Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 643K
  • Politics 
18 USC 2331 (Definitions) (5):

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; and

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Burning Tesla vehicles in a parking lot is not intended for any of those purposes. Terrorism usually involves:

1. Organizations that use repeated terror attacks in order to advance a set of aims associated with the organization (examples: Hamas, Weatherman)
2. Manifestos. There are almost always manifestos of some sort. Baader-Meinhof had them; Unabomber had them; Luigi sort of had one.
3. Specifically targeted behaviors: this isn't always present, but there's usually some sort of triggering behavior. Kill the magazine writers if they put Muhammed on the cover; kill abortion providers or abortion patients; kill US military.

There are no indices of terrorism. It's just rage. Rage is not the same thing. By your definition, the riots after George Floyd would be terrorism, but they were just riots. I'm not even sure I would consider J6 to be terrorism. It was more insurrection.
 
BTW, the prohibitions on "terrorism" under the federal law apply to:

1. Murder related to terrorism activities
2. Destruction of property IF the conduct transcends national boundaries (i.e. the World Trade Center bombing)
3. Radiological devices, weapons of mass destruction, anti-aircraft missiles.
4. "a explosive or other lethal device into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility-"

Firebombing Tesla dealerships doesn't come close to meeting any of these types of conduct, in addition to not fitting the definition in 2331.
 
As a political crime, it's more like stealing campaign signs. There's more to it as a property crime but ,with the decreasing values of the vehicles, I'd be watching if I were their insurance companies as well.
 
superrific said:
BTW, the prohibitions on "terrorism" under the federal law apply to:

1. Murder related to terrorism activities
2. Destruction of property IF the conduct transcends national boundaries (i.e. the World Trade Center bombing)
3. Radiological devices, weapons of mass destruction, anti-aircraft missiles.
4. "a explosive or other lethal device into, or against a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility-"

Firebombing Tesla dealerships doesn't come close to meeting any of these types of conduct, in addition to not fitting the definition in 2331.
Click to expand...
Here's the FBI's definition:

Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5),
and is defined as activities:
• Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;

• Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and

• Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute. We talk about the threat these actors pose as
Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI's threat categories, described in further detail below,
uses the words “violent extremism” because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such
beliefs is not prohibited by US law.

www.fbi.gov

Domestic Terrorism: Definitions, Terminology, and Methodology | Federal Bureau of Investigation

As required by the National Defense Authorization Act, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, have developed standard definitions of terminology related to domestic terrorism and uniform methodologies for tracking domestic...
www.fbi.gov www.fbi.gov
 
ZenMode said:
Here's the FBI's definition:

Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5),
and is defined as activities:
• Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;

• Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and

• Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute. We talk about the threat these actors pose as
Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI's threat categories, described in further detail below,
uses the words “violent extremism” because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such
beliefs is not prohibited by US law.

www.fbi.gov

Domestic Terrorism: Definitions, Terminology, and Methodology | Federal Bureau of Investigation

As required by the National Defense Authorization Act, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, have developed standard definitions of terminology related to domestic terrorism and uniform methodologies for tracking domestic...
www.fbi.gov www.fbi.gov
Click to expand...
So that's a long way of saying, "not terrorism."
 
superrific said:
So that's a long way of saying, "not terrorism."
Click to expand...
Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or

You don't think the vandalism and destruction is meant to intimidate or Elon and those around him?
 
ZenMode said:
Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or

You don't think the vandalism and destruction is meant to intimidate or Elon and those around him?
Click to expand...
1. No, it is not meant to intimidate Elon and if feels intimidated, then he is even more of a thin-skinned idiot than I thought. But anyway, objective standard so it doesn't matter what Elon thinks. It also doesn't matter because:

2. The word civilian population does not mean a person. If it meant to apply to a person or a small set of persons, that language would be used. Civilian population is a term of art that refers to a collectivity of people. Like the civilian population of Gaza, or Germany, or Tokyo. Or the civilian population of a US state. You could probably talk about the civilian population of sports fans if someone is bombing baseball stadiums.

The other aspect of population that doesn't fit is that a "civilian population" is non-specific. The person who tried to kill Trump was not aiming at the "civilian population" of MAGA. He was aiming at a person. So what he tried to do was assassination, which is a form of homicide, but it's not terrorism.

3. Bombings at Tesla stations are not attempts to influence the policy of government. The way you know this is that there have been no demands associated with them. If the bombers left manifestos saying, "Free Mohamed Khalil," that might plausibly fall within the statute's scope, but in practice courts would apply the ejusdem generis canon to require a higher bar than a single flier. Weatherman perpetrated a series of bombings with the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam. They were accompanied by communiques.

This just isn't terrorism. I've said everything I'm going to say on this topic now. I've quoted statutes; I've explained the terminology. I'm not going to engage further, because a discussion presumes both sides being able to respond in an educated, informed and reasonable way. Obviously you can't, not on this issue, as you have zero training or experience with law and don't understand how it works. This is a lecture class. You can learn something, or you can choose not to.
 
superrific said:
1. No, it is not meant to intimidate Elon and if feels intimidated, then he is even more of a thin-skinned idiot than I thought. But anyway, objective standard so it doesn't matter what Elon thinks. It also doesn't matter because:

2. The word civilian population does not mean a person. If it meant to apply to a person or a small set of persons, that language would be used. Civilian population is a term of art that refers to a collectivity of people. Like the civilian population of Gaza, or Germany, or Tokyo. Or the civilian population of a US state. You could probably talk about the civilian population of sports fans if someone is bombing baseball stadiums.

The other aspect of population that doesn't fit is that a "civilian population" is non-specific. The person who tried to kill Trump was not aiming at the "civilian population" of MAGA. He was aiming at a person. So what he tried to do was assassination, which is a form of homicide, but it's not terrorism.

3. Bombings at Tesla stations are not attempts to influence the policy of government. The way you know this is that there have been no demands associated with them. If the bombers left manifestos saying, "Free Mohamed Khalil," that might plausibly fall within the statute's scope, but in practice courts would apply the ejusdem generis canon to require a higher bar than a single flier. Weatherman perpetrated a series of bombings with the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam. They were accompanied by communiques.

This just isn't terrorism. I've said everything I'm going to say on this topic now. I've quoted statutes; I've explained the terminology. I'm not going to engage further, because a discussion presumes both sides being able to respond in an educated, informed and reasonable way. Obviously you can't, not on this issue, as you have zero training or experience with law and don't understand how it works. This is a lecture class. You can learn something, or you can choose not to.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know how you can say it's not meant to intimidate Elon. This has nothing to do with Tesla as cars and everything to do with going after something that is clearly important to Elon. If the goal is not to get him to stop what he's doing at the federal government level, then what is the purpose?
 
Last edited:
Intimidation is bringing a gallows to a crowd and holding up signs like "Hang Mike Pence." It's not randomly setting fire to a car nowhere in the vicinity of the person you think is being targeted (and of course in court you need evidence, not just random inferences).
 
ZenMode said:
I honestly don't know how you can say it's not meant to intimidate Elon. This has nothing to do with Tesla as cars and everything to do with going after something that is clearly important to Elon. If the goal is not to get him to stop what he's doing at the federal government level, then what is the purpose?
Click to expand...
To voice displeasure with the broadly illegal and unconstitutional power with which he has been invested would be my guess. Do you actually believe that anyone thinks Elon Musk can be intimidated or scared by anything that happens at a Tesla dealership?
 
wmheel1287 said:
To voice displeasure with the broadly illegal and unconstitutional power with which he has been invested would be my guess. Do you actually believe that anyone thinks Elon Musk can be intimidated or scared by anything that happens at a Tesla dealership?
Click to expand...
Illegal and unconstitutional is up for debate.

The intent of the actions doesn't change based on how successful they are.
 
ZenMode said:
Illegal and unconstitutional is up for debate.

The intent of the actions doesn't change based on how successful they are.
Click to expand...
I never said that intent and success are directly related. I asked if you believed that people THINK Musk can be intimidated by such actions. I do not. Therefore I don't believe at all the intent is to intimidate or coerce.

And no, illegal and unconstitutional really isn't up for debate. Musk's power grab has clearly violated the plain text of the constitution in several ways.
 
I can’t for the life of me figure out what ZenMode’s point might be. But he has to post nonsense nonetheless. He’s all caught up in bullshit he can’t quite verbalize because words aren’t his friend.
 
farce© said:
I can’t for the life of me figure out what ZenMode’s point might be. But he has to post nonsense nonetheless. He’s all caught up in bullshit he can’t quite verbalize because words aren’t his friend.
Click to expand...
I will just say it so Zen can move on: It was a bad thing that people set cars on fire at Tesla dealerships and they are bad people. They broke the law and committed crimes and should be prosecuted in the criminal justice system. And I hope that the next President does not pardon them. I speak on behalf of all Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top