How would labeling Stack "a terrorist" change things?

Stack, the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building yesterday, certainly fits the description of "domestic terrorist" set out in the unPatriotic Act:



So there is no question that Stack fits the definition. The question is why Stack is not being called a terrorist when the legal definition clearly fits his actions.

Is it because he is white, as some DUers believe? My question to those DUers is "How has race affected the precautions taken against terrorism in the US?" Are only people of color scanned at airports? Do only Muslims have to take off their shoes or put all their 4oz liquids in a baggy? The answer is clearly NO. There is no investment domestically in restricting the definition of terrorists to people of color: laws against terrorism affect all of us. And contrary to predictions, gang members of color are not being routinely referred to as terrorists: nor are bank robbers or psycho killers. It's not about color, at least domestically. The only exception to this is that some Muslims were rounded up in Bush's early days of the war on terra terra terra. That was not so much about defining Americans as terrorists as creating a fear of Muslims that would translate to a foreign war. It wasn't about internal oppression: we have the war on drugs for that.

What I think is happening is that the definition of terrorist is being applied consciously and with great forethought to people and groups that TPTB are targeting; those people and groups that are standing in the way of the Anglo-American agenda, at home and overseas. "Terrorists" are those people that are fighting to keep their countries out of Anglo-American corporate control. Terrorists (at home) are those people whose work would likewise interfere: eco "terrorists" for example who are against the exploitation of natural resources. And TPTB WANT those resources.

This explains why the corporate media is not calling Stack a terrorist. There's no upside: He is not connected to any group that will work against the Anglo-American agenda. He is one guy who is now dead. No upside here. There is no threat as far as the global corporations are concerned. He's not standing in the way of resources (except his own plane and house which he has now destroyed.)

There is, however, a downside to calling Stack a terrorist: that labeling can alienate every angry American: every American who is angry at the Wall Street giveaway bailouts (which Stack mentions in his manifesto); every American who realizes the basic inequity in the tax system; every American who has EVER dealt with the IRS and knows how terrifying it is to realize that this one agency can take everything you have and put you in jail, even for relatively minor infractions.

In other words, the downside of calling this guy a terrorist would be alienating the tax-paying middle and working classes even more than they already are after Wall Street's theft of resources, and panicking this group that their government might be considering them, the people, as the enemy, And since our government and the corporate-Congressional-military axis that runs it IS adversarial to us in many ways, that would be too close to the truth for comfort. Even for the TPTB.

So, if they called Stack a terrorist, there is no upside and a considerable downside. And since the definition of terrorist is really about labeling the enemies of the Anglo-American empire, those who are deliberately standing in the way of its theft of resources across the world, then to TPTB, Stack is just an annoyance, not a terrorist.

Made a few, even.

So there is quite a question indeed, I think.

He fits it. I don't know what "cogent arguments" you saw, but they must have ignored the law itself.

I kid

Interesting post!

such that the government can justify using extraordinary countermeasures against any activity it views as threatening. That's the whole idea of the PATRIOT Act in the first place--to set aside legal niceties when the government feels threatened. Of course the targets are Arab-Americans/Muslims primarily. So is this bad situation rectified by calling isolated acts of going postal "terrorism?" Would that be a good precedent? To give the govenrment even more leeway to use extraordinary measures?

It was actually an anti-government attack. I find it funny that people don't want to admit that this might be terrorism.

Flights coming to the US are now more scrutinized than ever before and that people are being told to expose themselves with people they know of whether they keep porn in their PC. I think it has a lot to do with double standard where the US views their own terrorism as local criminal act and rest is viewed as terror related act.

I have often thought that GWB and friends lowered the bar on what a "terrorist" is , is exactly what you are saying.

I will admit, unlike some people here, that I have a small amount of understanding for his action. I'm not saying it was right but I can see were some people can go off when they have nothing left to lose. However, I don't have enough of actual evidence of his financial situation to say this guy qualifies.

I wonder if he would have been labeled a terrorist if he hit a bank, investment firm, Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy, etc.

are being pushed towards that endanger us.

But, with the failure of the Democratic Party and almost all of the Dem pols to do anything constructive, I am starting to think that a population-wide discontent, with whatever consequences come out of it, may be our only hope for a viable solution. We certainly will not get a good answer from the current crop of corporate cretins in DC.

So, why not "blow up" everything and let the chips fall where they may. We could not be in much worse shape than we are now. The US has, by virtue of geography and dumb luck, avoided the negative consequences of most of our bad decisions since its inception. We wage wars in other peoples' countries. We pollute the planet with little consequence to ourselves.

I think it may be time for the US to fade away and let the rest of the world try and move ahead. 200+ years is enough for any empire.

The FBI could then investigate and wire tap any groups he might be associated with, including the yahoos who jumped on Facebook and declared him to be a hero.

Or take a closer look at the Teabeckers?

Thanks for the thread, Nikki Stone.:thumbsup:

they never think past the soundbyte..the terminology..

the effect of the acts this man took-

excusing the FACT that his action WAS 'terrorism' because it 'would alienate white middle class' would be approving of what he did-.

Personally, I think that some people are trying to avoid calling this what it is, because none of us likes to pay taxes, and that uncomfortable reality- that sub-conscious connection we have with his frustration, is causing some people to call it something LESS than what it was a murderous, selfish act done to catch the attention of the country, and a desire to be seen as someone who 'died for a cause'. Why? because he was starving? homeless? dying and unable to access health care? no, he had a home, a family, a business, a private plane,????

Read his manifesto- read it carefully, and slowly, and listen to what he is saying.

He is more than 'an annoyance'- soft-pedaling his actions and tolerating his urging the use of violence to create change is more of a 'down-side' than you seem to understand.

:shrug:

I'm quite aware of what he is saying. That is why I think he is a terrorist.