We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18510
PAGE 4 of 21
SignyM.
Your article on CNN.Com is back, including this bit.
Quote:
John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html
Must have just been the vast right-wing conspiracy messin' with your head.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It means you don’t want an act of murder, for instance, committed in furtherance of a terrorist agenda, called terrorism.
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
..it seems to me that you don’t want law enforcement to deal with crimes committed in the furtherance of an act of terrorism identified as an act of terrorism.
I'm not even sure what this means. Could you clarify?
Quote:I don’t think either is true, necessarily. I don’t know of any such policy that says we are going to throw out our basic civil protections at the suspicion of a certain type of crime. I’ve never seen any such law. Accusing someone of being a terrorist does not make them a terrorist. They are a terrorist if they meet the criteria established by the law, which is the way it should be. As far as throwing out basic civil rights, that’s a risk that is taken with any legal definition, regardless of terrorism. One is the so-called “hate-crime” law, which basically says that murdering a Blackman is a worse crime then murdering a Whiteman, or murdering a homosexual is worse then murdering a heterosexual. It is purely a racist or at least unfair law, possibly based, I might add, on false accusations. Namely the Mathew Shepard murder, which we now know may not have been a crime perpetrated out of hatred of homosexuals at all. The Left doesn’t seem to have any problem altering murder based on personal dislike of the victim, why do they have a problem altering it based on the real danger of terrorism?
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah. That's essentially it.
My concern is with a policy that says we're going to throw out our basic civil protections merely at the suspicion of a certain type of crime. This bothers me for two reasons. First, it's very easy to expand those 'certain types of crime', as the original post points out. Second, because it puts our basic rights at the mercy of an accuser, which is bad mojo. (ie, if you wanna mess with someone good, just accuse them of being a terrorist, they won't even get due process)
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990.
Thanks for finding the article for Finn. He was certain that it was a figment of my imgaination!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One is the so-called “hate-crime” law, which basically says that murdering a Blackman is a worse crime then murdering a Whiteman, or murdering a homosexual is worse then murdering a heterosexual. It is purely a racist or at least unfair law, possibly based, I might add, on false accusations. Namely the Mathew Shepard murder, which we now know may not have been a crime perpetrated out of hatred of homosexuals at all. The Left doesn’t seem to have any problem altering murder based on personal dislike of the victim, why do they have a problem altering it based on the real danger of terrorism?
I've always thought that the laws were too finely parsed. Was it murder or manslaughter? Did it involve the special circumstance of lying in wait? Was it a hate crime? A police officer? Was a handgun involved? Personally, I think they should charge someone for what they did ("ending the life of...) not for what may have motivated the crime. It's TOO subjective, IMO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I still didn't see anything in the article about it being a worse then Al Qaeda, and evidently, the article was just missing, not actually suppressed.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990.
Thanks for finding the article for Finn. He was certain that it was a figment of my imgaination!
However, I am becoming more convinced that this so-called “eco-terrorism” may be a worse threat then I previously would have thought.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think often that is true, particularly when one starts defining murder based on the degree to which the killer “hated” the victim.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I've always thought that the laws were too finely parsed. Was it murder or manslaughter? Did it involve the special circumstance of lying in wait? Was it a hate crime? A police officer? Was a handgun involved? Personally, I think they should charge someone for what they did ("ending the life of...) not for what may have motivated the crime. It's TOO subjective, IMO.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
You would rather it simply identified as whatever crime it was? So if someone commits murder for the purpose of inciting terror, you want to simply prosecute and investigate that as a homicide, not as an act of terrorism?
Yeah. That's essentially it.
My concern is with a policy that says we're going to throw out our basic civil protections merely at the suspicion of a certain type of crime. This bothers me for two reasons. First, it's very easy to expand those 'certain types of crime', as the original post points out. Second, because it puts our basic rights at the mercy of an accuser, which is bad mojo. (ie, if you wanna mess with someone good, just accuse them of being a terrorist, they won't even get due process)
Unasked I have to give my 2 cents worth.
A burgler shooting someone is committing an act against an individual.
Someone killing to incite terror is committing an act against a country. Two vastly different motives and goals and they should be treated differently.
Second, being at the mercy of an accuser has been always been there, and we already do make distinctions and dole out different punishments for the exact same crime. Something being classifed as a hate crime being a perfect example.
Opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It means you don’t want an act of murder, for instance, committed in furtherance of a terrorist agenda, called terrorism.
Ahh, ok, I see what you mean. No, that's not the case. I don't care what you call it. I just don't think it's an excuse to override rules of evidence and judicial oversight for search warrants and all the other 'special' provisions of the Patriot Act.
Quote:Please read the Patriot Act. Or, if you don't have time to read the whole thing, there is an excellent, and level-headed, overview here:
I don’t think either is true, necessarily. I don’t know of any such policy that says we are going to throw out our basic civil protections at the suspicion of a certain type of crime. I’ve never seen any such law.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Quote:
Accusing someone of being a terrorist does not make them a terrorist. They are a terrorist if they meet the criteria established by the law, which is the way it should be. As far as throwing out basic civil rights, that’s a risk that is taken with any legal definition, regardless of terrorism. One is the so-called “hate-crime” law, ...
Hate crime law always seemed a bit fuzzy to me too. I will say though, that I don't have a problem with taking intent into account when determining the punishment for a crime. I'm fine with treating convicted terrorists differently than convicted murderers for example. I just don't think an as-yet-unproven suspicion should be grounds for throwing out the rights of the accused.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, that's where we would disagree. Intent is a very slippery thing. I've seen juries acquit ppl who were obviously guilty because the they could buy inot the DA's charges- the DA basically "over-reached". I have a feeling that juries would reach better verdicts of they were presented with neutral (not emotive, not loaded) charges. I would look at the circumstances- especially previous criminal record, which data shows is the BEST indicator of criminal potential (not behavior in prison, psych tests, parole boards or anything else)- when it comes to sentencing. But that's just my opnion.
AFA eco-terrorism: The prioritization is bizarre. 1200 "criminal" incidents in 15 years (trepass, B&E, tree-spiking) is hardly a top priority. I would be far more impressed if Lewis had actually provided a breakdown- which I know he wont' because it undercuts his argument terribly- but I know for a fact that no one was injured and no lives were lost. So, heck, we have that many HOMICIDES in LA in one year! Permit me some skepticism.
I'm concenred that this focus on eco-"terrorism" (which hasn't even met the definition of terrorism, according to Hero) is just a rationale for sweeping application of the Patriot Act against legal dissent, and that it will not be restricted to terrorism in the future, since it not restricted to terrorism now. I suspect that the Patriot Act will be used not only against suspected saboteurs but also against "related" organizations and people. After all, this demonstrator has been seen with that suspected saboteur... let's get a "sneak and peek" warrant to see if the demonstrator has any information! I will obviously not be able to convince Geezer, Finn, Hero, or any of the other right-of-center particpants that this new prioritzation is politically driven, sicne they have faith that our government has "our" best interests at heart.
But they WILL remember this post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm... I don't see how you could ever disregard intent. If you did, you'd get some pretty extreme miscarriages of justice. Someone in barroom brawl punches someone with heart condition and they die. They're just a guilty of murder as a paid assassin? For that matter the very concept of 'murder' implies intent. Otherwise it's an accident, or self-defense.
Anyway, on the topic of the growing shadow of the Patriot Act, I'm right there with you. We're going to have to really watch this over the next few years. And then hope like hell we can get someone in there who will fix it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME