Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: gun control

  1. Senior Member
    bdizzle's Avatar
    bdizzle is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,693
    #41
    Advertisements
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    That list is highly politicized. The KKK was on it under Obama, and removed under Trump.

    This.

    Also, the state department is responsible for a list of foreign terrorist organizations. So yes, that list that I suspect you're looking at is mostly Islamic organizations because most of the active terror groups abroad right now are Islamic. Which is why I asked what list your looking at. Unless you found something magically that I can't, the state department doesn't put together a domestic terror list. Domestic terrorism is generally a problem taken on by the FBI.

    ETA: and when it comes to the FBI tracking domestic terror groups, they often split them by the 'type' of group they are. Hate groups, eco-terrorism groups, anti-abortion groups etc. Different motives, different strategies, etc. so they need to be treated differently when trying to foil plots or what have you.


  2. "...now do Classical Gas"
    Matchbox's Avatar
    Matchbox is offline
    "...now do Classical Gas"
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,257
    #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Guynavywife View Post
    That list is highly politicized. The KKK was on it under Obama, and removed under Trump.
    Youíre thinking of the wrong list. The KKK were on a list of hate groups, but never a list of terrorist organisations. Hate crimes are an entirely different set of charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdizzle View Post
    This.

    Also, the state department is responsible for a list of foreign terrorist organizations. So yes, that list that I suspect you're looking at is mostly Islamic organizations because most of the active terror groups abroad right now are Islamic. Which is why I asked what list your looking at. Unless you found something magically that I can't, the state department doesn't put together a domestic terror list. Domestic terrorism is generally a problem taken on by the FBI.

    ETA: and when it comes to the FBI tracking domestic terror groups, they often split them by the 'type' of group they are. Hate groups, eco-terrorism groups, anti-abortion groups etc. Different motives, different strategies, etc. so they need to be treated differently when trying to foil plots or what have you.
    As I said to Asher, heís thinking of the wrong list. The KKK were on a list of hate groups, but never of terrorists.

    As for it being a list of foreign terror organisations...yes, of course it is a list of foreign groups. It has to be a list of foreign groups, because the law is deliberately structured that way.

    I just checked this. Hear me out.

    Federal terror charges can ONLY be laid against someone with ties to a group on that State Department foreign terrorist organisation list. The wording is very clear. Someone with ties to a domestic group not on that list can be hit with a pile of other charges so huge they never find their way out from underneath it - murder, hate crimes, anything the FBI can possibly make stick to them - but not federal terrorism charges. Domestic groups are deliberately excluded from federal terrorism charges, since making it illegal to join or materially support a US domestically based/active group of any kind (even a terrible one) runs into a clear issue with the First Amendment thing about the right to assembly. Domestic groups would require a separate federal charge of domestic terrorism, which does not at this time exist.

    They can ban as many foreign groups as they like, and make interacting with them a crime. They canít do this at home, because Constitutional rights etc.

    It wasnít done in malice. If anything, it was done for a very good reason, to protect the integrity of a major constitutional right. Nevertheless, youíve ended up with a system in which a guy radicalised by foreign Group A can be charged as a terrorist, where a guy radicalised by domestic Group B cannot. Even if the two men do exactly the same thing to prove how serious they are, Guy B remains a murderer and not a terrorist.

    You see my point?
    If I cannot move heaven, I will raise hell
  3. Senior Member
    bdizzle's Avatar
    bdizzle is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,693
    #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Matchbox View Post
    You’re thinking of the wrong list. The KKK were on a list of hate groups, but never a list of terrorist organisations. Hate crimes are an entirely different set of charges.



    As I said to Asher, he’s thinking of the wrong list. The KKK were on a list of hate groups, but never of terrorists.

    As for it being a list of foreign terror organisations...yes, of course it is a list of foreign groups. It has to be a list of foreign groups, because the law is deliberately structured that way.

    I just checked this. Hear me out.

    Federal terror charges can ONLY be laid against someone with ties to a group on that State Department foreign terrorist organisation list. The wording is very clear. Someone with ties to a domestic group not on that list can be hit with a pile of other charges so huge they never find their way out from underneath it - murder, hate crimes, anything the FBI can possibly make stick to them - but not federal terrorism charges. Domestic groups are deliberately excluded from federal terrorism charges, since making it illegal to join or materially support a US domestically based/active group of any kind (even a terrible one) runs into a clear issue with the First Amendment thing about the right to assembly. Domestic groups would require a separate federal charge of domestic terrorism, which does not at this time exist.

    They can ban as many foreign groups as they like, and make interacting with them a crime. They can’t do this at home, because Constitutional rights etc.

    It wasn’t done in malice. If anything, it was done for a very good reason, to protect the integrity of a major constitutional right. Nevertheless, you’ve ended up with a system in which a guy radicalised by foreign Group A can be charged as a terrorist, where a guy radicalised by domestic Group B cannot. Even if the two men do exactly the same thing to prove how serious they are, Guy B remains a murderer and not a terrorist.

    You see my point?
    Yes of course I see the point. That's how the law system in this country works. There are hundreds if not thousands of minute distinctions between what seems like the exact same behavior. But its not done because we want to make sure white guys are treated better than brown ones.


    ETA: also I'm not thinking of the wrong list. There is a state department list of foreign terror organizations. There is an FBI "list" (not as structured as what is released by the state department) of domestic 'terror' organizations, broken down by the type of group they are.


  4. "...now do Classical Gas"
    Matchbox's Avatar
    Matchbox is offline
    "...now do Classical Gas"
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,257
    #44
    Quote Originally Posted by bdizzle View Post
    Yes of course I see the point. That's how the law system in this country works. There are hundreds if not thousands of minute distinctions between what seems like the exact same behavior. But its not done because we want to make sure white guys are treated better than brown ones.


    ETA: also I'm not thinking of the wrong list. There is a state department list of foreign terror organizations. There is an FBI "list" (not as structured as what is released by the state department) of domestic 'terror' organizations, broken down by the type of group they are.

    It doesn’t have to be done specifically “because you want white guys to be treated better” to end up in a situation where white guys are perceived as being treated better. It doesn’t have to be deliberately introduced for it to be present.

    Federal terror charges deliberately exclude domestic organisations, and for a very good reason. We agree on that.

    However, by excluding those organisations, they exclude almost every organisation (unless he wants to go to Spain and fight in the Basque thing, or to Northern Ireland for offshoots of the IRA) that a white guy would join and be radicalised by. Anglos don’t, as a rule, join ISIS.

    A white right-wing militia man could attempt to blow up the Goddamn White House, and he still wouldn’t be a referred to as a terrorist - he can’t be, because no such terrorism charge can ever be laid against him. They can’t even say “alleged terrorist” in news reporting, because he’s not accused of terrorism. No matter what he did or how many he killed, the word terrorist can never come up unless he somehow ties to the Middle East.

    The discrepancy comes about because laymen see perpetrators (overwhelmingly white) committing things that would absolutely be condemned as terrorism if they could be tied to a group in the Middle East...but they’re not condemned as terrorism. People look at the action, and see that the action is the same, so they start wondering why the consequences and reporting of that action is not the same. They can’t understand why the definition of the contemporary Big Bad is so narrow.

    You know there’s a good reason. I know there’s a good reason. Many people (including people who should know, like media figures and politicians) do not.

    When the status quo is “We’re going to define terrorism as politically or ideologically related violence...but carefully work around the specific kinds of political/ideological violence that disaffected white men are most drawn to, because there are good reasons we can’t actually include those”, it doesn’t take a genius to realise “it’s almost impossible to hit a disaffected white man with terror charges. No matter what he does or how clear his motives are.”

    It doesn’t have to be consciously malicious for that “it’s almost impossible” statement to be true...and given how loaded the word “terrorist”/“terrorism” is, that IS a clear advantage for him.
    Last edited by Matchbox; 11-10-2017 at 11:09 PM.
    If I cannot move heaven, I will raise hell
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •