Asklemmy

49254 readers

645 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

249

Why is there so little discussion on the history of anti-terrorism statutes in the USA as they're being brought against Luigi Mangione? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Everyone seems shocked at this. I personally felt a lot less shocked and more like I'd been waiting for this shoe to drop for 20 years. I've been waiting for people to notice the tools of the Iraq War being turned against American citizens for over a decade now.

I spent the better part of 2001 and on arguing against the PATRIOT Act and its codification of terrorism as a crime. Lots of people were against it (we were in the minority, obviously), pointing out how the PATRIOT Act would consider the Founding Fathers terrorists. They committed violence to achieve political ends.

Did everyone just forget that at one point there was actually a nascent conversation on why this was a bad idea, especially considering people warning that they would soon use these laws against their own citizens?

Why did these conversations stop? More importantly, now that Mangione is being charged with terrorism, why aren't the conversations beginning anew?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I think, it's because this case is so big, that the amount of people talking about can't really increase, but also there's so much more to the case than this aspect. Which makes it difficult to focus conversation on this.

I also wanna say that it makes sense for him to get charged, even though a lot of people don't like it. Killing another human is an issue no matter what it is. And just because we think this crime stands for something bigger, that doesn't justify the killing in the first place. It's just shades of immorality.

That said, healthcare is a huge issue and I hope this changes things finally. I also don't agree with the charging of terrorism, as it says "terrorism" in it, and even though there's a small chance it fulfills the requirements, I have no angle to personally view this as terrorism.

Does it instill terror? Everyone gets scared when someone is killed, but this does not exceed it to the point that there is now a present danger. There's no furtherance to the terror, only vigilance in the crime.

Some lawyers even argue this is a pile-on to the charges, which might be the case, although I'm not an expert.

But I do think it's gonna be hard to prove the terrorism as opposed to everything else. Truly, the only threat to the prosecution of the other counts is jury nullification, which poses completely different risks.

But that's a story for another day.

[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

A hung jury just allows the prosecution to retry him

It's up to the prosecutor if it's worth the expense or not.

load more comments (4 replies)