SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA: NOT A COMMON CRIME, IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT

SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA: NOT A COMMON CRIME, IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT

THE TEA PARTY and SLAUGHTER in ARIZONA. ARMED CONSPIRACY IN ACTION? P1
Hugo Adam, January 17, 2011
Part 1

Key quotation
"There is not a social event without a system to which it belongs to. In the theory of autopoiesis, everything that exists must be redirected to the operation of any system. Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence " Niklas Luhmann, quoted by Giancarlo Corsi, Elena Esposito and Claudio Baraldi in" On Luhmann's Social Theory, " 2007.

1. Thesis to be developed

In a violent system, a shooter who kills several people is a casual thing, an accident, something that happens by chance, or an act of god, like the death of someone hit by a lightning during storm time. What would be impossible to happens is a lightning under clear blue sky and much more improbable to hear saying that it was that lightning the death-cause of someone. I’m saying this because the focus of the mass media attention was on the shooter (depicted as mentally insane with the intention of cover up the fact that the shooting was an act politically motivated). The mass media focus should be on the social context, if finally they adopt systems analysis to understand and make comments on this type of phenomena. The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system we live in, that’s the storm of violence that gives context to crimes. The law enforcement does not solve the underlying problem, it would only serve to test whether or not the legal system is functional. And if not functional, the impunity of this crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. Applying the maximum sentence to the shooter and other stakeholders involved, won’t alter much the context of violence that created the massacre. Nor it serve the purpose of preventing the existence of new shooters ,and much less it would serve the purpose of repairing the damages caused, it maybe serve the purpose of saying that there are laws. No doubt it is important to have them. That should not be news. It is common sense. The application of existing laws is what matters. HAZ January 17, 1911

2. Top guiding principle for tackling terrorism in Arizona

Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence “ Luhmann

Meaning:

The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system that gave us context. NOT condemning the crime is an open invitation to more crimes and conclusive evidence that Laws do not work and that we're on the brink of total chaos.

3. General proceeding:

In Part 1. I will develop the hypothesis that the crime of Arizona was a terrorist act. In Part 2. I will state why the terrorists of Arizona, direct and indirect actors, deserve the application of the so called anti-terrorist laws.

4. The SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA was NOT A COMMON CRIME , IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT

Existing legislation and the official definition of Terrorism (State Department and CIA, see part 2) perfectly applies to the massacre of Arizona. The definition of terrorism includes four components:

a. It is premeditated-planned act in advance, Rather Than an impulsive act of rage.
b. It is Politically motivated, Not only criminal, but designed to change the Political Existing order.
c. It is Aimed at Civilians-not at military targets or combat-ready Troops.
d. It is carried out by sub national groups-not by the army of a country.

5. Direct and indirect actors. According to this and other official definitions of terrorism (see part 2) is possible to distinguish between direct and indirect actors to be investigated:

Possible Direct actors:

a. Jesse Kelly, ex-marine sargent who was defeated in the electoral contest in Arizona and show up during the campaign with an assault rifle M16 inviting the electorate to unloaded their magazines.
b. Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, possible Tea Party zealot who took the invitation of Jesse Kelly to unload his magazine.
c. Sara Palin, the Tea Party leader who sign up and sponsor the above invitation in her web site “Take Back the 20″ in which one victim of the shooting, the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was market among the 20 under the site of a rifle. National press said that she funded the candidacy of Jesse Kelly.
d. Jan Brewer, the racist governor of Arizona who poison the political environment by enacting the May 2010 legislation against Mexican immigrants and became radical enemy of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll (assesinated) and the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for opposing such rule.

Possible Indirect actors to be investigated:

a. Managers and lobbyist from Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical Corporation that fund the Tea Party before and after the elections.
b. Local official in charge of the implementation of the racist decrees of the governor Jan Brewer, especially those who where active members of the Tea Party.

6. Part 1: objective and proceeding

By applying the above definition of terrorism to the Arizona massacre I will show that the slaughter was a premeditated, politically motivated act, aimed at hurting civilians to prevent further advances of a the contending political cause. It is at the discretion of an independent committee to investigate the relations between Tea Party leaders and their financiers in all what connect them to the massacre (and the nexus of other potential actors as well). It is also up to an independent Forensic specialist to determine the size, similarity and trajectory of the bullets downloaded in the area of the crime . These studies will serve the purpose of indicating whether or not there were more than one shooter or the existence of armed groups behind the scenes of this massacre.

7. Here my arguments and rationality

A) The crime of Arizona was a logical consequence of the invitation from a marine-Tea Party candidate, to download a m16 against political rivals. This was an open apology to terrorism.

B) This invitation was reinforced by the image that Sarah Palin showed the mass media of its political objectives in the race, marking them with the sights of a rifle. The message was clear: change the existing political order by any means.

C) The use of vitriolic political speech was loaded -in the case of the Tea Party- with criminal intent ion. The aggressive language was used not to compete as usual but to eliminate physically to political rivals. The fact that Gabrielle Giffords received direct threats before the attack in January 8 confirmed such intentions. (Hence the immediate response from his father when was asked if he suspected of some enemies interested in silenced her) . That plus the fact that the Tea Party was defeated in the election in which they invest unusual sums of money indicate that was an “criminal retaliation” pending on. This is related to the political matters discussed as hot issues in Arizona (health and migration). The fact is that those issues still remain to be defined in the coming congressional debates in which the vote of Gabrielle Giffords is crucial. This is the main reason why the Tea Party wanted to remove her and the judge from the political scene.

D) The direct and indirect actors of the crime were perfectly aware of the effects that would bring the "apology" to terrorism (if loaded black clouds are in the sky, driven by strong winds, it is logical to predict that it will rain). Arizona's crime was therefore calculated by those who manage and finance the Tea Party. This is especially the case here if one considers the context of violence that precedes the crime and especially the fact that in Arizona even mentally insane person can easily get access to firearms. If an adult in his senses put a loaded weapon at the disposal of a child, he can not only be legally indicted but also put inside prison until his accomplice-degree is cleared. This is also the case here, if we have real existing Laws.

E) This was a massacre invited to happen and perfectly planned. The conclusive evidence in this regard is the fact that the terrorist attack targeted a specific sector of the civilian population, the adherents of the political message of congressional Gabrielle Giffords and the judge murdered. This means that the shooter was informed in advance of the public meetings convened by Gabrielle Giffords. It is not the case of one insane passing by chance during the meeting and opened fire at random. The intention to terrorize the civilian supporters of a political leader is perfectly clear. Even if those involved as indirect actors manage to delete all evidence of the link between the shooter and the Tea Party, those facts are conclusive (shooter pre-informed, combination of selected target and randomness against adherents of a political cause). These facts show a criminal planned act not only against Gabi and the Judge, but the intention to stop support for political cause: the health system reform and the rejection of anti-constitution laws against illegal migrants (physical abused and denigration of Mexican migrants in the worst language in Arizona).

F) It is possible that in addition to those directly involved in the crime (the shooter, the marine and Sara Palin) those who found the Tea Party are also involved. Since this is a case of terrorism, an investigation on E-mails, phone conversations and high-tech-internet devises may help a lot on this purpose. The hypothesis of indirect actors in the massacre raises two questions at the start: 1) "The Health industry managers and lobbyist and those similars related to Insurance and pharmaceutical corporation funded the Tea Party before and after the election results, yes or not. 2) Who were those zealots in the Tea Party that belongs to institutions responsible for anti-immigrant laws suspected of belonging also to clandestine armed groups?. To rule out the hypothesis of the existence of illegal armed groups inside the Tea Party an independent special team has to be set. ABCD facts above indicate that there were more than one actor behind the "disguised" apology for terrorism. It is also clear that those who participated as direct and indirect actors, acted under the guided principle that "the end justifies the means" , the cornerstone in any terrorist act. The no condemnation of this terrorist crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. We all have to avoid it.

PART 2. DEFINING TERRORISM and RECENT AMMENDS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.