So you're basically saying the dictionary is wrong?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

Timmy is the poster child of the domestic terrorist. this may bump him to second though.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Uh... how so?

__________________
Nothing to see here.

he blew up that building in Ok City some years ago, big deal at the time...

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Still a considerably bigger deal than Hassan. What is it with the right insisting this shooting is a terrorist act? Is it because you can't wait to blame Obama for having terrorism happen on his watch?

__________________

What is it with insisting it's not?

__________________

In your opinion, does it fit the definition?
Terrorism 2000/2001

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

Yes.

Perhaps everyone could better understand by comparing this to the Arkansas recruiting station shooting, where terrorism charges were applied?

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

Perhaps.

Might it be that the shooter in Little Rock, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, had ties to terrorist organizations, while Hasan did not?

Exclusive: FBI Probes Muhammad's Ties to Ohio Mosque - ABC News

That's the distinction I keep hearing brought up. Hasan acted completely alone and had no clear political goal with what he did. He did it out of anger with the military distorted through his faith and that was about it. Muhammad, however, attended a radical mosque, was already under investigation from the FBI for traveling to Yemen and made it clear that his goal was to kill as many US soldiers as possible in order to stop the wars in the middle east.

Keep in mind that Timothy McVeigh was never charged with terrorism, either.

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

No. Neither the common definition nor the criminal statute require "ties to terrorist organizations."

I disagree. Again, neither the common definition nor the criminal statute require concerted action. The reports coming out have been abundant that he was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Muslim soldiers being deployed there. His selection of the deployment processing center was quite apropos to the motive behind the murders. It was an attack on the government for its policy and was intended to be seen as such.

I think all this irrelevant, but I'll respond briefly: Hasan had all sorts of questionable contacts and was under investigation as well, but having contacts and being under investigation does not qualify as terrorism either. As for McVeigh, the political motive in his act was unmistakably clear and quite well documented. He doesn't need to be charged with "terrorism" (Was the criminal law even on the books then?) to be considered a terrorist. He committed a terrorist act and he did it in concert with at least one co-conspirator; that would seem to solve the perceived problem about acting alone. Do you honestly not believe that Mr. McVeigh was a terrorist?

I'll ask again ... What's with instisting that this is not terrorism?

Do you have a link to this (or are you referring to the link I provided above)? From what I've been reading, ones ties or non-ties to terrorist organizations certainly does play a role.

But Hasan never made these intentions abundantly clear, as is a signature trademark of terrorists. They don't just randomly kill people and go down in a hail of gunfire, they make the reasons behind their actions known, mostly through announcements before or after the act. For example, Von Brunn who went and shot up the Holocaust museum did so because he was a white supremacist, believed Jews were ruining the country and all that fun stuff and shooting up the Holocaust museum fit within that message. But, he acted alone (like Hasan) and never made his motives abundantly clear. Like Hasan, we was charged with murder, not terrorism charges.

I certainly believe McVeigh was a terrorist, but that's neither here nor there. We're not discussing our personal opinions, we're discussing why and when the government charges people with terrorism. And yes, terrorist charges were on the books then because the terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were brought up on terrorist charges (2 years prior to the Oklahoma City bombing).
I'm not insisting anything, I'm honestly just trying to figure out how the government decides to apply terrorism charges because it doesn't seem to make any sense. After the Little Rock shootings, I would have thought it a no-brainer that Hasan would be brought up on similar charges, but apparently not. I don't believe it's political pressure or anything (since the Little Rock shootings also happened under the same administration), I'm just wondering if it's the result of convoluted laws or maybe the FBI withholding information from the general public that makes a difference. Heck, from what I understand, not even Osama Bin Laden has terrorism charges brought against him from the FBI, yet he's on their most wanted terrorists list. I don't get it.

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan

The quote you provided above that was apparently taken from the United States Code.

In what? Charging decisions? That's not conclusive or particularly relevant.

As I said above, charging decisions are not controlling nor IMO particularly relevant. If, as a prosecutor, you've got someone dead to rights on 14 murders there's no need to increase your burden by tacking on "terrorism" charges. I can certainly see why a terrorist might not be charged with terrorism even though he had committed it.

Oh ... You asked me whether I believed this qualified as terrorism under the definition in the terrorism statute so I certainly am discussing my personal opinions. I certainly think it's fair to ask yours, and they're definitely relevant. You acknowledge that McVeigh was a terrorist even though he was not charged as one. Fair to conclude that it is also possible that Hasan is a terrorist regardless of whatever criminal charges are eventually made against him? Do you believe he committed terrorism?

I alluded to this earlier, but I believe that as the prosecutor there is no need to bring "terrorism" charges when you've already got someone dead-to-rights for mass murder. As I see it, you'd be more interested in bringing "terrorism" charges against folks as an "escalator" that might ramp up the criminal penalties against them. McVeigh and Hasan both clearly qualify for the maximum penalty the law allows without adding any additional charges.

Now, as for why this other character was charged with "terrorism" in Arkansas ... Maybe because it's because he only killed one dude and the prosecutor felt like he needed a little something extra to maximize his sentence.

Yea, it appears as if we were discussing two different things. You're wondering why people personally don't consider this a terrorist attack while I was wondering why the government and the law don't consider this a terrorist attack (at least from the standpoint of the charges brought against Hasan).

Yes, if Hasan was using violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve a political goal (as it appears to be the case), I would personally consider this an act of terrorism.

__________________
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan