The Beltway sniper is a terrorist

From the start of the Beltway Sniper’s killing spree, the police response has been bumbling (similar to the Washington, D.C. police handling of the Chandra Levy death) and the media’s coverage strangely out of focus. Now Christopher Ruddy makes sense of why both these things have been so. On one hand, the decision was made to place the investigation of these extraordinary—and interstate—crimes under the control of local police, rather than the F.B.I.; at the same time, police officials have failed to acknowledge the likelihood that the killings are the work of terrorists. To me, it seems evident that the cool, systematic, yet random way the killer (or killers) has gone about his business is the sign not of serial murder but of terrorism. Moreover, the social result of the killings—paralysis and demoralization of an entire community—is identical to that of a terrorist attack.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 18, 2002 02:22 PM | Send

My sister points out that “Mr. Policeman” (as in “Mr. Policeman, I am God”) is not colloquial American English but is the way you’d say it in a number of foreign languages.

Posted by: Jim Kalb on October 18, 2002 6:09 PM

I agree that the snipers are most likely a terrorist cell. It is entriely possible that the reason this is being downplayed is that the Bush administration is fearful that its open borders policy could be derailed by an angry public demanding that our borders be guarded to prevent groups such as these from entering the country.

Posted by: Carl on October 18, 2002 7:39 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):