DanG

You can call it whatever you want. I don't think the government should elevate some crimes to a special status because of the motivations of the criminal. It's what they want. Hasan presumably wants to think of himself as a martyr for Allah. We take that away from him (and from other potential bad actors) by treating him like the common scumbag he is. - Dan G

By all reports, Manning is very bright. He seems to be emotionally troubled, but being stupid is not one of his 99 problems. - Dan G

That it what worries me. The government is building a DNA database and you don't even have to be arrested to be on it. Parents are being encouraged to DNA print their kids for potential kidnapping identification, and everyone in the military has to give a DNA sample. I don't believe there's a big conspiracy afoot, but evertually NOT having DNA on record will be the exception, rather than the norm. At that point, I can see a push to have everyone else tested. You know, for security. - Dan G

My point it that it is unlawful to murder a dozen people regardless of your religion or motivation. - Dan G

How would that make it any different that pre-meditated mass murder? Legally, I mean. How would it be different if Hasan had been a Hindu, or Jew? Would you need to classify it as a jihadist attack by a Jewish extremist? - Dan G

Since you can't conclusively prove he's NOT ohchute, logic dictates that he is. - Dan G

So if he had specific targets in mind, and was not killing indiscriminately, how is this any different from any other mass murder? - Dan G

I don't think targeting soldiers makes them ineligible to be terrorists, I just think that targeting soldiers doesn't automatically make them terrorists. Certainly people who attack soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are not all classified as terrorists just because they're Muslims. They are insurgents. If they targeted Afghan or Iraqi civilians, then they'd be more rightly called terrorists. Really, why can't they just be criminals? - Dan G

Why the delay? Is it a bandwidth issue, or something less obvious? - Dan G

You're implying that the only way to test your model's accuracy is to make a prediction, wait 75 years, and see what happened. That's one way, but, as you point out, it's not very practical. A better way to test a model's accuracy is to use a starting point of 75 years ago (or 150, or 1,000, or whatever), and predict what will happen up until today. You don't have to wait at all for confirmation. If the model isn't so good, adjust it and run it again. That what modelers actually do, and it's one reason why the models are constantly being updated. They are continuously being testing against actual conditions, and adjusted to fit. The model's aren't being rigged, they're being "grounded" to actual data. I know that you understand this, but there are lots of people who see any adjustments to predictions as rigging the results, but that's really not what it is going on. In my field (engineering) we make predictions and run tests. After the tests, we go back and refine the models to match the test results, and hopefully our predictions for the next tests will be better. It's no different in other fields of study. Sometimes we don't fully understand physical processes. In cases like that, we do more modeling, and (budget allowing) more testing. Our models can be improved through the process. That doesn't mean our original models were "lies" or that we're "cooking the books", it just means we're learning. - Dan G

Me either, sorry if I came off that way. I disagree. I think you're reading the definition too literally. Terrorists intend to coerce or intimidate. That's done through fear, or literally, terror. You said yourself that there has to be a broader objective beyond the crime itself. If there isn't, then every violent crime is terrorism. Mug a little old lady, then you're using force to intimidate little old ladies. Without the political or social objectives, then mugging little old ladies is terrorism. I don't think anyone believes that's the case. I also disagree that this can be used to support a charge of terrorism. The fact that he shot government employees, if anything, supports the notion that this was not terrorism. Terrorists target civilians, not soldiers. I think this is a grey area, because the soldiers were not actively engaged on the battlefield at the time, so they were essentially civilians. Either way, I don't think the fact that he targeted soldiers, in and of itself, lends support to calling his acts terrorism. Maybe, that's not in evidence since he hasn't been tried. Even if he was shown to have a political/social objective, I think we need to be careful how broadly we interpret that. Just about all crimes could be claimed to have some social aspect to them. Do we want to go down the slope that we've already gone down with so-called hate crimes? I propose we call these crimes, like 9-11 and the Ft. Hood shooting, what they are: premeditated murder. That should be enough. Anything more and we raise the status of these people from common thug to freedom fighter. That's what they want, why give it to them? - Dan G

Um, yeah. Guess who offered up this definition, which I was refering to: I used slightly different words, but if you really don't see how what I said applies directly to the definition above, then it's not me who's trying to change the discussion. - Dan G

That still doesn't make it terrorism. He had to have been trying to create public fear and influence policy through the creation of terror for it to have been terrorism. Maybe he was doing that, I don't know. Either way, what difference does it make? He acted alone. What was going through his mind when he acted shouldn't influence us as a nation, unless you believe we should bow down to "terrorists". - Dan G

SSNs are, by law, not to be used as a national ID. You, of all people, Mr. Original Intent, should know that. - Dan G

I just traded in a 2008 Prius with 170,000 miles. Still got $5,000 for it. I blame Obama. - Dan G

What were the criminal charges pursued in the present case? - Dan G

Like all those fat cats in the 9th ward of New Orleans? - Dan G

And if State A doesn't have the money, then their people just get screwed? You're essentially saying that the Federal government has no business in disaster relief, am I correct? - Dan G

I think the government has the obligation to investigate security leaks. Both sides of the aisle agree. The fact that someone is a reporter should not make them immune from investigation. What if a reporter were working for Fox during the day, and China at night? Should the government be barred from investigating him because he has a press badge? The fact that Rosen hasn't been prosecuted indicates that the system worked as it should. I agree that there could be a chilling effect on national security reporting, but I don't see a way around it. - Dan G

That's just the thing, it wasn't. The interviewer didn't ask, "Did the President call you?" The Congressman mentioned it without prompting. He was clearly grateful that the President had called personally. The Congressman was very gracious and, if you're not yet jaded enough to believe that he was being sincere, apparently Obama was very gracious and sympathetic when he called. Not everything has to be a fight all the time. And not everyone in the government is Dr. Evil. - Dan G

I'm not an emotional person, but this makes me really sad. Not the trajedy itself (which is very sad) but the fact that it's already become political. This morning NPR had an interview with the Congressman (R) from this district who happens to live about 1.5 miles from the path. He was very gracious about a personal call he got from Obama. There was no politics mentioned. It restored my faith just a little in where we are as a country. This thread is killing that. - Dan G

So if the government increases taxes to build better tornado shelters in torano alley you'd consider that a power grab? Dude, you're getting pretty jaded. - Dan G

And he wasn't charged with a crime, which has also already been pointed out. Previously the Republicans, including many vocally on this site, were constantly harping on the Obama Administration for being soft on classified leaks. Now that it comes to light that they have been aggressively investigating leaks, some of the same people are up in arms about that. I've said all along, there are some people, and some "news" outlets, that would find a way to criticize Obama if he cured cancer. - Dan G

Are you willing to admit that both sides in the AGW debate practice the intellectual dishonest that you describe? - Dan G

Soldiers (US Army) are also prohibited from using umbrellas while in uniform. How could you not know that? I expect the outrage to commence toot sweet. - Dan G