Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995


donate.jpg (7556 bytes)
Make a secure online contribution


 

consortiumblog.com
Go to consortiumblog.com to post comments


Follow Us on Twitter


Get email updates:

RSS Feed
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to Google

homeHome
linksLinks
contactContact Us
booksBooks

Order Now


consortiumnews
Archives

Age of Obama
Barack Obama's presidency

Bush End Game
George W. Bush's presidency since 2007

Bush - Second Term
George W. Bush's presidency from 2005-06

Bush - First Term
George W. Bush's presidency, 2000-04

Who Is Bob Gates?
The secret world of Defense Secretary Gates

2004 Campaign
Bush Bests Kerry

Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Gauging Powell's reputation.

The 2000 Campaign
Recounting the controversial campaign.

Media Crisis
Is the national media a danger to democracy?

The Clinton Scandals
Behind President Clinton's impeachment.

Nazi Echo
Pinochet & Other Characters.

The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics.

Contra Crack
Contra drug stories uncovered

Lost History
America's tainted historical record

The October Surprise "X-Files"
The 1980 election scandal exposed.

International
From free trade to the Kosovo crisis.

Other Investigative Stories

Editorials


   

An American Suicide Terrorist?

By William John Cox
January 14, 2011

Editor’s Note: For years, the United States has seen a steady escalation of political rhetoric, angrier and angrier and ever more extreme. Indeed, the bottom line of this devolution in civility has been the bottom line for the leading perpetrators: the more outrageous the rhetoric the more money is made.

When this incendiary rhetoric is mixed with the availability of high-powered weapons and a neglect of mental health, tragedies like the one in Tucson, sadly, should come as no surprise, as William John Cox reflects in this guest essay:

Jared Loughner acted as a domestic suicide terrorist in the political “battleground” of American politics. His YouTube postings and “good-bye” phone messages are ominously reminiscent of the traditional farewell videos of Islamist martyrs.

The deadly combination of suicide terrorists’ mental instability, their political and religious indoctrination, and readily available bomb materials and firearms explode in violence almost every day somewhere in the Middle-East.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that a young schizophrenic American, whose untreated illness is exacerbated by inflamed political rhetoric, easily buys a legally concealed combat handgun and shoots the “target” of the political “speech” under conditions where there is no escape.

As we evaluate the cause and effects of the Tucson murders, assign responsibility and seek solutions, we must continue to uphold the freedom of speech while taking reasonable steps to avoid violent consequences.

Political speech has always been inflammatory in the United States, but perhaps due to the increasing militarization of the nation, politicians and commentators have come to routinely talk about “hunting” and “targeting” political opponents, and stupidly say things like: “never retreat – reload.” 

It is disingenuous to assert such language does not incite violence, and it is naive to believe it is harmless.

As best we can, given the Second Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, we must do everything we can to legally ensure that mentally disturbed people, including those under the influence of highly-charged political speech, cannot purchase, possess, and carry concealed firearms, particularly those with combat capabilities.

It is highly unlikely the narrowly-defined defense of insanity will excuse Loughner from the legal consequences of his acts, nor is it likely that those who recklessly painted a gun-sight crosshair on his intended victim’s district will be held legally responsible under a theory of negligence. 

However, all of us must remember, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords herself said when she learned that she had been targeted on Sarah Palin’s website, “words have consequences.”

While politicians, on both the Right and Left, may not be liable in a court of law for the consequences of their inflammatory words, voters must carefully consider such speech when evaluating the character and reliability of those who seek to influence their vote.

Accountability can be assessed in the polling booth, as well as in the courtroom.

William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist.  His efforts to promote a peaceful political evolution can be found at VotersEvolt.com, his writings are collected at WilliamJohnCox.com and he can be contacted at [email protected].

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.


homeBack to Home Page


 

Consortiumnews.com is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication.

To contribute, click here. To contact CIJ, click here.