Ricin letters

[T-Dub]

Sitting here trying to figure out why a guy who sets off 2 pressure cooker bombs and kills 3 people is a terrorist using a WMD and faces the death penalty, while the guy from Tupelo who created a stockpile of a biological warfare agent and mailed it to the President of the United States is facing life imprisonment, at worst. No one is calling him a terrorist, and apparently a house full of ricin is not a WMD?

 

He's also facing 3 unrelated counts of child molestation.

 

His name is Everett Dutschke.  I doubt many people knew that already.  Do you think that would be the case if he was a Muslim with a foreign-sounding name?

 

 

 

 

[Jamie_B]

Because he tried to kill the Muslim socialist who painted the white house black, duh..

[|Numbers|]

In regards to Ricin;

 

What are the elements of the offense ?

 

1.  An antidote exists for Ricin poisoning.

2.  The amount used in this Ricin case was not the amount needed to cause death in more than one individual.

 

In regards to bombs set off in Boston along with the murder of police;

 

1.  No antidote exists for a bomb blast which is detonated in an amount that existed in the size of a pressure cooker with added shrapnel.

2.  No antidote exists for a bullet to the head or other vital organ.

 

In the amounts listed in various sources, Ricin in this case was not used as a WMD but the bombs were. 

 

The definition of terrorism is not defined believe it or not.  However, given my definition of terrorism, both cases would be considered terrorism because of the amount of people involved in feeling terror and not by the amount of people killed or potential for people being killed.

 

In regards to child molestation;

 

This ones easy, he should be hung, shot, dragged through the streets by his feet, castrated, ass raped by a gang of prison thugs, etc....  People that are guilty of child molestation hardly ever change but the people that are the victims of molestation are forced to live the rest of their lives with this scar.  In other words, the victims are truly forced to relive this incident over and over the rest of their lives.  If that is not deserving of putting the label terrorist on the suspects head, I don't know what is.

[T-Dub]

In regards to Ricin;

 

What are the elements of the offense ?

 

1.  An antidote exists for Ricin poisoning.

2.  The amount used in this Ricin case was not the amount needed to cause death in more than one individual.

 

1. According to the CDC, there is not an antidote for ricin.  The Pentagon issued an RFP for a vaccine a few days later.

2. Ricin is fatal in minute quantities. I don't know how much was in those letters, but if the intention was for it to be inhaled it had to be enough material to potentially kill everyone who came in contact with it.  There's also the manufacturing process to consider; one article claims he dumped the unused portion down a sink & another says the home will have to be demolished due to contamination.

[|Numbers|]

 

1. According to the CDC, there is not an antidote for ricin.  The Pentagon issued an RFP for a vaccine a few days later.

2. Ricin is fatal in minute quantities. I don't know how much was in those letters, but if the intention was for it to be inhaled it had to be enough material to potentially kill everyone who came in contact with it.  There's also the manufacturing process to consider; one article claims he dumped the unused portion down a sink & another says the home will have to be demolished due to contamination.

 

The CDC did say there is not an antidote.  However, there are conflicting reports on this which go back to 2009.  Vaccine yes, antidote not sure.

 

I'm being led to believe by the bio-terror expert Dr. Toner, that what was sent was not a refined amount necessary to accomplish the objective of potentially killing everyone who came in contact with it.

 

Ricin is fatal in very minute quantities but again there is conflicting information on this as well.  IF injected it takes a very minute quantity.  If inhaled or ingested it takes more.  How much more or what is the refinement of the Ricin I do not know anything other than what is posted below.  It is a poison and not on the same level as something like Anthrax.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin

 

 An antidote has been developed by the UK military, although it has not yet been tested on humans.[6][7] Another antidote developed by the U.S. military has been shown to be safe and effective in lab mice injected with antibody-rich blood mixed with ricin, and has had some human testing[8]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8351666.stm

 

 

(2009) Ricin 'antidote' to be produced.  The antidote can protect against death up to 24 hours after exposure, according to Dr Jane Holley from DSTL.

 

 

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2006/human-trial-proves-ricin-vaccine-safe-induces-neutralizing-antibodies-further-tests-planned.html

 

(2006) Human trial proves ricin vaccine safe, induces neutralizing antibodies; further tests planned

 

http://ww2.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/090105/36813-1.shtml

 

(2005) Vaccine for ricin toxin developed at Detrick lab

 

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/ricin/facts.asp

 

 

•Inhalation: Within a few hours of inhaling significant amounts of ricin, the likely symptoms would be respiratory distress (difficulty breathing), fever, cough, nausea, and tightness in the chest. Heavy sweating may follow as well as fluid building up in the lungs (pulmonary edema). This would make breathing even more difficult, and the skin might turn blue. Excess fluid in the lungs would be diagnosed by x-ray or by listening to the chest with a stethoscope. Finally, low blood pressure and respiratory failure may occur, leading to death. In cases of known exposure to ricin, people having respiratory symptoms should seek medical care.

 

•Skin and eye exposure: Ricin is unlikely to be absorbed through normal skin. Contact with ricin powders or products may cause redness and pain of the skin and the eyes. However, if you touch ricin that is on your skin and then eat food with your hands or put your hands in your mouth, you may ingest some.

 

•Effects of ricin poisoning depend on whether ricin was inhaled, ingested, or injected.

 

Ricin is a toxin that is fatal to humans in extremely small doses. Just 1 milligram is a deadly amount if inhaled or ingested, and only 500 micrograms of the substance would kill an adult if it were injected (CDC).

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310533/Obama-ricin-Second-letter-tested-positive-poison-addressed-president.html#ixzz2S2xIYhQg

 

 

Confirmed: In an afternoon press conference, press secretary Jay Carney confirmed that the envelope addressed to Obama contained traces of ricin

 

Bioterror expert Dr Eric Toner, who works at the Center of Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told NBC News that while ricin is deadly, it is also a largely ineffective method of attack.

 

‘It’s not actually clear you can get anybody sick from ricin-containing letters,’ he told NBC News. ‘It is probably a crackpot. It is certainly unsophisticated.

 

He explained that the poison is often used by ‘domestic terrorists and lone wolves,’ citing ricin’s relative simplicity to make. But he added that home-made ricin ‘is not very pure. It is not very potent. As near as we can tell it has never actually made anyone sick.’

 

[T-Dub]

So if the biological warfare assassination attempt on the President is ineffective, that means it's not terrorism or a WMD? Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Although it didn't explode, he was charged with "attempted use of a WMD". 

 

I think you're missing the point here, which can be summed up by this quote from the WH press secretary above:

 

domestic terrorists and lone wolves

 

 

Which is it?  And more importantly, who is making that determination, and based on what?

[Jim Finklestein]

I never understand the logic behind sending politicians poisonous letters.  As if they open their own mail.  At most you might kill a poor staffer or intern.  (I was an intern for Congressman Larry Hopkins and opened a LOT of mail)

[Jim Finklestein]

The whole term "terrorist" gets way overused in my opinion.  When they fly into one of our buildings killing thousands of innocents, then yes, definitely terrorist,  Whenever they target civilians I can agree to the terrorist label. When they are fighting our military I'm not so sure.

 

Edit:  Didn't see this topic was discussed in this thread:

 

http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?/topic/66717-mini-rant-on-terrorism-post-zero-dark-thirty/?p=1209457

[Justice]

Thank God it was not Elvis who did this!!!!!!!!!!!!

[|Numbers|]

The whole term "terrorist" gets way overused in my opinion.  When they fly into one of our buildings killing thousands of innocents, then yes, definitely terrorist,  Whenever they target civilians I can agree to the terrorist label. When they are fighting our military I'm not so sure.

 

Edit:  Didn't see this topic was discussed in this thread:

 

http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?/topic/66717-mini-rant-on-terrorism-post-zero-dark-thirty/?p=1209457

 

When they are fighting the military I am not so sure either.  In that post link you provided there are links to definitions of terrorism that were revised to include the following;  (Note:  I find it ironic that the issue of Palestine used to be defined by British policy makers defining Jewish Terrorism in the same manner that Israeli's now assign to Palestinians.)

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/2005/07/politics-un-member-states-struggle-to-define-terrorism/

 

 

For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement"? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes "state terrorism"?

 

Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of "state terrorism" and distinguish it from the right of self-determination.

According to this argument, Israel is guilty of state terrorism in the occupied territories, while Palestinians are "freedom fighters."

 

The Israelis, on the other hand, have a different take on it: a Palestinian who deliberately kills an Israeli child is a terrorist, while an Israeli who deliberately kills a Palestinian child is a soldier or settler.

 

 

 

So if the biological warfare assassination attempt on the President is ineffective, that means it's not terrorism or a WMD? Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Although it didn't explode, he was charged with "attempted use of a WMD". 

 

I think you're missing the point here, which can be summed up by this quote from the WH press secretary above:

 

 

 

Which is it?  And more importantly, who is making that determination, and based on what?

 

Not so sure I would use the words biological warfare attack on the president.  It sounds like something more serious than what it was.  Although it could kill somebody and that is pretty serious, Rickettsia Rickettsii (Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever) is also considered a biological agent among a host of other items that would seem a whole lot less serious than something on the level of Anthrax.  ...and Ricin is nowhere near as lethal as Anthrax.  I am not trying to make lite of the incident but it was IMHO blown way out of proportion by the media due to the recent events.  That is also not to say that someone could not refine it to the extent needed because it is obvious that if someone was capable of refining Anthrax, then it is possible that Ricin could be too.  However, what is being reported is that the Ricin was not a refined version.

 

An attempt at taking his life maybe but not a biological warfare attempt.  It was ineffective because Ricin needs to be refined to a greater extent to assume mass casualty proportion.  As the bio terror expert said "is not very pure. It is not very potent. As near as we can tell it has never actually made anyone sick."

 

Setting off a car bomb in Times Square with enough explosive force to level a building is fully expected to cause massive loss of life (ie...WMD proportions).  I sincerely doubt anyone would say it would not have caused massive loss of life.  The fact that the bomb did not go off did not lessen the "potential" effect of a bomb blast in Times Square.  The "potential" effect of homemade Ricin is nearly negligible according the bio-terror expert.

 

The US does define domestic terrorism but the definition of terrorist is still not defined.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

 

 

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]

 

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; ( B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to 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; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

 

 

Lastly, I would not want to define a terrorist because if the international community can not even agree on the definition of terrorist, I certainly don't want to presume I can.  If forced to, I would define Terrorist and Lone Wolf in the same sentence with the same penalties.

 

Note:  The White House Secretary did not make those comments.  Bioterror expert Dr Eric Toner made the comments.

 

 

Bioterror expert Dr Eric Toner, who works at the Center of Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told NBC News that while ricin is deadly, it is also a largely ineffective method of attack.

 

‘It’s not actually clear you can get anybody sick from ricin-containing letters,’ he told NBC News. ‘It is probably a crackpot. It is certainly unsophisticated.

 

He explained that the poison is often used by ‘domestic terrorists and lone wolves,’ citing ricin’s relative simplicity to make. But he added that home-made ricin ‘is not very pure. It is not very potent. As near as we can tell it has never actually made anyone sick.’

 

[Jamie_B]

What is the difference between terrorism and asymmetrical warfare?

[|Numbers|]

What is the difference between terrorism and asymmetrical warfare?

 

Since the word terrorism is not defined I would not know the answer.  Furthermore, even IF it was defined, it would depend on the view point of each side.

 

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

 

A thought provoking view of the above quote:

 

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/one-mans-terrorist-is-another-mans-freedom-fighter.html

 

 

Often and thoughtlessly repeated, 'One man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter' is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

 

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

 

Suppose a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

 

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

 

So there are two reasons to avoid 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs.

 

In brief, terror is a means not an end, and there is an objective fact of the matter whether a combatant is a terrorist or not. But what is a terrorist? I suggest that the following are all essential marks of a terrorist. I claim they are all individually necessary conditions for a combatant's being a terrorist; whether they are jointly sufficient I leave undecided. 'Terrorist' is used by different people in different ways. That is not my concern. My concern is how we ought to use the term if we intend to think clearly about the phenomenon of terrorism and keep it distinct from other phenomena in the vicinity.

 

[Jamie_B]

Define terror.

[|Numbers|]

Define terror.

 

I'm thinking you have a better definition in mind but here you go.

 

Since an ISM is "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement" and merely changes the word terror to mean the practice, system, or philosophy of terror; Terror is not defined in relation to the events mentioned.

 

However, if you are looking for what a little kid gets when he gets next to a pool of water that he recently almost drowned in, then yes I can give an answer to that.  Fear.

[Jim Finklestein]

By that definition, the US and it's forefathers have been guilty of terrorism a multitude of times. The use of smallpox blankets against the Native Americans and Wounded Knee come to mind.

[|Bunghole|]

I don't think historical references are useful in this era. A terrorist is anyone whom as an individual or part of a group employs tactics that involve the deliberate killing of innocent civilians as a means to get across some kind of political message or otherwise get themself (or selves) noticed in some kind of dramatic way. I wouldn't equate using guerrilla tactics in abject warfare against a numerically or otherwise superior opponent with terrorism. The Indian blankets thing, maybe.

 

But in modern context, it is as I defined it.

[The PatternMaster]

The KKK is the oldest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the history of this country, why they aren't treated as such I don't know. Maybe because former presidents were members, I don't know..but I do know they were and are a terrorist organization.

[Jim Finklestein]

The KKK is the oldest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the history of this country, why they aren't treated as such I don't know. Maybe because former presidents were members, I don't know..but I do know they were and are a terrorist organization.

 

I thought of them as well.

 

 

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (  B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to 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; and © occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

 

It could be argued Manson and his followers could be classified as terrorists as well using this definition.

[Nati Ice]

The KKK is the oldest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the history of this country, why they aren't treated as such I don't know. Maybe because former presidents were members, I don't know..but I do know they were and are a terrorist organization.

Not to excuse the KKK, but they haven't done shit in a long while. Yes, I would still define it as a terrorist organization.

[T-Dub]

Not to excuse the KKK, but they haven't done shit in a long while. Yes, I would still define it as a terrorist organization.

 

Not to mention all the "Christian Identity" militias, or what about abortion clinic bombers?

 

 April of last year one Francis Grady set off a bomb at an abortion clinic. His charges? Arson and "intentionally damaging the property of a facility that provides reproductive health services".

[|Numbers|]

The KKK is the oldest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the history of this country, why they aren't treated as such I don't know. Maybe because former presidents were members, I don't know..but I do know they were and are a terrorist organization.

 

The KKK is still to this day, along with Nation of Islam and others, labeled an Extremist/Terrorist organization.  I have not seen the list for a long time but you would be surprised who is on there.  Many "Christian" groups are there as well.  (Church Bombings in Birmingham, Abortion Clinics in Pensacola, etc... are a few examples of the acts of these type of groups)

 

"You can be an extremist without being a terrorist. But you probably need to be an extremist in order to be a terrorist."

 

The only reference that looks similar to the list I have seen is at the following address;

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm

 

"Really, a definition of terrorism is hopeless ... terrorism is just violence that you don't like."

 

-- Prof. Richard E. Rubinstein, Director, Center for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, May 1990.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chomsky-boston-bombings-gave-americans-taste-terrorism-us-inflicts-abroad-every?akid=10393.320125.SnXo3d&rd=1&src=newsletter834395&t=3

 

 

 

Chomsky: The Boston Bombings Gave Americans a Taste of the Terrorism the U.S. Inflicts Abroad Every Day

"It's rare for privileged Westerners to see, graphically, what many others experience daily"

May 2, 2013  |  

 

April is usually a cheerful month in New England, with the first signs of spring, and the harsh winter at last receding. Not this year.

 

There are few in Boston who were not touched in some way by the marathon bombings on April 15 and the tense week that followed. Several friends of mine were at the finish line when the bombs went off. Others live close to where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the second suspect, was captured. The young police officer Sean Collier was murdered right outside my office building.

 

It's rare for privileged Westerners to see, graphically, what many others experience daily - for example, in a remote village in Yemen, the same week as the marathon bombings.

 

On April 23, Yemeni activist and journalist Farea Al-Muslimi, who had studied at an American high school, testified before a US Senate committee that right after the marathon bombings, a drone strike in his home village in Yemen killed its target.

 

The strike terrorized the villagers, turning them into enemies of the United States - something that years of jihadi propaganda had failed to accomplish.

 

His neighbors had admired the US, Al-Muslimi told the committee, but "Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the fear they feel at the drones over their heads. What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant."

 

Rack up another triumph for President Obama's global assassination program, which creates hatred of the United States and threats to its citizens more rapidly than it kills people who are suspected of posing a possible danger to us someday.

 

The target of the Yemeni village assassination, which was carried out to induce maximum terror in the population, was well-known and could easily have been apprehended, Al-Muslimi said. This is another familiar feature of the global terror operations.

 

There was no direct way to prevent the Boston murders. There are some easy ways to prevent likely future ones: by not inciting them. That's also true of another case of a suspect murdered, his body disposed of without autopsy, when he could easily have been apprehended and brought to trial: Osama bin Laden.

 

This murder too had consequences. To locate bin Laden, the CIA launched a fraudulent vaccination campaign in a poor neighborhood, then switched it, uncompleted, to a richer area where the suspect was thought to be.

 

The CIA operation violated fundamental principles as old as the Hippocratic oath. It also endangered health workers associated with a polio vaccination program in Pakistan, several of whom were abducted and killed, prompting the UN to withdraw its anti-polio team.

 

The CIA ruse also will lead to the deaths of unknown numbers of Pakistanis who have been deprived of protection from polio because they fear that foreign killers may still be exploiting vaccination programs.

 

Columbia University health scientist Leslie Roberts estimated that 100,000 cases of polio may follow this incident; he told Scientific American that "people would say this disease, this crippled child is because the US was so crazy to get Osama bin Laden."

 

And they may choose to react, as aggrieved people sometimes do, in ways that will cause their tormentors consternation and outrage.

 

Even more severe consequences were narrowly averted. The US Navy SEALs were under orders to fight their way out if necessary. Pakistan has a well-trained army, committed to defending the state. Had the invaders been confronted, Washington would not have left them to their fate. Rather, the full force of the US killing machine might have been used to extricate them, quite possibly leading to nuclear war.

 

There is a long and highly instructive history showing the willingness of state authorities to risk the fate of their populations, sometimes severely, for the sake of their policy objectives, not least the most powerful state in the world. We ignore it at our peril.

 

There is no need to ignore it right now. A remedy is investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill's just-published Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battleground.

In chilling detail, Scahill describes the effects on the ground of US military operations, terror strikes from the air (drones), and the exploits of the secret army of the executive branch, the Joint Special Operations Command, which rapidly expanded under President George W. Bush, then became a weapon of choice for President Obama.

 

We should bear in mind an astute observation by the author and activist Fred Branfman, who almost single-handedly exposed the true horrors of the US "secret wars" in Laos in the 1960s, and their extensions beyond.

 

Considering today's JSOC-CIA-drones/killing machines, Branfman reminds us about the Senate testimony in 1969 of Monteagle Stearns, US deputy chief of mission in Laos from 1969 to 1972.

 

Asked why the US rapidly escalated its bombing after President Johnson had ordered a halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, Stearns said, "Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them stay there with nothing to do." So we can use them to drive poor peasants in remote villages of northern Laos into caves to survive, even penetrating within the caves with our advanced technology.

 

JSOC and the drones are a self-generating terror machine that will grow and expand, meanwhile creating new potential targets as they sweep much of the world. And the executive won't want them just "sitting around."

 

It wouldn't hurt to contemplate another slice of history, at the dawn of the 20th century.

 

In his book "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines and the Rise of the Surveillance State," the historian Alfred McCoy explores in depth the US pacification of the Philippines after an invasion that killed hundreds of thousands through savagery and torture.

 

The conquerors established a sophisticated surveillance and control system, using the most advanced technology of the day to ensure obedience, with consequences for the Philippines that reach to the present.

 

And as McCoy demonstrates, it wasn't long before the successes found their way home, where such methods were employed to control the domestic population - in softer ways to be sure, but not very attractive ones.

 

We can expect the same. The dangers of unexamined and unregulated monopoly power, particularly in the state executive, are hardly news. The right reaction is not passive acquiescence.