Charlie Hebdo Update

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Horrible.Report

  2. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    Definitional question: is this terrorism, or is it crime? There are indications that the brothers who did the shooting at Charlie Hebdo, at least, received training at an al-Qaeda camp in Yemen. But still, I’m voting for “crime.” And as big a fan as I am of due process of law, I think that an outcome like this has the very thin silver lining of sparing the justice system of La France the troublesome problem of what to do with very, very odious criminals.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Burt Likko says:

      When I asked this question — I believe about Hasan/Ft. Hood or Benghazi — the response seemed to be that brown(ish) Muslims using violence = terrorism. But maybe that was only if the victims were American.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Burt Likko says:

      It is both. Many or even all terrorist attacks are crimes because they usually involve some action that is against the law. Terrorism can be seen as criminal acts done for ideological purposes. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo involved the felony of murder but it was for ostensibly a religious reason, making it ideologically inspired.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

      @burt-likko

      At the very least it is a highly ideologically motivated crime and the targets were specifically chosen. I don’t think going to a Kosher market was accidental.Report

    • Avatar dhex in reply to Burt Likko says:

      “Definitional question: is this terrorism, or is it crime?”

      i don’t know how much of a difference it makes. given the political nature of the attack and the civilian nature of the target there’s at least a decent foothold to call it terrorism. but at the end of the day i tend to think of that term as political art after the fact.

      it was, if nothing else, certainly asymmetrical warfare.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dhex says:

        @dhex

        Unfortunately, it is much more than political art. At least in the States, deeming someone/something a terrorist/act of terrorism completely changes the legal process from there on out.Report

      • Avatar dhex in reply to dhex says:

        @kazzy

        i would say that’s just a longer way of saying “political art after the fact”.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dhex says:

        @dhex

        I guess my discomfort with that term is that “art” makes me think that the decision between the use of the terms is ultimately of little consequence. I understand ‘political art after the fact’ to essentially dismiss @burt-likko ‘s question as merely being about semantics.

        If I am misunderstanding the term (highly likely!) then please, A) help me understand it better and B) accept my sincerest of apologies!Report

      • Avatar dhex in reply to dhex says:

        @kazzy

        “I guess my discomfort with that term is that “art” makes me think that the decision between the use of the terms is ultimately of little consequence.”

        not of little consequence, but as something appended after the fact for maximum political advantage. it has no genuine “reality” to grasp, and the dead – like all who die in the public eye by whatever means – are simply a tool to achieve advantage by whomever can seize it.

        as someone who teaches young children, the nihilistic reality of true power should be readily evident. 🙂Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to dhex says:

        Duly noted. And, yes, I agree then. At least insofar how the-powers-that-be answer the question. I don’t think Burt’s query was aimed at putting his thumb on the scale. But the usual suspects certainly will do so.

        To your last point, I used the phrase “benevolent little dictator” during a P/T conference this year. That’s a 10-pointer!Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to dhex says:

        “At least in the States, deeming someone/something a terrorist/act of terrorism completely changes the legal process from there on out.”

        it seems to me that the distinction makes a difference when prosecuting individuals before any incident occurs, but after the fact, not so much. Hassan, Eric Frein, Eric Rudolph, McVeigh & Nichols were all, as far as I can tell, charged and/or convicted of straight up homicide or conspiracy to commit the same. Though wiki say the OKC perpetrators were also convicted of WMD use – which is the same thing the living Tsarnev brother is being charged with, also per wiki

        (there’s also a small sample size of ‘people captured alive after committing mass murder’, both over the past 14 years and more generally)Report