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 8 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Every DAY tagger gangs (ie groups) have more turf shoot-outs (violence) and ruin more property that ALF /ELF in an entire year. Are they not then THE greatest threat in the US?
I never commmented on the greatest threat statement. I personally would classify gangs as being a more immediate threat.
With that said, I would still classify gangs as terrorists, as well as Alf and Elf. How much damage or terrorizing does a group have to do to qualify as being terrorist?
Opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If they express their “personal, political and religious freedoms” through violence, they may be.
Originally posted by rue:
So in this land created for personal, political and religious freedoms, are the political groups defined as terrorists, while the non-political groups are exempted?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “domestic,” as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
In that case, people who merely set animals free, stake trees, paint slogans or even burn (empty) SUVs at dealerships etc are not engaged in acts dangerous to human life, while people involved in tagger shoot-outs and drive-by's do qualify. Yet one group is considered terrorist, while the more dangerous group is not. Why not?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX - thanks for your earlier statement about a new category of crime created to do an end run around due process. It definitely goes into my collection.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If by drive-by’s they intend to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” then yes, they are probably terrorists. But in general, that’s probably not the case. My understanding is that, for the most part, violent gangs generally use drive-by’s and other criminal tactics to get their drug money or off someone, as it were, most gangs do not have political or religious agendas and could care less what the population as a whole believes.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Drive-by's are meant to terrorize neighborhoods so that nobody, NOBODY, snitches on gangsters.
If by drive-by’s they intend to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” then yes, they are probably terrorists. But in general, that’s probably not the case. My understanding is that, for the most part, violent gangs generally use drive-by’s and other criminal tactics to get their drug money or off someone, as it were, most gangs do not have political or religious agendas and could care less what the population as a whole believes.
So you agree that in the land of political freedom, political expression should be specifically made criminal; and common violence is less criminal than non-violent political expression.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s your interpretation. I doubt most gangs care what the neighborhood as a whole believes. Their interest is in maintaining a criminal enterprise, which probably does necessitate a certain degree of control of the local population (or turf as it may be) that may be exercised through acts of terrorist intent, but for the most part, gangs are not interested in coercing a population. They don’t have political or religious agendas and their influence tends to be limited to other criminals or other gangs. Although violent crime and those who perpetuate it are probably frightening to people who generally are not violent, that does not mean that all people who perpetuate violent crimes intend to coerce a population. It may mean that they simply want to keep their drug routs open, which is a distinctly different motivation then influencing a population.
Originally posted by rue:
Drive-by's are meant to terrorize neighborhoods so that nobody, NOBODY, snitches on gangsters.
Quote:No, I don’t agree with that, and I’m sorry you do.
Originally posted by rue:
So you agree that in the land of political freedom, political expression should be specifically made criminal;
Quote:I don’t think they are less criminal, necessarily, but certainly different.
Originally posted by rue:
and violent non-political acts are less criminal than non-violent political acts.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I live in the land of drive-bys. Roughly once every two weeks there is a story in the paper or on local news that some innocent non-gang member got shot, and no one will come forward b/c they are intimidated. Think of certain neighborhoods as little Columbia's or Afghanistan's. They are outside of normal public protection, and the gangs truly rule. I think you need to broaden your experience.
That’s your interpretation. I doubt most gangs care what the neighborhood as a whole believes.
Quote:Your yourself have made the distinction (again) between political (or religious) agendas (activities) and common criminal activity. You see them as something to be treated differently. I didn't say this, you did. In effect you AGREE with the PATRIOT act, the same (or lesser) activites, when performed for political puposes, constitutes a terrorist threat that voids legal protections. And those same activities (or worse) when they are common criminal activity, don't deserve the same level of intrusion.
They don’t have political or religious agendas
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I grew up in the land of drive-bys. My experience is plenty broad. I still don’t think that most gangs qualify as terrorist organization. Intimidating a population into silence so that one can more easily function to sell drugs or operate some other criminal enterprise is not the same thing as intimidating a population so that their government will accept your political agenda. It doesn’t matter how similar some neighborhoods are to places in Columbia or Afghanistan, these are two completely different criminal motivations. Failing to understand that because the ultimate effect on innocent people is similar is to operate under willful ignorance of motivations that might influence the movements of the criminals in question. What you are basically doing is requiring that law enforcement assume that all criminals will operate the same because the effect of their crimes share similarity, and that is simply not true.
Originally posted by rue:
I live in the land of drive-bys. Roughly once every two weeks there is a story in the paper or on local news that some innocent non-gang member got shot, and no one will come forward b/c they are intimidated. Think of certain neighborhoods as little Columbia's or Afghanistan's. They are outside of normal public protection, and the gangs truly rule. I think you need to broaden your experience.
Quote:Something like that.
Originally posted by rue:
Your yourself have made the distinction (again) between political (or religious) agendas (activities) and common criminal activity. You see them as something to be treated differently. I didn't say this, you did.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME