American Patriot Act

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by mrk, Jan 2, 2002.

  1. mrk Wheel Rider Registered Senior Member


    I read quite a bit about this 'war' and I still don't understand what the legal (current) definition of a "terrorist" is.

    How does the FBI (Frequent Bunglers of Intimidation gain from this susspension of rights under the American Patriot Act?

    "Those who would sacrafice liberty for security, deserve neither", Benjamin Franklin.

    I confused.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member


    (iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--
    (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an
    intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
    (II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
    (III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
    (IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

    (Read (iv)(I) again - carefully.)

    The bill (H.R. 3162) is supposed to sunset in four years unless Congress finds that the New Measures need to be permanent. That assurance doesn't quiet my concerns. How many temporarily constructed toll booths are still standing?

    How long did it take a certain Germany leader to completely alter his country after "temporarily" suspending the German constitution?

    "circumstances indicating an intention" is language which will likely be interpreted to mean if you utter effective political dissent, a court can find you intended to incite terrorist activity. If you don't believe me, read Schneck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) and Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 (1919) cases decided during WWI where those speaking out against the draft were found to be in violation of the Espionage Act for professing opinions which had the "natural and intended effect" of causing others to disobey the law. Professing the unconstitutionality or immorality of a measure might cause people to resist its implementation. Thus, professing such opinions effectively is criminal.

    History has shown that once governments have been granted or have seized power they rarely, if ever, give it back. This is not speculation. It is historical fact.

    Before long it will be part of the "New Normalcy" as envisioned by King George and Vice Chancellor Cheney.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page