Holy Crap, absolutely not!

The use of the word ‘terrorist” is an excuse NOT TO HAVE A REAL TRIAL. Do you realize the President could simply declare Loughner (or ANYONE) an enemy combatant and have him murdered?

The minute the word “terrorism” gets into the picture it is an excuse for law enforcement to ignore civil liberties.

My God, please don’t let this sprial into a stupid, partisan debate. DEMAND CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR ALL!!

I’m not sure, but I do know Glenn Beck should be tried as a material accessory to the Tides terrorist.

No, he should be tried to murder.

The following is a test:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

I think crazed mass murderer about sums it up…

Terrorism is defined as an act of violence, this piece of shit MURDERED 6 people and attempted to murder several more. He should be tried for each of the Murders and each attempted Murder and if he is found guilty, then he should, IMHO, be put to death no later than after 1 appeal.

His sanity should not be called into question. It is understood that it takes an unsound mind to commit the act that many witnessed.

I think “terrorism” has to have a clear ideology behind it, with a goal of causing fear and chaos as a punishment for not going along with that ideology, and encouraging others to join that ideology. Loughner doesn’t really fit into that… he’s was a lone gun-man, not part of a group, and not really representing any specific ideology. If we group him in, than all mass murderers are also “terrorists,” and that’s simply not the case. There is a difference.

possibly said:
I’m not sure, but I do know Glenn Beck should be tried as a material accessory to the Tides terrorist.

And Al Gore should be tried as an accessory in the Discovery Channel hostage situation, right?

ImNotBlue said:
I think “terrorism” has to have a clear ideology behind it, with a goal of causing fear and chaos as a punishment for not going along with that ideology, and encouraging others to join that ideology. Loughner doesn’t really fit into that… he’s was a lone gun-man, not part of a group, and not really representing any specific ideology. If we group him in, than all mass murderers are also “terrorists,” and that’s simply not the case. There is a difference.

And Al Gore should be tried as an accessory in the Discovery Channel hostage situation, right?

Hmmmmm…that’s not what the right including numerous Fox News ledes said about Malik-Nadal Hassan (was his name right?) after the Ft. Hood shooting. After all, he acted on his own volition without explicit instruction from someone or some group. However, since he has a Muslim name and is a Muslim, it’s automatically inferred he’s a terrorist. it happens all the time a perp is a Muslim in this country even since Obama became POTUS.

Definition of “terrorist” under U.S. law.
“The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Loughner has a political ideology. It can be deduced conclusively from his rants. Their irrationality is irrelevant. Their inspiration can not be dismissed. To infer (by several media groups and pundits) that his actions — against this congresswoman had absolutely “nothing” to do with an ideology or set of beliefs is fallacious. The notion that this incident was “random” or “isolated” is a canard. It was pre-medidated and targeted towards a particular person who held political office – a politician with a known set of political beliefs. If he was a “regular” serial murderer, he could have walked into a random restaurant instead, opened fire and killed a lot of people, but he didn’t.

If you want to label Nadal a terrorist, you must label Loughner one as well. I can guarantee you if Lughner had been an arab or a a Muslim, we would not be discussing his mental instability. Fox news would not be asking a question, they would be stating it as fact.

theendisfar said:
Terrorism is defined as an act of violence, …

Terrorism is defined as an act of violence?

Murder and assault are violent, but murder and assault don’t mean terrorism. Not sure what you meant.

Gasket said:
Hmmmmm…that’s not what the right including numerous Fox News ledes said about Malik-Nadal Hassan (was his name right?) after the Ft. Hood shooting. After all, he acted on his own volition without explicit instruction from someone or some group. However, since he has a Muslim name and is a Muslim, it’s automatically inferred he’s a terrorist. it happens all the time a perp is a Muslim in this country even since Obama became POTUS. Definition of “terrorist” under U.S. law.“The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Loughner has a political ideology. It can be deduced conclusively from his rants. Their irrationality is irrelevant. Their inspiration can not be dismissed. To infer (by several media groups and pundits) that his actions — against this congresswoman had absolutely “nothing” to do with an ideology or set of beliefs is fallacious. The notion that this incident was “random” or “isolated” is a canard. It was pre-medidated and targeted towards a particular person who held political office – a politician with a known set of political beliefs. If he was a “regular” serial murderer, he could have walked into a random restaurant instead, opened fire and killed a lot of people, but he didn’t. If you want to label Nadal a terrorist, you must label Loughner one as well. I can guarantee you if Lughner had been an arab or a a Muslim, we would not be discussing his mental instability. Fox news would not be asking a question, they would be stating it as fact.

I have to disagree here on the consistency argument you make. If Loughner is truly mentally incompetent, what can you really even say about an ideology.

But I think you CAN say that per the definition you posted, it was wrong to charge mass-murederer Hassan with terrorism. Hassan attacked a military base and killed military personnel. As much as I am disgusted by his actions, you can’t say they were non-combatant targets. Even more, the Feds have played all sorts of games dismissing civil liberties of whomever they designate as “enemy combatants.” Well, if an enemy combatant who attacks a non-combatant target is a “terrorist” under our own defintion, then what do we call it when our own military (who is an enemy combatant to the people they are fighting) attacks a civilian target? By the definitions above, OUR OWN MILITARY is full of terrorists. But instead it is all “collateral damage.”

The whole mess of lawyering logic and fuzzy, undeclared war has revealed some real hypocrisy. I feel very bad for the good and brave men and women of our military who are thrust into the meat grinder of these no-win-situation wars, asked to invent some notion of solution on the ground. It’s a crime to do that to our good men and women. They get stuck trying to figure out a whole solutiion to a an international mess. This is not their job. Their job is to make war when we declare war Contitutionally.