NSA Staffer: Snowden Didn't Dupe Coworkers Out of Passwords

[reACTIONary]

201. my thoughts...

* Aren't most terrorists schizophrenic? Aren't many people who would be identified as "terrorists" just as "schizophrenic" as he was?

No, I don't believe so. Schizophrenia is a diagnosable medical condition that has well understood and well diferentiated symptomology. If most terrorists were schizophrenic this would be pretty easy to established. I don't know of any studies or other expert opinion that claims that this condition is common amongst those who have been deemed terrorists. The article you provided about schizophrenia did not mention a link to terrorism. If you know of any such studies, let me know, I'd be interested.


* Do you consider the guy who did the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing to have been a terrorist?

Yes, of course. He was different from Gilfords attacker in that he was a right wing ideologue who was attempting to further his political goals and influence public policy by perpetuating a public act of mass death and destruction. "McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer... sought revenge against the federal government for their handling of the Waco Siege... as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident... McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh


* Aren't most people who ascribe to extremist political ideologies pretty "schizophrenic"? or at least on the border of it?

No, of course not. Once again, Schizophrenia is a diagnosable medical condition that has well understood symptomology. Holding extreme political or religious beliefs does not make one schizophrenic. Extreme political ideologies is not mentioned in the article you provided.


* The attacker in the Giffords case was not disorganized enough in his thinking to be unable to organize the attack quite well.

Are you contending that it isn't possible for schizophrenics to carry out acts of mass violence at public events or in schools and malls? In the case of the Giffords attack the perpetrator was most certainly schizophrenic. Obviously, then, at least one schizophrenic was capable of enough organization and planning to perpetuate such a crime. That may not be typical, but it certainly is possible.


* The prosecution does not decide that the attacker was schizophrenic and therefore not a terrorist?

A prosecutor has to determine the motive of an attacker in order to decide if the attack was an act of terrorism or not. From what I know about schizophrenia it's my speculation that it is unlikely that a schizophrenic is going to be politically or ideologically motivated to the extent that the violence would be characterized as terrorism. News stories about schizophrenics who perpetuate public acts of violence seem to support my speculation. However, this is my own speculation, and it certainly possible that I am wrong about that. I would not contend that it is impossible, I just think it unlikely.


* If the Gifford attacker's motive was apolitical, why did he pick on Gabby Gifford?

Don't know. It was a public event that would draw a crowd. He could have picked a school or a shopping mall. Any one of those targets would have been equally compatible with an act of terrorism or a mass killing driven by mental illness. By itself, it doesn't mean a thing.


According to the ACLU, this is the definition of terrorism within the context of the "patriot act":

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

In my opinion, this is a pretty good definition of terrorism and does not seem to be overly broad - although the ACLU seems to think it is, and gives some pretty weak examples of how they think the definition could be abused. Although they can't give an example of a case where it actually WAS abused.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

Here are a few other definitions:

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or 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.”

Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx