2 NY teens arrested in plot to attack high school

2 NY teens arrested in plot to attack high school

www.msnbc.msn.com

NEW YORK - A 17-year-old with a grudge against his former Long Island high school planned with his girlfriend to buy shotguns, enter his old school and indiscriminately shoot down students and teachers days before his ex-classmates were scheduled to graduate, police said Friday.

The two teenagers extensively researched bomb making, attempted to buy a shotgun and set a June 10 date for the planned attack on Connetquot High School in Bohemia, Suffolk County police Sgt. Bill Doherty said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well it seems we the police have averted another columbine. Could you image what this would do to your civil liberties if the plan had worked?

They would have been the poster children for Domestic Terrorism and the Gov would have cracked down on Teenage Civil Liberties.

I wonder what it takes for a person to actually snap, especially high school students who have SO much to live for.

Thoughts ATS?

~Keeper




www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This could have been an extremely bad situation.

I would like to note, that it mentions in the article that the boy had issues with a lot of his old classmates, and went on to graduate from a special education class, at another school. I have a twin brother that had learning dissabilities, who was called a retard for most of his life. It was not discovered until he was in his 20's that he had a congenital defect with his eyes, and that nothing was wrong with his mind.

This could be the result of severe case of bullying, that the school never took any action on.

While these kids were wrong, and planned what they did, they might have hung themselves, like another victim of bullying did.

Teenagers can be especially brutal, when it comes to making fun of, or demeaning people who are not up to parr or their standards.

Considering that the chap had to attend another school to graduate, only makes me think that attending this old school must have been extremely painful for him.

While this is, in my opinion, yet another case of home grown terrorists, that might have pulled this off, I can only imagine how these kids feel, after being terrorized for years by their classmates.

I just don't understand why anyone would term these kids "domestic terrorists"? They are obviously very disturbed people who had a grudge against this school and the children attending it.
Will we be calling anyone who commits a crime in this country a domestic terrorist? And if so, who gets to decide which crimes will go under this heading? Case in point. This last summer, in the town that I live in, a young man went into a local grocery store with a gun and held his girlfriend hostage. He let other shoppers leave the store. Definitely a crime. My question is, does this make him a "domestic terrorist"? IMO, no. He committed a stupid crime and will pay for it. But according to some people, when he went onto that store with a gun, he put many people's lives in danger, and so my question is this. Should he be termed a domestic terrorist because of this?

one down at least 12 to go... it is shooting season..one will break through..

We should be very careful about throwing around the label "Domestic Terrorist." If some of you haven't been keeping up to date on your politics, Sen. Joe Lieberman I-Connecticut, has introduced a bill to expand the terms in which the citizenship of an individual could be stripped away from being labeled as a terrorist.

The definition of terrorist from wordnetweb from Princeton:

S: (n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

Now, of course this is a term that has many connotations and many meanings. But the one that we are most familiar with is from a standpoint of political gain through the use of "terror." If we are going to use this as a template for judging this teenager and his girlfriend, then by definition, he does not meet the criteria of being a terrorist, foreign or domestic. Was there anything political to gain by plotting to slaughter students and teachers at this High School? Is he a radical religious extremist? Did he have an agenda of anything else but revenge for supposed bullying while he was in this high school? I think not.

Back to my original point, this is from Lieberman's Senate page, outlining the new provisions to be included in the already existing list of acts that could strip you of your citizenship:

An existing federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, identifies seven categories of acts for which U.S. citizens lose their citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of those acts “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” Under the Terrorist Expatriation Act, the State Department would also be authorized to revoke the citizenship of a U.S. national who provides material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or who engages in or supports hostilities against the United States or its allies.

Source: lieberman.senate.gov...


Do you see the dangers of labeling someone as a domestic terrorist, and why it is important to keeps facts straight and to keep this terminology out of our heads?

This teenager and his girlfriend had the intent to murder students and teachers. This is conspiracy to commit pre-meditated murder, and would at the very least get the charge: conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree.

He is not, and I repeat NOT a domestic terrorist as defined by the guidelines listed on Sen. Lieberman's page.

Please, stop using this term so loosely, someone's citizenship and right to due process could be in jeopardy.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
We should be very careful about throwing around the label "Domestic Terrorist." If some of you haven't been keeping up to date on your politics, Sen. Joe Lieberman I-Connecticut, has introduced a bill to expand the terms in which the citizenship of an individual could be stripped away from being labeled as a terrorist.

The definition of terrorist from wordnetweb from Princeton:

S: (n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

Now, of course this is a term that has many connotations and many meanings. But the one that we are most familiar with is from a standpoint of political gain through the use of "terror." If we are going to use this as a template for judging this teenager and his girlfriend, then by definition, he does not meet the criteria of being a terrorist, foreign or domestic. Was there anything political to gain by plotting to slaughter students and teachers at this High School? Is he a radical religious extremist? Did he have an agenda of anything else but revenge for supposed bullying while he was in this high school? I think not.

Back to my original point, this is from Lieberman's Senate page, outlining the new provisions to be included in the already existing list of acts that could strip you of your citizenship:

An existing federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, identifies seven categories of acts for which U.S. citizens lose their citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of those acts “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” Under the Terrorist Expatriation Act, the State Department would also be authorized to revoke the citizenship of a U.S. national who provides material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or who engages in or supports hostilities against the United States or its allies.

Source: lieberman.senate.gov...


Do you see the dangers of labeling someone as a domestic terrorist, and why it is important to keeps facts straight and to keep this terminology out of our heads?

This teenager and his girlfriend had the intent to murder students and teachers. This is conspiracy to commit pre-meditated murder, and would at the very least get the charge: conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree.

He is not, and I repeat NOT a domestic terrorist as defined by the guidelines listed on Sen. Lieberman's page.

Please, stop using this term so loosely, someone's citizenship and right to due process could be in jeopardy.

Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

I agree, he isn't a DT.

Although that's what they will show him as I am sure.

The problem is that this is the new terrorism to remove your civil liberties. This is the new propaganda.

That's the only reason why I put in there, to spark some intelligent conversation.

Thanks for biting .

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I wholeheartedly agree with you in that this is the "new propaganda." Of course, if the MSM, prosecutor, or whomever else decides to label him as a "domestic terrorist" the courts will undoubtedly throw it out, as the law hasn't even been passed, and hopefully won't be passed anytime in the foreseeable future. I thought that I may have to educate some that would be too soon to jump on the bandwagon of "domestic terrorist."

You're welcome btw.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker