The New York Times published an op-ed Saturday from William Ayers decrying how Barack Obama was smeared by conservatives through guilt by association. This is not surprising when a liberal writes it. It is, however, a little hard to take from someone who bombed public buildings without a care about hurting or killing innocent people who aren’t "war criminals." Once you plot to bomb the Pentagon or the Capitol or an officers’ dance, the charisma of that guilt-by-association complaint seems to vanish.
Much of the Saturday article is a rehash of the things Ayers has said in interviews with ABC and NPR and Pacifica Radio. Ayers denies he was a terrorist – thinking the charge is an Orwellian lie – and claims Jeremiah Wright merely had a "fiery style" of preaching, not that he thought America deserved 9/11 or that the U.S. government mixed up the AIDS virus in a lab to kill blacks:
Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: "What do we really know about this man?"
Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an "unrepentant domestic terrorist." Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.
I was cast in the "unrepentant terrorist" role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the "Two Minutes Hate" scene from George Orwell’s "1984," when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.
This would only be an Orwellian scene if Ayers never really joined the Weather Underground, and never attempted to bomb government buildings. What’s Orwellian is claiming that you’re not an "enemy" of the people of the United States while you plot to bomb their buildings and kill the people who defend them in the military. (Bombing buildings would seem a better example of a "frenzy of fear and loathing" than denouncing the bombers on a talk-radio show.) It's also a little weird to complain you became a "shadowy character" when you refused to grant interviews.
Then came Ayers’ usual attempt to sound a little bit repentant:
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.
I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education....
The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.
We — the broad "we" — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.
Perhaps the meanest thing you could say to Ayers is that not many people are "still debating" the Weather Underground. Almost everyone has either forgotten them, or for those who born in the 1970s or later, never learned about them. But the strangest part of this passage is Ayers claiming he’s valued every human life for "the past 40 years," which would include his bombing years. He valued human life as he plotted to destroy it. And he thinks it’s "profoundly dishonest" to call him "unrepentant"?
Ayers wrapped it up with the usual claims that he barely knew Obama (as he scolds others for dishonesty), and boasts that Obama's radical willingness to honor Ayers as an educator who valued human life is a sign of Obama's virtue:
The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.
President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.
Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.
Let's not forget that the New York Times op-ed editor who would not accept John McCain's op-ed submission (they didn't want anyone going negative on Barack) has accepted one from William Ayers.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bill Ayers is a carefully chosen friend of Barrack Obama
December 6, 2008 - 08:14 ET by Retired GeekThere is an old Spanish saying.
“Tell me who you walk with, and I will tell you WHO YOU ARE!”
"I chose my friends carefully."
Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father
William 'Bill' Ayers
Bill Ayers is a carefully chosen friend of
Barrack Obama. Born in 1944, Currently a professor of education at the
University of Illinois.
1) Leader of the 1960s and 70s domestic terrorist group
Weatherman. The Weatherman issued a 'Manifesto', calling for armed
opposition to US policies, includig Capitalism and asked white radicals
to launch a 'Race War' against 'White Skin Privilege'. Leaders like
Mark Rudd (currently a mathematics professor at a New Mexico community
college) traveled illegally to Cuba in 1968 for terroist training by
Soviet KGB Colonel Vadim Kotchergine, who taught Marxist philosophy and
urban warfare. Weather men always spelled America - 'AmeriKKKa'.
2) "Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents." Bill Ayers
3) Participated in the bombings of New York City Police
Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon
in 1972. Ayers proudly stated that he didn’t "regret setting the bombs.
I feel we didn’t do enough."
"America is NOT a just and fair and decent place - it makes me want to puke." Ayers said in 2001
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn hosted
meetings at their Chicago home to introduce Barack Obama to their
neighbors during Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois Senate.
In 1999 Ayers joined the Woods Fund of Chicago, where he
served as a director alongside Barack Obama until the Obama left the
Woods board in December 2002.
Review of Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) documents shows
that Ayers and Obama each chaired the two CAC operating bodies from
1995 to 2000. Michelle Obama started working at a law firm with
Bernadette Dohrn, Ayers wife, in 1985.
Read about other Radical and Marxist supporters of Barack Obama on my blog.
http://hisfacts.blog...
Terrorist
December 6, 2008 - 08:01 ET by 10ksnooker... call Americans many things, I use only one word, enemy.What's the difference between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh? Body count.
I wonder why Barack Hussein Obama never talks about freedom, liberty and other deeply cherished American values?
That One
December 6, 2008 - 08:57 ET by littlemissmuffin"That One" doesn't believe in freedom or liberty. He wants total control. Does the word "dictator" ring a bell?
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Screw Ayers
December 6, 2008 - 08:14 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThe NYT is, once again, trying to help Obama and his anti-American cronies. Please tell me how Ayers actions are any different than those of people who bombed African American churches in the south for political reasons. I am glad that Ayers friends, who were making a bomb to blow people up at a dance, blew themselves up. I wish Ayers and his wife had done the same.
D
P.S. Will Obama be a war criminal once he is inaugurated? I know the protests outside the White House will continue, they just won't be 'news' anymore. Impeach Obama Now!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Prairie Fire
December 6, 2008 - 08:50 ET by casel21According to my math, he's got 6 more years until his 40 year statement will be true. But what do you expect from a Communist? The truth?
Also, I have scanned the entire book and OCR'ed it into text format. The book's copyright permits free use as long as it's not false, distorted, or for profit. Anyone know where I can upload this?
"Unable to challenge the
December 6, 2008 - 08:39 ET by i was just thinking"Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, ..."
Yeah, and there was a reason for that. It's hard to challenge a lotta empty nothing.
Actually, Obama WAS the content of Barack Obama's campaign, and that's what we DID challenge.
Actions...
December 6, 2008 - 09:08 ET by jackie3Actions speak louder than words, Billy. You're a terroist, plain and simple.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Ayers misses the point
December 6, 2008 - 11:43 ET by kgIt is only about BAD judgment on Obama's part for associating with him.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Like most ultra liberals,
December 6, 2008 - 09:21 ET by BDLike most ultra liberals, Bill Ayers is able to live in a land of the "Power of Make-believe."
It stems from years of "Liberal therapy" after which he is able to convince himself that his actions were not as bad as they actually were, that others were to blame, and that his actions had a positive outcome.
Even if we were to credit the Weathermen with the US pullout from SOuth Vietnam, what is that really saying? THe Weathermen ensured the enslavement of 15 Million people and the murder of countless others who would likely be walking around today if not for them?
Boy, to believe anything POSITIVE occurred post US withdrawel from SE Asia requires the maximum "Power of Make Believe" Billy...
Reject McCain Op-Ed - Publish Ayers
December 6, 2008 - 09:51 ET by allanfSo let's recap. The New York Times turned down Presidential candidate McCain's Op-Ed piece, and now publishes one by self avowed anarchist Bill Ayers.
... his opponents invented
December 6, 2008 - 09:24 ET by motherbelt.....his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged
from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an
exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: "What
do we really know about this man?" (emphasis added)
Uh, Bill.....
His opponents?
That was CNN....after he was elected!
Strategery
December 6, 2008 - 09:41 ET by Copperhead RidgeThe right political strategy here is to let Ayres keep talking. Heck, the GOP should help fund some of his speaking engagements. I'm an old timey upland game hunter, and as a kid, I learned that given enough time a rabbit will dang near run to you.
Keep Billy the Bomber talking for the next four years.
Well Bill what
December 6, 2008 - 10:06 ET by Delsais it we know about this smooth talker who arrived unknown from far west Hawaii, or was it western Chcago, or the far east of??????
He gave a speech at the democrat convention and now the man with the strange name, surrounded by he bomb building friends, his "God Damn America" screeching preachers, and his jailed political buds, is President elect of the United States.
As my mother used to say, "you are judged by the company you keep" and Bill for your information, The One did not keep good company!
Questions? Indeed!
Questions?
December 6, 2008 - 10:09 ET by littlemissmuffinDelsa, I have but one question of "That One:"
Why won't you show your birth certificate?
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
littlemissmuffin
December 6, 2008 - 10:17 ET by DelsaAnother good question.
My guess is the original burned up in the Chicago fire or was that the SanFran fire?
Oh well?
Since I do not know him but for his friends and His own words, I judge him unfit for office of any kind. At least any office in the United States.
But here we are and he has the codes!
Rehab
December 6, 2008 - 10:10 ET by jaywlLike the old communists Ayers rehabilitation is almost complete. He'll make money on a new book, do the lib talk shows, and within two years be appointed to some federal education panel or board. The really sad truth is that even now most Americans have now idea who this scumbag is. As for the NY Times this is the best example yet of their utter lack of integrity. If they had supported the war Ayers would have bombed them.
... documents shows that
December 6, 2008 - 10:20 ET by ooramp... documents shows
that Ayers and Obama each chaired the two CAC operating bodies from...
The only chair Ayers deserves is the "Electric Chair", just think, had justice been served, he be in HELL were he belongs.
Why do I have to spend my lifetime surrounded by the worse Americans to have had breath breathed into them?
Happiness is dead liberal baby-boomers and radical hippies from the sixties.
Lucky for me, I should out live'm to reject and reverse their warped view of America.
remember the republican prosperity 94-06,
as the democrat depression deepings 06-??
As to the birth cert
December 6, 2008 - 10:24 ET by DelsaThe Supreme Court should allow this case to be litigated.
It is a question who's answer must be laid to rest once and for all.
Let the issue be dicided in court where documents shall be required to be produced and witnesses as well.
Mybe the One's brother who lives in the hut and his illegal aunti will come forward to attest to his genesis?
In all seriousness, the American people should get rid of this question once and for all.
Punt
December 6, 2008 - 11:09 ET by allanfThe Supreme Court will almost certainly punt on this one. So will the District Courts. They will reason that the Plaintiff's lack standing to sue. They may also opine that since Obama was placed on the ballot by 50 Secretaries of State, he was by definiation natural born.
In some sense, we should be glad that the Courts have not grabbed enough power yet to overturn an election (Bush v Gore was not overturning an election libs).
Ayers and the Juice
December 6, 2008 - 12:08 ET by easygoerWhen Ayers says that no one was killed or hurt by his actions he sounds like OJ Simpson in court yesterday. He's no better than OJ, only dumber. And this guy's an educator? The scary and sad thing about the piece are all the kudos and bravos Ayers gets for his drivel in the comments section.
Ayers is a psychopath and a
December 6, 2008 - 12:34 ET by TailgunnerAyers is a psychopath and a damnable liar.
He planted explosives at public buildings.
His followers plotted to kill US troops and police. In fact it is very probable, though unproven, that they actually did kill police.
His proteges murdered guards during an armored car robbery.
Ayers' Weathermen firebombed a house occupied, which they knew at the time, by a federal judge AND HIS FAMILY. 'Property damage only'?
No media outlet with an ounce of integrity would allow themselves to be used as a mouthpiece for this outrageous self-deceptive propaganda.
I'm sure Hitler also would tell you he was just 'misunderstood' (by those six million 'intolerant' Jews).
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Nothing surprises me anymore
December 6, 2008 - 12:26 ET by WorriedAyers wrapped it up with the usual claims that he barely knew Obama (as he scolds others for dishonesty), and boasts that Obama's radical willingness to honor Ayers as an educator who valued human life is a sign of Obama's virtue:
Oh, my God! I just realized that Bill Ayers, college professor extraordinaire, might just be Obama's pick for Education Secretary. Since it doesn't matter what The One does to the dopes that voted for him, only to us idiotic conservatives, what would stop him? Ayers is an educator who values human life and Obama doesn't it. What a perfect choice.
Bill Ayers and irrelevance
December 6, 2008 - 13:08 ET by zachlindLook, we all know what’s going on here. Once these people, the Bill Ayers type, chose their path they were left with few choices with their future. A life in academia, the only vocation that lacked enough standards, both moral and spiritual that would accept them, limited spouse selection, and more important, their inevitable irrelevance. For Bill Ayers that future is now.
This really demonstrates
December 6, 2008 - 16:00 ET by rbosqueThis really demonstrates the lack of objectivity at the NYTs. It'll be a cold day in hell before I subscribe to that rag.
The day the NYT goes belly-up will be a great day for America.
How Barry can lose the "guilt by association"
December 6, 2008 - 16:44 ET by nkviking75If Ayers used similar arguments to justify blowing up abortion clinics, the NY Times and other libs would be screaming for Bill's head on a stick. Far fewer lives were lost in Vietnam than in America's abortion clinics, and over a period of far fewer years.
Obama's election is the best thing that has happened to Ayers' career in decades.
If Barry wants to do something about "guilt by association", he should turn his Justice Department loose on Ayers as soon as he takes the oath.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
You really have to laugh at
December 6, 2008 - 23:04 ET by SvenYou really have to laugh at this!
Hmmm, if memory serves, isn't the NYT's stock rated as "junk"?
This will only hasten their dimise. The Free Market always crushes those who don't provide what the customer wants...in this case NEWS!
I saw this early this
December 7, 2008 - 02:43 ET by bigtimerI saw this early this morning on The Washington Journal...it infuriated me then, it is still.
How dare the msm keep publishing one word of the enemy within when the refused to investigate, question write nary a negative word about him or his relationship fore years with O...let alone criticize O for his brotherhood with him.
I swear, don't be surprised if this guy is name as head of the Dept of Education...or some-such on down the road, the msm are already protecting him, attempting to project him as a good guy for a reason.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
NYT - The hypocrites never stop
December 7, 2008 - 06:56 ET by ChrisMillsThe NYT jumped on Rudy Giuliani for his association with Kerick every chance it got. I can't wait for their business to fail so we can be rid of this propoganda machine to go out of existence. Rudy would have smacked Obama around in the general election. Rudy actually fixed NYC's financial situation, Obama's done nothing. The economy story the MSM harped one couldn't have touched him.
He can dish it out, but he can't take it.
December 7, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Mike76Bill Ayers took part in terrorist activities, and was part of a left wing terrorist organization. Now, when people point it out, and call him a terrorist, what does he do? He cries like an infant and think it's unfair that people call him a terrorist, LOL
It occurs to me that if someone decided to blow up Bill Ayer's house, or attempted to, or succeeded in, assassinating him, he wouldn't have a moral leg to stand on in his defense. After all, fair is fair, right? I'm not suggesting that anyone do this, or making some sort of threat, I'm just saying.
I'm not a "terrorist!" ...yeah
December 12, 2008 - 13:40 ET by jerseydevelFor best context read this article first http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/bill_ayers_on_why_terrorizing.html.
In Reply -
Reference information courtesy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn (Research completed: December 6-7, 2008).
Dear Bill (the other slick Willy),
Hello friend! I just want to say that I too am not a terrorist.
I hear you.
So well in fact that I’d like to help. So let’s jump right to it.
Here is a dream scenario peppered with proof for you to present in your defense in this renewed and obvious and blatantly unfair court of public opinion. Imagine if you will, and straight from the Hollywood studios…
Panning past the defense table, beyond the judge’s bench, the view settles on the witness stand where you’re giving honest testimony…
“Terrorist?” “No sir, indeed not your Honor.” “I would not concur that such a term - terrorist - is, was, or ever will be an accurate characterization of any of my current, past or future activities.”
“On those days in question I was only a willing participant in the planning, active placement and/or had only intimate knowledge of said actions:
(a) on or about –insert date here- in or near Greenwich Village, those events leading to Weather Underground individuals’ Ted Gold, Terry Robins and Diana Oughton being “killed by an explosion”
(“Ops!” “I’m sorry your Honor.” “Did I absent-mindedly omit the remainder of that sentence?” “…while constructing a home-made bomb intended to disperse NAILS?”);
(b) Let me state unequivocally – yes I did plan, and/or place, and/or actively assist in the placement of bombs:
(i) on –insert date here- to blow up one or several statutes dedicated to riot police;
(ii) on –insert date here- in or near the New York City Police Headquarters;
(iii) on –insert date here- in or near the United States Capitol Building;
(iv) on –insert date here- in or near the Pentagon building.”
“But I’m not a terrorist!”
But wait! Now here’s the clincher. Simply toss in this little ditty of a prosecutorial-balloon deflating paragraph -
Uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States.
Sound familiar? Nah I don’t think so either. Nope. Not a single utterance, not a damn thing about “killing” or “injuring”
…uh… “injury” ??? Naah!
The term used was “injury” - not the same thing. Heck that’s not even the same spelling!
Whoa! That was close!
No similarities recognized here.
Next, scream at the Judge in your best shrill voice, “Obviously dumbass!” “I never killed or injured anyone!!!”
I know, I know. It really SUCKS when one is accused of being something clearly one is not.
It’s akin to like, “Hey!” “Lookie here!” “I just pulled this thought outta my ass (I’m a liberal) and therefore… abracadabra it MUST be true!”
After all, this IS consistent with the typical progressive mindset – those damn liberal bastards! Don’t-cha just hate ‘em???
Poor boy, you’re such a victim. I feel your pain.[1]
Anyway, I’m writing to let you know that I would sincerely like to aid and abet …you, uh…, in your quest for truth, justice and the American way!
In fact friend, I’m so sure you will love my idea that I’ve provided several more citations of documentation for deployment that you may invoke and offer up as proof of your obviously painful innocence!
Please find attached additional documents (see attachments). These passages will dovetail with precision to supplement your already excellent and rock-solid defense (and bolster your efforts to clear your good name too!). When it’s all said and done, the documentation here is of the nature I believe that no one will be able to repudiate! Oh Hell! I guarantee it!
The plan of attack of course is reverse psychology! Put that game-face on, say, “ok,” faux stutter several, “but… but… buts…” and then once again blurt it out,
“I’m not a terrorist!”
“Armchair perhaps, but, but, but, it must be so because, well… I’m not a terrorist!”
“I never killed or injured anyone.”!!!
Then present for entry into the record all documents attached.
I’m tellin’ yah, dude… In the proverbial court of public opinion, this is a no-brainer! A hook line and sinker! It’s a done deal!!!
Friend, despite the obvious jealousy upon your realization that you didn’t think of this first, please feel free to envy my plan in whatever manner you see fit.
When you are finished reviewing these clearly non-obfuscating arguments of defense (attachments) I shall welcome your comments. Even if they are of the screed and akin to “arm-chair quarterback”, “lawyer wannabe”, “couch potato attorney”, “faux esquire extraordinaire.”
Full disclosure – Just between you and me (shhhh) I am not really an attorney, nor am I the “distinguished professor of Education” at University of Illinois at Chicago. I am not, I have never been, and unfortunately my schedule will not permit me to even pencil in a plan to be a student of the (re-)education program at UIC.
At least I can state with conviction (yeah, you dodged that bullet, huh…), a clear conscience, and intellectual honesty, that I sir - in the truest sense of the word - I am not a terrorist. If it is your leisure sir, please, humor us all and continue to try.
If this presents any intellectual difficulties you perceive as beyond your comprehension simply ask your wife for assistance. I understand the University of Chicago Law School was kind enough to print a JD for her to hang on the wall. Perhaps she’ll be able to explain to you all of the pertinent term definitions and obligatory legalese (it’s not a faux JD right?)
Once again I know, I know… these rules-of-law things. I’m with yah bud. It’s all just convoluted nonsense isn’t it?
I suspect the best part of you dribbled down your mother’s leg. Perhaps too, any and all seed borne of your post-pubescent endeavors took a similar path via the inner thigh of that other lovely individual, Bernadine R. Dohrn. Gravity would have it that the path for those little athletes carrying the DNA of yours – that intellectual prowess that it is – sadly followed down into the shower drain and carried on just swimmingly downstream to the human waste treatment plant.
We can only hope.
Oh but wait. We’re getting into the laws of physics. Oh hell! Let’s just ignore them too. Who am I if not God’s gift to domestic “extreme vandalism?” These are such bothersome if not minor inconsequential concepts.
As a matter of due-diligence, please, I am compelled to ask! What about those little vandals bestowed your ex, that other bastion of integrity in your life, Diana Oughton? Oh silly me, that’s right. If there was an exchange, that seed was likely “killed in an explosion.”
Hey, just between you and me, I’m curious, DID you ever nail her?
Oh oh, wait! I know your answer to that one.
“In more ways than one!”
Why you little devil you!
Hey, chill dude! That was just a joke. Sorry if it… bombed.
Gosh! You have such a way with words don’t you think? You are so clever. Ok, ok. I’m sold! I believe!
Finally, I shall close with the following comment (and I hope this is not so convoluted for you). I know that you care not. As you aptly choose to do, I need not concern myself, either. These are merely words. That you chose, and continue to choose - consciously - to act as you do like that coward that you are attempting to dodge the simple truth - you utterly disgust me.
In my humble opinion, you sir are a vile specimen of existence.
Otherwise dear William – please, have a nice day.
ATTACHMENT A
CITATION ONE
6 USC Sec. 101
(15) The term "terrorism" means any activity that -
(A) involves an act that -
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to 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.
ATTACHEMENT B
CITATION TWO
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
-HEAD-
Sec. 2331. Definitions
-STATUTE-
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to 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; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of
holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course
of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to 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; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
ATTACHEMENT C CITATION THREE
TITLE 6--HOMELAND SECURITY
CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PART 25_REGULATIONS TO SUPPORT ANTI-TERRORISM BY FOSTERING EFFECTIVE
Sec. 25.2 Definitions.
Act of Terrorism--The term ``Act of Terrorism'' means any act
determined to have met the following requirements or such other
requirements as defined and specified by the Secretary:
(1) Is unlawful;
(2) Causes harm, including financial harm, to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based
principally in the United States on which United States income tax is
paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and
(3) Uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other
methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other
loss to citizens or institutions of the United States.
[1] By the way, I just want to say that I’m sorry if daddy ever thrust that 100 Amp, 240 volt electrical conduit up your sphincter and threw the switch. He worked for the power company right? Why he should have known better! And at such a tender young age too! This is after all the only scenario one wielding the power of progressive logic can reasonably conclude (I know that that must’ve really messed with your head dude).