Article claims re sting ops: "It’s easier for gov't to convict those who claim affiliation w/foreign terror org than it is to convict domestic extremists." I don't think that's true. Feds have very good track record on sting ops re right-wing extremists.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/domestic-terrorism-kansas-militia_us_5ac78647e4b0337ad1e759b5?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 …
-
Ryan, you said it was easier to convict, but evidence doesn't show it; almost all dt cases in recent years have been successful. Whether sentences are shorter/longer (I don't think anybody has studied that) isn't relevant. It seems equally easy to obtain a conviction.
-
-
That's because it wasn't terrorism.
-
Because it involved the armed but non-violent occupation of an empty federal facility. Terrorism requires the commission of a serious act of violence or the intent or attempt to do so. The occupations of Alcatraz, the Nike Missile site & even Wounded Knee were also not terrorism.
-
This is where definitions get tricky though, isn't it. Seeing as the 'occupiers' at Malhuted stated numerous times that they would enact violence against anyone who attempted to remove them and their demand was the dissolution of a government body.
-
They were less violent than the occupiers at Wounded Knee, who actually did fire at law enf & even that incident is not generally considered terrorism. But spontaneous or directly reactive violence is usually not considered terrorism--which focuses on proactive violence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To be fair, they probably would not have hit Islamic extremists who did the same thing with a terrorism either. Only because they’d all be dead.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.