In an act that has been called "an intentional assault on a U.S. government institution," Joseph Andrew Stack, age 53, intentionally crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas. The attack resulted in 13 injuries and 2 fatalities (including Stack). While the U.S. government has shied away from labeling the incident as an act of terror and has called it an "isolated incident," the tragedy and seriousness of the situation remains. While Stack's motives are, as of now, still unclear, he reportedly posted a "manifesto" on his website outlining his fury towards the IRS. On his website, he reportedly claimed that violence "is the only answer."
Stack was clearly very desperate and not in his right mind. It is truly saddening that he resorted to violence. My heart goes out to the people who were injured and the family of the IRS employee that was killed.
3 comments:
So ... if he survived, would he be tried in a civil or military court?
Here's why I ask ...
In my opinion, you're an enemy of the state or an enemy combatant, which are both relatively identical, fundamentally, to a POW, if you commit murder or you posses the intent to commit murder. Why? You're violating the Constitution, not mentioning other more ... obvious Texts. To violate the Constitution is to ... yeah I don't need to explain that.
My point being, if you can be considered an enemy of the state or an enemy combatant, then you should be tried in a military court. Why a military court? Well, who protects the people? And yes, the government is essentially the military, due to the funding the government provides for it. Were the people's lives endangered or threatened? Therefore, it is the military's duty to uphold the law and try convicts in a military court.
However, this is where people may get confused regarding my position. I am absolutely for military trials of murder-minded convicts, or terrorists, specifically the Underwear bomber. However, civil courts' conviction rates are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than military courts'. Why am I attacking my own argument? Simply because principle defines everything I abide by and because I'm about to present another argument.
What is the potentially most dangerous, troublesome, harshest crime a person a commit? The law says: murder. I beg to differ, but that's another story for a different time. If these particular crimes, the highest labeled crimes, are being tried in civil courts, and as a result yield the most conviction rates from terrorists, kamikazes, or other any other murderers and what have you, then there simply is no need for a military court.
WHAT!!?!??!?!
Yes, that's what I said. "Well military courts try cases that occur only in the military." Are we trying to "match up" cases with their places of original occurence or are we using hypothetical, ethical judgment?
In a nutshell, the ends ABSOLUTELY justify the means, regardless of how pretty it looks, or who's in charge.
What did I type this? This post reminded me of an argument I had with my dad last night, that's all :)
This is obviously very saddening, and I'm pretty surprised that it hasn't been broadcasted more.
I'm curious to see what his motive was, if they discover it.
2 fatalities are 2 too many, but I think we should be thankful that he wasn't able to kill any more people.
Dang, I just heard this story from someone a few hours ago. Apparently, this guy also burned down his house. He told his wife and child to go get take-out or some errand like that, and burned down his house. I feel really sorry for the family that he left behind to do this crazy task. However, I don't understand how he can be low on money (assuming, since he attacked the IRS) and still afford a plane. Well, this just shows you what desperation can do to people.
-Henry Zhang
Post a Comment