9 Responses to “A Day After, Drudge Highlights Housing Help Instead Of Terrorism”

1. Chris Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 9:26 am

   Maybe Drudge doesn’t have the tv on in his mom’s basement??

2. bubbaquimby Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am

   Really? Your comparing Drudge Report to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News now? I just went on Huffington and you know what was the big item? Tiger Woods.

   Seems Justin that your main complaint is that conservatives won’t call this terrorism. Like I said I happen to agree with them. Unless you want to really expand on what terrorism is.

3. Chris Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am

   I hate to do it, but here it is:
   ter·ror·ism
   1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

   I didn’t read the guy’s 30000 word diatribe, but I’m going to throw a guess out there and say he probably thought that he was the first wave of citizens rising up against the government oppressors. I think that his actions meet the definition.

4. bubbaquimby Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

   I’ll stick with the US Dept of Defense definition.

   premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience

5. Chris Says:
   February 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

   so he meets all of that except the groups part. maybe there was a wider conspiracy of support that they’ll find.

6. Dan Says:
   February 20th, 2010 at 5:29 am

   I think Drudge’s priorities are quite clear here.I truly also think drudge can be compared to CNN and others,or maybe they haven’t heard the news.

7. Frank Hagan Says:
   February 21st, 2010 at 1:43 pm

   I use the term “domestic terrorism” to differentiate between the DOD definition (which is based on foreign powers or their agents) and the dictionary definition that encompasses all political violence. That is actually the legal definition in the law.

   I remember being alarmed at the list of domestic groups that were included in the early anti-terrorism legislation after 9/11. And, the Patriot Act included language on “Domestic Terrorism” that would enable it to investigate this incident as such:

   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.

   From the ACLU

   That’s a pretty broad definition. I’m surprised to see the left worrying that Drudge isn’t kow-towing to the Patriot Act.

   You could make the argument that the highly intelligent, college-educated, wealthy individual who committed this act was simply acting out in revenge, but the snippets I heard from his “manifesto” indicate he wanted to influence policy. And kill innocents who work for an agency he despises. So I do call it terrorism.

8. bobcat Says:
   February 24th, 2010 at 11:12 am

   Double edged sword. I agree that it should not be called terrorism for fear of giving his cause and similar some godly dogmatic aura. It is an insane criminal act. Call him a thug, but do one more thing.

   Research, evaluate and crack down on rogue groups so this dogmatic aura gains no traction and fear is put into those who would harm the nation and its constitution, but do it with justice and legal means. I by no mean support warrentless wiretapping, no knock entries for police, nor tazering for anything but a replacement for shooting someone. With no justice there is no peace.

9. frankhagan.com » A Few Months After Says:
   February 24th, 2010 at 7:27 pm

   [...] discussion on Donklephant.com centered around a perceived bias on the part of the Drudge Report in not featuring the recent [...]

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• A Few Months After
• Drudge “Prank” Story Debunked By Former Page’s Lawyer
• Revisiting Drudge, Hillary & Obama’s Turban Photo