If you didn’t catch the news this weekend, there was a debate regarding the legal status of a President in a foreign country. No, I’m not addressing the Iranian Presidential Elections but rather the arrest and expulsion of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. The action has caused an international uproar, but I think the attention in the issue might be misplaced.

Imagine, if you will, that President George W. Bush thought he was channeling President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he could not leave the helm of the nation while two wars were underway. Noting that FDR was elected to four terms prior to the passage of the 22nd Amendment with no serious harm to the balance of power on the Federal level, he decides to unilaterally initiate a national referendum to revoke the 22nd Amendment. This alteration would allow him to run for a third term, most likely against Senator Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court informs Bush that his action would be unconstitutional, but he decides to go ahead with the referendum anyway. Fearing that Bush is seeking a power grab, the Congress orders Admiral Mike Mullen (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to detain the President for violating Federal law. Before Admiral Mullen could take action, President Bush fires him. Attorney General Michael Mukasey informs the President that his actions are illegal and that he would be arrested if he prosecute him if he carries through with his plan. Bush calls Mukasey’s bluff, and as a result is arrested with Congress elevating Dick Cheney to the office of the President. What do you think the domestic an international reaction would be? Bush would be condemned for his actions and Congress would be praised for enforcing the rule of law in the United States.

The above chain of events is what occurred between President Zelaya and the Honduran government last week, resulting in his arrest on Sunday. Acting to preserve the democracy, the Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya, with the Congress supporting the Courts action. So why is it that the ousted Honduran President is the one receiving support and the actions of the government being described as a coup?

The UN has already accepted a resolution demanding the restoration of power to Zelaya, and the Obama administration has called the Honduran government’s action against Zelaya illegal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described the events as “fast-moving,” but I wonder if the international knee-jerk is moving even faster. If the Supreme Court, Attorney General, and Congress of Honduras warned the President that his actions were unconstitutional and he would be punished if he sought to break the law, why is the world taking Zelaya’s side? Could it be that the international body has acted before taking a moment to review the facts of the case?

Related articles:
The Age - “Honduran military ousts president ahead of vote”
The Wall Street Journal - “Honduras Defends Its Democracy”
Taiwan News - “Foreign ministry spokesman admits to gaffe on Honduras situtation”
Brisbane Times - “Ousted leader ‘had drug links’: Honduras”
Reuters - “Ousted Zelaya to be arrested if returns to Honduras”
Breitbart - “UN General Assembly condemns coup in Honduras”

Have you ever tried to buy a hand gun? I haven’t, but I understand there is a laundry list of items that can bar you from legally obtaining a permit during your background check. According to the Department of Justice website, you are prohibited from purchasing a gun if the person:

- is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal alien or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
- was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces
- has renounced U.S. citizenship
- is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child
- has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under age 18 for long guns or under age 21 for handguns.

What seems to be missing from this list, however, has become the subject of concern by Senator Frank Lautenberg. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, 963 background checks were performed where the applicants name appeared on the national terrorist watch list. Lautenberg’s concern isn’t about these individuals applied for a permit, but that over 90% of the applicants were approved.

The national terrorist watch list, also known as the No Fly List, was created following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The names on the list represent people who are deemed to be aiding in or have participated in terroristic activities. So why would someone on the list be able to obtain a permit? This is where the issue gets cloudy.

The watch list isn’t perfect, and has grown exponentially over the short few years. What started out with just a few hundred names at the end of 2001 has grown to over 500,000 by some estimated. Additionally, there has been a series of obvious “false positives” on the list, where innocent people have been identified as a security risk. One of the false positives was sitting Senator Ted Kennedy. In 2004, he complained to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge about being delayed due to his name showing up on the list. A few other sitting and former politicians as well as celebrities have found themselves in similar positions.

So what action, if any, should be taken on this issue? Personally, I think the background system should not include screening against the terror watch list as a prerequisite to obtaining a permit. Unlike the search of a person’s criminal background based on their social security number, the risk of an innocent person being denied the right to practice their Second Amendment right due to the fact their name might match up with an alias of another person is too great to be used as a practical screening process. Additionally, even if the person is rightfully suspected of having dealings with terrorists, if the person hasn’t broken the law, they should not be denied. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the corner stone of our legal system

Related articles:
The Washington Independent - “Gun Lobby Questions Accuracy of Terrorist Watch List”
CNN - “People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns”
Associated Press - “More than 800 gun buyers on terrorist watch list”
Google News - “People on ‘terror watch’ list able to buy guns: US”

I want to pose to you three different cases of violence that have occurred in the past two weeks, and I would like you to tell me if they are acts of domestic terrorism, hate crimes, or something else. After describing the incidents, I will give you my opinion, but I want to hear from you. Your responses will highlight a conclusion I want to make in my next post on the subject.

The cases that I will cover all involve a shooting that resulted in death, a highly public location, and the capture of the assailant. If you haven’t guess which news stories I am talking about, they are the killing of George Tiller (the late-term abortion doctor), William Long (the Private killed in front of a recruiting center), and Steven T. Johns (the security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum). Before we delve into the cases, let us first cover what qualifies as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime.

According to the USA Patriot Act, Domestic Terrorism is defined as follows:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED.—Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
…‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—
……‘‘(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.’’.

According to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, hate crimes are defined as:

(b)(1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.

With those two terms defined, let us review the cases:

1) George Tiller: Mr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors in the United States perform controversial late-term abortions. For years he was the focus of anti-abortion groups, often finding his clinic being blocked by protestors that would try to keep him and his patients out of the building. Two weeks ago, Scott Roeder entered the church Tiller attended and gunned him down. He was captured later on after fleeing the scene.

2) William Long: Army Privates William Long and Quinton Ezeagwula were outside of an Army Recruiting Center in Arkansas when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (formerly Carlos Leon Bledsoe) pulled into the parking lot and shot both men. Long died from a single bullet wound, while Ezeagwula survived despite being shot three times. Muhammad was captured later on with a vehicle full of weapons and ammunition.

3) Steven T. Johns: Working the front entrance to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, security guard Steven T. Johns was shot by James von Brunn. Johns opened the door for the elderly von Brunn when he was shot in the chest. Two other security guards quickly drew their weapons and shot von Brunn multiple times before he had a chance to kill anyone else.

My opinions:

1) George Tiller: In this case, Roeder’s act does not meet the qualifications of a hate crime, since Tiller was targeted over his abortion practices. On the other hand, it could be considered an act of domestic terrorism since it could be argued that Tiller’s graphic death would “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” If women were now fearful of obtaining a late-term abortion due to the risk of someone murdering, then Roeder’s actions would qualify the requirement in that sense.

2) William Long: While Muhammad’s actions were based upon his religious beliefs, Long and Ezeagwula were not targeted for their own religious beliefs but rather their uniform. With that being the case, I would say this doesn’t qualify as a hate crime either, even though the two Privates represented an institution that was targeted. It could be argued that Muhammad’s act is a case of domestic terrorism on the grounds that he wanted “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” through the targeted killing of uniformed service men and women.

3) Steven T. Johns: The intent of the actions by von Brunn meets the classical definitions of a hate crime. He went to the Holocaust Museum because of what the facility represented - a memorial to the Jewish people systematically murdered during World War II by Nazi Germany. However, it could be argued as not being a hate crime since Johns, a black man, might not have been the intended target. While I don’t think that argument would convince a jury, it is a plausible position to base a defense on.

In summary, like I said after the killing of Tiller, murder is never the answer. All you are doing is proving the position and ideology of the victim to be the correct one, while discrediting yourself and your message in the same process. I am hopeful that this rash of extreme ideological violence passes soon, rather than the start of a very ugly age in the Chapter of American history.

Related articles:
Yahoo News - “For accused museum shooter, a downward spiral”
The Arkansas Leader - “Private still hurting after terror attack”
Arkansas Democrat Gazette - “Family praises slain GI, calling him soldier, hero”
The Washington Post - “Family of Slain Doctor Shutters Abortion Clinic”