You want to stop terrorists and terrorist attacks?
There is ONE answer that will solve the problem. As usual, it is an answer that the world’s governments do not want the citizens of the world to ever consider, for it would greatly diminish their power and control; whereas, the recent history of countries ‘under attack’ prove that the governments use these ‘attacks’ to strip away the rights of law-abiding citizens and to increase their power and control over the citizens.
At the beginning of the 20th century, much earlier actually, as a very basic starting point, all democratic, ‘free’ nations had laws in place for crimes committed by one ‘citizen’ against the rights and property and life of any other ‘citizen’. These laws included, theft, assault, battery, rape, extortion, kidnapping/abduction/imprisonment, manslaughter, and murder. For the most part, prior to the 20th century, a person was tried for their actions; while their motive might be introduced in the trial, in order to show why a person would commit the crime, especially if the case was built mostly on circumstantial evidence, the real focus was on the what and not the why of the case. However, as lawyers, along with most everyone else, wanted to be rich and famous, trials began to take on a sensational drama that shifted the courts from systems of justices to game rooms of power between the political wannabees and the salacious immoral actors that thought themselves above the law. This shift left the regular man without any protection or recourse under the law.
One of the results of this shift was the desire of politicians to ‘prove’ to their unprotected citizens, the desire of the government to protect them with the ‘invention’ of ‘extra crimes’. Now, crimes could be more glamorous, more sensational, more dramatic, creating more fame and fortune for the ‘officers of the court’ carrying out the power games. This also, reduced other crimes to being so mundane and ‘regular’ as to not warrant sufficient attention from those same ‘officers of the court’; why should it, what was their benefit for just a typical run of the mill crime. Who wins elections for doing their job honestly and fairly and to the best of their ability? No One! Who gets their face on TV for finding and prosecuting the ‘John’ that rapes and murders the prostitute? No One! Who gains richer clients if they properly insure that a guilty client is treated fairly and justly, but is still responsible and accountable for their crime? No One!
So now we have “hate” crimes and “terror” crimes and even hate and terror are crimes, when did emotions become crimes? Where is the common sense in this? When did crime become an act of love and grace, so that we now need to know when it was committed based on hate and terror? Why do we need to add ‘special dramatic words’ to crimes for them to matter?
The injury or loss of a life is still an injury or loss no matter why it was inflicted. The argument would be to give harsher sentences for those crimes committed as acts of ‘hate’ or ‘terror’. But that is not accurate, that is a lie by the politic to provide election slogans and TV sound bites. It is pure simple personal promotion.
One of the most common appeals of hate and terrorism to ‘new recruits’ is the sense of belonging and the sense of ‘being someone’. It is a way to ‘count’ to get to be ‘famous’. And the politic of the justice system created this appeal with their own self-desire to have the same thing as these ‘criminals’ they so publicly decry.
Everyone wants to be someone, that is nothing new; however, what is new is who the media and by default the public thinks is someone. Being someone is no longer about doing right or good in the world or making the world a better place or serving your fellow man with honor and integrity; it is all about being famous and getting rich. We have totally lost the original meaning of both words; famous is more commonly renown or notorious, which are not positives and rich, being only a material construct.
Thus, it was the introduction of the words ‘hate’ and ‘terror’ into the justice system that created the dramatic increase in these types of crimes and it is their removal that can initiate the greatest decrease in the committing of these crimes as well. How? You may ask.
If a person harms another solely out of hate, prosecute them solely for their acts. Do not give them a stage for their glory! Do not give them a pulpit for their dogma! Do not give them catchy ‘titles’ that immortalize them! Do not use their name in your sound bites so they gain fame! The Judge already with the simple laws has the means by which to mete out the full sentence for their conviction.
If a person harms another solely for terrorism, prosecute them solely for the real crimes they committed. Do not name them part of a group and give them or their ‘group’ status! Do not name their cause, thus giving it credit! Do not use the word terrorism so they gain power! Do not identify their religion or ethnicity to draw ‘special’ attention! Again the Judge already has the means by which to mete out full sentence for their crimes and that is what should be meted out; nothing more and nothing less!
When you stop using the words ‘hate’ and ‘terrorism’ the ‘thrill’ and ‘fame’ and appeal of the ‘group’ will greatly diminish. In today’s world, very few are going to just anonymously sacrifice their lives for a cause that will get them nothing in the end!