• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Liberian Ebola patient in Texas to be sued

Sunni and Shia

I Got Sand Babe
Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
994
Reaction score
0
First man diagnosed with Ebola in the us, liberian citizen will be sued by the country of Liberia upon his return.

On the preflight questionnaire he lied that he hadn't "cared for any Ebola patients" recently. Now we've learned he carted an Ebola patient to the hospital in a fucking WHEELBARROW just before flying to Texas...

Health workers have identified and are monitoring 100 people he's come into contact with since being in the country including his 5 young children and his partner who lives here.

Now I know "terrorism" has become an overused farcical term since 2001 but surely in this case he could be charged with it?
 
Considering he knew he was infected I really think you could make a terrorism charge stick. I imagine he may have known he would get the best possible care in the US and said to hell with those he could possibly infect, but even with that motive, I think how dismissive he was of the number of people he could infect could make this qualify as a sort of terrorism.
 
He was probably shit scared of being put into isolation in Liberia, where medical facilities are primitive. The Dallas hospital he went to apparently released him the first time he visited despite the fact that he told the staff that he returned from Liberia with a fever. I'd advocate firing the screening nurse for this, but seeing she's probably already put in quarantine I think she's punished enough.

No, I don't think terrorism charge will stick. You have to have a political component to mens rea when charging for terrorism. I think criminal negligence or public endangerment might be worth a try.
 
charge the US government, you can't tell me a bunch of people that make a living by lying are caught of guard by someone lying to come to the US to get medical treatment
 
Considering he knew he was infected I really think you could make a terrorism charge stick.

Before becoming the en vogue accusation, I believe terrorism required some political component.
 
Considering he knew he was infected I really think you could make a terrorism charge stick. I imagine he may have known he would get the best possible care in the US and said to hell with those he could possibly infect, but even with that motive, I think how dismissive he was of the number of people he could infect could make this qualify as a sort of terrorism.

a man who was not ill and had no symptoms until afterwards knew he was infected?
 
a man who was not ill and had no symptoms until afterwards knew he was infected?

he knew he had been exposed, he went to the hospital immediately and told them he had just came from Liberia

the girl they to took the ebola center died
 
How could this possibly be terrorism? He wasn't trying to terrorize or injure anybody. He was trying to do the opposite, to get cured and have it all go away.
 
a man who was not ill and had no symptoms until afterwards knew he was infected?

he knew he had exposure to bodily fluids and lied about that to get here; I don't give two shits how scared he was about being treated in Liberal, that's just too damn bad, he does not have a right to knowingly place dozens of innocents at risk for contracting it. Terrorism I always thought was defined as an act that murdered mass numbers of people or threatened mass numbers of people regardless of whether or not there was a political motive.
 
he knew he had exposure to bodily fluids and lied about that to get here; I don't give two shits how scared he was about being treated in Liberal, that's just too damn bad, he does not have a right to knowingly place dozens of innocents at risk for contracting it. Terrorism I always thought was defined as an act that murdered mass numbers of people or threatened mass numbers of people regardless of whether or not there was a political motive.
No, you can't have terrorism without a political goal. What political goal was he attempting to advance? None. Throwing around the term terrorism loosely is a stupid knee jerk reaction. Before you freak out some more, Ebola's surival rate in US and Europe is 100%. Mass scale infection like Western Africa are highly unlikely considering advanced medical care and good public hygiene here.
 
he knew he had been exposed, he went to the hospital immediately and told them he had just came from Liberia

the girl they to took the ebola center died

Yeah, 4 days after he came to the USA when he got sick.
 
Terrorism I always thought was defined as an act that murdered mass numbers of people or threatened mass numbers of people regardless of whether or not there was a political motive.

Like I said, post 9/11 everybody wants to define whoever they least like as terrorists, regardless of the word's definition. The political motive is the key ingredient.
 
he knew he had exposure to bodily fluids and lied about that to get here; I don't give two shits how scared he was about being treated in Liberal, that's just too damn bad, he does not have a right to knowingly place dozens of innocents at risk for contracting it. Terrorism I always thought was defined as an act that murdered mass numbers of people or threatened mass numbers of people regardless of whether or not there was a political motive.

youre thinking of mass murder. threatening might count though.
 
Like I said, post 9/11 everybody wants to define whoever they least like as terrorists, regardless of the word's definition. The political motive is the key ingredient.

this.

Eric Harris and James Holmes are not terrorists. Timothy Mcveigh was. Gotta have some kind of a political message.
 
I actually think he has a claim for asylum depending on what penalties he is facing on return to Liberia.
 
he knew he had exposure to bodily fluids and lied about that to get here; I don't give two shits how scared he was about being treated in Liberal, that's just too damn bad, he does not have a right to knowingly place dozens of innocents at risk for contracting it. Terrorism I always thought was defined as an act that murdered mass numbers of people or threatened mass numbers of people regardless of whether or not there was a political motive.

No, that's the definition people use as a political argument.

Terrorism involves trying to achieve a political result by deliberately inflicting terror on the civilian populace.

Just killing civilians is not, by itself, terrorism. Even intentionally killing them is not necessarily terrorism. To take an extreme example, if you deliberately genocided an entire island because you wanted to raise snow leopards on it, and so you killed all the humans, it would not be 'terrorism' because you weren't trying to induce a political reaction and weren't trying to terrorize anybody. You were just methodically exterminating them, like an ant infestation, and couldn't care less if they were terrorized or ecstatic about that.

Similarly, if you bombed a fuel depot or aircraft factory to starve your enemy of military equipment, you don't give a fuck about whether civilians are killed/terrorized -- that's purely incidental to your aim.

On the other hand, if you go out of your way to kill civilians so as to terrify the populace and, as a result of that terror, achieve a political result, then you've got terrorism.

I agree this guy was a complete scumbag, and would be fine with pressing charges against him, but he's certainly not a terrorist in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top