ollows:
"The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
In this case, "noncombatant" refers to military personnel who are off duty or civilians. That would seem to include Senator Kennedy as a possible target; however, unless one can prove that Sirhan was part of a subnational group (group in this case meaning an organization, not simply being a member of an alienated ethnic or religious group), or a clandestine agent working for another state, Sirhan would not fit the official definition.
Again, I raise this issue not to excuse Sirhan's despicable act, but rather to try to treat in as objective manner as possible the issue of terrorism, about which it is hard for many people to maintain their objectivity.
Mel Ayton - 5/14/2007
If you read my chapter entitled ‘The Unaffiliated Terrorist’ you will be able to understand why his act can be judged as ‘terrorist’ in nature. I make reference to a number of terrorism experts who agree with this characterization.
I think you are correct in saying you are suspicious of eyewitness testimony in events of this kind.There was no real consistency in the eyewitness reports due to the alarming, intense and frenzied nature of the shooting.You are also correct in saying that my approach to some parts of Marcus McBroom's statements were also inconsistent. However, I believe that eyewitness reports can be judged valid and other parts invalid because of the ‘preponderance’ of the evidence which surrounds such an event e.g. witnesses who describe Michael Wayne running out of the pantry with a rolled up poster/newspaper as against those who immediately jumped to conclusions that it was the ‘second gunman’. No one is ever consistent in accounts of this kind but that doesn’t mean that everything they say should be immediately rejected, at least not without some kind of comparative analysis with other parts of the evidence.
As a rule I believe that statements made at the time of the event are more credible than statements made years later when memory has faded or some witnesses have been susceptible to solicitations from conspiracy writers.
Leonard Robinson - 5/12/2007
I agree with your conclusion that Sirhan acted alone, although I believe he clearly should be classified as an assassin rather than as a terrorist (based on the State Department's definition of terrorism).
However, I find it a bit disconcerting that you seem to be rather selective and inconsistent in your willingness to depend on (or conversly criticize) eyewitness testimony to back up your arguments. In our earlier discourse on the acoustic evidence, you cited Dr. McBroom as a witness to bolster an argument you were making; now in this article you discredit him. In fact, as I stated during that earlier exchange, I am always at least somewhat suspicious of eyewitness testimony, particularly in an event as shocking as this one.
At any rate, it seems to me that your methodology here is inconsistent. For example, using Mr. DiPierro as an example, you discount the testimony he gave at one time, but then fully embrace his later testimony. What is the objective criteria by which you determine which version of his testimony is the correct version? This is a critical issue, because in order for your thesis to rise beyond the normal claptrap that is published on this case, you must employ some method for evaluating contradictory evidence other than simply buying into the versions of things that support your view of what happened that night. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm simply saying that it is not clear from this article that you have such a criteria in place.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 5/12/2007
Bobby Kennedy was a minor figure in American history. His vote totals in the California primary the night he was shot were very disappointing to his supporters, and he wasn't going to get the Democratic nomination. It was a ticket to nowhere, anyway. Nixon and Wallace got about 60% th