http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005
“There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).”
“The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international . . . :”
“Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Under these definitions, the Bundy Ranch supporters are “domestic terrorists”, and BLM is not. The actions taken in support of the ranch were unlawful, they were taken specifically to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of political or social objectives, and the definition does not take other factors or motives into account. I’m more than a little curious when this definition was written.
As for BLM, their actions were in accordance with the law, regardless of how political and unequal the enforcement of that law may be, so their actions cannot be terrorism under the current FedGov definition. Personally, I don’t see either side as terrorist. Bundy supporters are resisting what a reasonable person could easily see as illegitimate and politicized government actions, which disqualifies their actions from the category “terrorism” in the minds of sensible people. BLM and the entire Obama Administration may be thugs, and they may be approaching tyranny, but again “terrorism” is not the appropriate word for their abuses of power. We need to insist that words be used properly.
Note: “Treason” is another commonly misused word. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 18 U.S. Code § 2381
- Treason
- “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death . . .”
I will never use the word “treason” to describe Obama because the first seven words make him immune from that overused charge - although any real American acting as he does would be guilty.
Your argument is garbage. The fact is the population has been doing its acts since the 1800’s and the armed federal agents were involved in the “use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce...the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
The Political objective was Harry Reid’s land grab for the Chinese. The Govt use of force was not legal here under several avenues not the least is that they did not have the sheriff with them.
Isn't is strange how much the insertion of a single word in the Code makes it vary from the intent?
The Constitutional provision says nothing about Allegiance:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies.
So there is nothing to prevent a State from bringing charges of treason.....not that it would ever happen. The Pubbies are too busy wetting themselves over the color of his skin.