re: #733 keithgabryelski

and they were wrong.

That really is what this comes down to, right? we disagree that criminals should be prosecuted or even classified as criminals.

Exactly - one side views this as a criminal matter, the other as a warfare/national security matter. Neither side denies that there are elements of truth in the opposing viewpoint (I do not deny that their actions constituted crimes, nor do I think anyone doubts that these acts were part of a campaign of warfare and related to national security matters), it’s a question of emphasis.

I emphasize the warfare/national security aspects of it, as those appear to me to be primary factors motivating the actions. That is, they did not conspire to commit the acts they did for conventional criminal motives, or to attain conventional criminal ends. Their express purpose and intent was to cause direct harm to the national security of the United States as part of a campaign of unconventional and unlawful warfare carried out by asymmetrical means. Recognizing this does not diminish or deny the criminality of their acts, but does say that these acts are not primarily criminal.