The unequal treatment of two religiously motivated crimes

[vow66]

For two recent crimes, a Muslim, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is charged with terrorism and murder. In a similar case, a Christian, Scott Roeder, is charged with murder but not terrorism. Yet, there are ample indications that both sought to influence government policy.

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/3110/

Two men, one Christian and the other Muslim, commit murder just one day apart in the United States. Both appear to have been motivated by their religious beliefs. The Christian murderer is Scott Roeder and his victim is Dr. George Tiller, a physician from Wichita, KS who performed late term abortions. The Muslim murderer is Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad and his victims are Pvt. William Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula who were new U.S. Army recruiters.

These two murder cases expose the media’s and our legal system’s bias against Muslims. Both crimes seem to fit the definition of terrorism motivated by religious extremism. The media and the legal system, however, are treating these alleged murderers and their crimes very differently.

The Muslim murder suspect, Mr. Muhammad, is charged with terrorism along with first degree murder. Mr. Muhammad’s faith has been front and center from the very earliest news reports. The American-Muslim community’s almost immediate repudiation of Mr. Muhammad’s murder was and still is largely ignored.

On the other hand, the Christian murder suspect, Mr. Roeder, is not being charged with terrorism. His faith has not been the focus of news reports even though there seems to be ample evidence to suggest that Mr. Roeder espouses extreme, right-wing Christian beliefs. And lastly, the media is giving anti-abortion groups ample opportunity to distance themselves from the murderous actions of one of their own.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. They BOTH absolutely fit terrorism. Political motivations is what makes murder terrorism.

Its like with hate crimes, if the intent was to terrorize a GROUP of people with the crime, to change behaviour, that's a hate crime. Terrorism is the exact same creature, they don't like US policy on something so they murder without the intent of just killing the victims, but terrorizing living people who witness the crime as well. In this case, the targeted group was abortion doctors and the and the goal was to prevent them from legally operating in the US, which they are entitled to do.

[Ian David]

2. Wow! Who didn't see THAT coming!

49. Told you so. All you had to do was wait for it, Noob.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3903171&mesg_id=3917093

[caseymoz]

3. What if Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad told the press he knew there would be other attacks

. . . like Roeder did? Could you imagine.

[JonQ]

4. A few problems with that analysis

namely that the two situations were not identical (save for religion) so they fail at direct comparison.

First off they occurred in two different states. And right now they are only being charged at a state, not federal level. And do to this little thing called federalism different states have slightly different laws and enforce them different. Terrorism is defined looser in Arkansas (where Abdulhakim was) than they are in Kansas (the Tiller murder). You could make a good argument for greater uniformity of law enforcement across state lines from this, but immediately assuming a vast conspiracy against muslims is a bit premature. And of course if the feds get involved and charge one but not the other then we should reexamine the argument, but as of this writting that hasn't happened.

Second Roeder seems to have been fixated on this one guy. He killed Tiller then stopped and showed no indication of further violence. Abdulhakim on the other hand was planning a spree. Police found a number of other weapons in his truck, including over 500 rounds of ammo, 3 guns, and some molotov cocktails. None of that screams "I'm here to kill just one person then call it quits". He also expressed his desire to further kill US servicemen and women. So Roeder seems to have picked one person to assassinate for political reasons, Abdulhakim was picking randomly from an entire organization. Doesn't make much difference to the individuals killed but legally it may prove to be relevent.

Third, treatment of people who killed uniformed representatives of the state tend to be treated differently than those who kill private citizens. When we get down to it Dr. Tiller was a private citizen, and thus his murder is treated different than the murder of Private Long.

[CJCRANE]

5. "The term "terror" is largely used to indicate...violence that targets civilians

and generates public fear".

[JonQ]

6. But this article isn't about the general public use of the word

it's about specifically the legal definition. Which is defined differently in different places.

Personally I call both of them terrorists. I also don't consider jaywalking much to really be a crime. For me those definitions are fine as I'm applying my own criteria. Legally though that assessment has no bearing.