What does it take to be called a terrorist in America these days?
Eric Rudolph who is serving life in prison for a series of clinic bombings is now said to taunting his victims via the post from his high security cell is referred to as an "extremist". There is even a website out of Virginia that continues to publish his rants. (Isn't there something in the Patriot Act that can be used here; not that I am opposed to free speech.)
Then there is Jose Posada Carilles, now living free in Miami, who has admitted to fatal bombings in Havana and is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba for the bombing of a Cuban plane in which more than 70 died. The US refuses to extradite or charge him and in the papers he is referred to as a militant or even in this AP article as an "anti-communist warrior".
What about the recently arrested Alabama militia members who were planning an armed attack on Hispanics? They are simply a "self-styled militia.
And yet in any coverage of the trial of Jose Padilla it is obligatory to use the word "terror" or a derivative thereof at least twice.
What is the critical ingredient of difference? Let me think. Could it be Islam? Take the case of the militia members as an example. Imagine that five or six Muslims are arrested in an FBI raid, found to be heavily armed and planning an attack. Do you think the word "terror" might come up once or twice? One needn't look further than the coverage of the Fort Dix arrests to find out.
Eric Rudolph who is serving life in prison for a series of clinic bombings is now said to taunting his victims via the post from his high security cell is referred to as an "extremist". There is even a website out of Virginia that continues to publish his rants. (Isn't there something in the Patriot Act that can be used here; not that I am opposed to free speech.)
Then there is Jose Posada Carilles, now living free in Miami, who has admitted to fatal bombings in Havana and is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba for the bombing of a Cuban plane in which more than 70 died. The US refuses to extradite or charge him and in the papers he is referred to as a militant or even in this AP article as an "anti-communist warrior".
What about the recently arrested Alabama militia members who were planning an armed attack on Hispanics? They are simply a "self-styled militia.
And yet in any coverage of the trial of Jose Padilla it is obligatory to use the word "terror" or a derivative thereof at least twice.
What is the critical ingredient of difference? Let me think. Could it be Islam? Take the case of the militia members as an example. Imagine that five or six Muslims are arrested in an FBI raid, found to be heavily armed and planning an attack. Do you think the word "terror" might come up once or twice? One needn't look further than the coverage of the Fort Dix arrests to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment