I find it interesting how most people are calling the events of April eleventh in Boston an act of "terrorism." If indeed it was an act of terrorism, then why are we not calling what happened in Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Tucson, Arizona and Columbine High School in suburban Denver, Colorado acts of terrorism? Those are just a few of the mass murders we have had in the United States these past fifteen years.
We do refer to what Timothy McVeigh did to the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as an act of domestic terrorism. But, have you ever heard what David Koresh and the Branch Davidian did in Waco, Texas as an act of terrorism?
As the FBI and other authorities piece together a case for what they believe happened in Boston during the marathon, their only surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, an American citizen, was officially charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill.
According to CBS News, a magistrate judge went to nineteen-year-old Tsarnaev's hospital room to conduct the original appearance. According to the article I got this information from, Tsarnaev is awake and responding to questions. You can read the complete article and see a video by clicking here.
From the other articles I have read, and the rest of this article, it seems to me the major difference in calling this an act of terrorism versus a lone gunman killing twenty-six people in an elementary school is the perpetrators religion. Is that the case in the United States today? Do we distinguish our extreme acts of violence based on extremists from any religion?
If we do, shame on us. If we do not, what is it that distinguishes an act of terrorism versus an extreme act of violence? I would like to know what our forefathers who wrote the Constitution would think of how we interpret that phrase, "freedom of religion" today.
I believe that was the whole purpose of putting that phrase in there. We should all have the right to practice whatever religion we want to, or practice no religion at all. I believe that is what the signers had in mind when they formed our country.
I do not know enough about what these two brothers did to pass judgment yet. There are many people in the court of public opinion who already have them tried, found guilty and locked away or in line for the death penalty, simply because of what we are finding in these first few days. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty in the United States? I thought that was in the Constitution too. From the preponderance of evidence they arty have against the accused, I tend to believe he is probably guilty. But I want to know more facts about why this happened and if he is guilty, are there any more conspirators involved?
Before we pass judgment, we should at least give him his day in court. I believe the writers of the Constitution would agree with me.
I look forward to your comments.