Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
trial-and-terror.theintercept.com
Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#2This is a specific case of a general problem with how violations of law are investigated and prosecuted in this country that happens to be made worse by the fact that in this case it involves federal officers and many people who are not native to the US (and aren't as familiar with their rights).
How "terrorism" cases are prosecuted is not the problem here. How cases in general are prosecuted is the problem.
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#3I didn't read the article yet but I would think "conspiring" to commit terrorism would be much more common than carrying it out.
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxx1KdGXti0
^ I was listening to this earlier and I can't help but point out the creeping government overreach in all aspects of our lives. We drop bombs at the drop of a hat, and send people to prison for thought crimes.
I really hope everyone can see that we must roll back the powers of the federal government, or it is going to roll over us.
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#5It'd be interesting to see breakdowns by race/religion (Muslims in mosques vs NRA gun collectors who are in local militias).
There have been cases where mosques have contacted the FBI to inform them of people they found disturbing (trying to recruit people) only to discover later those people were FBI agents sent to root out extremists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-b...
If one of these people, released from prison in exchange for this work, feels pressured to convert/indoctrinate a person who would normally not give a damn about any type of revolution, how is that not entrapment?
Other disturbing trends: some people are arrested for giving money to a mosque in some far of region they grew up in. If you gave money to a church or a lobby origination that ends up doing highly illegal stuff, are you now liable?
The greater speech issue: if Americans start to gather and think America should be split or states should succeed (won't happen today; there's less then 3% support even in places like Texas/Cascades--but in the future?), even if they work on peaceful means, could this be marked at terrorism? What if peaceful organizations for revolution have a few violent members? Will the leaders of peaceful originations be arrested for giving monetary support to members of a militia who do something violent?
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#6I didn't read the article yet but I would think "conspiring" to commit terrorism would be much more common than carrying it out.
Yes its not like you need to wait until they kill some one
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#7I didn't read the article yet but I would think "conspiring" to commit terrorism would be much more common than carrying it out.
Not only that but it seems like most of those who successfully carry out an act of terrorism end up dead anyway, either self inflicted or by LEO so obviously they wont be convicted.
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#8It'd be interesting to see breakdowns by race/religion (Muslims in mosques vs NRA gun collectors who are in local militias). There have been cases where mosques have contacted the FBI to inform them of people they found disturbing (trying to recruit people) only to discover later those people were FBI agents sent to root out extremists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-b... If one of these p…
>What if peaceful organizations for revolution have a few violent members?
It doesn't matter if they have no violent members. The secret police will provide enough to disrupt the movement. The secret police exist to protect the interests of the state. They protect the interests of the people living within it only insofar as those interests are aligned.
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#9OP here. For those interested, the journalists who compiled all this data also wrote extensively about their findings: https://theintercept.com/series/trial-and-terror/
Re: Most people prosecuted for terrorism since 2001 haven’t committed a violent act
#10It'd be interesting to see breakdowns by race/religion (Muslims in mosques vs NRA gun collectors who are in local militias). There have been cases where mosques have contacted the FBI to inform them of people they found disturbing (trying to recruit people) only to discover later those people were FBI agents sent to root out extremists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-b... If one of these p…
>if Americans start to gather and think America should be split or states should succeed (won't happen today; there's less then 3% support even in places like Texas/Cascades--but in the future?)
I dunno, In any given state there's probably more than 3% for certain other states seceding. The candidate I hear throws around a lot is pretty represented here and I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing.