Is this man a terrorist?

[proud2BlibKansan]

The day before he murdered Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder was caught vandalizing an abortion clinic by the manager of the clinic. The police just took a report but didn't bother to pick him up or investigate. The FBI was notified but did nothing. Just imagine if the federal law banning vandalism of abortion clinics was actually enforced. How many other doctors would still be alive?

On Tuesday, 50-year-old Francis Grady pleaded not guilty to trying to burn down a Planned Parenthood in Grand Chute, Wis., on April 1. Earlier this month, however, during his first court appearance, Grady sang a different tune, telling the U.S. district judge he did it because “they’re killing babies there.”

An open and shut case of domestic terrorism for the state, it would seem. But curiously Grady is not facing any domestic terrorism charges, once again raising the question of whether the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices apply terrorism laws equally when prosecuting ideologically motivated crimes. While Islamists and animal rights and environmental activists regularly spend years behind bars under terrorism sentences, antiabortion criminals are seldom punished as severely. Grady, it would seem, is the latest antiabortion activist accused of a crime that would be harshly punished if, say, he had done it in the name of Allah or Mother Earth.

According to U.S. code, domestic terrorism occurs when the act is “dangerous to human life” and is “a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and “appear[s] to be intended … to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” When discussing Grady in a press release, FBI Special Agent in Charge Teresa Carson’s comments suggest Grady’s alleged actions were indeed terrorism: “The FBI will always investigate and bring to justice anyone who resorts to violence as a means to harm, intimidate or prevent the public’s right to access reproductive health services.” The key word there is “intimidate,” which is one of the core characteristics of any terrorist act. Yet Grady has only been charged with arson and “intentionally damaging the property of a facility that provides reproductive health services.”

Erin Miller, project manager of the Global Terrorism Database, tells Salon that Grady’s attempted arson of the Planned Parenthood, especially in light of his comments to the investigating FBI agent, was clearly an act of domestic terrorism. According to the criminal complaint issued by the FBI, Grady told the agent he “lit up the clinic,” while making clear “he is pro-life, believes in God and disapproves of the activities taking place at the clinic.”

more . . . http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/is_this_man_a_terrorist/

[Brickbat]

1. K&R for some important shit.

[leveymg]

2. Is vandalism (destruction of property w/out intent to harm persons) really terrorism?

That isn't clear to me. Application of this statute, I believe, requires the intent to terrorize, which inherently involves a willful effort or credible threat of physical harm with the intention of persecuting a victim for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity, or social group.

Destruction of property, alone, does not necessarily involve such a threat, but is instead itself a serious crime that should be prosecuted under laws that punish acts such as arson.

The federal anti-terrorism statute is overly-broad if it can be applied where the intent to physically harm persons is not proven. Otherwise, we can charge people who spraypaint buildings with political slogans with terrorism, simply because someone might fall off a ladder in the process of removing it.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. K&R. Didn't Rachel describe him using those terms?

I've seen her special on this senseless murder and agree she has every reason to...