-I was writing my previous entry, when a question came to mind:  Why is Carlos Bledsoe (Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad), the man who shot two Army recruiters, killing one, charged with terrorist acts, but not Scott Roeder, the man who killed Dr. Tiller?  To my knowledge, terrorism is not a particularly well defined term, but there are two common elements.  The first is that terrorism is based on ideology, the second is the targetting of civilians.  Let's compare Bledsoe with Roeder.  Both murderers were ideologically based.  Roeder's act was based on the issue of abortion while Bledsoe was based on American foreign policy.  Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller, a civilian, while Bledsoe shot two Army-Navy recruiters, while being based at home, I still consider military personnel and not civilians.

-So here are my questions.  How do we distinguish between criminal acts, hate crimes, and terrorism?  Why is Bledsoe charged with terrorist acts but not Roeder when Roeder fits the definition of terrorism better than Bledsoe?  Is the difference really about civilian vs. government personel and not civilian vs. military/non-civilian?  Even if that is true, shouldn't it be a felony, not terrorism?  Why is Bledsoe's recent conversion to Islam such a highlight?

-I am by no means trying to defend Bledsoe, but I am suggesting that the charges be reasonable and that laws should be clear, even though in this case, they're obviously not.  Terrorism is a hot cognition, it gets everyone excited and think a certain person or group is the epitome of evil, but that is psychologically unfair for the defendant, especially when the lines for terrorism is blurred.  Are we unconsciously saying that when a white Christian murders someone, it's criminal, but when a Muslim murders someone, it's terrorism?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html?iref=newssearch