Hacker News Reader

Comment by hingisundhorsa | Hacker News Reader

I tried to find where in the article it says anything that might back up "already been convicted of being part of a terrorist cell". The closest I found is where it says: "already in jail for being part of a cell that considered attacking a Territorial Army base in the town.". This sounds a bit like a thought crime to a laymen like me and the verbiage flags my weasel alarm. Also, could you clarify where you're getting the term "nation's infrastructure" because all I saw was: "discussing attacking the town's TA headquarters". If we accuse everyone who's pissed off at the town council / home association and starts talking about blowing them up of terrorism, then we'll need a much bigger prison system.

View on HN

TA is the UK Territorial Army, approximately equivalent to the US Reserve Forces or National Guard.

The group were convicted of discussing the idea of driving a bomb under the base's gate attached to a remote controlled car [1]. They didn't actually do it. They also discussed obtaining weapons, but didn't do that either. They did arrange to attend terrorist training camps in Pakistan, but its not clear from the news reports whether they actually travelled there.

EDIT: According to [2] one of the group did go abroad for training.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22178105

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/18/four-jailed-toy-ca...

That sounds a bit disconcerting. I've discussed things like how to beat airport security, plant bombs to do the most damage, and in general ways to circumvent security measures. It's simply an intellectual curiosity, one even necessary to make things safe, and protect against those who think the same, but with intent of causing harm.

If the discussion alone is the damning part, with disregard to the intent... coupled with some prejudice, and add irrational fear.

Self censorship is what you get.

Media may have used the term "discussed" but they were convicted for plotting. By legal definition, in order to commit a crime there has to be a proved conscious intent and actions taken. Even grouping together is considered an action, I assume for 16 years they've dome more than that. There was also existing home made bomb.

Sorry this guy is a criminal and a murderer, his value to society is pretty low to considering he hasn't done anything of a value in his life, except moving to UK.

I suspect that in this case there was substantial indication of intent. There was clearly evidence of conspiracy.

Just to note, TA is the territorial army, a fully trained reserve branch of the military, so probably reasonable to count as part of the national infrastructure/defence.

I do agree that "considering attacking" does sound slightly weasely and like a thought-crime; hopefully they were seriously considering it.

Is it still terrorism if you attack the military, rather than civilians?

Yes, in most definitions or terrorism, the key part is (trying) to create terror to further your goals. It doesn't really matter whom you'd attack, be they civilians, structures, organisations, armed forces, or whatever. The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters and (national) armies becomes blurred fast, though.

"the key part is (trying) to create terror "

If people would just quit being afraid of this stuff, by definition, 'terror' wouldn't be created, would it?

Telling people the rapture will happen at 2:30pm tomorrow would in fact create terror in the minds/hearts of certain people. Are you a terrorist if you tell people that Jesus is coming back tomorrow afternoon?

Yes, terror is certainly in the eye of the beholder, although academic definitions are a bit more nuanced than those being used by the public.

The subtle difference is between using terror to reach a goal and using some action to reach a goal with a side effect that people experience terror. For example:

A group of hackers could hack into the bank accounts of the 1% to distribute their wealth among the other 99%. They don't have any intention to create terror and probably think that the 1% can easily take. Of course, the 1% will see it as an act of terror. And probably journalists, lobbyists, politicians will spin it and use it to create terror among the larger populace.

Another group of hackers is hacking into facebook accounts to make people's secrets public to try to get the public to care about privacy and not to put their trust blindly into social media. In this case, they would use terror consciously as a means to this end.

Ok so all wars are terrorism then? People getting shot or blown up or whatever is pretty terrifying IMO.

Seems to me like these guys were talking about guerrilla tactics against a military target. I don't think that's necessarily terrorism.

Yes and no. Getting shot is terrifying to you, but the other army isn't shooting to terrify you, but to incapacitate you and your colleagues to reach some (strategical) goal. The terror is just a happy side effect. On the other hand, armies could also use acts of terror to reach some goal. For example, instead of just taking soldiers prisoner of war, you could just cut off their heads and put them on a stake at the front. Or raping all the women in the occupied territory (although that could also be a way to 'lay claim to the land and people' by creating a generation of mixed bloods, I suppose. In that case, it wouldn't be an act of terror, although everyone on the receiving end would be plenty of terrified)

Regarding the planned attack on the TA base, he plead guilty to that: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22156243

EDIT: Though as the defence counsel for one of the four pointed out, they remained free for another 7 months after the alleged plans, so it's questionable how likely they were to have been carried out.

TA = Army Reserves, not town council / home association!

The article might make it appear they jokingly talked/thought about a bomb, but others make it clear there plans were concrete. It mentions them going to "meet the brothers" at a training camp where duties would include "helping them making the bombs". I think it becomes a crime when it goes from curious learning to definitive plans. They weren't just thinking something socially unacceptable, they were planning to cause harm.

It sounds like they only charged him for this after he gave up the keys he was previously withholding. While I disagree with the power this law gives, its less extreme if its only used when they can prove the password was both covering up a crime and not forgotten. More of a deterrent, and slightly less of a thoughtcrime.

>> This sounds a bit like a thought crime to a laymen like me and the verbiage flags my weasel alarm.

Conspiracy is a crime, though. A guy can be charged for saying something like, "Let's plan out how we're going to kill my wife. You go buy a gun..." The police don't have to wait until the guy actually kills his wife before arresting him.

It sounds like some other people in the terrorism case pleaded guilt, and there are even details of the planned attack. Technically a thought crime, but the kind of thought crime you want to stop becoming a 'reality' crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com