When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?
from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept
Here's a little quiz. On the basis of the following information from the Guardian, is the person described a terrorist or not?A [UK] soldier who wrote of murdering immigrants and who praised Adolf Hitler has been jailed for two years after building a viable nailbomb packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause.Here's a clue:
Ryan McGee, 20, described by his defence team as "a bit of a loner", wrote in a journal: "I vow to drag every last immigrant into the fires of hell with me."If you're still unsure, maybe this will help:
He downloaded a video of two bound and gagged men beneath a swastika flag, one being beheaded and the other killed by a gunshot to the head and went online to tell people to do something if they hated immigration.Here's the correct answer, kindly provided by the UK's prosecution service:
It had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because "it was never McGee’s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device."Presumably he built the nailbomb "packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause" purely as an intellectual challenge, or maybe to give to his mother to use as a flower stand. Still, this refusal to prosecute such behavior as "terrorism" is rather curious in an age when so many harmless activities are viewed with suspicion and alarm. A cynic might almost think it had something to do with the race of the person involved.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hate crimes, law enforcement, ryan mcgee, subjectivity, terrorism, terrorist, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
*head explodes*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gua rdian reports that Ryan was jailed for two years for building the nail bomb, but wasn't charged with terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cynics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unthinkable (Re: Cynics)
Yes, he was saved by his job. There would have been huge political pressure on the CPS from the army and the government. The armed forces represent the last line of defence against terrorists, after the police. No one wants to think there are terrorists in the army. Some of the most disturbing news stories that came out of Afghanistan were where locals carried out insider killings of foreign soldiers and other staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with OP that there should be terrorism charges, but not for his beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standards in the UK
As if it wasn't already clear enough that the government considers opposition to it the only 'real' form of terrorism it cares about...
(To be clear, I don't believe he should qualify as a terrorist, but if the government is going to set the bar so incredibly low for people who challenge them or expose their actions, and then refuse to apply it to a nutjob like this, well, that's just exposing their hypocrisy and ridiculous standards)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standards in the UK
Achievement unlocked: Y'all can't fuck with the Nazi. Y'all can't fuck with the Nazi.
(Yes, apparently, Nazi sympathisers have more freedoms than brown people learning.)
/Poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standards in the UK
The journalists are terrorists because they target the wrongdoings of the government.
This soldier was NOT targetting the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, I don't believe that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I'm English and I think I agree with this prosecutor, he did not commit Terrorism with a capital T nor promote it. He was just a loser. We all know them (I grew up next door to a kid who did go to prison for being involved in the rioting at the Heysel stadium disaster, he actually partook in the act as opposed to being a big man by speech but not by deed). The T word really should be reserved for those who carry out the acts. Doesn't the US believe in freedom of speech? Do right-wing paraphernalia (a noose, a hood) automatically justify a T sentence? Use the laws already on the books for inciting or conspiring. T is overused.
"The CPS said it had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because “it was never McGee’s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device. That’s why he was prosecuted under the Explosive Substance Act.”"
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
20-year old man makes an actual bomb, declares he's going to kill immigrants with it: clearly deserving of freedom of speech, prosecution advocates on his behalf and declares he's not a terrorist.
Yup, no problems here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Say, wasn't there a group called the IRA that used to build bombs over there? What if one of those guys had done this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mention the IRA, and compare them to McGee. The comparison doesn't work; unlike McGee who apparently acted alone, the IRA is an actual organization with a specific plan to use violence to force the United Kingdom out of Northern Ireland. It's a very fine distinction to make, but it's important. If there is evidence indicating McGee was working with others to make and deploy this bomb the source article doesn't provide it. Absent evidence pointing to his collusion in a larger plot I don't consider him a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This.
However, in common parlance "terrorism" seems to be defined as "any act or threat of a violent nature". In other words, it's been redefined to mean nothing different from "violent crime".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider the consequences of defining violent crime as terrorism. In particular the United States government uses drone strikes as a means for eliminating terrorists. Would this be an acceptable way to deal with all violent crime? It's important to be able to distinguish between terrorism and crime, unfortunately doing so isn't always easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?
When it is more convenient for the government for them not to be, that's when.
Edward Snowden, considered terrorist for revealing government corruption and illegal activity.
Dood makes political statements and a pipe-bomb... not a terrorist. Not to mention the Muslim that sawed a woman's head off at work was classified as workplace violence instead, just like Hassan and that errant grenade was classified as workplace violence at first too.
A terrorist is just government code for people we don't like and applying that term gives us more excuse to remove liberty unchecked.
Anyone that did not see this coming when they drafted the "terror laws" is a willfully ignorant person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it's the CIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has a friendly ghost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Israel ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, he's not a terrorist for sure
It's not clear to me why he got jail time for that. The obvious choice would have been to give him a government job where he can turn his hobby into a profession, like flying drone attacks on brownfaces or torturing them to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not Terrorism when you decide to kill citizens, or the powers that be ,would be Terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]