Now that the unpleasantness is behind us.
Getting back to the original topic post, and this time something more relevant:
• For at least some sense of a news source, I dug up a Guardian article:
This phrasing appears in the topic post, so I thought the article should suffice.
First things first:
Amid the vitriol, there is one correction I must at this point make. A point not really addressed, though it comes from that controversial post:
I erroneously assigned Mr Gallagher the role of the judge, Justice Girvin. It is my hope that this error did not contribute to the firestorm, although I do not know, as the error has not been addressed despite copious analysis of the post. My apologies.
On to the issue at hand:
This actually strikes me as something we hear about on this side of the pond. After a German court released a terror suspect alleged to have Al Qaeda connections, relatives of the 9/11 victims expressed their shock and revulsion. But that's the thing. The judge in that case knew and even went so far as to say the decision was a technicality. Despite the mountain of circumstantial evidence, no clinching evidence could nail the case shut. Some--not all--victims' relatives were furious with the decision, yet the outrage should be aimed at the causes of the problem: a bureaucratic nightmare. Quite simply, the people who are purported to have the evidence that would have convicted the suspect chose to not give it over. Some of the relatives are appropriately disgusted with their American government.
Now, it seems to me that if a judge is left picking the nit of whether or not the RIRA is specifically listed in relevant legislation, then we might consider where the disbelief of the Omagh victims' relatives is focused.
Conservative MP (shadow secretary) David Lidington noted: "It's outrageous that an organisation responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity in 30 years of troubles in Northern Ireland cannot be brought to book because of inadequacies in drafting legislation."
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, or some such. In the US, at least, we tend to be vigilant (paranoid) about whatever troubles us: gangs, terrorists, Mexicans, women ... you name it. We should aim that scrutiny at the devices of our government, and I think Mr. Lidington makes the same point about his own government--ideas of due process can be troublesome, but it is a lack of vigilance among those whose duty it is to watch the watchers, and give orders to the bosses that makes it so.
In this case, it seems the difference between a terrorist and not a terrorist is mere words on paper. This doesn't seem much of a specific curiosity, as we are the same way over here, but it is curious nonetheless…
• In the US, in the wake of Denial of Service attacks against corporate servers, Congress considered listing "hacking" and other electronic conduct as terrorism. I don't recall hearing of that bill's passage, and 9/11 would certainly change our attitudes about what is or isn't a terrorist. Oh, wait ... no it didn't. A terrorist is anyone that annoys the American political establishment.
• When I was younger, terrorist was a specific term that referred to a stateless or state-opposition group generally declared illegitimate by some respectable version of law, who sought to extort political agendas by means of force, and who intentionally included civilians among their targets. this "specific" definition is a cultural sublimation of the actions of our own government, and has never held complete authority. After all, abortion-clinic bombers are called anything from the benign word "activist" on up to "murderer," but calling them "terrorists" seems to touch a nerve with folks in this country. In the old days, terrorists included the IRA, Red Brigade, PLO, and any number of groups in Central and South America. At home, I do recall the Unabomber being called a terrorist. And also a race bombing or series thereof in Atlanta. Even into the Clinton administration the definition seemed rather concrete, although I make no bones that it was highly debatable. It still made sense as late as the Cole bombing, and Clinton's then-ridiculed "obsession" with bin Laden. But the moorings fell away in the Drug War, as drug dealers were rhetorically called terrorists, and international organizations regarded drug money seemingly more severely than terrorism money. After 9/11, though, the lines are so blurred that I find the word terrorist largely debased.
I think the word has at present too many separate dimensions. There is a seemingly common-sense idea of what a terrorist is; technically EarthFirst qualifies, and also Greenpeace, but Americans at least always had a hard time with that. There is an ultra-paranoid definition whereby schoolteachers on strike are terrorists. And amid the broad spectrum there is a legalistic definition that is utterly bound by the conventions of at least one nation or another.
What I wonder in regard to RIRA--and perhaps my esteemed British counterparts might be able to fill in some of the detail?--is whether Mr Justice Girvin is out of habit, either individually or judicially, in drawing so fine a distinction, or if his decision in fact reflects the produce of what constitutes due process according to relevant conventions.
I know Americans blur that distinction. When you hear an American conservative complaining about judges "legislating from the bench," what judges are actually doing is their jobs. Lawrence v. Texas wasn't "legislating from the bench." It was a consequence of what passes for due process in the United States.
And so I wonder about Girvin's court. If them's the rules . . . how many rules have to be changed in order to create an outcome satisfactory to those offended?
____________________
• Taylor, Matthew. "Real IRA not illegal - judge." The Guardian, May 27, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1225754,00.html
Getting back to the original topic post, and this time something more relevant:
• For at least some sense of a news source, I dug up a Guardian article:
This phrasing appears in the topic post, so I thought the article should suffice.
First things first:
Amid the vitriol, there is one correction I must at this point make. A point not really addressed, though it comes from that controversial post:
I erroneously assigned Mr Gallagher the role of the judge, Justice Girvin. It is my hope that this error did not contribute to the firestorm, although I do not know, as the error has not been addressed despite copious analysis of the post. My apologies.
On to the issue at hand:
This actually strikes me as something we hear about on this side of the pond. After a German court released a terror suspect alleged to have Al Qaeda connections, relatives of the 9/11 victims expressed their shock and revulsion. But that's the thing. The judge in that case knew and even went so far as to say the decision was a technicality. Despite the mountain of circumstantial evidence, no clinching evidence could nail the case shut. Some--not all--victims' relatives were furious with the decision, yet the outrage should be aimed at the causes of the problem: a bureaucratic nightmare. Quite simply, the people who are purported to have the evidence that would have convicted the suspect chose to not give it over. Some of the relatives are appropriately disgusted with their American government.
Now, it seems to me that if a judge is left picking the nit of whether or not the RIRA is specifically listed in relevant legislation, then we might consider where the disbelief of the Omagh victims' relatives is focused.
Conservative MP (shadow secretary) David Lidington noted: "It's outrageous that an organisation responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity in 30 years of troubles in Northern Ireland cannot be brought to book because of inadequacies in drafting legislation."
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, or some such. In the US, at least, we tend to be vigilant (paranoid) about whatever troubles us: gangs, terrorists, Mexicans, women ... you name it. We should aim that scrutiny at the devices of our government, and I think Mr. Lidington makes the same point about his own government--ideas of due process can be troublesome, but it is a lack of vigilance among those whose duty it is to watch the watchers, and give orders to the bosses that makes it so.
In this case, it seems the difference between a terrorist and not a terrorist is mere words on paper. This doesn't seem much of a specific curiosity, as we are the same way over here, but it is curious nonetheless…
• In the US, in the wake of Denial of Service attacks against corporate servers, Congress considered listing "hacking" and other electronic conduct as terrorism. I don't recall hearing of that bill's passage, and 9/11 would certainly change our attitudes about what is or isn't a terrorist. Oh, wait ... no it didn't. A terrorist is anyone that annoys the American political establishment.
• When I was younger, terrorist was a specific term that referred to a stateless or state-opposition group generally declared illegitimate by some respectable version of law, who sought to extort political agendas by means of force, and who intentionally included civilians among their targets. this "specific" definition is a cultural sublimation of the actions of our own government, and has never held complete authority. After all, abortion-clinic bombers are called anything from the benign word "activist" on up to "murderer," but calling them "terrorists" seems to touch a nerve with folks in this country. In the old days, terrorists included the IRA, Red Brigade, PLO, and any number of groups in Central and South America. At home, I do recall the Unabomber being called a terrorist. And also a race bombing or series thereof in Atlanta. Even into the Clinton administration the definition seemed rather concrete, although I make no bones that it was highly debatable. It still made sense as late as the Cole bombing, and Clinton's then-ridiculed "obsession" with bin Laden. But the moorings fell away in the Drug War, as drug dealers were rhetorically called terrorists, and international organizations regarded drug money seemingly more severely than terrorism money. After 9/11, though, the lines are so blurred that I find the word terrorist largely debased.
I think the word has at present too many separate dimensions. There is a seemingly common-sense idea of what a terrorist is; technically EarthFirst qualifies, and also Greenpeace, but Americans at least always had a hard time with that. There is an ultra-paranoid definition whereby schoolteachers on strike are terrorists. And amid the broad spectrum there is a legalistic definition that is utterly bound by the conventions of at least one nation or another.
What I wonder in regard to RIRA--and perhaps my esteemed British counterparts might be able to fill in some of the detail?--is whether Mr Justice Girvin is out of habit, either individually or judicially, in drawing so fine a distinction, or if his decision in fact reflects the produce of what constitutes due process according to relevant conventions.
I know Americans blur that distinction. When you hear an American conservative complaining about judges "legislating from the bench," what judges are actually doing is their jobs. Lawrence v. Texas wasn't "legislating from the bench." It was a consequence of what passes for due process in the United States.
And so I wonder about Girvin's court. If them's the rules . . . how many rules have to be changed in order to create an outcome satisfactory to those offended?
____________________
• Taylor, Matthew. "Real IRA not illegal - judge." The Guardian, May 27, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1225754,00.html
Last edited:
