Rightly or wrongly, thousands convicted of terrorism post-9/11

Rightly or wrongly, thousands convicted of terrorism post-9/11

At least 35,000 people worldwide have been convicted as terrorists in the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. But while some bombed hotels or blew up buses, others were put behind bars for waving a political sign or blogging about a protest.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News: Links
Terror conviction rate high in US, with questions
Just How Many Terrorists Has The U.S. Convicted?
Brits get 4 years prison for Facebook riot posts

Very interesting article, and that shows an alarming trend about the rise of terrorism convictions not only in the Western World but practically internationally. The article shows a disturbing trend of people being brought up on and convicted on terrorism charges for being nothing more than dissidents and speaking out against the status quo. From the onset of this War on Terrorism, the whole phenomenon seems to be a slippery slope and straddling the gray area. Some notably mentions in the article include both Turkey and China.

However, other countries have seen steep rises in terrorism convictions as well. How do we distinguish a terrorist, and a person who is in peaceful opposition to a government? What measures can be taken to ensure the guilty parties are prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, and those who are dissidents are not unduly thrown in with the terrorist crowd? In my humble opinion, dissent is healthy and should be welcomed and encouraged. It is the only thing capable of keeping government on its toes and honest. This is certainly something to think about especially with what appears to be rampant corruption among governments, and economic institutions worldwide. How do we distinguish between legitimate threats to security, and the people who a merely redressing grievances in a peaceful manner? These are some questions I have, and I am fairly certain many of you on ATS have the same.

this will be the new status quo...

you wearing a che guevara t-shirt? TERRORIST!
you wearing an anarchy baseballcap? TERRORIST!
you rented the movie 'boondock saints'? TERRORIST!
you excercise your rights garanteed by the constitution? TERRORIST!

onfortunetaly that's where were heading

I think robot chicken summed it up quite well: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by deadmessiah
I think robot chicken summed it up quite well: www.youtube.com...

embedded for you
a lot of people don´t click links, this deserves to be seen

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Yeah, I saw that video awhile back and it seems to reign true in a lot of the fearmongering we have endured for last 10 or so years. I have to admit some have gone overboard with the whole terrorism designation. This is not just a situation within the US, but it has reached practically every government in one, way, shape, or form.

I just hope reason, and logic overrules anxiety and knee-jerk reactions by those tasked with ensuring national security and the well being of their respective nations. Legitimate dissent should not be considered a crime by any judicial system or government. As long as the dissent is founded in reason and logic, and not fanaticism and extremism. Dissent is what keeps governments honest, and lack thereof leads to tyranny and dictatorship. It is a natural check and balance of the political process. To put it simply, when judging cases of terrorism or potential terrorism, I would hope governments would use common sense when responding.

reply to post by Jakes51


that natural check has been long gone...

the war on terror is in the same league as the war on drugs.

neverending, no real enemy and no real progression...

reply to post by kn0wh0w


You may be on to something there? It seems fear and anxiety is overruling practical common sense, reason, and logic? I suppose there is a boogie man under every bed, every closet, in every basement, and around every corner? Everyone should grow eyes in the back of their head? I recognize there are bad people in the world, and those who would just like to sit back and watch the world burn.

However, not everyone should be considered part of that crowd because they disagree with certain things. There must be some kind of common ground established, and a reasonable explanation and designation of who is a terrorist and who is not? The answer to that question seems to be absent, and not well defined. Perhaps, the natural check is long gone, and it is slowly becoming either one way or the highway?

reply to post by Jakes51


well i can give you a short answer.

you disagree with current policy, you TERRORIST!

it all boils down to that.

very scary development

This about sums it up.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


I'm sorry, can't figure out to embed on this site. I've tried using the "youtube" button but it doesn't work

The really scary thing is that a lot of people don't realize this very fact, or even know about the Patriot Act. I remember having a discussion with someone online, who is an American and a Ph.D candidate. (I mention that to illustrate that he's probably more educated than the average person) Anyway, in our political discussion, I mentioned the Patriot Act as one example of one of many mistakes of the Bush administration, and how it was infringing on people's basic rights, and that I was against the Patriot Act.

He replied that he had heard of it, but stated (erroneously) that nobody had been charged under the patriot act, and that my point was therefore moot. I was like... seriously, you believe that? He said that he thought he was right, but he went to look it up, and he quickly found what most of us on ATS know, that the Patriot Act has been used thousands of times, (about 3000 times, according to the article) often on things that have little or nothing to do with terrorism.

I'll grant that legitimate terrorists have been arrested under the Patriot Act, but think about this. If those same terrorists had been discovered pre-9/11, what do you think the authorities would have done? They would have gathered evidence and then arrested them! They didn't need the draconian legislation of the Patriot Act to do this; they already had all the legal powers they needed to comobat terrorism.

Now if you'll excuse me, some men in black are knocking at my door... they say they want to talk to me about my recent ATS post...

Everyones a terrorist when the government needs an enemy. but just like Hitler and the Nazis, its empire will crumble and fall apart from within, its inevitable when too many hands are in the til

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I'll grant that legitimate terrorists have been arrested under the Patriot Act, but think about this. If those same terrorists had been discovered pre-9/11, what do you think the authorities would have done? They would have gathered evidence and then arrested them! They didn't need the draconian legislation of the Patriot Act to do this; they already had all the legal powers they needed to comobat terrorism.

Yes, the Patriot Act took some vile people off the streets. In that respect, it served its purpose. I agree that there should have been other alternatives than the draconian measures found in the Patriot Act. It seems the bill was passed in a frenzy and during a time of national anxiety. Like just get the bill through and we will tweak and fine tune it later. However, the bill stands as it was when it passed. Nothing has changed in the text.

The Patriot Act appears to have been a temporary measure, and there was a sunset clause in it. Unfortunately, the bill kept on getting extended by both Republican and Democrat Congresses. With such leeway found in the legislation it is not much of stretch to have a faint notion of the bill being abused by law enforcement. How much it has been abused remains to be seen. At the very least, the bill should be reevaluated by Congress. I want those who seek to cause mass mayhem off the streets and behind bars, but not those who practice your average run-of-the-mill political opposition or dissent. Distinguishing between a threat and not a threat is slippery slope, but so is the Patriot Act.