Everyone seems shocked at this. I personally felt a lot less shocked and more like I’d been waiting for this shoe to drop for 20 years. I’ve been waiting for people to notice the tools of the Iraq War being turned against American citizens for over a decade now.
I spent the better part of 2001 and on arguing against the PATRIOT Act and its codification of terrorism as a crime. Lots of people were against it (we were in the minority, obviously), pointing out how the PATRIOT Act would consider the Founding Fathers terrorists. They committed violence to achieve political ends.
Did everyone just forget that at one point there was actually a nascent conversation on why this was a bad idea, especially considering people warning that they would soon use these laws against their own citizens?
Why did these conversations stop? More importantly, now that Mangione is being charged with terrorism, why aren’t the conversations beginning anew?
Interesting question, feel free to crosspost to !AskUSA@discuss.online
Because a large portion of people are struggling and just don’t have the energy, time, or spirit to really devote to something that doesn’t affect their day-to-day rn. It’s not an excuse for them, it’s just a reality. It’s hard to stay informed when you have to constantly worry about how you balance work, sleep, bills, and food
did everyone just forget
Yes. The American populace has very low political IQ, a short memory, and is very emotional. 2001 was 23 years ago, entire people were conceived, raised, and voted in that time. You have to understand that the majority of control of this country is decided on whims, opinions, and gas prices
Why aren’t the conversations beginning anew?
America doesn’t know how to discuss politics. We understand sports and can talk about politics as if they were sports, but we won’t learn a lesson until there are opposing troops on our doorstep (and honestly, I don’t think we will then)
Not only America at this point
Well as an American, I only feel comfortable discussing our problems. I fully believe other countries have their share of idiots
I think it’s important to break down what he’s actually being charged with, and note he’s not being charged with any federal offense under any federal anti-terrorism laws. The PATRIOT Act does not apply here.
What he’s been charged with are first degree murder and second degree murder under the laws of New York State. First degree murder in New York only applies to several very specific circumstances, and the only one of those even remotely related to what Luigi Mangione did is:
the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism, as defined in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section 490.05 of this chapter
Which is defined as:
(b) for purposes of subparagraph (xiii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.27 of this chapter means activities that involve a violent act or acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of this state and are intended to:
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
The reality is the prosecutors want to be able to get him with first degree murder, but the likelihood of that sticking, I believe, is really low. I think they believe that too, which is why he’s also charged with second degree murder. Second degree murder in this case seems like a slam dunk, whereas “charged him with terrorism” makes for flashy headlines but is just not likely to go anywhere based on what’s publicly known in this case.
Second degree murder would be a slam dunk if Luigi was the shooter and they didn’t plant the gun and manifesto on him
I admire your spirit
I think, it’s because this case is so big, that the amount of people talking about can’t really increase, but also there’s so much more to the case than this aspect. Which makes it difficult to focus conversation on this.
I also wanna say that it makes sense for him to get charged, even though a lot of people don’t like it. Killing another human is an issue no matter what it is. And just because we think this crime stands for something bigger, that doesn’t justify the killing in the first place. It’s just shades of immorality.
That said, healthcare is a huge issue and I hope this changes things finally. I also don’t agree with the charging of terrorism, as it says “terrorism” in it, and even though there’s a small chance it fulfills the requirements, I have no angle to personally view this as terrorism.
Does it instill terror? Everyone gets scared when someone is killed, but this does not exceed it to the point that there is now a present danger. There’s no furtherance to the terror, only vigilance in the crime.
Some lawyers even argue this is a pile-on to the charges, which might be the case, although I’m not an expert.
But I do think it’s gonna be hard to prove the terrorism as opposed to everything else. Truly, the only threat to the prosecution of the other counts is jury nullification, which poses completely different risks.
But that’s a story for another day.
Killing another human is an issue no matter what it is.
Killing a healthcare CEO is no different than killing a mass shooter. In fact it’s better, judging by the number of people each harms.
I also wanna say that it makes sense for him to get charged, even though a lot of people don’t like it. Killing another human is an issue no matter what it is. And just because we think this crime stands for something bigger, that doesn’t justify the killing in the first place. It’s just shades of immorality.
It makes sense, from the perspective of the legal system and of liberalism as an ideology. But I disagree with the claims after. Justification and ideas of morality are highly subjective, that’s why we have philosophical thought experiments like the trolley problem. There are plenty of mainstream moral frameworks that consider the killing of that CEO to be morally justified, just as there are ones that don’t. But ultimately, hard idealistic moral stances like ‘killing another human is always immoral’ just aren’t a useful approach to apply to the real world, it’s flaws and its constraints. Sometimes there just aren’t other viable options which won’t just cause more people to die.
I mean considering law is the practical application of a moral construct, and this moral construct is mostly agreed upon, I would not wanna question the laws that make killings a crime for example, although there is obviously nuance.
I understand that some people think “there can be a justification for a killing” but I would always say, if we justify some killings, there is always a chance people will abuse this “loophole” for crime we created. So saying all killings are illegal is kind of the best application of our morals we have. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to include every little nuance and detail in the moral system we base our laws upon, but that’s why our laws are not absolutely rigid, and our moral systems are bound to change inherently.
I get it, it feels wrong, I really do. But there can be both. I can both say that even a CEO shouldn’t be killed, and at the same time acknowledge that there is good reasons and something like that was inevitable given the status quo.
I would always say, if we justify some killings, there is always a chance people will abuse this “loophole” for crime we created.
Oh you mean how UHC uses that loophole to kill people with social murder, and our moral system doesn’t consider it a crime because they didn’t directly stab someone to death, but instead purposefully denied them care that they had paid for by paying for insurance, leaving them to die.
So saying all killings are illegal is kind of the best application of our morals we have.
Except, we clearly don’t say all killings are illegal, as evidenced by what I just discussed. We have clearly made the choice that social murder though things like denying healthcare or denying housing and pushing people into the frozen deadly streets of winter are totes okay. That’s literally what’s at issue here, is that a whole swath of killings are allowed, and not just allowed, but are allowed to be profited from, and handsomely. Which is far darker and worse, imho.
Genuinely, it’s easy to say that we have banned all killings, but we clearly haven’t. Cops even have qualified immunity to murder with impunity. We have the largest military in the world, and we’ve been known as the violent “World Police” that will bomb your country to the fucking stone age. Those deaths and that violence is normalized. That’s why they say “the state has a monopoly on violence.”
A hung jury just allows the prosecution to retry him
It’s up to the prosecutor if it’s worth the expense or not.
State media (which are largely controlled by the capitalist class), corporate media (which are owned by the capitalist class), and most NGO media (which are funded by the capitalist class) aren’t going to talk about it. One should assume that corporate social media will algorithmically de-prioritize it.
We’ve talked about it here, though: Luigi Mangione charged with killing UnitedHealthcare CEO as an act of terrorism
That makes perfect sense.
- The murder of a CEO terrifies the bourgeoisie.
- The state serves the will of the bourgeoisie.
- The state charges the alleged murderer with terrorism.
People often don’t believe what their livelihood depends on them not believing.
Why did these conversations stop?
it’s still going strong in other instances; it sounds like you’re on the wrong one.
I’ve seen tons of discussion around Luigi, almost zero about the history of what lead to this in regards to the War on Terror and earlier anti-terrorism efforts. When the FBI stopped being about catching high-level criminals and became almost exclusively focused on counter-terrorism.
Circlejerking around one guy isn’t necessarily the same as having more complex discussions on how we even came to this point and why. Someone else here even linked to a thread saying “we’ve talked about it before” and yet the thread had zero substantive discussion around such issues, rather just more circlejerking Luigi.
But I guess contextualizing and synthesizing the history of the US is too much to ask for from most of its citizens.
you have to create the engagement that you want to see on lemmy and effort posts & comments on terrorism and how it applies to this situation is going to require an audience that doesn’t fit in well with any “general interest” instance like the one you’re commenting from.
lemmy was meant to be political since its inception and; in your shoes; i would take advantage of that fact to engage on this topic in one of the original political instances since their communities are already inclined to such a discourse as evidenced by the example @davel shared.
the palestine community is really active and i’m have no doubt that they would have interesting perspectives on the west’s War on Terror and earlier anti-terrorism efforts as it pertains to current events induced by the same common imperialistic hegemony that has been fucking over their lives more than it has been fucking up american lives (esp healthcare). now that our government is treating luigi with the same terrorist charge that they’ve levied against palestinian leaders; there’s a commonality that can be explored that won’t happen on a general interest instance.
I see several relevant posts in the past week: https://lemmy.ml/search?type=Posts&listingType=All&sort=TopWeek&q=terrorism
other instances besides blahaj; the “general interest” ones are getting bored w luigi already.
Its the propagandosphere that you burguerlanders live in, it doesnt let people see shit clearly
