Terrorists to the Right of me, and Terrorists to the Right of Me
By Mona
.
So, domestic Christianists slaughter abortionists (yes, plural is correct, even if the linked case is only an alleged killer), and a homegrown Muslim convert allegedly kills a soldier at a recruiting station in Little Rock:
(CNN) — An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said. Police identified the suspect as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe..Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building..While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were “political and religious motives” in the shooting.
Primarily, the right blogo-sphere will focus on the Muslim domestic terrorist, and the left on the Christianist one. But it is all the same disease. However, both cases can and should be handled by the criminal justice system — and yes, both men are innocent until and unless convicted.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 2, 2009 @ 2:12 am
Hmm, his first name is Carlos. I wonder if we can work in an immigration angle.
Hey, all the other crazies are coming out of the woodwork, might as well go hog-wild. Or halal-wild, if you’re Muslim.
Comment by willf —
June 2, 2009 @ 4:18 am
But it is all the same disease.
The one that makes religious nutbars think that some invisible sky being told them to kill in his name?
Funny, you’d think the left bloggers would most likely point that out, eventually.
Comment by spot check billy —
June 2, 2009 @ 7:25 am
Well I’m no left blogger, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess the Litte Rock terrorist is kind of off the left-right continuum. Muslim converts aren’t exactly known for their support for things like feminist issues or gay rights, after all, and killing military personnel has never been a big agenda item for the American left. But point taken on who each side is likely to want to talk about.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 2, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Actually, that’s not how it’s playing out. Because Dr. Tiller was assassinated by a self-proclaimed right winger – a “pro-life sovereign citizen” – the wingnut blogs are straining to make the case that the religious fundamentalist who killed these soldiers is a liberal. The “Muslim terrorist” angle seems to be taking a back seat.
Which is awesome. If they were trying to make the case that “This shows that Muslims are dangerous,” this murder would be plausible evidence. As an indictment of the left, on the other hand, it’s just absurd.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 2, 2009 @ 9:19 am
I guess I could have phrased that better: this murder is, of course, not plausible evidence that Muslims in general are dangerous. I’m just saying that it’s not absurd on its face to link this crime to Islam and Islamism, the way it’s absurd on its face to link it to liberalism.
Comment by dhex —
June 2, 2009 @ 9:41 am
“christianist” has a wacky ring to it when spoken aloud; it invokes the image of a long-ago sect and hidden rites, or perhaps a stoner metal band.
“terror” is a handy thing to invoke, as all sorts of people are finding out.
Comment by kid bitzer —
June 2, 2009 @ 10:21 am
“both cases can and should be handled by the criminal justice system”
i’m sorry to see, mona, that you’re still stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset.
this is a war: a war on terrorism, and the only way to win it is to invade and conquer all states ending in “-ansas”.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 2, 2009 @ 10:40 am
This seems a bit of an unnecessary statement. Not even Bush and Cheney proposed otherwise for cases like this – that is, cases in which Americans who weren’t working as agents of foreign states or stateless groups committed acts of terrorism against Americans in America.
Comment by ajay —
June 2, 2009 @ 11:10 am
8. Actually, no, I think they proposed that a) US citizenship made no difference – American citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Yasser Hamdi – overturned in court); b)place of crime or arrest made no difference – persons arrested in the US could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial and/or sent for torture elsewhere (Maher Arar) and c) that the power to designate someone a ‘terrorist’ lay solely with the executive and was not subject to review.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 2, 2009 @ 11:36 am
ajay,
Every single case with facts similar to this one – an American with no connections to anyone outside the country committing a terrorist act against Americans on American soil – that happened under the Bush administration was handled via a trial in federal court.
The Buffalo case, the Brooklyn Bridge blowtorch case, the effort to blow up the fuel depot at the airport in New York, those clowns in Florida who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower, the LAX shooter, the Beltway Sniper…every single one.
Can you think of a single counter-example? Even Padilla was arrested as he got off a plane from Pakistan, where he met with members of a foreign group. The Hamdi and Arar cases involved people who were, allegedly, involved with people from a foreign terrorist group.
I’m aware of the legal arguments you refer to, but my statement was this:
Comment by J sub D —
June 2, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
That would be “presumed innocent by the criminal justice system” until and unless convicted.
[/picky asshole]
Comment by KCinDC —
June 2, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
How many counts of that is Roeder being charged with? Is Thoreau right about shouting “Allahu Akbar”?
Comment by dhex —
June 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
according to the linked article:
“The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 2, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
That is so lame.
Weight-the-paper-the-LSD-is-on lame.
Comment by Karen —
June 2, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Mona, you stated in an earlier thread that Dr. Tiller performed 3rd trimester abortions for “flimsy” reasons. I’m asking your indulgence to post a link not strictly related to this post: Balloon Juice commenter whose wife was one of Dr. Tiller’s patients
Comment by calling all toasters —
June 2, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
On the one hand: right-winger assassinates long-time target of right-wing protests, denouncements, etc., continuing a pattern of right-wingers assassinating (or attempting to assassinate) similar people.
On the other hand: man of unknown political leanings murders man of unknown political leanings. But this murderer isn’t white and isn’t Christian.
The equivalence is almost exact! It’s a wash!
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
June 2, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Easterbrook!
*shakes fist*
Comment by ajay —
June 3, 2009 @ 5:16 am
10: quite; so all the administration has to do is allege that the person is involved with a foreign group (and they can do this at will, without review) and off they go.
Comment by Barry —
June 3, 2009 @ 10:05 am
And IIRC, the Bush administration asserted the right to hold *anybody*, *anywhere*, *anytime*. They just kept getting slapped down by the courts.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 3, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
They did indeed, Barry, and that’s very troubling.
My point is that, whatever legal arguments they made, they didn’t actually handle domestic terrorism cases that way.
Comment by Picador —
June 3, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Joe:
How is Roeder’s association with the Army of God different from Padilla’s meeting with “a foreign group”? Perhaps I’m mis-parsing your statement about “agents of foreign states or stateless groups” — does “foreign” modify “states” alone, or “groups” as well?
And I have to say that you seem to be carving out a peculiar little space where you think these cases are distinguishable from e.g. Padilla. The legal opinions ordered up by Bush certainly gave him permission to suspend due process for people like this (or practically anyone else): for the POTUS to decide they are “enemy combatants” in the “war on terror”, it seems to me (and John Yoo) that the only necessary determination is whether they are allied with “terror”. I.e., no due process for Bad Men.
Besides, how can you tell if they’re “agents for foreign states” until you’ve tortured them for a few years? I think you’re missing the whole point of granting the POTUS the power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 3, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Picador,
Yes, that was my intent. I was describing the different way the administration handled domestic vs. international terrorism.
And I have to say that I’m making an uncontroversial statement of fact – the Bush administration did not utilize the powers it claimed for itself in domestic terrorism cases. If you have any evidence to demonstrate that I’m wrong about this, by all means, share it with us. Otherwise, I’m not going to start rewriting history.
I think you’ve dreamed up an entire political position I don’t subscribe to assigned to me, for committing the horrible crime of accurately describing the different ways that the Bush administration handled domestic vs. international terrorism.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 3, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
In regards to detention and trial, the Bush administration certainly did not (as far as we know, allowing for the possibility of somebody hustled off to a legal black hole in secret) hold US citizens without trial if their alleged activities and contacts were entirely domestic.
However:
1) As has been pointed out, their legal arguments left room for such actions in the future.
2) In matters of search, e.g. warrantless “National Security Letters” they certainly did flout normal processes and constitutional protections in domestic matters. It’s also known that they were indiscriminately collecting telecommunications data on domestic calls.
Even if they didn’t cross certain lines, they tried to at least blur all of them, and so I think it’s important to reiterate that trials and due process matter, even in situations where that contention hasn’t (yet, as far as we know) been flouted.
Comment by mds —
June 3, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Well, antiwar San Francisco lefties just love radical Islam, so it’s not necessarily either / or. But yes, there does seem to be more of a strained attempt to link him to people who picketed recruiting stations in Berkeley, the better to establish false equivalence. Though I’ve also seen, “If you condemn Operation Rescue for playing a role in Dr. Tiller’s death, you have to condemn all of Islam for the shooting of these soldiers, you hypocrites.” So I’m not sure they’ve settled with a single tack yet.
Indeed. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be called terrorism. Though it’s easy to forget after these past few years, committing terrorism didn’t always mean that the perpetrator was plucked out of the legal system. First WTC, McVeigh… So given that there are definitions and penalties in the US Code, go ahead and apply them. Are these two particular cases comparable? I wouldn’t actually say so. But given that terrorism is being used as a charge in the case that is a poorer fit for an act of terrorism, it had damn well better be applied in Kansas, too.
Dr. Tiller was standing all by himself at a deserted church? On a Sunday? Well, at least his killer doesn’t have any ties to groups that advocate violence, such as Islam.
Oh, who am I kidding? The Kansas prosecution is already suggesting that the death penalty is off the table for this particular case of premeditated murder. I actually oppose the death penalty, but it’s on the books in Kansas, and I guarantee that they’re not opposed to it in general.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 3, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
San Francisco liberals oppose the institution of marriage, mds,but support honor killings.
You have no idea how morally perverse these people are. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
Quite right. I’d go so far as to say that it is important to call them terrorism, so as to clarify that even cases of honest-to-God terrorism can be handled just fine by our criminal courts, since that point seems to be in doubt in certain quarters of our polity.
Comment by Mona —
June 3, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Karen claims:
I did? Where?
In any event, I had already read the post you linked to at Balloon Juice because that site is on my bookmarked list. And yes, I do think it is immoral to kill a conjoined twin at 8 mos.; disabled babies are delivered all the time, and medical science frequently can save them. Do note the BJ post did not say the living twin would die if allowed to born — merely need a great deal of medical intervention.