Techdirt is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 
When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?
from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept
Here’s a little quiz. On the basis of the following information from the Guardian, is the person described a terrorist or not?
A [UK] soldier who wrote of murdering immigrants and who praised Adolf Hitler has been jailed for two years after building a viable nailbomb packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause.
Here’s a clue:
Ryan McGee, 20, described by his defence team as “a bit of a loner”, wrote in a journal: “I vow to drag every last immigrant into the fires of hell with me.”
If you’re still unsure, maybe this will help:
He downloaded a video of two bound and gagged men beneath a swastika flag, one being beheaded and the other killed by a gunshot to the head and went online to tell people to do something if they hated immigration.
Here’s the correct answer, kindly provided by the UK’s prosecution service:
It had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because “it was never McGee?s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device.”
Presumably he built the nailbomb “packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause” purely as an intellectual challenge, or maybe to give to his mother to use as a flower stand. Still, this refusal to prosecute such behavior as “terrorism” is rather curious in an age when so many harmless activities are viewed with suspicion and alarm. A cynic might almost think it had something to do with the race of the person involved.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: hate crimes, law enforcement, ryan mcgee, subjectivity, terrorism, terrorist, uk
Comments on “When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?”
So UK citizens are being told to suffer silently through mass surveillance, “to catch terrorists”…and when one is found, WITH A BOMB ALREADY BUILT…they decide not to prosecute?
*head explodes*
Re: Re:
Just double checked. Fire-arms are heavily restricted in the UK. However, it’s okay for this guy to build and possess nailbombs?
Re: Re:
Hey your exploding head is an act of terrorism!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/28/soldier-jailed-nailbomb-ryan-mcgee-manchester-bomb
Guardian reports that Ryan was jailed for two years for building the nail bomb, but wasn’t charged with terrorism.
Re: Re:
Two years is still a light sentence for someone who is as bent on harming others as Ryan is. Hate to see what happens in two years when he is released.
Cynics
We cynics prefer to be called “realists.”
Re: Cynics
Nah, a realist would say that labeling this soldier a terrorist would reflect badly on their armed forces. In other words, it’s not surprising that their justice system is taking care of ‘one of their own.’
Re: Re: Unthinkable (Cynics)
An AC wote:
Yes, he was saved by his job. There would have been huge political pressure on the CPS from the army and the government. The armed forces represent the last line of defence against terrorists, after the police. No one wants to think there are terrorists in the army. Some of the most disturbing news stories that came out of Afghanistan were where locals carried out insider killings of foreign soldiers and other staff.
The nailbomb is the only actionable offence. Sure, the rest is useful for motive, but if those were the actions of an Islamist fundamentalist minus the nailbomb, Human Rights groups would be up in arms.
I agree with OP that there should be terrorism charges, but not for his beliefs.
Standards in the UK
So journalists are considered terrorists, or at least potential terrorists, and anti-terrorist laws are used against them… but someone who actually builds a bomb and is vocal about how much we wants immigrants dead isn’t?
As if it wasn’t already clear enough that the government considers opposition to it the only ‘real’ form of terrorism it cares about…
(To be clear, I don’t believe he should qualify as a terrorist, but if the government is going to set the bar so incredibly low for people who challenge them or expose their actions, and then refuse to apply it to a nutjob like this, well, that’s just exposing their hypocrisy and ridiculous standards)
Re: Standards in the UK
For the tl;dr
Achievement unlocked: Y’all can’t fuck with the Nazi. Y’all can’t fuck with the Nazi.
(Yes, apparently, Nazi sympathisers have more freedoms than brown people learning.)
/Poe
Re: Standards in the UK
You don’t see it, do you?
The journalists are terrorists because they target the wrongdoings of the government.
This soldier was NOT targetting the government.
Look, it’s not like he did anything REALLY wrong, like expose what the government does without telling the citizens. It’s not like his actions was ever going to make the government look bad in any way; this was clearly the right call.
Re: Re:
Sounds about right.
Yes, a cynical person might indeed try to drag race into this. A more realistic person would likely point out the guy’s occupation.
Re: Re:
What, so if his name was Ahmed Hussain he still wouldn’t have been charged as a terrorist because he was in the army? If he’d stated that his targets were going to be British, he still wouldn’t have been charged as a terrorist?
Sorry, I don’t believe that.
“Prosecutor Roger Smart accepted McGee was not a terrorist but an immature teenager. He kept a journal called Ryan’s Story with Scooby Doo stickers on the front, and inside drawings of guns, machetes, knuckledusters and knives.”
Well, I’m English and I think I agree with this prosecutor, he did not commit Terrorism with a capital T nor promote it. He was just a loser. We all know them (I grew up next door to a kid who did go to prison for being involved in the rioting at the Heysel stadium disaster, he actually partook in the act as opposed to being a big man by speech but not by deed). The T word really should be reserved for those who carry out the acts. Doesn’t the US believe in freedom of speech? Do right-wing paraphernalia (a noose, a hood) automatically justify a T sentence? Use the laws already on the books for inciting or conspiring. T is overused.
“The CPS said it had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because “it was never McGee’s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device. That’s why he was prosecuted under the Explosive Substance Act.””
Fair enough.
Re: Re:
Elementary school kid draws a picture of a bomb: SWAT team sent in to detain the terrorist threat, bomb squad sent in to disarm the drawing of a cartoon bomb.
20-year old man makes an actual bomb, declares he’s going to kill immigrants with it: clearly deserving of freedom of speech, prosecution advocates on his behalf and declares he’s not a terrorist.
Yup, no problems here.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah I see your problem… you are conflating the UK Common sense approach to dealing with minors with the US syste,m of destroying children’s lives because of ‘someone must be punished and blamed’ or other idiotic reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He built. A bomb. A viable, would-have-exploded-and-killed-people bomb. What SHOULD we call it?
Say, wasn’t there a group called the IRA that used to build bombs over there? What if one of those guys had done this?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s a matter of defining terrorism. As I understand it, terrorism is the coordinated use of violence or the threat of violence against persons or property as a means to affect political change. Ryan McGee doesn’t fit that definition because it doesn’t appear he was part of any organized plot. Clearly Ryan McGee was by his one anti-immigrant sentiment, and was inspired to act by the English Defence League. However, that isn’t sufficient to label him a terrorist.
You mention the IRA, and compare them to McGee. The comparison doesn’t work; unlike McGee who apparently acted alone, the IRA is an actual organization with a specific plan to use violence to force the United Kingdom out of Northern Ireland. It’s a very fine distinction to make, but it’s important. If there is evidence indicating McGee was working with others to make and deploy this bomb the source article doesn’t provide it. Absent evidence pointing to his collusion in a larger plot I don’t consider him a terrorist.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“As I understand it, terrorism is the coordinated use of violence or the threat of violence against persons or property as a means to affect political change.”
This.
However, in common parlance “terrorism” seems to be defined as “any act or threat of a violent nature”. In other words, it’s been redefined to mean nothing different from “violent crime”.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But he planned to kill immigrants. Surely the plan was to effect political change by attempting to frighten them away, and to change government policy VIA blowing people up.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
What is the difference between terrorism and violent crime? John Fenderson above is correct; defining any violent act or threat as terrorism makes the term meaningless.
Consider the consequences of defining violent crime as terrorism. In particular the United States government uses drone strikes as a means for eliminating terrorists. Would this be an acceptable way to deal with all violent crime? It’s important to be able to distinguish between terrorism and crime, unfortunately doing so isn’t always easy.
When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?
Easy…
When it is more convenient for the government for them not to be, that’s when.
Edward Snowden, considered terrorist for revealing government corruption and illegal activity.
Dood makes political statements and a pipe-bomb… not a terrorist. Not to mention the Muslim that sawed a woman’s head off at work was classified as workplace violence instead, just like Hassan and that errant grenade was classified as workplace violence at first too.
A terrorist is just government code for people we don’t like and applying that term gives us more excuse to remove liberty unchecked.
Anyone that did not see this coming when they drafted the “terror laws” is a willfully ignorant person.
When he is your freedom fighter.
When is a terrorist not a terrorist?
When it’s the CIA.
Has a friendly ghost
He must have a rich daddy, friend in the admiralty, or a sympathetic politico; or something. Most people, the mere creation of such a device would have been proof of intent.
In Israel ...
… this sort of thing gets you shot as a “terrorist”.
Silly journalist his skin is too light to be a terrorist.
Maybe not so much his race that spared him as his religion (or rather, his lack of a particular religion): if he’d been a Muslim, I think things might have gone differently.
Oh, he's not a terrorist for sure
Haven’t you read carefully? He did not intend to employ the bomb to cause terror among citizens. He was going for immigrants.
It’s not clear to me why he got jail time for that. The obvious choice would have been to give him a government job where he can turn his hobby into a profession, like flying drone attacks on brownfaces or torturing them to death.
It’s Terrorism when you attack the powers that be
It’s not Terrorism when you decide to kill citizens, or the powers that be ,would be Terrorists.