Obama Justice Dept. hunting for 'all actors' in Tiller murder

[dogmush]

To be fair:

The dingbat (Tiller's Killer) was on the news at noon today going off about how Tiller was just the first, there is more volence to come, all baby killers fear,...blah blah and so on.

If he has reason to believe this it would imply there are more actors, him being in jail and all.  If there's actually a multi-state confederation of crazies plotting to kill abortion doctors, I'm all for the FBI rounding them up as terrorists.  The label seems fitting.

I just worry that combinied with the ignoring of other domestic terrorism (the recruiting center dude) we're gearing up for a witch-hunt.  I'd be interested to know if Justice has any eveidence other then this guy's ranting that more violence is planned.

[Balog]

My view on this is similar to Ladysmith's comments on child molesters getting raped in prison.

On the one hand it's wrong and we should try to stop it. On the other, he deserves what he gets and I find it hard to really care.

[Seenterman]

Who said the FBI isn't doing the same thing in the recruiting center shooting investigation, they just arn't or can't tell us because its an ongoing (Terror?) investigation. Wouldn't that be standard procedure; to investigate if others were involved in helping during the gathing, planning stages?

Maybe the only reason they are telling us they are doing futhur investigating into Tiller's killer is because one he announced that "similar events are planned around the country". That's pretty much telling us he's involved in a criminal conspiracy or just a loon but eathier way the FBI has to investigate, because if this guy is speaking truth and other abortion docs get murdered the FBI is going to have some egg on it's face especially after they were warned. To my knowledge they recruiting center shooter hasn't made any claims of that nature so that may play a part in why everything hasn't been revealed to us yet. If this guy is involved with some pro-life group that actually has plans to murder other abortion providers they all need to be locked up as enemy combatants. You can't force your ideals upon anyone using violence or the threat of violence at least not in this country.

[Balog]

Who said the FBI isn't doing the same thing in the recruiting center shooting investigation, they just arn't or can't tell us because its an ongoing (Terror?) investigation. Wouldn't that be standard procedure; to investigate if others were involved in helping during the gathing, planning stages?

Maybe the only reason they are telling us they are doing futhur investigating into Tiller's killer is because one he announced that "similar events are planned around the country". That's pretty much telling us he's involved in a criminal conspiracy or just a loon but eathier way the FBI has to investigate, because if this guy is speaking truth and other abortion docs get murdered the FBI is going to have some egg on it's face especially after they were warned. To my knowledge they recruiting center shooter hasn't made any claims of that nature so that may play a part in why everything hasn't been revealed to us yet. If this guy is involved with some pro-life group that actually has plans to murder other abortion providers they all need to be locked up as enemy combatants. You can't force your ideals upon anyone using violence or the threat of violence at least not in this country.

 

[Seenterman]

 

Stranger things have happened.


http://www.georgiacoc.com/Patriot_Act.htm
Gang Member charged under Partiot Act for killing 10 year old girl.

Mr. Johnson said, the terrorism charge fit because Mr. Morales and his gang had terrorized Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the west Bronx for years through violence and intimidation. It also provided for a far more substantial sentence.

Not going to debate the "morality" between these two killings one was an abortion doctor deliberatly murdered the other was an "accidental" shooting. But if a gang member can be charged under the Patriot Act why couldn't an anti-abortion group who's possibly planning on murdering other abortion providers be charged under terorism laws as well? (If plans for future murders are discovered)

[Balog]

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it's wrong. And you calling for it is incredibly foolish.

[Perd Hapley]

I didn't think we were discussing the FBI's investigation, but the Administration's apparent special interest in the Tiller case. 

I think Obama is mum about this terrorist attack on U.S. soil for the same reason that the Bush administration did not play up similar attacks during his presidency.  (I.e., the Muslim who drove an SUV into a crowd of people, the Muslim who killed an Al El clerk at LAX, the terror cells found in the U.S., etc.)  Despite what we heard about the Bush admin's alleged fear-mongering, neither president wants us to feel they can't keep us safe. 

Of course, Obama wants Islamic terrorism to just go away.  Like any leftist, he is offended by the idea that non-whites could be doing anything wrong in the world.

[BReilley]

If this guy is involved with some pro-life group that actually has plans to murder other abortion providers they all need to be locked up as enemy combatants.

I must've slept in the day Congress declared war on anti-abortion nuts.

You can't force your ideals upon anyone using violence or the threat of violence at least not in this country.

What do you mean?  The government's been doing it for years...

(Edited for mistake in code)

[MicroBalrog]

I must've slept in the day Congress declared war on anti-abortion nuts.

The murderer had already stated he has accomplices who will commit more murders. Do you not think this should be checked out?

[De Selby]

fistful,

Yeah, the fact that someone has to use the words "a terroristic fashion" to describe a drive by shooting indicates already that the activity is not plainly terrorism.

Terrorist attack is, however, not a controversial description for the bombing of Tiller's clinic.  It was no different from an Al Qaeda attack, except that the terrorists behind it weren't as capable.  That is why I didn't have to invent some phrase like "a terroristic fashion" to capture the activity.

But yeah, given the high number of folks who don't feel bad at all that Tiller was shot in Church while his wife was in the choir, it's probably fair to be hunting for extra involvement.  It's not like the murderer would've had a hard time finding support if he looked around, as there have been many willing to commit murders and terrorist attacks over this same issue (against this same person, even) in the past.

Before anyone shrugs this attack off as "oh well - one murderer for another", think about what the reaction would've been if this nutcase or the next goes after the women who attended Tiller's clinic.  Is shooting the abortion doctor less wrong than shooting the women who went to pay him for an abortion?  Or might all those who are shrugging at Tiller's death be a little more upset at targeting the people who actually choose to have the abortion in the first place?

Crime is crime folks.  Tiller wasn't a crook, and his murderer was. 

[Strings]

Ye gawds an' lil' fishies: I'm going to agree with shootinstudent?!?!?


The rationale behind Tiller's murder was "kill him to save innocents". At least, I'm guessing that was it (and many people have expressed the "killed murderer" meme).

 The unfortunate part is, the exact same COULD be said about the twit that shot up the recruiting station: he could easily claim that he was "protecting innocent Muslims from government killers".

Do we REALLY want to go down that road?

[Werewolf]

What is "a terroristic fashion"?  There have been murders of servicemen during every term of office

apologist

a⋅pol⋅o⋅gist  
Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pol-uh-jist]
–noun 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

Man! That gets really, really old after awhile. 

[Strings]

And calling someone an apologist for arguing the terms being used gets old, too.

Don't misunderstand me on this: what happened (in both cases) was criminal. But I think the whole "terroristic manner" thing is overblown.

Side note: "terroristic" isn't in the APS dictionary: the site's telling me that it's mispelled. Says something, doesn't it?

[Perd Hapley]

shootinstudent,

Explain that again, please.  Here we have two shootings, one committed by an anti-abortion zealot, and one by an apparent Islamist.  Both attacks are part of larger (albeit relatively small) patterns of domestic terrorism.  Yet you seem more reluctant to associate the word "terrorism" with one than with the other.  Or perhaps I misunderstand you.

But yeah, given the high number of folks who don't feel bad at all that Tiller was shot in Church while his wife was in the choir, it's probably fair to be hunting for extra involvement.  It's not like the murderer would've had a hard time finding support if he looked around, as there have been many willing to commit murders and terrorist attacks over this same issue (against this same person, even) in the past.

No, there have been very, very few anti-abortionists willing to commit violence over that issue.  Given that the anti-abort crowd tend to believe that babies are being murdered, we tend to believe in capital punishment, and we are more likely to own guns, violence against abortionists is surprisingly rare. 

You are correct in observing that many on the anti-abortion side are too easy on the mothers who, according to our view, murder their children.  There are a few obvious reasons for this.  But of course, Dr. Tiller was a medical doctor who practiced late-term abortions frequently, and profited from it.  He knew exactly what he was doing, and chose to do it quite a bit.  He's not exactly a naive, confused teenaged mother with all the pressures that implies. 

Do we REALLY want to go down that road?

What road is that, and who's saying we should take it?

[Werewolf]

It would be a sign of extreme bias if the president said nothing.   Other cases that may deserve attention notwithstanding.  It isn't hard to see why this one is getting attention and others aren't.

It isn't?

Explain to us then why a case where a murderer is in turn murdered gets the president's attention while a case where a brand new member of the armed forces, barely out of boot camp that gets murdered does not.

Please - enlighten us...

[Jamisjockey]

This is bordering on uncivil, keep it calm please.

[red headed stranger]

To expand on what Dogmush was saying.  There were also websites that were reporting in Tiller and his family's whereabouts and their upcoming work and church activities schedule.  That would indicate that there were perhaps multiple people who had him under surveillance.

I would be VERY surprised to hear that there is not additional investigation going into conspiratorial elements to the recruiting station murder.  After all, we already know that the perp was on the FBI radar BEFORE the attack.  

[Balog]

The President commenting on a murder is an unusual event, signaling a high priority for the victim. I think it's fairly obvious what Obama's priorities are.

[Strings]

Obama is pandering to his cronies, that's all.

The "road" I mentioned, fistful, is looking at either case as being different from the other. In both cases, you have a criminal committing murder, with the possibility of a wider conspiracy involved. THE only difference, is the TOTUS can pander to his side with one, but not the other...

[Perd Hapley]

Obama is pandering to his cronies, that's all.

The "road" I mentioned, fistful, is looking at either case as being different from the other. In both cases, you have a criminal committing murder, with the possibility of a wider conspiracy involved. THE only difference, is the TOTUS can pander to his side with one, but not the other...

Are you proposing that the victims of the two shootings are equivalent?  Is there something wrong with me, if I look upon Tiller as being deserving of death, even if I don't condone the manner of his death?

Or do I read too much into your statement? 

[BridgeRunner]

Are you proposing that the victims of the two shootings are equivalent? 

I think they are equivalent.  They are people, recognized as such by the laws of the US and their respective states, and they were murdered.  We do not choose our response to murders based on how much we like or don't like the victim.

I have no issue with Obama focusing more on one issue than on another, where neither issue is something that the president would ordinarily be expected to focus and where the president has important policy concerns relating to one issue and less so the other.

Obama is strongly pro-choice.  I think his position is wrong, but I don't see the point in getting bent out of shape about him focusing on his own policy concerns.  He was elected in part because he is pro-choice--it's not like his focusing on this issue is some wild flight of fancy of his.

ETA:  Also--Catholics.  Large demographic, Anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, mostly.

[Strings]

>Are you proposing that the victims of the two shootings are equivalent?  Is there something wrong with me, if I look upon Tiller as being deserving of death, even if I don't condone the manner of his death?<

*sigh*

Lemmie get my asbestos underoos

Yes, I AM actually saying the two shootings are equivalent. Or, at least, can be argued to be equivalent...

 Tiller was murdered by a fanatic with extreme views against abortion. This isn't something that can be argued against: killing someone for engaging in a legal activity (regardless of how repugnant you find said activity) is fairly good evidence of extremist views.

 The soldiers that were murdered* were shot by a fanatic with (likely) extremist views of religion.

 You can argue (and many are doing so) that Tiller himself was a murderer. However, that's not how the state sees it, which is the actual important part here. He was condemned for being involved in a legal activity. The fact that it's a controversial activity that brings extreme passion out (on both sides) is not an excuse...

 Although I don't subscribe to this idea, the soldiers' killer could ALSO argue that he was killing to "protect innocents" (in this case, innocent Muslims). Yes, that would be a stretch, to anyone here. However, our military IS currently involved in a war against members of the faith of Islam. And many consider that war "illegal and immoral" (just as you feel about abortions). Therefore, if someone wishes to defend the actions of Tiller's killer (to whatever degree), they have to allow that same degree of defense to the soldiers' killer (using the same rationale).

 Is it nice? Nope. Do I agree with defending either? Nope: both were criminal lunatics, who should be removed from society...




*How sad is it, that I know Tiller's name (since it's been mentioned so damn many times), but don't know the names of the soldiers injured and killed in a similar crime without resorting to Google... :(

[Balog]

I think they are equivalent.  They are people, recognized as such by the laws of the US and their respective states, and they were murdered.  We do not choose our response to murders based on how much we like or don't like the victim.

Legally speaking, this is true. On a personal note, if a child molester (for example) is killed I do indeed react differently than if one of their victims was killed. Some people deserve to die.

Tiller was murdered by a fanatic with extreme views against abortion. This isn't something that can be argued against: killing someone for engaging in a legal activity (regardless of how repugnant you find said activity) is fairly good evidence of extremist views.

So if I live in a ME country where setting a woman on fire for adultery is legal, wanting to kill a man for doing that to your sister is evidence of extremist views?

[Strings]

Couple of differences there, Balog.

The most obvious being, your sister is someone you know and care about. Are you going to tell me that Tiller's murderer knew the children, and would have feelings for them? And that the normal human drive to protect kith and kin can be expanded to include unborn children of mothers we've never even met?

 That's a bit of a reach. And I say that as someone who's gone out and put my backside on the line for kids that aren't "mine".

 Unfortunately, you're right on my views. Yes, I think immolating a woman in an "honor killing" is morally wrong. However, that's the way their culture is set up. We can condemn it, we can try and change it, but (if we decided to live in such a society) we'd have to deal with the issue. And killing people for doing something that you find morally repugnant (although it's legal) is no way to change society: it's a can of worms that you don't want to open.

 Or maybe you think that the Westboro folks would be justified in killing gays? Or that some of the religious zealots that have offered to use me as firewood would be justified in acting on those sentiments?

 

[Balog]

There's a world of difference between "legal" and "moral" and that's my whole point. I don't think the legal system should allow "He just needed killing" as justification. Of course, I also think a legal system that let's child rapists back on the streets is incredibly wrong too, so.....