Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Murder 2, for the deaths unintentionally caused but with willful intent to cause property damage. Felony illegal use of a listed or banned substance.
Felony endangerment. Felony Arson. Many other charges are possible, but not terrorism. If there were a charge for stupidity, it would apply
DeltaChaos, you may well be onto something when you called the first example a crime (ie: murder
). You also recognized that intent
certainly willful. In such, it would seemingly appear that terrorist are recognized by their actions; by the acts
they commit? Was not the
above example also an example of political motivation? According to the authors of Countering the New Terrorism
, they say that an act of
terrorism was first of all a crime in the classic sense
Countering the New Terrorism
In such, the above first example might be classified as an "inadvertent"
killing of innocent civilian life; terrorism, in its, slightest
Essays in Philosophy
Here, the revolutionary group is clearly in the wrong, and has no recourse or credibility for any claims it may make with regard to the governments
methods. Extradite to the country of the embassy that they stormed and prosecute them according to law pre-terrorism era. This has happened before
with similar results, and precedence is set for legal proceeding.
Accordingly, example two would fall under, quite possibly, based on definition, the clearest form of terrorism. Intent
is the question, but in
the case of the revolutionary group having control of the hostages, they did not take the actions necessary to place the hostages out of harms
way...thus, the terrorism defintion of intent
implies that they were indeed knowingly placed in harms way. The counter-terrorism unit only
compounded the situation at hand. This is a real life example of hostage terrorism. Further sources of reading on this...(books, articles):
Advanced Topics in the Law of Homicide: Intention
In the above situation or event(s), imagine if the attempt to retrieve the embassy hostage in Iran had not resulted in "desert sand" failure (the
helicoptors) and imagine that this 'failure' had not happened. That the helicoptors had the sand screens on and had successfully arrived at their
destination: the US Embassy in Tehran. The above second example, quite possibly, could have been one of the results. You have a prime case of a
revolutionary, religious group, taking hostages, for political gains, though those political gains were based on the revolutionary groups own
Prosecute under UCMJ for desertion and treason. Inflict death penalty by firing squad. These are the circumstances under which morale and mission of
the corps is undermined. It brings great disgrace upon the Armed Services and the United States as a whole. Set an example with these soldiers and
make it known that mutiny in any form will not be tolerated.
The third case was a prime example of insubordinate, followed by reckless, form of terrorism, in the minor sense of the word defintion. Sherman's
March comes to mind?
Sherman's March: Final Revenge
This is not a clear-cut case of terrorism, in the true sense. As you have inherently mentioned, the cliche' of War is Hell
is quite evident.
We do have to keep in mind that property sabotage or destruction, is a form of terror
is one of the most commonly used forms of
terrorism. In the implied case above, you have a military unit that is having a very dificult time dealing with just 'who' is the "insurgents" and
who isn't. This is often a problem in insurgency operations against insurgents. The example was just a hypothetical extreme case.
[Edited on 18-3-2004 by Seekerof]