ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues Claire McCaskill: If Boston bombings are terrorism, why not Sandy Hook? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=272201)

luv 04-17-2013 02:12 PM

Claire McCaskill: If Boston bombings are terrorism, why not Sandy Hook?
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ook-90213.html

Claire McCaskill: If Boston bombings are terrorism, why not Sandy Hook?

By SCOTT WONG | 4/17/13 1:10 PM EDT

If President Barack Obama and the U.S. government consider the perpetrator of the Boston bombings a terrorist, then why not the shooter who killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School?

“Based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between Sandy Hook and Boston other than the choice of weapon?” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Napolitano didn’t have a simple response.

“In terms of intent for death and destruction and injury, no,” she said, “Methodology, yes. And we don’t know the motivation behind, certainly, Boston — we don’t know whether it was domestic, it’s international ...”

“Or if it was identical to the motivation in Sandy Hook,” McCaskill suggested.

“It’s impossible for me to sit at the table today and say they are identical except in effect and impact,” Napolitano said.

On the same day the Senate was expected to vote on several gun-control provisions, McCaskill pressed Napolitano to reevaluate when and how the federal government defines a criminal act as terrorism — especially when, in the case of the Boston incident, no suspects or motives are known.

“We are so quick to call Boston terror,” McCaskill said. “Why aren’t we calling the man with the high-capacity assault weapon and the high-capacity magazine, why aren’t we calling him a terrorist?”

“I don’t know the answer to that question,” the secretary replied.

“It just is troubling to me,” said McCaskill, a former county prosecutor. “I think both of them, maybe they had identical motives. Just one chose a military-style weapon with a high-capacity magazine, and the other one chose to make a homemade bomb.”

A day after Monday’s twin Boston bombings that killed three people and injured 176, Obama told reporters the FBI is investigating the attack as “an act of terror.” Napolitano repeated that line in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning.

Later Wednesday afternoon, an amendment by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) — requiring background checks for firearms purchases — was expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

The Senate will take up eight other amendments as well, including a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity magazines like those used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December.

BucEyedPea 04-17-2013 02:18 PM

More evidence that the left is trying to make as though it's right-wingers. Remember, Adams mom was a prepper too. The media went after that at one point too. Both sides are playing this game though. No one in the media, to my knowledge, mentions our own govt killing innocents. Nope, we get more calls for more govt surveillance to build the garrison state, eventhough it didn't work and eventhough strict Conn gun laws didn't prevent Sandy Hook. The state is more of the problem.

HonestChieffan 04-17-2013 02:20 PM

Stupid hag. No one deserves to have that bitch represent them

notorious 04-17-2013 02:20 PM

I agree with her 100% until she went on a gun rant.

notorious 04-17-2013 02:22 PM

We better hope that when they catch the bastard that bombed Boston that he/she doesn't have any AR-15's or AK's.


The media will FAP until they are raw.

Frazod 04-17-2013 02:26 PM

Shit, I guess they're going to make bombs illegal now.

And one of the highlights of first grade for me was Bring A Bomb To School Day.

****.

:sulk:

Saul Good 04-17-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9596288)
I agree with her 100% until she went on a gun rant.

Why would you agree with her? Do you think the Sandy Hook shooter was trying to get an agenda enacted by making people think that he might do it again and again otherwise?

RedDread 04-17-2013 02:38 PM

I don't know why people say we should ban bombs. I mean it was just sitting there not doing anything until the timing device set it off.

Ban clocks?

notorious 04-17-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 9596316)
Why would you agree with her? Do you think the Sandy Hook shooter was trying to get an agenda enacted by making people think that he might do it again and again otherwise?

Was terror injected into the country through violence?

Since when does someone need an agenda to terrorize the public?

Radar Chief 04-17-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDread (Post 9596326)
I don't know why people say we should ban bombs. I mean it was just sitting there not doing anything until the timing device set it off.

Ban clocks?

Nobody stays punctual with assault clocks, and if they do they must really suck at it.

luv 04-17-2013 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9596331)
Was terror injected into the country through violence?

Since when does someone need an agenda to terrorize the public?

I think a terrorist act has to be done with the motive of enacting change through violence, not just causing terror. I don't think Lanza had any such motive. Of course, we don't even know who set off the bomb yet in order to know their motive, but it's been dubbed an act of terrorism.

ptlyon 04-17-2013 02:49 PM

Who gives a **** what you call it? Just babble being they know there is nothing they can do about it but want their stance known as "this is terrible".

Well no shit sherlock.

BigChiefTablet 04-17-2013 02:50 PM

Why do we have to categorize ****ing everything? Is it a hate crime or just a crime? Is it a terrorist or just some batshit crazy asshole?

The qualifiers speak to motivation for the crime, which is difficult to determine when you don't even know who the perp is. And while ultimately, it would be good to try and determine motivation, the crime is the same no matter the reason. It's not like you could plead accidental manslaughter on this one.

luv 04-17-2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 9596354)
Why do we have to categorize ****ing everything? Is it a hate crime or just a crime? Is it a terrorist or just some batshit crazy asshole?

The qualifiers speak to motivation for the crime, which is difficult to determine when you don't even know who the perp is. And while ultimately, it would be good to try and determine motivation, the crime is the same no matter the reason. It's not like you could plead accidental manslaughter on this one.

I agree. Except, I think a lot of people care. It went from the Bombing in Boston to the Terror in Boston as soon as the president categorized it. IMO, just the word "terror" elevates the magnitude of the situation in the minds of people.

As for the shooting in Conn, I would not characterize Lanza as a terrorist, but that's based on my limited knowledge. The issue of gun control arose from the situation, but I don't think that was his motive for the shooting. I could be wrong, though.

As for the bomber...well, who knows?

DJ's left nut 04-17-2013 02:55 PM

Is she aware of the fact that she's actually making the right's point for them here?

Sure - fine - call the guy in Sandy Hook a terrorist; doesn't bother me any. The problem is then clearly not one of guns, but one of terrorism.

Because afterall, you clearly don't need an assault rifle to be a terrorist.

She's just not very bright.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.