Quote :

"Upon what do you base your belief that there are plenty more who fear death? Of those who don't blow themselves up or crash airplanes, the only other kind (aside from leadership) that predominate the headlines are the ones who are shooting at marines. If a person shooting at marines doesn't fear death, I don't know who does. "

Admittedly, I don't know that much about war, but I think death is a lot more certain with a suicide bomb attack than with exchanging fire with marines.

I will admit that I base that off of no good evidence. I think its probably more towards the middle. I doubt they are as feaful of death as your average individual, but I also doubt they are completely fearless.

9/1/2006 10:49:24 PM

Quote :

"Admittedly, I don't know that much about war, but I think death is a lot more certain with a suicide bomb attack than with exchanging fire with marines."

Oh, ye of little faith.

9/2/2006 10:30:51 PM

Terrorists would be wiser to go ahead and blow their cars up than tangle with a bunch of pissed off U.S. Marines. Semper Fi!

9/2/2006 11:10:46 PM

hmm...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060903/D8JTM8V80.html

Quote :

"Study: Terror Cases Now at Pre-9/11 Rate WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government has fallen back to prosecuting international terrorists at about the same rate it did before Sept. 11, according to a study based on Justice Department data. The surprising decline followed a sharp increase in such criminal prosecutions in the year after the attacks, according to a study released Sunday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research group at Syracuse University. The analysis of data from Justice's Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys also found: _In the eight months ending last May, Justice attorneys declined to prosecute more than nine out of every 10 terrorism cases sent to them by the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies. Nearly 4 in 10 of the rejected cases were scrapped because prosecutors found weak or insufficient evidence, no evidence of criminal intent or no evident federal crime. _Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, only 14 people have been sentenced to 20 years or more in prison in terrorism cases. Of the 1,329 convicted defendants, only 625 received any prison sentence. More than half got no prison time or no more than they had already served awaiting their verdict. The report comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration: It is sagging in public opinion polls just before congressional midterm elections. Democrats hope to regain control of at least one house of Congress, and President Bush has urged Republicans to run in part on his record in the war on terror. "There are many flaws in the report," said Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra. "It is irresponsible to attempt to measure success in the war on terror without the necessary details about the government's strategy and tactics." For instance, Sierra said, prison sentences are "not the proper measure of the success of the department's overall counterterrorism efforts. The primary goal ... is to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist activities." Because prosecutors try to charge potential terrorists before they act, they often allege fraud, false statements or immigration violations that carry lesser penalties than the offenses that could be charged after an attack, Sierra said. This "allows us to engage the enemy earlier than if we waited for them to act first." TRAC totaled the cases that prosecutors labeled as terrorism or antiterrorism no matter what charge was brought. It found only 14 prosecutions in fiscal 2000. That rose to 57 in fiscal 2001, which ended three weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The figure then soared to 355 in fiscal 2002. But by fiscal 2005 it dropped to 46. And in the first eight months of fiscal 2006, through last May, there were only 19 such prosecutions. Past critics of administration tactics found both favorable and unfavorable possible explanations. The sharp decline in prosecutions may show that prosecutors have moved away from "all kinds of secondary infractions" they pursued early on, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project. Those early cases drew criticism that Arab-Americans were rounded up based on mere racial profiling. The small number of long prison sentences shouldn't be a surprise because "terrorism is actually very rare - far more people are killed in ordinary street crime," said James Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Nevertheless terrorism poses a risk of catastrophic loss of life, "so agencies must pursue a lot of leads that do not pan out," Dempsey added. "We can't blame the FBI for pursuing those leads, but we can blame them and the Justice Department for arresting people and making a big media splash when things don't pan out." Meredith Fuchs, general counsel at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said the light sentences could mean "we are catching people at the margins, not at the center of the plots." "The surge right after 9/11 make sense," Fuchs added, "but the drop-off so quickly means either a lot of that post-9/11 activity was not necessary or that they haven't identified key people or that key people in custody aren't being prosecuted." At the penalty trial of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, the government acknowledged that it has captured most of the Sept. 11 ringleaders including mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and operations coordinator Ramzi Binalshibh. Although prosecutors suggested they might be charged somewhere someday, the government has never disproved persistent allegations they were tortured during interrogations overseas and thus cannot be tried in U.S. courts. If prosecutions "have been compromised by unlawful interrogation or surveillance, that would be worse than ironic," Aftergood said. "It would mean the government has performed in a self-defeating manner." Justice reported in June that 441 defendants were charged and 261 convicted or pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11. Citing those figures, Sierra said the department's strategy "has helped protect this country from terrorists since the attacks of September 11th." Unlike the data from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the June figures did not contain definitions of which cases were looked at. Former New York Times reporter David Burnham, TRAC's co-director, said Justice officials refused to give TRAC the definitions used in compiling the June figures on grounds that might undermine anti-terrorism enforcement. "An empirical study like TRAC's cuts through the rhetoric, lets us see just how many terrorists are being brought to justice," Aftergood said. "The data suggest that some of the official rhetoric is misleading.""

9/3/2006 11:46:08 PM

I think the same effect could have been had without invading Iraq.

Oh well.

9/4/2006 6:11:42 AM

Quote :

"For instance, Sierra said, prison sentences are "not the proper measure of the success of the department's overall counterterrorism efforts. The primary goal ... is to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist activities." Because prosecutors try to charge potential terrorists before they act, they often allege fraud, false statements or immigration violations that carry lesser penalties than the offenses that could be charged after an attack, Sierra said. This "allows us to engage the enemy earlier than if we waited for them to act first.""

I agree with this statement. I mean, as the next paragraph listed, the crimes weren't broken down by category at all. So if we catch a suspected terrorist using false identification to book a hotel room and we charge him for it. He's probably not going to get jail time. That's true even if we capture them the day before an attack of some kind. We can rack up all types of small charges, but nothing major until they purchase weapons or kill someone.

My solution is a new classification of crimes, similar to Hate Crime legislation. This "Terror-Related Crime" would have additional burden of proof, but would GREATLY extend the penalties for small crimes such as document forging, fraud, money laundering, etc.

What do you think?

9/4/2006 8:42:24 AM

Quote :

"Conspiracy to commit murder is a class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and a fine of at least $1,000 and not more than $10,000. The formal charge reads as follows: "Unlawfully conspire with another with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime of first degree murder, a forcible felony.""

We already have charges such as "Conspiracy to commit Murder" which can be applied as many times as you have proof of victims. For example, if I conspire to blow up a plane and 200 passengers are holding tickets then if convicted they can put me away for a maximum of 2,000 years.

9/4/2006 10:24:09 AM

So, what's the extent of that charge though? I mean if I pass a forged document to someone who enters the country with the intent of being sleeper cell for 15 years or so before he blows up a plane, is there any way in hell I'll get convicted of that?

9/4/2006 10:29:27 AM

Quote :

"I'd say more money ought to be spent identifying the root causes of terrorism instead of insisting on whatever explanation is the most political expedient."

but dont you think trying to find a reason/cause for the terrorism is somehow trying to justify/rationalize it? something to explain why they did it? because what they do is not acceptable...i think trying to figure out why they hate america and blow themselves up in crowded places is just going to sway some people to their perspective...we do need to change their way of thinking though

9/5/2006 2:49:24 PM

Twist, figuring out why someone did something =/= approval or justification

And, in order to change their thinking, we first have to understand their thinking.
IMO, we aren't really capable of winning the hearts and minds thing on our own. What we need are some very prominent clerics to use religious arguments for not killing innocent life, which would help moderate this whole thing. Unfortunately those clerics aren't as influential as the ones that ok up to 10 million dead Americans.

9/5/2006 2:58:13 PM

i completely agree that we need to get some clerics or other influential leaders in the region "on our side" to let people know that they can make something for themselves without having to resort to the violence that many of them tend to use first

but if the cause happens to be radical muslims misinterpreting the quran, or intentionally misinforming people of the values of islam, then the cause isnt rational and isnt something that can be rationally used to come up with a solution

i still think since we as americans have all of this freedom of thought and speech, we assume all people have the same way of thinking and can be rationalized with and convinced with words...i dont think they can be convinced with OUR direct words...definitely need some clerics

9/5/2006 3:05:18 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: My solution is a new classification of crimes, similar to Hate Crime legislation. This "Terror-Related Crime" would have additional burden of proof, but would GREATLY extend the penalties for small crimes such as document forging, fraud, money laundering, etc. What do you think?"

Winner.

Make it so they have to establish what it was being done for (which a proper investigation should reveal that), then let the prosecution go nuts.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: We already have charges such as "Conspiracy to commit Murder" which can be applied as many times as you have proof of victims. For example, if I conspire to blow up a plane and 200 passengers are holding tickets then if convicted they can put me away for a maximum of 2,000 years."

As bgmims asked, how far can that apply?

I know there's no statute of limitation on murder, but I mean how far up the chain can the conspiracy be officially recognized? In other words, can they go after Joe Muslim for unknowingly donating to an Islamic charity who's sending $texas out the backdoor to Osama? Or does it stop with the charity? Or with the planners? Or simply the executors?

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: but dont you think trying to find a reason/cause for the terrorism is somehow trying to justify/rationalize it?"

Not at all. It's trying to understand it. In fact, the distinction between justification and rationalization play heavily into this debate.

The terrorists have already rationalized murder as far as they're concerned. I think we ought to dedicate ourselves significantly to understanding that rationale, so that we can effectively counteract that rationale whatever it may be.

Note: This does not excuse terrorism. That would be where you cross the line into justification.

In my view, the murder of innocents is never justified, only rationalized. We rationalize it ourselves every day. Surely even you'd admit that some innocents have died as a direct result of your tax dollars at work in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you rationalize it by looking at the entirely noble, longer term goal: ending terrorism. That's not the same thing as saying it's ok to drop bombs on weddings and nursery schools, but it's saying that if that happens with the end of stopping terrorism in mind, so be it.

When a society tries to find the root causes of murder, that's not the society's way of justifying murder. It's like in the sciences, or business, or a doctors office. Step one is always to identify the problem, not the symptom. Without properly doing so, solutions never work. You can't cure an infected sore with pain medicine, and you can't kill weeds by chopping off their heads. That's because the pain of the sore isn't the problem, the infection is. The appearance of weeds on the surface of your garden isn't the problem, the roots are.

So it is with terrorism and most things...

I hope this explains things a little better. I definitely have never condoned an act of terrorism.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i think trying to figure out why they hate america and blow themselves up in crowded places is just going to sway some people to their perspective...we do need to change their way of thinking though"

Why do you think that'd sway people to their perspective? If their perspective is totally warped--which I definitely don't doubt--why would people be swayed to it?

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: to let people know that they can make something for themselves without having to resort to the violence that many of them tend to use first"

Serious question: If you've repeatedly appealed the United States for years to remove bases and chapels from your land, which you believe to be holy ground reserved for Islam, what are your options?

Sure they should adapt and learn to respect other cultures, but far be it for one sovereign entity to require another to do so within its own land.

Granted, I don't think Al Qaeda and terrorism are the only options. But what I do think is that they become more attractive options as other peaceful avenues successively fail one after the other. It's like Kennedy said: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

When peaceful options yield no result, let alone a response, I can see how terrorism might look better and better every day to a culturally immature person in those circumstances...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: but if the cause happens to be radical muslims misinterpreting the quran, or intentionally misinforming people of the values of islam, then the cause isnt rational and isnt something that can be rationally used to come up with a solution"

Sure it can.

1) Why are they misinterpreting the Koran? How so? Are there ways we can exploit to educate them about their misinterpretations?

2) Why are people deliberately misinforming people of the values of Islam? What are their goals in doing so?

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i dont think they can be convinced with OUR direct words...definitely need some clerics"

I agree. But I'm not so sure that bullets and bombs are as effective at convincing them to stop hating us or killing us as we make them out to be...

9/5/2006 4:05:26 PM