The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Monday, August 18, 2008
<< Raise a Glass to the Right Use for Ethanol Monday Music >>
Terrorism Is Losing It's Meaning

A new standard phrase in my arsenal has became "When everything is an emergency, then nothing is an emergency."  Saying that something is "super critical" or an "emergency" is supposed to raise its importance above tasks... in order to set priority.  But when you call everything an emergency, then no tasks are made to be more important compared to the others, and thus nothing is an emergency.

This is how we're beginning to treat the word "terrorism".  Take for example, this case in Roanoke:

Two Pembroke teenagers have been charged in connection with a series of playing cards that were defaced with threatening writing and left at stores in Christiansburg and Pearisburg -- a gesture police said the teens admitted had been inspired by this summer's Batman movie, "The Dark Knight."

Justin Colby Dirico and Bryan Eugene Stafford, both 18, admitted to leaving cards that bore handwritten messages inside the Pearisburg Wal-Mart, according to police Chief J.C. Martin.

Martin would not say how they identified the suspects but said the teens admitted Tuesday during police interviews they were responsible for the cards, which they patterned after elements of "The Dark Knight." Both were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

These are two kids who were playing a really bad, distasteful prank.  They've been charged with terrorism.  This is a charge that has often come to mean decreased civil liberties for those who are charged with it.  We've been promised that we'd only use this for the worst of the worst, because we have no choice, and the consequences are that dire.  Unfortunately, as is always the case, when you give the government an inch with your civil liberties, they take a mile.

When everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism.  Via Hit & Run.

# Posted at 1:20 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 3 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Overkill

Monday, August 18, 2008 10:39:36 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Time to get on Nick's case . . .

Two things come to mind. First, while it's purely hypothetical at this point, had something happened, we'd then be wondering why we didn't take the clues more seriously. Plus, they're not kids. They're adults. Perhaps not behaving much like one, but adults nonetheless.

Two . . . technically three . . . I take exception to the notion that defending our country against terrorism threatens our civil liberties in some fashion. I agree, this case seems a might extreme. But, even here, a threatening act was committed. It may well have been a "prank". We'll never know. What gets me is that the left (not you, I know) is all too willing to scream about civil liberties when the fact is . . . no one's civil liberties have ever been violated with regard to the Patriot Act.

Lastly, I don't know that the terrorism charge in this case is what you describe . . . the worst of the worst. Terrorism can be a few things. The article doesn't state if these are federal charges or not. What ever the case, these adults are in trouble.

I agree. It seems extreme. But, I do liken it to yelling "fire" in a theater. Not smart.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:40:40 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I'm not suggesting that they didn't break a law... I'm saying the law they broke has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

As for the Patriot Act not violating any civil liberties... that just goes to show that you have no idea what your civil liberties really are. Granted, most of our civil liberties (especially those regarding the 4th Amendment) were gone before the Patriot Act... that law simply worsened things. And to show how unimportant terrorism really was to the passing of the Patriot Act... that law was largely written and stuck in a drawer during the Clinton Administration to fight the War on Drugs<sup>TM</sup>. Sept. 11th was just a convenience.

Even the jury during the trial of Bin Laden's driver refused to give him a lengthy prison sentence. Why? Because they felt if they through the book at him... what would they do to someone who had actually committed much more serious offenses. And that was to Bin Laden's driver! Now we're saying that punks like this are terrorists?

"Not Smart" as you call it should never be equated to "terrorism" in this way.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:46:49 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The driver case is an example of what I'm talking about, though. Terrorism can mean a lot of things. You make it off only to suggest actions by terrorists . . . the al qaeda variety. That's not the case. You're over simplifying the definition.

As for our civil liberties . . . I guess a lot depends on what one finds acceptable in today's climate of terrorist activity. I know you've got this "warrantless search" bug on. It happens. But, not as a result of the Patriot Act it doesn't. The War on Drugs is a different animal. I do agree it's stupid the degree with which it's enacted. Still, we're talking about people who violate laws . . . not innocent people. For the most part.

I never equated "not smart" to "terrorism". Particularly not the way you define it. I said, liken. The point being that the effect, or potential of, of the actions warranted a certain level of charges . . . not that they were the same. Do the actions warrant the charges? Probably not.
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2012 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar