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 6 of 21
Quote:
Sorry, but when a group of Eco Terrorists use explosives to destroy a car dealer's inventory of dozens of Hummers and Hummer 2s, or to burn down buildings, that's a terrorist act! Fact! These people, in my opinion (an opinion obviously shared by many others), are a danger to the general public, and should be brought to justice. Again, that's just common sense!
thanks for sharing and you don't have to be sorry!!! I never stated that some of these groups didn't pose any threat!! because that wouldn't be true!! but for the most part these groups don't pose much of a threat to human life which is the ultimate threat in my opinion, burning down empty building and destroying inventory is a crime and anyone who does it should be brought to justice , you'll get no argument from me there..But these groups hardly pose a great threat..Drug cartels pose more of a threat to the nation then do these groups.
There is a reason why the government has turned inward, and it has more to do with stripping people of their rights and freedoms then it has to do with these groups. There is a bigger picture here and just the fact that the government is calling these groups a great threat, should send out red flags. you don't have to take my word for it, but watch and wait.. you'll see just remember today its these groups.. soon it will be some other group..then it will be those people.... and then you...
just watch!!!
on a side note as for the Ku Klux Klan, they have been terrorizing people for decades, with Justice hardly being done for the most part, if the government had went after them like they dis al Qaida maybe they wouldn't even be around!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
...
.....Sorry, but when a group of Eco Terrorists use explosives to destroy a car dealer's inventory of dozens of Hummers and Hummer 2s, or to burn down buildings, that's a terrorist act! Fact! These people, in my opinion (an opinion obviously shared by many others), are a danger to the general public, and should be brought to justice. Again, that's just common sense!
.
Golly. What a lot of FACTS!
I'm curious though, what is your reasoning? Are you saying that these people should be pursued with the same special rules we've set aside for terrorists via the Patriot Act? If so, why?
Granted, they're violent assholes, but are they a national security risk? And if being violent assholes is enough, why have the Patriot Act provisions specifically for terrorism? Why not just toss out due process altogether?
Whether we like it or not (and I definitely do NOT) the Patriot Act allows our government to act outside its normal constraints in pursuit of 'terrorists'. If we want to maintain any pretense of constitutional rights, we need to keep the definition of terrorism as narrow as possible.
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
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
on a side note as for the Ku Klux Klan, they have been terrorizing people for decades, with Justice hardly being done for the most part, if the government had went after them like they dis al Qaida maybe they wouldn't even be around!!
Okay, now we start to see the real truth here! You want the govenrment to only go after those groups you personally disagree with. Is that it?
Police and federal law enforcement agencies have been prosecuting individual clan members for unlawful and violent acts for decades, and many have been brought to justice for their crimes. The KKK as an orginization still has the right to exist and to publicly protest, as long as it's in a peaceful manner. I don't agree with any of their agenda, but I do defend their right to protest. Those clansmen that resort to violence, are hunted down and prosecuted (when enough availible evidence is there to make a case), and they should be.
I defend any group's 2nd ammendment right to protest, but when individuals or groups resort to the use of violent terrorist acts to achieve their goals, they should be brought to justice. I don't really care if no one was hurt. The explosive found in that person's Hummer shows just how far some are willing to go. Itt almost always escalates to even bigger violence.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm curious though, what is your reasoning? Are you saying that these people should be pursued with the same special rules we've set aside for terrorists via the Patriot Act? If so, why?
Granted, they're violent assholes, but are they a national security risk? And if being violent assholes is enough, why have the Patriot Act provisions specifically for terrorism? Why not just toss out due process altogether?
Your reasoning seems limited by numbers! Most American's seem to agree the 911 attacks were terrorist acts. Buildings were destroyed, and thousands of people killed. I guess it's only terrorism to you, when many lives are lost. Some of the most effective terrorism, are acts that effect the economy. It's no accident that Wall Street was targeted on Septemtber 11th.
But, when an Eco terrorist plants a bomb inside of someone's car, potentially killing the driver, or burns down a building, that is somehow different. I guess it only counts when thousands lose their lives. No matter how you spin it, these violent acts are acts of terrorism, and fall under the Patriot Act. I guess it will only become a major concern when one of these groups drives a truck full of explosives up to a building and kills hundreds. Then you'll all be screaming bloody murder that the government didn't act sooner. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's always the governments fault. It's so easy to blame them, than to expect individuals to be responsible for their own actions.
Yes, federal and local law enforcement agencies should be used to bring these people to justice. The DEA works with local police departments to deal with drug related violence. The FBI and local police work together on racial hate crimes. Why is this any different? Why shouldn't the Department of Homeland Security work with local deptartments to stop these acts of terrorism?
What exactly are you defending here? A percived loss of real freedoms? Last time I checked, the local PETA office wasn't under seige by tanks and soliders! You may think it's coming, but I don't.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
George Bush is destroying our democracy!
How?
The Patriot Act.
What's wrong with the Patriot Act?
It's taking away our civil liberties!
Why do you think that?
Because...um...George Bush supports it!
Why is that a bad thing?
Because George Bush is destroying our democracy!
How?
The Patriot Act.
What's wrong with the Patriot Act?
It's taking away our civil liberties!
Why do you think that?
Because...um...George Bush supports it!
Why is that a bad thing?
Because George Bush is destroying our democracy!
How?
The Patriot Act.
What's wrong with the Patriot Act?
It's taking away our civil liberties!
Why do you think that?
Because...um...George Bush supports it!
Why is that a bad thing?
Because George Bush is destroying our democracy!
How?
The Patriot Act.
What's wrong with the Patriot Act?
It's taking away our civil liberties!
Why do you think that?
Because...um...George Bush supports it!
Why is that a bad thing?
Because George Bush is destroying our democracy!
That's for those of you who don't know what circular reasoning is.
I think liberals are cute. We should put them in zoos so they don't go extinct.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Protesting is legal. Keep that in mind.
Big brother under the bumper
Three Boulder, Colorado activists find mysterious tracking systems on their cars
Joel Warner and Pamela White
Boulder Weekly
July 17, 2003
Ever get the sneaking suspicion you are being watched? Maybe you should look under your bumper. On Sunday, July 6, three Boulder residents discovered sophisticated Global Positioning System (GPS) devices attached to the bottom of their cars, apparently used by someone to track the whereabouts of their vehicles.
The devices contained no immediate clues as to who planted them or who used them to collect information, leaving the residents with troubling questions: Who would be willing to spend the time and energy to track them? And are we all being watched far more carefully than we might want to imagine?
Sunday morning surprise
New York native Mike Nicosia is passionate about protecting animals. He’s been this way ever since he learned of their plight six years ago.
"I was just appalled to see the way animals are treated for everything from fur farms to slaughter houses," he says. "I wanted to do more to help animals. Because animals don’t have a voice, I wanted to be a voice for them."
Nicosia became a vegan, participated in animal-rights protests
Quote:verbally. Opining out loud. Legal.
and launched a Long Island chapter of The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade.
"We have a no-nonsense approach to destroying the fur trade," says Nicosia of the organization. "That means protests, civil disobedience and outreach, as well as supporting
Quote:Who is the real threat here?
the ALF."
ALF stands for the Animal Liberation Front, a controversial organization that combats animal abuse by releasing animals from testing laboratories and destroying the property of those they deem to be exploiting animals.
While Nicosia says he had no direct connections with the ALF, he publicly supported the organization’s tactics. That was when the surveillance began.
Nicosia says wiretaps were installed on his phone. He was photographed at protests. Plainclothes officers would follow him to his car. He also received death threats from people within the fur industry. One prominent fur community member was eventually issued a restraining order after repeatedly threatening Nicosia’s life.
Quote:Remember, surveillance began even before meeting ALF member
Nicosia came to Boulder two and a half years ago to study psychology at Naropa University. Since arriving here, Nicosia has started a new student group: the Student Organization for Animal Rights. Nicosia says the group’s main focus is education about the benefits of a vegan lifestyle, not civil disobedience.
Nicosia stresses he still has no association with ALF and no ties to members of the organization, with the exception of his roommate–Rod Coronado.
Rod Coronado is well known in activist circles. A member of the Earth First! movement and former media spokesperson for the ALF, he has been a vigilant supporter of the animal rights and environmental movements for 20 years.
Quote:
"I have always been an outspoken critic of America’s environmental policy and an open defender of actions to defend wilderness and the animals," says Coronado.
In 1994, Coronado was arrested for an arson attack at Michigan State University’s mink research facilities. After serving four years in prison and three years in suspended release, Coronado began traveling around the country talking about his previous actions and his political beliefs.
Over the past six months, Coronado and other activists have been involved in a campaign against the logging in northwest California, protesting in front of the homes of executives of the Houston-based Maxxam Corporation, which owns the lumber company responsible for the logging.
"We don’t destroy property; we don’t break the law in any way. We are just exercising our free speech rights," says Coronado. "Nevertheless, these people are very much affected, and it’s enoNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
'm curious though, what is your reasoning? Are you saying that these people should be pursued with the same special rules we've set aside for terrorists via the Patriot Act? If so, why? Granted, they're violent assholes, but are they a national security risk? And if being violent assholes is enough, why have the Patriot Act provisions specifically for terrorism? Why not just toss out due process altogether?
People hear "1200 criminal acts" and they make the assumption that just because "criminal" acts are committed they must be VIOLENT criminal acts. Believe me- if they had been violent or felonies, the FBI would have said so. As I understand it- and I'm not involved with that group of people, but I DO read the newspapers- most of the "criminal" acts involve things like chaining yourself to a tree, or spiking trees, or moving survey markers. I can only recall four costly known or suspected ALF/ ELF actions over the past four years from around the entire nation. We can settle this issue pretty easily- Who volunteers to go to the FBI with a FOIA request for the info?
Hmmm... no takers? Not even from "the government is your friend" faction? I thought so.

BTW- MacBaker- you missed one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero-
Quote:
Really, the differance is that terrorists acts involve criminal acts. Starting a paper is not in itself a criminal act. If you start the paper, and stack said papers outside a building and set them ablaze with the purpose of advocating a radical political agenda (as opposed to just drunken foolishness), then you've committed a terrorist act.
Please compare to your previous defintion:
Quote:
..as activity that appears to be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce the government or civil population AND (2) breaks criminal laws AND (3) endangers human life.
The first case does not endanger human life, so it doesn't meet the definition of terrorism- correct? After all, you ARE a govt prosecutor so I suppose you should know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Opus-
Quote:
Let me see if I understand what you said correctly because I don't what to misunderstand. If they have a suspected terrorist/saboteur it would be wrong to check up on their known associates?
First of all, I didn't say "known associates" I said "related organizations". Secondly, it depends on whether you extend the investigation using normal criminal investigation procedures, or whether you investigate under the banner of the Patriot Act. If you lable an action a "terrorist action" and a "great threat" (whether it is or not. I have my doubts on thsi score) then the Patriot Act comes into play. Then suddenly, all the problems with getting warrants becomes less problematic. If the government is looking for an EXCUSE to monitor dissenting groups- and if you've been thru the Vietnam Era, you would know that just appearing at a rally given by a suspect group was enough to trigger an investigation- then all it takes is for someone to claim "terrorism" and suddenly the door is wide open to look at ANYONE who has even the slightest connection- or suspected connection- or NO connection- to the group in question. If I'm wrong, let me know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
What exactly are you defending here? A percived loss of real freedoms?....
I felt I was pretty clear about that in my post(s). Did you read any of it? It doesn't seem like it because your response doesn't even address any of the issues I brought up.
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