) or even torture used on an individual isn't 'terrorism' (even though the goal might be to induce terror in the victim). The key element of terrorism is the public angle - the desire to induce terror in others beyond the immediate victim. In this respect, some 'hate-crimes' do in fact fall into the category of terrorism because of this. But the vast majority of the violence in American inner-cities is not of this type.

[dilettante]

And again, going back to 2002/03 period, it was also noted that lightning strikes kill more people in the USA than terrorism does. Why is one more important and more dangerous and more worthy of spending a few hundred billion dollars engaging with? I think that answers your question above.

What? I think it stands to reason that a plot which killed thousands in one fiery explosion is more worthy of investigation dollars than a plot that killed one in a gunshot. Especially when there's reason to believe that the organization behind the former is at large and working on more plots where as the organization of the latter is, in its entirety, sitting in a prison cell.

Again, from a practical standpoint, these are very different animals indicating very different levels of threat. It would be ridiculous for the authorities to treat them the same way or to devote equal resources to them, especially if, as seems likely, they've already apprehended all criminal elements in one case.


But another way to reply to your point is to say that 'Islamic' terrorism in the Middle East began as entirely isolated incidents by lone ('troubled') individuals. Slowly, over time, these isolated instances began to be assocated with groups - tiny ones at first, and then, over the years, we have much larger and well established networks of suicide bombers in various places around the globe - though most notably in the Middle East.

What I'm saying here is that assassinations of abortion doctors may be occuring as isolated incidents by lone individuals, but there is a larger background of people sympathetic to the movement (and a substantial history of violence associated with this movement) and there is great potential for this situation to be merely a less advanced form of the same terrorism game that has taken hold in the Middle East - perhaps only a decade or two away from catching up. Or perhaps not. One can't know one way or the other, but our data-set (limited as it is) does suggests that escalation is the most likely medium term trend here.

Well, one can never deny the possibility of what might happen; but there isn't much the authorities can do about a possibility other than try to "keep an eye on it."
I dislike the association between something that IS, infact, a large and powerful violent movement and something that has the potential to be one somewhere down the road but might never be. And I especially dislike the idea that such movements should be viewed in a similar manner.


But now that we are beginning to see a pattern emerge, it behooves one to look at it seriously regardless of how 'silly' it might look.


I'm not sure I see any pattern except a selectively created one. Fact is, some isolated killings eventually span mass terrorist movements; some do not. This one hasn't yet. Pointing out others that have doesn't tell us what this one will do.

And I have no doubt the FBI is even now working to "look at it seriously," but I'll wait to see if they actually find anything before I'm willing to consider this more than a lone gunman scenario.


Given the scale of radical anti-abortion violence in North America in the last say, thirty years, compared with the scale of radical Islamic violence in North America in the same period might show rather comparable rates of violence and physical threat to American citizens. Just depends on how you choose to intepret the data.

I feel it would take some intriguing interpretation to make these figures look comparable. How many Americans have been killed as a result of "radical anti-abortion violence"? How many by "radical Islamic violence"?
And as for physical threat, there's never been any indication that "radical anti-abortionists" have attempted or even desired violence on a large scale (mass, indiscriminate killing makes no sense for them). You mentioned that a key facet of terrorism was that the identity of the victim was "of little or no importance," which is certainly true of the Islamic terror, but "radical anti-abortion" has always targeted very specific individuals based on their individual actions and statements; the Tiller killing is a perfect example of this.


Now I'm not saying that this is a big thing and a massive danger, but I'm pointing out the data suggests that one ought not to dismiss this stuff.


I agree that it should not be dismissed; but neither should it be treated as something it isn't, even if there is the possibility that it might become something else.

[Korimyr the Rat]

What a hateful, judgmental creep.

Funny, it sounds an awful lot like sympathy to me. When you learn that someone you know is dead, does it not concern you to wonder if they died with a clean conscience or not?

According to your definition there, governments who engage in violence and intimidation when it is official and authorized, are not engaged in terrorism.

Regardless of their goals, the primary tools of any government are violence and intimidation-- what do you think law enforcement is? They certainly do not coax men into prison with honeyed whispers and love poetry.

If you define violence and intimidation for political purposes as "terrorism", then you define all government as terrorist in nature, which also serves to make the term useless.

[Birdzeye]

Funny, it sounds an awful lot like sympathy to me. When you learn that someone you know is dead, does it not concern you to wonder if they died with a clean conscience or not?



Regardless of their goals, the primary tools of any government are violence and intimidation-- what do you think law enforcement is? They certainly do not coax men into prison with honeyed whispers and love poetry.

If you define violence and intimidation for political purposes as "terrorism", then you define all government as terrorist in nature, which also serves to make the term useless.

It strikes me as phony sympathy. I was taught that we were supposed to leave the final judgment up to God alone.

Randall is a hateful hypocrite. He banished his oldest stepdaughter from the house after she got pg twice before age 18. So he's against abortion but not for helping women who get pg. Hypocrite.

He also disowned his son after the son announced that he was gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Terry

[Multiplum]

When I think of terrorism, I see someone inspiring terror to achieve his/her political goals. So, yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-murder-of-dr-tiller-a_b_209562.html

It's interesting how the anti-abortion-movement mobilizes only when democrats are in office, huh?

[SMadsen]

I've only just heard of this by opening the thread. Man, it's particularly nasty if ideology is the cause.

My pet definition of terrorism is simply to cause others to live in substantiated fear because of what the terrorist thinks of their ideas. The substantiation, and thereby the ability to uphold a fear, is always given by example, i.e., by the acts that are usually called the acts of terrorism.

If this is such a substantiation then it definitely is terrorism in my book. Sure, it's a failed attempt since the shooter apparantly got caught but it's an attempt to terrorize others into abandoning their ideas. However, the motive may appear to be quite different. The story isn't clear on that.

[SMadsen]

What a hateful, judgmental creep.
I agree. The hateful statement this Terry dude made almost classifies as terrorism in itself.

[Michael]

My pet definition of terrorism is simply to cause others to live in substantiated fear because of what the terrorist thinks of their ideas. The substantiation, and thereby the ability to uphold a fear, is always given by example, i.e., by the acts that are usually called the acts of terrorism.
Acts are critical to the definition. Mere 'thinking' is not and must never be considered a crime.

I have every right to hate any person's guts based entirely on your religion, skin color, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality or gender. I do not have the right to commit violence against any person for any reason. That's a critical distinction here.

If this is such a substantiation then it definitely is terrorism in my book. Sure, it's a failed attempt since the shooter apparantly got caught but it's an attempt to terrorize others into abandoning their ideas. However, the motive may appear to be quite different. The story isn't clear on that.
His membership in the Army of God (amongst other radical rightwing extremist groups) makes that particular story very clear.

Btw, I'd also say "failure to get away" is irrelevant to the act of terrorism. Many terrorists don't seem to care if they die in the act. It is the publicity and act for the cause that is important.

[Michael]

What? I think it stands to reason that a plot which killed thousands in one fiery explosion is more worthy of investigation dollars than a plot that killed one in a gunshot. Especially when there's reason to believe that the organization behind the former is at large and working on more plots where as the organization of the latter is, in its entirety, sitting in a prison cell.
How does that compare to death by lightning strikes?

The point was that if one is REALLY concerned about ACTUAL danger to American citizens, then lightning is far more serious than terrorism.

Why is the lesser danger acted on with hundreds of billions of dollars and the other ignored? Humans are very political about their choices and all political choices are subject to propaganda.

Again, from a practical standpoint, these are very different animals indicating very different levels of threat. It would be ridiculous for the authorities to treat them the same way or to devote equal resources to them, especially if, as seems likely, they've already apprehended all criminal elements in one case.
A quick review of the long history of public violence committed by 'anti-abortionists' suggests that this is not an 'isolated' instance.

And as far as I'm concerned, lone crackpots are merely the trigger. It takes mainstream organizations with lots of publicity and/or mass media figures to convince these crackpots that they are doing something "necessary" and/or "good".

In other words, apprehending each 'lone' crackpot as he kills is basically a game of "whack a mole". The game won't end so long as the conditions that foster it continue.

Either abortion has to be ended, or one has to crack down on irresponsible media celebrating violence against abortion doctors (Bill O'Reilly seems particularly culpable here) and/or against groups like the Army of God.

I don't see the Army of God listed on international terrorist watch lists...

Terrorism requires some level of tacit permission from the society where it takes place. It is clear that this is occuring in the US on this topic.

Well, one can never deny the possibility of what might happen; but there isn't much the authorities can do about a possibility other than try to "keep an eye on it."
They can make a variety of moves to address the 'culture' of tacit permission that supports these violent attacks on abortion doctors & clinics.

This does not require "police state" powers. Only a willingness to address the issue. However, as you keep arguing, there is strong resistance to discussing this issue in these terms. That's part of the culture of tacit permission I'm referring to.

I dislike the association between something that IS, infact, a large and powerful violent movement and something that has the potential to be one somewhere down the road but might never be. And I especially dislike the idea that such movements should be viewed in a similar manner.
So the long list of violence, bombings and murders at abortion clinics by known anti-abortion fanatics associated with the same set of radical and extremist groups isn't a movement?

How many more acts of terrorist violence does one have to commit before one is willing to define it as terrorism? I say "one" is sufficient.

I'm not sure I see any pattern except a selectively created one. Fact is, some isolated killings eventually span mass terrorist movements; some do not. This one hasn't yet. Pointing out others that have doesn't tell us what this one will do.
Huh? So abortion doctors are being murdered for entirely random reasons?

I don't buy that at all. There's nothing random about is phenomena. There is a long history of this kind of violence closely associated with radical religious extremist groups in the USA.

And I have no doubt the FBI is even now working to "look at it seriously," but I'll wait to see if they actually find anything before I'm willing to consider this more than a lone gunman scenario.
Of course its a "lone gunman" scenario. That's the point - there's no such thing as a "lone gunman" scenario.

Crackpots are only the trigger. It takes a culture to turn that crackpot into a killing machine. The radical anti-abortion movement supplies that culture and Randall was clearly a part of that culture.

I feel it would take some intriguing interpretation to make these figures look comparable. How many Americans have been killed as a result of "radical anti-abortion violence"? How many by "radical Islamic violence"?
You see? You've just defined the definition in precisely the one way that will supply maximum support your interpretation. That's indeed how the game is played. US media and political figures are doing their best to push this exact same argument. No surprise there.

If one takes only "violence" and not just "killing" the numbers become much closer and comparable. But that requires one to take the issue seriously rather than deciding to dismiss it from the beginning.

And as for physical threat, there's never been any indication that "radical anti-abortionists" have attempted or even desired violence on a large scale (mass, indiscriminate killing makes no sense for them). You mentioned that a key facet of terrorism was that the identity of the victim was "of little or no importance," which is certainly true of the Islamic terror, but "radical anti-abortion" has always targeted very specific individuals based on their individual actions and statements; the Tiller killing is a perfect example of this.
Huh? The Tiller murder fits exactly the definition I gave. The actual identity of the "high profile abortion doctor" is mostly irrelevant. It is enough to be an "abortion doctor" (babykiller in Bill O'Reilly's words). That's an impersonal victim classification. This murder isn't personal - it is entirely political. And that's what makes it terrorism. The goal is clearly to terrorize other abortion doctors (as a group).

I agree that it should not be dismissed; but neither should it be treated as something it isn't, even if there is the possibility that it might become something else.
Okay, we'll just continue this discussion with the next anti-abortionist murder/killing/bombing issue that comes up.

[The Drunk Guy]

Acts are critical to the definition. Mere 'thinking' is not and must never be considered a crime.

--------------------

Btw, I'd also say "failure to get away" is irrelevant to the act of terrorism. Many terrorists don't seem to care if they die in the act. It is the publicity and act for the cause that is important.
I agree completely. This was an act of terrorism because the perpetrator's ultimate goal was broader than ending this single abortionist's life. His goal was the abolition of abortion. He sought not only to terrify other abortionists into ending their careers, but to also inspire other extremist trash to act similarly. He considers his act an act of "martyrdom."



*Speaking of "acts of terror," since we are defining "terrorism," what's say we create a thread arguing whether or not the Guantanamo Bay detainment is an "act of terror?"*

[Michael]

*Speaking of "acts of terror," since we are defining "terrorism," what's say we create a thread arguing whether or not the Guantanamo Bay detainment is an "act of terror?"*
Please feel free. Could be an interesting discussion.

Edited to add: This is the 10,000th post at the forum! :banana:

[dilettante]

How does that compare to death by lightning strikes?

The point was that if one is REALLY concerned about ACTUAL danger to American citizens, then lightning is far more serious than terrorism.

Why is the lesser danger acted on with hundreds of billions of dollars and the other ignored? Humans are very political about their choices and all political choices are subject to propaganda.

Actually, a considerable amount of money goes into preventing and re-directing lightning strikes, but that's beside the point.

It's about the appropriate nature of a response. We don't use predator drones and FBI sweeps to stop lightning because lightning, while deadly, has no strongholds for the drones to attack or secret organizations advocating violence for agents to infiltrate. Neither, to the best of our knowledge, is there an anti-abortion terrorist stronghold or an anti-abortion terrorist ring plotting attacks. Ergo, tactics designed to cope with such things are of no use.

If there's reason to believe that a specific individual or group is actively plotting to kill an abortion doctor (or commit another act of violence) then they should definitely be investigated. But if not (and this case doesn't point to any other specific individual or organization), I'm not quite sure what the point of deploying "anti-terror" tactics would be, or who you would have them employed against.


A quick review of the long history of public violence committed by 'anti-abortionists' suggests that this is not an 'isolated' instance.

And as far as I'm concerned, lone crackpots are merely the trigger. It takes mainstream organizations with lots of publicity and/or mass media figures to convince these crackpots that they are doing something "necessary" and/or "good".

In other words, apprehending each 'lone' crackpot as he kills is basically a game of "whack a mole". The game won't end so long as the conditions that foster it continue.

Either abortion has to be ended, or one has to crack down on irresponsible media celebrating violence against abortion doctors (Bill O'Reilly seems particularly culpable here) and/or against groups like the Army of God.

I don't see the Army of God listed on international terrorist watch lists...

Terrorism requires some level of tacit permission from the society where it takes place. It is clear that this is occuring in the US on this topic.

I'll agree that the FBI should keep an eye on organizations or individuals that call for violence (I'm not familiar with O'Riley actually calling for violence, but then I watch him).
However, I think its essential that our society draw a line between any person or organization which has blabbed and yelled threatening things and people and organizations that actually commit or attempt to commit murder or assault. Both are bad; but one is not the other.


They can make a variety of moves to address the 'culture' of tacit permission that supports these violent attacks on abortion doctors & clinics.

This does not require "police state" powers. Only a willingness to address the issue. However, as you keep arguing, there is strong resistance to discussing this issue in these terms. That's part of the culture of tacit permission I'm referring to.

I'm not sure what sort of "moves" you have in mind here. My specific objections were to your implications that "anti-abortion terrorism" should be receiving the same response as "Islamic terrorism"; I believed you mentioned predator drones over Kentucky.

I can certainly agree that some culture needs to change. Specifically that some groups/individuals need to cool down their rhetoric and embrace legal, peaceful means of change. But I don't think calling more people terrorists, or treating people with strong views but no history of violence as "potential terrorists" is going to aid in that process.


Huh? So abortion doctors are being murdered for entirely random reasons?

I don't buy that at all. There's nothing random about is phenomena. There is a long history of this kind of violence closely associated with radical religious extremist groups in the USA.

I never said the reasons were random. I said there wasn't a "mass terrorist movement" and I'll stand by that since this marks the only shooting in a decade. "Terrorism" it might be, a "mass terrorist movement" it is not.


Of course its a "lone gunman" scenario. That's the point - there's no such thing as a "lone gunman" scenario.

Crackpots are only the trigger. It takes a culture to turn that crackpot into a killing machine. The radical anti-abortion movement supplies that culture and Randall was clearly a part of that culture.

You see? You've just defined the definition in precisely the one way that will supply maximum support your interpretation. That's indeed how the game is played. US media and political figures are doing their best to push this exact same argument. No surprise there.

If one takes only "violence" and not just "killing" the numbers become much closer and comparable. But that requires one to take the issue seriously rather than deciding to dismiss it from the beginning.


Now I'm really quite curious as to what you'd have the authorities do that they aren't doing.

As best I can tell, the matter is being taken quite seriously. The perpetrator has been arrested and the FBI has been, and continues to be, looking for any larger threat in order to stop it. I'd hardly call that "dismissing" the threat.

I feel wary of the implication that authorities should somehow forcibly (for government is force) be out changing culture or, worse yet, treating people as "terrorists" because of their culture.

The killer is arrested, his associates (if any) are being looked for, the few anti-abortion groups condoning/advocating violence are under investigation, that seems to fulfill the authority's part in it. What specifically would you have them do?


I don't see the Army of God listed on international terrorist watch lists...


Actually, unless I'm mistaken (which is certainly possible), the Army of God has been on the FBI's domestic counterterrorism list since the 1990s.

[dilettante]

Please feel free. Could be an interesting discussion.

Edited to add: This is the 10,000th post at the forum! :banana:

:ummm:
The homepage says that, right now, we're at 9,216, and the URL seems to imply (if I'm reading it correctly) that that was post 10,063. I'm confused.

[Dominick]

:ummm:
The homepage says that, right now, we're at 9,216, and the URL seems to imply (if I'm reading it correctly) that that was post 10,063. I'm confused.
The 10,063 number includes previously deleted posts. The homepage number is specific to the poster that's logged in and only counts posts for the forums that are accessible to the poster. The 800 posts that are not counted in your tally are 90% posts in the admin forum where Michael and I spend a lot of time calling each other names :D

[Evangeline]

Wouldn't that make every murder and assault (in fact, every intentional act of violence) "an act of terror"? That seems to water down the term to the point of uselessness.

No I don't think so. The murders of abortion doctors and the bombings of abortion clinics are terrorism, meant to scare doctors away from performing these operations and to scare women and girls away from seeking out these operations. That's terrorism.

[dilettante]

No I don't think so. The murders of abortion doctors and the bombings of abortion clinics are terrorism, meant to scare doctors away from performing these operations and to scare women and girls away from seeking out these operations. That's terrorism.

Ah, that comment was in response to the claim that

anyone, whether acting alone or with a group, who uses violence to achieve some objective (whatever that might be) is committing an act of terror.

I found that definition far too broad since practically all intentional violence is committed with some objective in mind.

[SMadsen]

Acts are critical to the definition. Mere 'thinking' is not and must never be considered a crime.

I have every right to hate any person's guts based entirely on your religion, skin color, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality or gender. I do not have the right to commit violence against any person for any reason. That's a critical distinction here.
Absolutely.

But are you sure you didn't mean this as a response to my response concerning Randall Terry's statement?

His membership in the Army of God (amongst other radical rightwing extremist groups) makes that particular story very clear.
I don't know. Being a member of anything, really, doesn't qualify as evidence of a motive. Only as speculation.

Btw, I'd also say "failure to get away" is irrelevant to the act of terrorism. Many terrorists don't seem to care if they die in the act. It is the publicity and act for the cause that is important.
My point is that, unless you are really, really clever, you can only maintain a fear as long as .. well, as long as you manage to maintain it. Being put away (or blowing yourself up) often spoils that opportunity unless there are others to step in. A lone, seemingly erratic incidence - like that of the other abortion doctor killer, Paul Hill, for instance - doesn't stand much of a chance to instill fear. As said, the story isn't clear if this is the case or not.

[SMadsen]

And as far as I'm concerned, lone crackpots are merely the trigger. It takes mainstream organizations with lots of publicity and/or mass media figures to convince these crackpots that they are doing something "necessary" and/or "good".
Yes, but convincing people of an ideology is not the same as recruiting people to carry out specific tasks. One may lead to the other (or, if not, money, status or 72 virgins might) but recruitment is a very different beast.

[Michael]

Yes, but convincing people of an ideology is not the same as recruiting people to carry out specific tasks. One may lead to the other (or, if not, money, status or 72 virgins might) but recruitment is a very different beast.

Agreed. I'm not saying there is justification here to round up O'Reilly or the mainstream anti-abortion groups and arrest them for recruiting/supporting terrorism. There isn't legal evidence to support such an action.

I'm suggesting that if there isn't some quasi-official attempt to restrain this 'meme' of anti-abortion terrorism, even if it is only a 'counter-propaganda' advertising campaign, it is just going to keep happening and in all likelihood will escalate over time.

The key point being that the key elements associated with the growth of a culture of terrorism are present here (the 'arms-length' support network in the media and religious groups, a large and dedicated following amongst the citizenry, constant media stoking of the grievence, etc.) to warrant concern and some kind of policy response.

[SMadsen]

The key point being that the key elements associated with the growth of a culture of terrorism are present here (the 'arms-length' support network in the media and religious groups, a large and dedicated following amongst the citizenry, constant media stoking of the grievence, etc.) to warrant concern and some kind of policy response.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's "just" a ramification of the (in)famous American vigilance, which I dont think classify as terrorism per se. And yet. Maybe the strange fruit that ms. Holiday sang about was closer to being the epitomy of terrorism than one might be used to think. If so, then it may also be argued that there isn't so much of a growth as a decline in the culture of terrorism.

[Michael]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's "just" a ramification of the (in)famous American vigilance, which I dont think classify as terrorism per se. And yet. Maybe the strange fruit that ms. Holiday sang about was closer to being the epitomy of terrorism than one might be used to think. If so, then it may also be argued that there isn't so much of a growth as a decline in the culture of terrorism.

I think the concept you might be referring to is closer to the concept expressed in the song "Mack the Knife" - about the joy of violence itself. (I'm only guessing since I don't know Ms. Holiday's music)

I think that's different than terrorism as it is personal and not political.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_The_Knife

[Dominick]

(I'm only guessing since I don't know Ms. Holiday's music)
Shame on you, it's a pivotal moment in US history :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs

The lyrics:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billie%2Bholiday/strange%2Bfruit_20017859.html
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

It of course refers to lynching and made the mostly white listeners most uncomfortable.

[Birdzeye]

And as far as I'm concerned, lone crackpots are merely the trigger. It takes mainstream organizations with lots of publicity and/or mass media figures to convince these crackpots that they are doing something "necessary" and/or "good".


I'm not so sure I'd go that far to blame mainstream organizations for the actions of crackpots acting on their own. The National Right to Life Committee, for example, has unequivocally condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller, and pursues peaceful political action to try to stop abortion.

Now, the Army of God, OTOH, is another matter. They have no qualms about breaking the law, including the use of violence, to try to achieve the same goal as NRLC.

I might blame Army of God for encouraging the crackpot, at some level, but not NRLC.

[Americano]

I'm not so sure I'd go that far to blame mainstream organizations for the actions of crackpots acting on their own. The National Right to Life Committee, for example, has unequivocally condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller, and pursues peaceful political action to try to stop abortion.

Now, the Army of God, OTOH, is another matter. They have no qualms about breaking the law, including the use of violence, to try to achieve the same goal as NRLC.

I might blame Army of God for encouraging the crackpot, at some level, but not NRLC.

Who's to say one is truly different from the other when their goals are identical? The Sauds publicly condemn terrorism out of their official mouth while being the major financial supporter of Al Qaeda.

[Michael]

Dilettante, here's an article from TNR (The New Republic) that makes a very similar argument to the one I'm making.

Apparently quite a few other people are concerned about this growing 'culture' that surrounds the anti-abortion movement and their 'arms-length' involvement in the murder of Tiller.

TNR (http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=a8660380-b6b3-435b-a24d-a5890cb535d7)

[dilettante]

Who's to say one is truly different from the other when their goals are identical? The Sauds publicly condemn terrorism out of their official mouth while being the major financial supporter of Al Qaeda.

I for one will say that a group advocating death and violence is "truly different" from a group that eschews and condemns it. Means matter at least as much as ends do. I think it's vital that we maintain that distinction!

[Michael]

I for one will say that a group advocating death and violence is "truly different" from a group that eschews and condemns it. Means matter at least as much as ends do. I think it's vital that we maintain that distinction!
So the Saudis are innocent of supporting terrorism because they officially abjure it?

The fact that Saudi Arabia is the primary source of funding of Al Queda becomes a "non-fact"???

Alternatively, Shell Oil runs advertising claiming to be an environmentally friendly corporation. Clearly they are not conspiring to wipe out the polar bears now are they? But in reality, the policies and operations of Shell Oil company is wiping out the polar bears.

[Birdzeye]

Who's to say one is truly different from the other when their goals are identical? The Sauds publicly condemn terrorism out of their official mouth while being the major financial supporter of Al Qaeda.

Well, it's not really the goals that are the problem (even though I don't share them), but the means used to achieve that common goal. One group uses legal means; the other criminal.

[Birdzeye]

So the Saudis are innocent of supporting terrorism because they officially abjure it?

The fact that Saudi Arabia is the primary source of funding of Al Queda becomes a "non-fact"???

Alternatively, Shell Oil runs advertising claiming to be an environmentally friendly corporation. Clearly they are not conspiring to wipe out the polar bears now are they? But in reality, the policies and operations of Shell Oil company is wiping out the polar bears.

The fact that Saudi Arabia funds Al Qaida makes me believe their claims to condemn terrorism are not credible.

[dilettante]

Dilettante, here's an article from TNR (The New Republic) that makes a very similar argument to the one I'm making.

Apparently quite a few other people are concerned about this growing 'culture' that surrounds the anti-abortion movement and their 'arms-length' involvement in the murder of Tiller.

TNR (http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=a8660380-b6b3-435b-a24d-a5890cb535d7)

I'm not denying that we should have some concern over that 'culture'. I am asserting that we can't and shouldn't treat it the way we treat an armed terrorist organization which is not at 'arms length' but actively embracing killings. Appropriate response for the appropriate situation.

I think this question from the article is a good one and worth of consideration:

Does the obsession with ending abortion--and the branding of those who perform abortion as killers--create a political framework in which a deranged person can justify killing someone like George Tiller?but then, by the same token, so is this one:

Does the obsession with ending the war in Iraq--and the branding of the administration and soldiers as killers, imperialists and torturers--create a political framework in which a deranged person can justify killing someone like William Long (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter-killed_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)?
The answer in both cases is probably 'yes'; heated rhetoric at least contributes to a frame of mind that justifies murder. But we don't paint murderers and terrorists with a broad brushes (or at least we shouldn't). And we don't (or shouldn't) hold someone responsible for what someone else, without their knowledge or consent, did with their words.

I'm still not sure what more you'd have the authorities do in this case.

[dilettante]

So the Saudis are innocent of supporting terrorism because they officially abjure it?

The fact that Saudi Arabia is the primary source of funding of Al Queda becomes a "non-fact"???

Alternatively, Shell Oil runs advertising claiming to be an environmentally friendly corporation. Clearly they are not conspiring to wipe out the polar bears now are they? But in reality, the policies and operations of Shell Oil company is wiping out the polar bears.

The fact that Saudi Arabia funds Al Qaida makes me believe their claims to condemn terrorism are not credible.

:agree:

To the extent that they fund Al Qaida, it appears that both the Saudi's means and their goals are suspect.

If the NRLC is funding an organization of killers then perhaps we can make useful comparisons between the two, but I've seen no evidence that such is the case.

However, at this point I'm beginning to suspect that Michael is just stirring up trouble, since I doubt he'd ever actually believe that all groups with the same goals should be viewed or treated the same, regardless of the means they employ.

[Birdzeye]

I find myself in an awkward position, defending NLRC, since I consider myself pro-choice. I just don't see NLRC as the bad guys, and I don't see people who sincerely believe abortion is wrong as bad guys. Being against abortion and taking political action (lobbying politicians, voting "pro-life") is legal and ethical, IMO.

Bombing clinics and shooting doctors is another matter.

The point I'm trying to make is, just because some crackpot does something outrageous and criminal to protest something you might also find wrong (e.g., abortion) does not mean the belief, or the legal, nonviolent means to bring about change in that matter, are illegitimate.

I also haven't seen any evidence that NLRC is surreptitiously encouraging, or helping, the crackpots

[The Drunk Guy]

The fact that Saudi Arabia is the primary source of funding of Al Queda becomes a "non-fact"???


Just curious, who keeps the books for Al Queda? Do they pay taxes? Do they offer benefits? What's their PTO policy?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical about the existence of Al Queda still. Bin Laden is one thing (although I think he is a pawn), but a global terrorist organization with billions in funding and all they pull of is a few car and suicide bombs a year? If I had the budget that they supposedly have, I would have taken over several third world nations by now.

[bug]

Ima give this one a "no" for terrorism and "yes" for douchbagery. If after he shot the poor guy, he had triumphantly raised the gun over his head and said "Let that be a lesson to all you baby hating child slaughtering womb vacuum using godless heathens! I'm coming after you next!" I might be more inclined toward voting terrorist. But because this seemed to be one man's agenda against the embodiment (another one man) of what he felt was evil, I'm inclined to classify him as a loon. Plus, I'm sick of the phrase terrorism being tossed around in this country. It's obnoxious. I'm not sure the act of one man against anther one man can ever be defined as terrorism. I think it was said earlier that all murder causes terror.

[Michael]

Actually, a considerable amount of money goes into preventing and re-directing lightning strikes, but that's beside the point.

It's about the appropriate nature of a response. We don't use predator drones and FBI sweeps to stop lightning because lightning, while deadly, has no strongholds for the drones to attack or secret organizations advocating violence for agents to infiltrate. Neither, to the best of our knowledge, is there an anti-abortion terrorist stronghold or an anti-abortion terrorist ring plotting attacks. Ergo, tactics designed to cope with such things are of no use.
First of all, I think using predator drones or even soldiers to address terrorism is mighty foolish in the first place and I've been making that argument for a half dozen years now. On that basis, I'm only drawing what looks to me to be an absurd contradiction in the official US government actions.

And I haven't accused the anti-abortion movement of being a terrorist ring.

I've raised the argument that this act of murder does appear to be terrorism, and that this is not a lone or isolated incident - it is part of a pattern.

On that basis, an official response to the issue is warranted. Turning a blind eye to a budding domestic terrorism problem is, I believe, a very bad public policy.

The Government of Canada for example dealt very sharply and quickly in the face of FLQ terrorism in the early 1970s and although the Quebec separatist movement wasn't really effected, the tactic of terrorism was wiped off the table pretty quick. Trudeau brought out the tanks onto the streets of Montreal to make the statement. It worked.

That's not the same situation or the right response in this case, but just an example of an effective Government response to a domestic terrorism situation (and one with a far more modest track record than that of the 'radical anti-abortion' movement in the USA).

Nip the problem in the bud is the policy I'm suggesting here. And that means address it, don't deny it.

If there's reason to believe that a specific individual or group is actively plotting to kill an abortion doctor (or commit another act of violence) then they should definitely be investigated. But if not (and this case doesn't point to any other specific individual or organization), I'm not quite sure what the point of deploying "anti-terror" tactics would be, or who you would have them employed against.
As noted above, I consider official US 'anti-terrorism' tactics to be nothing more than 'terrorism-fostering' tactics.

Obviously I'm not suggesting anything of the sort as a viable or meaningful response to what I consider a budding domestic terrorism problem.

I'll agree that the FBI should keep an eye on organizations or individuals that call for violence (I'm not familiar with O'Riley actually calling for violence, but then I watch him).
O'Reilly's broadcast words are a matter of public record and are easily Googled. He's not unique, only the most high profile media figure using the language of hatred and violence on the topic of abortion and abortion doctors in particular (and Tilly specifically no less).

And I'm not talking about an FBI response either. If the FBI isn't already watching these groups, they are beyond useless.

A proper public information campaign would be probably the best policy at this time. A public message campaign needs to be made. These can be remarkably effective if done correctly. The key is for the government to assert the 'spirit' of the law, not just the letter of the law.

Indeed, the 'lynching' analogy may be appropriate language to use here. The murder of Tilly appears to be a public act similar in purpose to lynching (though perhaps less grotesque). Public opinion fought against slavery and public opinion fought against lynching and public opinion fought for civil rights. I think that public opinion can be used to mobilize a fight against violent extremism.

However, I think its essential that our society draw a line between any person or organization which has blabbed and yelled threatening things and people and organizations that actually commit or attempt to commit murder or assault. Both are bad; but one is not the other.
Certainly. I'm a strong defender of the principle of 'no thought crimes'.

But one can certainly try to shame them for it when their words look like they are having murderous effects. Only public opinion can do that.

I'm not sure what sort of "moves" you have in mind here. My specific objections were to your implications that "anti-abortion terrorism" should be receiving the same response as "Islamic terrorism"; I believed you mentioned predator drones over Kentucky.

I can certainly agree that some culture needs to change. Specifically that some groups/individuals need to cool down their rhetoric and embrace legal, peaceful means of change. But I don't think calling more people terrorists, or treating people with strong views but no history of violence as "potential terrorists" is going to aid in that process.

I already answered this question in a previous post and above. A public information campaign is what I'm calling for. Mobilize public opinion to shame the hatemongers for inciting violence as nothing more than modern day lynchmongers.

If there is no connection between the radical and murderous 'anti-abortionists' and the mainstream 'pro-life' movement, then there should be no trouble at all with this kind of political information campaign. The Government has a duty and a responsibility to keep the peace. Sometimes proactive policies are needed to do this.

Failure to do so will only produce a continuation and possible escalation.

I never said the reasons were random. I said there wasn't a "mass terrorist movement" and I'll stand by that since this marks the only shooting in a decade. "Terrorism" it might be, a "mass terrorist movement" it is not.
Check it out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The existence of successful and repeated terrorist acts are a necessary precursor to the development of a 'mass terrorist movement'. Mass terrorist movements don't just pop up in thin air fully formed. It takes decades to build them and they always begin with simple isolated acts.

Now I'm really quite curious as to what you'd have the authorities do that they aren't doing.
I've replied to this question above and in a previous post.

They can make a variety of moves to address the 'culture' of tacit permission that supports these violent attacks on abortion doctors & clinics.

This does not require "police state" powers. Only a willingness to address the issue. However, as you keep arguing, there is strong resistance to discussing this issue in these terms. That's part of the culture of tacit permission I'm referring to.

As best I can tell, the matter is being taken quite seriously. The perpetrator has been arrested and the FBI has been, and continues to be, looking for any larger threat in order to stop it. I'd hardly call that "dismissing" the threat.
Its not the FBI that I'm suggesting is ignoring the threat. I'm sure they take the threat quite seriously.

However, that alone is insufficient to address the culture problem.

I feel wary of the implication that authorities should somehow forcibly (for government is force) be out changing culture or, worse yet, treating people as "terrorists" because of their culture.

The killer is arrested, his associates (if any) are being looked for, the few anti-abortion groups condoning/advocating violence are under investigation, that seems to fulfill the authority's part in it. What specifically would you have them do?
Same question, same answer as above.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken (which is certainly possible), the Army of God has been on the FBI's domestic counterterrorism list since the 1990s.
It is. And there will always be isolated and violent extremist groups. The issue here is whether they become mainstream or not. That's not something the FBI can address, nor is it anything that a predator drone can address. It is a matter of public opinion.

And that is something that public opinon can address. It is something that can be addressed with a concerted public information campaign. This is a non-invasive policy response. And of course, the first step in dealing with a 'problem' is admitting that the problem exists. That's always the hardest part.

[Margot]

Ima give this one a "no" for terrorism and "yes" for douchbagery. If after he shot the poor guy, he had triumphantly raised the gun over his head and said "Let that be a lesson to all you baby hating child slaughtering womb vacuum using godless heathens! I'm coming after you next!" I might be more inclined toward voting terrorist. But because this seemed to be one man's agenda against the embodiment (another one man) of what he felt was evil, I'm inclined to classify him as a loon. Plus, I'm sick of the phrase terrorism being tossed around in this country. It's obnoxious. I'm not sure the act of one man against anther one man can ever be defined as terrorism. I think it was said earlier that all murder causes terror.

Does this change anything in your mind?
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/tiller-assassination-now-subject-fed

[JHC]

My shiny Mac's dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Gunning down a man is scary. It's even scarier when it happens in the place he should be safest (talk about breeching the comfort zone!). Gunning down a man who preforms late-term abortions based on ideological reasons in a place of worship sends a very, very clear message. I'm going to have to say that this fits the bill when it comes to terrorism.

Nailed it!

[bug]

Does this change anything in your mind?
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/tiller-assassination-now-subject-fed
Yes. It makes much larger than one man shooting another one man.

Also.....
Jesus christ!!! How horrifying!!

[dilettante]

Michael, sorry for the long delay between responses; I didn't want to try to formulate anything this thoughtful while I was traveling. Anyway, rather than continue the piecemeal point by point discussion, I'd like to talk more about the nature of an appropriate response to this violence (regardless of whether we classify under "terrorism"). Specifically I'm interested in what you had in mind when saying:

an official response to the issue is warranted.
...
A proper public information campaign would be probably the best policy at this time.

I'm unsure as to what a proper "public information campaign" could entail and how it would avoid becoming an official government suppression of one side of a political debate.

It seems to me there are a variety of "anti-abortion" positions in play in the US, but they are more or less united around the idea that abortion is, to some degree, comparable to murder and should be treated as such by the laws of the land. This would include those who hold abortion to be effectively equivalent to murder and those who view it as similar but not equivalent, a kind of murder-lite if you will.

But regardless, that is the political debate: is abortion a effectively form of murder and should the law treat it as such. As I see it, the debate is comparable to that over whether or not water-boarding is torture and whether the law should treat it as such.

Now it makes perfect sense that, regardless of the nature of the debate, the government must prevent and publicly shame vigilantism; the government can function only via a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. And so it follows that it would arrest those who do use violence and strongly condemn (and perhaps prosecute) those who explicitly advocate its use.

But this is already being done. In fact, almost everyone loudly condemns violence in this case. So the question remains who else should/could be condemned and "shamed" (if not prosecuted) and a "public information campaign"?

Now those who loudly call abortion "murder" (and thus either explicitly or implicitly call abortion doctors "murderers") are a possibility, since one could arguably say that such rhetoric encouraged violence even if that was not the intent of those speaking. O'Riley seems to fall into this category: he had his "Tiller the babykiller" remarks, but then immediately condemned Tiller's murder.
But since, in this case, the essential political question is whether or not abortion is effectively murder, then an "official policy" to shame or generate condemnation for who loudly say that it is becomes an official policy to squelch a political perspective, which is a road I think we should be loath to go down.

We saw (and still see) private talking heads attempt to shame and publicly condemn those who called the treatment at Gitmo "torture". The talking heads declared that doing so provided aid and comfort to Islamic extremists and helped them justify their hatred and violence against America. And it seems to fairly clear that the true objective of many of these demagogues was to silence the debate over the issue of detainee treatment and to denigrate their opposition. And of course they had every right to say whatever they wanted as private citizens.

But we must not, dare not, encourage the government itself to employ an "official policy" that is effectively meant to silence debate over a contentious political issue by using public funds to try to shame and publicly condemn one side.

[Michael]

Michael, sorry for the long delay between responses; I didn't want to try to formulate anything this thoughtful while I was traveling. Anyway, rather than continue the piecemeal point by point discussion, I'd like to talk more about the nature of an appropriate response to this violence (regardless of whether we classify under "terrorism"). Specifically I'm interested in what you had in mind when saying:
an official response to the issue is warranted.
...
A proper public information campaign would be probably the best policy at this time.

I'm unsure as to what a proper "public information campaign" could entail and how it would avoid becoming an official government suppression of one side of a political debate.

It seems to me there are a variety of "anti-abortion" positions in play in the US, but they are more or less united around the idea that abortion is, to some degree, comparable to murder and should be treated as such by the laws of the land. This would include those who hold abortion to be effectively equivalent to murder and those who view it as similar but not equivalent, a kind of murder-lite if you will.

But regardless, that is the political debate: is abortion a effectively form of murder and should the law treat it as such. As I see it, the debate is comparable to that over whether or not water-boarding is torture and whether the law should treat it as such.
This is exactly the problem that the public information campaign ought to address.

Abortion is NOT murder under US law. Pretending it is, is a lie. What's so complicated about this?

One may hold the opinion that one is opposed to this policy, but vigilantees are never acceptable under any terms.

I don't see any wiggle room here for anti-abortionists to decide the law on their own terms.

Indeed, if the same policy you suggest here is applied generally, then I suppose assassinating leaders of the anti-abortion movement is an equally reasonable response and is a matter of a difference of partisan opinion? No?

I think the argument you are making is horrific here. There is no "dispute" over the legality of murdering doctors in cold blood. Pretending there is one is spurious.

Besides which, no one was ever much interested in the "motive" of the 9/11 terrorists. The ONLY thing that mattered was their act. But how come when anti-abortion terrorists commit a terrorist act, all of a sudden the 'act' becomes secondary to the 'motive'? I find this selective application of principles to be highly questionable - and indicative of a biased double-standard.

I don't care what bullshit some crackpot who murdered Dr.Tiller wants to claim is his motive. That's irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that a doctor was executed in cold blood by someone who believes that they have a higher calling than to the law and that they have the right to take the law into their own hands any time they disagree with the law.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the state to make the public statement that citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands - and that any citizen who thinks otherwise is a criminal and threat to all.

Now it makes perfect sense that, regardless of the nature of the debate, the government must prevent and publicly shame vigilantism; the government can function only via a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. And so it follows that it would arrest those who do use violence and strongly condemn (and perhaps prosecute) those who explicitly advocate its use.

But this is already being done. In fact, almost everyone loudly condemns violence in this case. So the question remains who else should/could be condemned and "shamed" (if not prosecuted) and a "public information campaign"?
No, the present 'police' mission is entirely focused upon those who violate the letter of the law (and only those who violate the letter of the law).

In order to address a growing domestic terrorism problem, it is the enablers that one needs to address. They are the critical mass that can turn isolated terrorist incidents into a movement. Terrorists NEED a support network of enablers and supporters to function.

Many of these enablers hold high positions in the media and in high profile organizations. They must be the primary target of a public information campaign. Bill O'Reilly is probably a perfect example of someone that needs to be made an example of.

The FCC Decency regulations alone are enough to skewer him, but no one will do that (because he doesn't use "sex" words and thus isn't 'evil').

Now those who loudly call abortion "murder" (and thus either explicitly or implicitly call abortion doctors "murderers") are a possibility, since one could arguably say that such rhetoric encouraged violence even if that was not the intent of those speaking. O'Riley seems to fall into this category: he had his "Tiller the babykiller" remarks, but then immediately condemned Tiller's murder.
This is exactly the point. Bill O'Reilly has an audience of millions daily. He spouts murderous propaganda that might be construed as incitements to violence. O'Reilly is not alone at all, only the most high profile of such media figures.

When the US media is validating/encouraging (indirectly of course) murder, there is a big problem here.

When people defend this as "politics", the problem is far more advanced than I thought. It isn't a question of "if" this will get worse, but "when".

But since, in this case, the essential political question is whether or not abortion is effectively murder, then an "official policy" to shame or generate condemnation for who loudly say that it is becomes an official policy to squelch a political perspective, which is a road I think we should be loath to go down.
No one is squelching a political perspective.

I don't give a flying fuck if you believe abortion ought to be illegal. That's your political opinion and you are entitled to have it. No one disputes this.

The issue that needs to be addressed is the number of anti-abortionist who seem to believe that they have the right to ignore the law and do vigilantee violence. That's the only issue here.

Indeed, the terrorist murder of a symbolic abortion doctor seems to get you all wrapped up into the political issue of abortion politics and the validity of dissent. That is precisely the connection I'm pointing out exists and enables/fosters terrorism here.

Your argument offers justification for murder, vigilantees and lawbreaking. That's part of the argument to enable/foster more terrorism.

We saw (and still see) private talking heads attempt to shame and publicly condemn those who called the treatment at Gitmo "torture". The talking heads declared that doing so provided aid and comfort to Islamic extremists and helped them justify their hatred and violence against America. And it seems to fairly clear that the true objective of many of these demagogues was to silence the debate over the issue of detainee treatment and to denigrate their opposition. And of course they had every right to say whatever they wanted as private citizens.
It ain't working because the media talking heads form a 'solidarity' movement to protect their own - and they were uniform in their support for invading Iraq, their support for torture and their anti-abortion politics. The media is thus useless as part of a solution here - they are indeed the primary problem - they are the enablers that need to be addressed.

But we must not, dare not, encourage the government itself to employ an "official policy" that is effectively meant to silence debate over a contentious political issue by using public funds to try to shame and publicly condemn one side.

How is a public information campaign directed against vigilantees somehow meant to "silence" debate?

Smells like the same argument that has been used so often by the rightwing and US media to shut down criticism of the Iraq war, criticism of Gitmo, or criticism of Bush. Apparently just pointing out the facts of the matter is 'unfair' to some people's politics and might hurt their feelings. I have no sympathy with that view.

[dilettante]

This is exactly the problem that the public information campaign ought to address.

Abortion is NOT murder under US law. Pretending it is, is a lie. What's so complicated about this?

One may hold the opinion that one is opposed to this policy, but vigilantees are never acceptable under any terms.

I don't see any wiggle room here for anti-abortionists to decide the law on their own terms.

Indeed, if the same policy you suggest here is applied generally, then I suppose assassinating leaders of the anti-abortion movement is an equally reasonable response and is a matter of a difference of partisan opinion? No?

I think the argument you are making is horrific here. There is no "dispute" over the legality of murdering doctors in cold blood. Pretending there is one is spurious.

Besides which, no one was ever much interested in the "motive" of the 9/11 terrorists. The ONLY thing that mattered was their act. But how come when anti-abortion terrorists commit a terrorist act, all of a sudden the 'act' becomes secondary to the 'motive'? I find this selective application of principles to be highly questionable - and indicative of a biased double-standard.

I don't care what bullshit some crackpot who murdered Dr.Tiller wants to claim is his motive. That's irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that a doctor was executed in cold blood by someone who believes that they have a higher calling than to the law and that they have the right to take the law into their own hands any time they disagree with the law.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the state to make the public statement that citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands - and that any citizen who thinks otherwise is a criminal and threat to all.

I have not (and don't) contest the fact that "Abortion is NOT murder under US law", nor am I aware of anyone who is "pretending" that it is.

Nor have I said anything advocating vigilantism and, as best I can tell, this act of vigilantism was immediately, loudly, and nearly universally condemned by just about everyone (even O'Riley).

And if your "public information campaign" is meant to inform us all that:


abortion is presently legal,
homicide is not,
and murderers will be prosecute,

then I have no problem with it, but I don't know of anyone who is presently ignorant on any of these points.


No, the present 'police' mission is entirely focused upon those who violate the letter of the law (and only those who violate the letter of the law).

In order to address a growing domestic terrorism problem, it is the enablers that one needs to address. They are the critical mass that can turn isolated terrorist incidents into a movement. Terrorists NEED a support network of enablers and supporters to function.

Many of these enablers hold high positions in the media and in high profile organizations. They must be the primary target of a public information campaign. Bill O'Reilly is probably a perfect example of someone that needs to be made an example of.

The FCC Decency regulations alone are enough to skewer him, but no one will do that (because he doesn't use "sex" words and thus isn't 'evil').

This is exactly the point. Bill O'Reilly has an audience of millions daily. He spouts murderous propaganda that might be construed as incitements to violence. O'Reilly is not alone at all, only the most high profile of such media figures.

When the US media is validating/encouraging (indirectly of course) murder, there is a big problem here.

When people defend this as "politics", the problem is far more advanced than I thought. It isn't a question of "if" this will get worse, but "when".


This, on the other hand, I have a problem with. Here you're talking about targeting people who have now adamantly condemned violence because their heated rhetoric "might be construed" by other people as incitements to violence.
This amounts to targeting person A because of how person B interpreted (or might interpret) his words. That mentality is an enormous threat to free speech.


No one is squelching a political perspective.

I don't give a flying fuck if you believe abortion ought to be illegal. That's your political opinion and you are entitled to have it. No one disputes this.

The issue that needs to be addressed is the number of anti-abortionist who seem to believe that they have the right to ignore the law and do vigilantee violence. That's the only issue here.

Indeed, the terrorist murder of a symbolic abortion doctor seems to get you all wrapped up into the political issue of abortion politics and the validity of dissent. That is precisely the connection I'm pointing out exists and enables/fosters terrorism here.
Your argument offers justification for murder, vigilantees and lawbreaking. That's part of the argument to enable/foster more terrorism.


As best I can tell, every anti-abortionist who has actually committed violence has been arrested and every one who has openly advocated vigilantism faces widespread condemnation.

Again, I have no qualms about targeting those who assert a "right to ignore the law and do vigilantee violence". I do, however, take issue with targeting those who make no such assertions and, in fact, condemn those who do.


How is a public information campaign directed against vigilantees somehow meant to "silence" debate?

If directed solely agaisnt the vigilantees then it isn't.
But you seem intent on expanding it to include anyone whose words, regardless of the speaker's intent or ardent condemnation of vigilantism, might possibly be interpretted by vigilantees as comforting. O'Riley (loathsome though he may be) is not a vigilantee, and in fact condmens vigilantism. Indeed, my greatest concern is how you seem to easily conflate those who are vigilantees with those who are not.

I note that above you accused me of offering justificatons for murders, despite the fact that I have repeatedly condemned them. Had a government program stepped in and added a post saying that I was fostering terrorism then I would say that they were certainly interfering with our debate, wouldn't you?


Smells like the same argument that has been used so often by the rightwing and US media to shut down criticism of the Iraq war, criticism of Gitmo, or criticism of Bush. Apparently just pointing out the facts of the matter is 'unfair' to some people's politics and might hurt their feelings. I have no sympathy with that view.

Actually, that's precisely the example I would use. Criticism of the war, Gitmo, and harsh interegation was accused of offering aid and comfort to terrorists. It was loudly declared that calling waterboarding torture would only incite more Muslims to commit acts of violence and a number of noisy idiots on the radio accused the critics of Gitmo of supporting terrorists.
You seem to be suggesting that we do precisely the same thing to critics of abortion, only with tax dollars.



But, lest I've somehow missed your meaning entirely, perhaps we can create a test scenario.

::: Dilettante puts on loud, ardent, and firey anti-abortion hat :::
Ahem.
(1) Abortion should be legally treated as murder.
(2) Why, you ask? Because, since unborn children are persons as much as any of us, killing them is effectively the same as killing any other person.
(3) You might ask, doesn't it logically follow that those who perform abortions are, therefore, killing people? Yes it does, which is precisely why we should make abortion a crime so those vile wretches will be prosecuted.
::: Dilettante takes off loud, ardent, and firey anti-abortion hat :::

At which point should the government stand up and declare "You're enabling terrorism!!!" And how could such an intervention possibly avoid skewing the political debate over whether abortion should remain legal?
And what should people have to say, "I oppose legal abortion but I can't tell you way because then I'll be accused of fostering terrorism."?

[Michael]

But, lest I've somehow missed your meaning entirely, perhaps we can create a test scenario.

::: Dilettante puts on loud, ardent, and firey anti-abortion hat :::
Ahem.
(1) Abortion should be legally treated as murder.
(2) Why, you ask? Because, since unborn children are persons as much as any of us, killing them is effectively the same as killing any other person.
(3) You might ask, doesn't it logically follow that those who perform abortions are, therefore, killing people? Yes it does, which is precisely why we should make abortion a crime so those vile wretches will be prosecuted.
::: Dilettante takes off loud, ardent, and firey anti-abortion hat :::

At which point should the government stand up and declare "You're enabling terrorism!!!" And how could such an intervention possibly avoid skewing the political debate over whether abortion should remain legal? And what should people have to say, "I oppose legal abortion but I can't tell you way because then I'll be accused of fostering terrorism."?

At the point at which the megaphone is used - the media specifically. That's the real issue here - private opinions, private thoughts and even private conversations that the government has no business getting invovled with. It is the public airwaves that the government has a moral duty to address.

The media environment ought to be confronted - directly if possible. How about the Secretary of Justice request a booking onto the O'Reilly show and confront O'Reilly with his statements on the topic and point out that this kind of talk is potentially dangerous and irresponsible?

That's not interfering with anyone's rights. That's not invasive. That's not a government spending program and its not the government taking sides and its not the government pushing any propaganda.

Indeed, I'm kind of suprised NOT to see something like that in the US media talk shows.

[The Drunk Guy]

At the point at which the megaphone is used - the media specifically. That's the real issue here - private opinions, private thoughts and even private conversations that the government has no business getting invovled with. It is the public airwaves that the government has a moral duty to address.

The media environment ought to be confronted - directly if possible. How about the Secretary of Justice request a booking onto the O'Reilly show and confront O'Reilly with his statements on the topic and point out that this kind of talk is potentially dangerous and irresponsible?

That's not interfering with anyone's rights. That's not invasive. That's not a government spending program and its not the government taking sides and its not the government pushing any propaganda.

Indeed, I'm kind of suprised NOT to see something like that in the US media talk shows.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! The great people of the federal government shouldn't have to actually appear on public television in a non-election year! And you expect them to defend their policies, too?

If you lived here, I would suggest you move out of the country, sir. How un-patriotic!

[dilettante]

At the point at which the megaphone is used - the media specifically. That's the real issue here - private opinions, private thoughts and even private conversations that the government has no business getting invovled with. It is the public airwaves that the government has a moral duty to address.

So it's OK to have certain political views as long as one doesn't talk about them very loudly? This makes it sound like the government has to address "dangerous political ideas". I don't like that all.

And isn't O'Reilly on cable? In that case, at least, it has nothing to do with "public airwaves".


The media environment ought to be confronted - directly if possible. How about the Secretary of Justice request a booking onto the O'Reilly show and confront O'Reilly with his statements on the topic and point out that this kind of talk is potentially dangerous and irresponsible?

If a secretary wants to get on TV as an individual and describe his/her position that's fine. Lots, and lots of private individuals have expressed concern about O'Reilly's words re: Tiller since the shooting; it's had considerable press coverage.

But a government program or "public information campaign" goes too far, IMO. It comes too close to the government accusing citizens, citizens who notably renounce violence, for having "dangerous ideas".

I didn't like it when the past administration (or their cronies) did it wrt to torture; I don't like the idea of it happening now wrt abortion.


That's not interfering with anyone's rights. That's not invasive. That's not a government spending program and its not the government taking sides and its not the government pushing any propaganda.

Indeed, I'm kind of suprised NOT to see something like that in the US media talk shows.

I imagine it isn't being done because it would almost certainly backfire and violate a basic political idea. There has to be a firm, solid, and fully visible line between those who commit (and/or call for) violence and those who do not commit (and renounce) violence. The government should never give the impression that it is blurring that line.

Obama has (wisely, IMO) called for people to cool down their rhetoric. If an administration official proceeded to go on TV and accuse O'Reilly of "fostering terrorism" that would be the opposite of cooling down the rhetoric.