We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy by SignyM

People like Finn? I can’t speak for all those people; I can only speak for Finn.

Finn has never found that the bloggers are a very reliable source of news, but then Finn has recently decided that much of the major news sources are really less then reliable as well. Blatant falsehoods driven by political or ideological agendas have been exposed on every corner, which has now resulted in the death of innocent people. Bloggers, which hardly have the same clout as the major news sources, are a periphery problem; the real issue is a media that has become more interested in pushing a certain agenda then telling the news.

And eco-terrorism? There’s no such thing. Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no “eco-” or otherwise. Terrorist should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. When PETA commits arson as a threat in furtherance of their political agenda they should be labeled a terrorist organization like any other organization that comments similar acts and pursued as such until the offending elements are brought to justice within the bounds of law. End of discussion.

And really, people like Finn are cool; and good-looking too.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all, if you look at the Patriot Act and the defintion of terorism, it doesn't restrict itself to violent acts. Anything that "disrupts" our economy will do- including demonstrations that block coporate hq, stock divestiture, computer hacking (even non-destructive computer hacking) etc. That was one of the problems with the PA that ACLU pointed out in the first place- the defintion of "terrorism" is so broad that many currently legal activities can NOW be called "terrorist". The Boston Tea Party? It would gain you an FBI file as an anti-globalization "terrorist". And then, you might be considered and "enemy combatant". And you know what happens to THEM don't you???

Secondly, to classify "eco terrorism", even violent ecoterrorism, as the "THE" most serious threat to the domestic United States seems like pretty far stretch. What about illegal aliens? What about the crime families? What about violent international gangs and their extension into previously tranquil suburbia?. What about just plain old murder, pedophilia, kiddie porn and all the other stuff that usually turns our stomachs in knots and accounts for thousands of deaths every year?

ECO TERROISM??? That belongs right up there with the non-WMD crisis, the non-Social Security crisis, and the other non-crises that Bush& Co have engineered to to gain control. How many times do you have to get taken for a ride and you STILL don't get it? It's PHONY. Arson on behalf of a political cause is real. But the problem is already covered by arson, B&E, and other laws. To call it THE most important terrorist threat should be making your "threat to freedom" antennae go up. You DO believe in the freedom that the founding fathers hoped to establish, don't you???

BTW- check my predictive track record on this board. You'll find it's been 100% so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, if you look at the Patriot Act and the defintion of terorism, it doesn't restrict itself to violent acts. Anything that "disrupts" our economy will do- including demonstrations that block coporate hq, stock divestiture, etc. That was one of the problems with the PA that ACLU pointed out in the first place- the defintion of "terrorism" is so broad that many currently legal activities can NOW be called "terrorist".

Yes, well arson is not a legal activity.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, to classify "eco terrorism", even violent ecoterrirsm, as the "THE" most serious threat to the domestic United States seems like pretty far stretch. What about illegal aliens? What about the crime families? What about violent international gangs and their extension into previously tranquil suburbia?. What about just plain old murder, pedophilia, kiddie porn and all the other stuff that usually turns our stomach in knots and accounts for thousands of death every year.

I certainly wouldn’t classify in such a way, but then the only person I can find who is classifying it such is you. Since your quote seems to have no source. In other words, your whole argument seems to be something that is quite manufactured and not representative of real issues.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Arson on behalf of a political cause is real. But the problem is already covered by arson, B&E, and other laws.

Yeah. One can say the same thing about murder. I guess that means we should ignore terrorism all together or at least ignore it when it can’t be labeled specifically “right-wing.”

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I certainly wouldn’t classify in such a way, but then the only person I can find who is classifying it such is you. Since your quote seems to have no source. In other words, your whole argument seems to be something that is quite manufactured and not representative of real issues.

Wow! I went back to www.cnn.com where the news article was posted about 15 minutes ago, and it's been "disappeared". I'll see if it's in the archives or if they realy buried it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I guess it's news we're not supposed to hear. The quote that I posted was copied and pasted right off cnn's website from this AM. I didn't post a link because I assumed the item would be resident for at least a day and be easy to find. Nah, no such thing as censorship in the USA! At least the BBC still believes in freedom of the press:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4561059.stm

Article is dated today. And, using your own quote from the AP

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Environmental and animal rights activists who have turned to arson and explosives are the nation's top domestic terrorism threat, an FBI official told a Senate committee on Wednesday.

Hmmm... ring any bells??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yeah. One can say the same thing about murder. I guess that means we should ignore terrorism all together or at least ignore it when it can’t be labeled specifically “right-wing.”

Finn- did I say "ignore terrorism"? You're doing the usual right-wing thing: when you don't have a cogent argument (which is just about most of the time) you put words in other people's mouths. So tell me- repeat after me so I know that you understand what I'm saying- what DID I say?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Apparently, the story has been yanked from all major internet newpapers like cnn, nytimes etc. I can't even find the original AP article anymore. It may re-appear later, re-cast in less alarming terms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- did I say "ignore terrorism"? You're doing the usual right-wing thing: when you don't have a cogent argument (which is just about most of the time) you put words in other people's mouths. So tell me- repeat after me so I know that you understand what I'm saying- what DID I say?

You said that an act of terrorism using arson is not terrorism since arson is covered under other laws. I quote you: “Arson on behalf of a political cause is real. But the problem is already covered by arson, B&E, and other laws.” So evidently, you seem to feel that arson need not be covered under terrorist laws, because it’s already covered under other laws. I’m simply pointing out that the same can be said of murder.

Murder “on behalf of a political cause is real. But the problem is covered by” homicide laws.

And then I wonder, what exactly prompts you to make such an absurd statement that terrorist acts need not be considered terrorist acts at all? I’m not putting words in your mouth; I’m simply logically extending forward your own arguments. That your arguments don’t seem to hold water upon examination is not my fault.

And apparently, when you can’t find a source you supposedly cited, it must be because the information is conveniently suppressed. When evidence doesn’t exist to support your political musings, it must be because of a conspiracy against you! Do you suppose it is possible that these mysterious sources were yanked because they weren't properly vetted or accurate. Based on what the BBC article claims and what you claim these mysterious sources said, that seems like a possibilty, if we are to beleive you.

Not that I'm saying you lied, but clearly, your definition of lie, based on some other posts you've made, is much easier to apply then the actual defintion which requires some sort of intent to misinform.

However, the BBC article that you just cited does not appear to support the argument you’ve made. To begin with, the particularly quote is still not referenced. What is said in this article is “Eco-terrorism has become a serious US domestic security threat, a senior FBI official has told a Senate committee.” (first line) So the cited article does not suggest, as you’ve claimed, that ‘eco-terrorism,’ as it were, is “more than the threat from al Qaida.” Rather it simply says that it is “a serious US domestic security threat.[emphasis mine]” And the remainder of the article supports this. Considering the degree of violent crime committed by these groups, this would seem to be a perfectly reasonable statement, nothing like the way you’ve attempted to spin the issue in the absence of actually cited sources.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- even YOUR quotes were yanked. Go find their source and post their links, OK? The quote I got was cut and pasted directly from cnn. The article is no longer there. You can either believe me (knowing that the same thing happend to YOUR) articles, or not. I see no need to go over the same issue again since I already addresed it.

As far as why the articles were yanked... the BBC did not see fit to pull THEIR article. It benefits from quotes of Lewis saying that ecoterrorism is "one of the FBI's highest domestic priorities." That is pretty much in line with ccn's version of "one of the most serious threats to the nation" but not quite as extreme as the AP quote. I saw no reason to yank the cnn story since it had the same quote from Lewis. I think this is very similar to the politics that prevented to secret UK intelligence memo proving BUSH LIED from getting wide airing here in the USA. I doubt that this story will get ANY play in ANY form. (FYI, in case you want to maintain that reporting was wrong, the memo was never denied by the Blair govt or retracted by the London Times.)

Terrorism. There was a very long thread here on the defintion of terrorism. I think what it boiled down to was violence against ordinary citizens (as opposed to armed force) to create a state of widespread fear for political ends. I don't see ordinary citizens being hurt. In fact, animal-rights activists and eco-terrorists are especially careful not to hurt people. Their activties focus on institutions and property.

But OK- Let's assume that arson falls under "terrorism"... it was the classification of eco-terrorism as one of the TOP priorities of the FBI that made my antennae go up. One of the TOP priorities? The Administration is taking what is basically a low-level problem (110 million dollars in property damage since 1976. Wow. That's a couple of orders of magnitude less than property damage due to pollution) and elevating it to crisis mode. Why? Aren't you curious? It seems far LESS of a problem in terms of damage and lives than about ten other things I could name off the top of my head, all of which are the FBI purview. The only difference between eco-terrorism and all those other far weightier problems is that the provisions of the Patriot Act come into play. Now, I know you NEVER expect nefarious motivations from the Bush administration and I pretty much assume they are SOP. And you know what? My predictions are correct WAAAAY too often even for my own comfort, while Bush supporters have to twist themselves into pretty little knots trying to explain away the obvious.

You can either learn from experience -including the experience of seeing your very own stories yanked out from under you- or not. Hopefully, others will be more open to reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- even YOUR quotes were yanked. Go find their source and post their links, OK? The quote I got was cut and pasted directly from cnn. The article is no longer there. You can either believe me (knowing that the same thing happend to YOUR) articles, or not. I see no need to go over the same issue again since I already addresed it.

What articles are those? I haven’t cited any articles in this thread or made any comments that would need external support. I don’t know what articles of mine you’re referring to, but for the sake of argument, if we assume that such articles existed and that they were yanked, I would not suggest that they were yanked in order to suppress the information. I might be inclined to believe, given recent events, that the information was wrong and that they didn’t want to get caught intentionally misrepresenting news.

Your problem is that you insist that your information must be true regardless of the evidence and therefore, if no sources can be found to support it, then it can only be because someone is suppressing it. This is the kind of rhetoric that is generally attributed to conspiracy nuts, which is, unfortunately, about as much legitimacy as your argument has, at this point. Perhaps you can come up with better sources (or sources), but at the moment, it’s suspect. I tend to rely heavily on the evidence, and I don’t see anything that constitutes evidence for what you are suggesting. Now, on the other hand, if there is no evidence, and you’re simply speculating then it would help you a lot to admit that, and we could all speculate together, but insisting that evidence must exist, is not helping your cause.

Right now the gist of your argument is that you seem intent on (1) attacking the Bush administration by artificially claiming that they are making a ‘mountain out of a molehill’ with regards to terrorist from fanatical environmental groups, and (2) attempting to distance the word ‘terrorism’ from Left-wing groups who clearly seem to be involved in terrorist activities. Your whole argument seems to be quite ideologically motivated to insulate left-wing terrorist groups.

And I have yet to see any evidence that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Wrong, perhaps, but there was no intent to misinform. Once again in the absence of evidence, this argument nor your current one has any credibility, and claiming the evidence has been suppressed is not good enough. At the moment, both arguments are speculation at best.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And then I wonder, what exactly prompts you to make such an absurd statement that terrorist acts need not be considered terrorist acts at all? . ...

I'm not sure whether Signym made such an 'absurd statement', but I will.

This is really the central problem of the debate. The Bush administration had sought to make a whole new classification of crime for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around due process. The fact of the matter is, everything that is bad about terrorism was already illegal. Every bit of it could, and should, have been prosecuted under the pre-9/11 laws.

But by creating a new classification, and taking advantage of the national fear induced by the terrorists, they've been allowed to run roughshod over due process. Most of us have supported that when the targets have been Islamist Fundamentalists. Those of us who saw the broader implications were labeled 'paranoid' or 'America haters' or whatever.

Now we're seeing where this little subterfuge will lead us. All they have to do is keep adding new members to the 'terrorist' club and they can go after them with the same disregard for civil liberties. It'll take every ounce of effort we can muster to keep it from happening, if it's possible at all.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, if you look at the Patriot Act and the defintion of terorism.

...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 key is that the acts must be criminal. Terrorism is a criminal act coupled with a coercive intent.

As such, Eco-terrorism fits right in. You might argue that most Eco-terrorist acts fail to meet the third criteria, but often such acts employ a reckless disregard for human life and therin lies the danger.

I love the Patriot Act. As a Prosecutor I appreciate the expanded tools it gives us to investigate crimes and prevent terrorist attacks. And it lets me monitor my ex-girlfriend without her knowledge or consent. There's nothing like a Federal search warrant served at 2am to convince her new boyfriend that contact with "persons of interest" aint such a good idea. That slut...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I haven’t cited any articles in this thread or made any comments that would need external support but...if we assume that such articles existed and that they were yanked

Oh, those were Hero's quotes, not yours. But unless you're thinking that Hero is one of my conspiracy buddies, does it matter whether you or Hero found them and they subsequently disappeared? That is one of those pretty little knots that I'm talking about: You didn't post them and therefore - despite the fact that someone else quotes US sources and despite the fact that the story exists outside of US coverage-they didn't exist.

Quote:
...if no sources can be found to support it

I guess the BBC isn't a source? That's news to them, I'm sure! And so far, the BBC story is still there and still says the same thing so it hasn't been retracted due to "inaccuracy".

Quote:
And I have yet to see any evidence that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

Another pretty little knot. Hmmm, let's see... British intelligence says he was lying. I guess that's not evidence. After all, it was only a secret assessment by our major ally's intellignece service.

Quote:
Your whole argument seems to be quite ideologically motivated to insulate left-wing terrorist groups

And based on some loose word association of yours, you've decided I'm a suspect too! Jeez! All freedom-loving people reading this post, please take note- Finn wants to throw you in jail if you disagree with George Bush because that is terrorism!

Finn, instead of you resorting to intimidation is there any way that we can possibly have a REASONABLE discussion? Probably not, but I had to ask.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not sure whether Signym made such an 'absurd statement', but I will.

This is really the central problem of the debate. The Bush administration had sought to make a whole new classification of crime for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around due process. The fact of the matter is, everything that is bad about terrorism was already illegal. Every bit of it could, and should, have been prosecuted under the pre-9/11 laws.

But by creating a new classification, and taking advantage of the national fear induced by the terrorists, they've been allowed to run roughshod over due process. Most of us have supported that when the targets have been Islamist Fundamentalists. Those of us who saw the broader implications were labeled 'paranoid' or 'America haters' or whatever.

Now we're seeing where this little subterfuge will lead us. All they have to do is keep adding new members to the 'terrorist' club and they can go after them with the same disregard for civil liberties. It'll take every ounce of effort we can muster to keep it from happening, if it's possible at all.

Okay, fair enough. While I don’t agree with you or your alarmist tone, I do respect your lucid argument.

First of all, terrorism is real. It is not something invented by the Bush administration to stick it to the public. So it is meaningful to caveat murder or other criminal acts when committed in furtherance of terrorism in the same way that it is meaningful to caveat murder when done in furtherance of burglary or conspiracy. Terrorist organizations can be large foreign-based institutions with substantial funding and a small army of terrorists and guerrilla fighters at their disposal, and when these terrorist organizations put their funding and man-power behind killing thousand of innocent people, it becomes a matter of considerable danger and imminent need to impede their progress.

I would argue that pre-9/ll law is not capable of dealing modern terrorism and we have a clear example of that in the 1993 WTC bombing. That was handled as a criminal bombing case with lip service to terrorism. The individuals were prosecuted in US criminal courts under pre-9/ll law, and no consideration was given to the fact that this bombing was simply a small part of a very large conspiracy of an organization that was well funded and well manned from sources external to US jurisdiction. As a direct or indirect result of the inadequate manner in which the law dealt with things like the 1993 WTC bombing we have now experienced the worst foreign attack on US soil in history, the death of 3000 innocent civilians, the loss of a major US landmark and source of economic capital and the loss of billions if not trillions of dollars in revenue. All or part of which might have been avoided had we reacted different to 1993 WTC bombing.

It is also worth noting that while 9/ll was bad, it actually could have been much worse. Each of the towers of the former WTC was cable of housing some 30,000 people. This means that Al Qaeda was effectively targeting 60,000 innocent people, not 3000. Only 3000 people died because Al Qaeda underestimated US emergency response. They may not make the same mistake next time, so the next 9/ll, if it happens, could be much, much worse.

Also dealing with terrorism from policy of willful ignorance may basically guarantee one of two things (possibly both). First, if law enforcement is not given the tools that it needs to respond to terrorist threats, then there is considerable danger of a second ‘9/ll,’ and the death of thousands, possibly tens of thousands and conceivably hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But that is only half of it. By denying law enforcement the tools that it needs to respond to specific threats and the laws that it needs to identify terrorist acts and terrorist threats, to include organizations, you may guarantee that law enforcement will respond to every act as a terrorist threat. Terrorism is a real phenomenon. You can dismiss it as a harmless caveat to existing crimes that is being abused by the current administration, but that will not make it go away. It exists, and law enforcement will respond to it with or without laws to restrict their power. If law enforcement is unable to identify a terrorist act, it may decide that every act must be treated as a terrorist threat, so that if a person is murdered, perhaps all the members associated with the victim or suspect may be arrested and held under suspicion of murder. Or perhaps if a bomb threat is called in on a high school or college, the police may arrest every member of a school organization, because the law lacks the ability to identify certain groups as terrorist groups. By introducing law designed to identify specific terrorist acts and specific terrorist threats, it is possible to limit the power of law enforcement, while assuring that a very real and substantial threat is treated appropriately.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, those were Hero's quotes, not yours. But unless you're thinking that Hero is one of my conspiracy buddies, does it matter whether you or Hero found them and they subsequently disappeared? That is one of those pretty little knots that I'm talking about: You didn't post them and therefore - despite the fact that someone else quotes US sources and despite the fact that the story exists outside of US coverage-they didn't exist.

None of which means or implies that the information was suppressed by the government, and you’re a conspiracy nut.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess the BBC isn't a source? That's news to them, I'm sure! And so far, the BBC story is still there and still says the same thing so it hasn't been retracted due to "inaccuracy".

It’s not a source that supports your argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Another pretty little knot. Hmmm, let's see... British intelligence says he was lying. I guess that's not evidence. After all, it was only a secret assessment by our major ally's intellignece service.

According to you, the conspiracy nut. Show me a source. One that actually exists; that the evil dark lord shadow government hasn’t suppressed. Anyone can make stupid comments; if you can’t back it up with evidence though, all you have are stupid comments.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And based on some loose word association of yours, you've decided I'm a suspect too! Jeez! All freedom-loving people reading this post, please take note- Finn wants to throw you in jail if you disagree with George Bush because that is terrorism!

Finn, instead of you resorting to intimidation is there any way that we can possibly have a REASONABLE discussion? Probably not, but I had to ask.

I’ve decided your arguments are suspect, and based on their entire lack of support, that would seem to be the case. Instead of recognizing the deficiency in your own arguments you instead make up some wholly paranoid story about intimidation. Do you suppose it is remotely possible to have a reasonable discussion with you? I refer you to your previous arguments. For instance, your insistence that the government is suppressing CNN articles because they are crucial to your online debate. This is coming directly from DHS which is dedicated to thwarting online debate. You tell me if it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion with that.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Finn, after reading this whole thread so far I must say that I find you to be intellegent, knowledgeable, mostly tolerant of opposing views, and you seem to have a good heart.
The only thing you are lacking is the ability to understand broad based, subtle(and not-so subtle), long term, corporate backed and very devious conspiracy.
Other than that, you're fine.

Registered Conspiracy Theorist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:43 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
and you’re a conspiracy nut.

BTW, a 'conspiracy nut' is a nut only until 'papers' surface, or until someone retires and writes a book.
Conspiracies surround us, big and small. Part of human existence, always has been, always will be.
Please get over it.

Obvious doesn't always mean easy to accept Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:55 AM

You get all that from this thread? That’s perceptive. And thanks.

I’m not generally open to conspiracy theories; that’s true. You’re not the first person to have noticed my disdain for them either.

I’m not against people who believe in conspiracy theories. Just be honest with me, if it’s speculation, tell me that. I’ll respect that. Speculation is healthy. But when you start trying to defend something that is purely speculative, you might paint yourself into a corner, if you’re not careful. It's kind of like someone arguing that god exists. I'm a religious guy. I believe in god, but I'm not going to try to argue that he exists, because the truth is that it is largely speculative.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
one of which means or implies that the information was suppressed by the government, and you’re a conspiracy nut

Hmm. You said it didn't exist. You said you didn't post it. You said it wasn't withdrawn. You said it might have been withdrawn because of accuracy concerns. Now you're saying it wasn't w/drawn by the government. Finn- did I EVER say it was w/drawn "by the government". Which position are you taking? Pick one. Any one. And stop contradicting yourself.

Quote:
It’s not a source that supports your argument

How does it not? The head of FBI counterterrorism testifies that eco-terrorism is one of the top priorities of the FBI.

Quote:
According to you, the conspiracy nut. Show me a source. One that actually exists

Is the London Times good enough for you? www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Oh, I know- the London Times is published by conspiracy nuts, kind of like the BBC.

Quote:
I’ve decided your arguments are suspect, and based on their entire lack of support

except for the BBC and Hero's posts

Quote:
that would seem to be the case. Instead of recognizing the deficiency in your own arguments you instead make up some wholly paranoid story about intimidation.

When you baselessly accuse people of supporing terrorism, then it is intimidation

Quote:
For instance, your insistence that the government is suppressing CNN articles...

That's is not what I said. But feel free to make up any old argument, you do anyway!

Quote:
...because they are crucial to your online debate

Not really. I have another reliable source

The testimony was real. The articles were real. The w/drawal was real. Now, here is the speculation.

Why is the FBI focusing on eco-terrorism? It's small potatoes in terms of risk and damage, especially compared to problems like illegal aliens and the risk of foreign terrorists on US soil. According to Hero's definition of "terrorism", it doesn't even meet the last criteria, since no lives have been lost or people injured. I suppose you can speculate that someone MIGHT get injured some day, but that really is entirely speculation. (Thank you, Hero, for that info.)

So, again: why eco-terrorism since it apparently doesn't even meet the definition of terrorism and seems to have very little impact in terms of risk? I mean, if you're focusing resources on eco-terrorism, what else might you be missing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Terrorism is a real phenomenon. You can dismiss it as a harmless caveat to existing crimes that is being abused by the current administration, but that will not make it go away. It exists, and law enforcement will respond to it with or without laws to restrict their power. If law enforcement is unable to identify a terrorist act, it may decide that every act must be treated as a terrorist threat, so that if a person is murdered, perhaps all the members associated with the victim or suspect may be arrested and held under suspicion of murder. Or perhaps if a bomb threat is called in on a high school or college, the police may arrest every member of a school organization, because the law lacks the ability to identify certain groups as terrorist groups. By introducing law designed to identify specific terrorist acts and specific terrorist threats, it is possible to limit the power of law enforcement, while assuring that a very real and substantial threat is treated appropriately.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

I'm not dismissing terrorism as harmless. Why are you suggesting that I am?

AS far as the rest of your post, I'm not following. How does pre-Patriot Act law 'lack the ability to identify specific terrorist acts'? What I was referring to were the laws that allow them to circumvent due process once a target has been identified as terrorist related. I don't see how that has anything to do with identifying a terrorist.

The issue here is isn't whether they have the power to identify terrorist suspects, its whether they have to play by the same rules once they've done so. I don't think it's necessary to start making exceptions. I also think it's dangerous, because the definition of terrorist is so flexible, and will become moreso if we allow it.

All I'm objecting to is the notion that terrorism should be handled any differently than any other act of violence. When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the administration's argument is this: "If we had the power go after suspects, even our own citizens, without the encumberance of due process we could be much more effective in stopping terrorism."

Well, duh. They'd be more effective at stopping pretty much any kind of crime with such an approach. The KGB could tell you that. But if we give in to that way of thinking, haven't the terrorists won?

The whole point of terrorism is to promote fear and disrupt our lives with a state of emergency that extends far beyond the actual act. They try to leverage isolated attacks so that they cause general panic and inhibit our lives far out of proportion to the actual damaged caused. Why should we help them with this task by allowing it to eat away at the foundations of our freedom?

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm. You said it didn't exist. You said you didn't post it. You said it wasn't withdrawn. You said it might have been withdrawn because of accuracy concerns. Now you're saying it wasn't w/drawn by the government. Finn- did I EVER say it was w/drawn "by the government". Which position are you taking? Pick one. Any one. And stop contradicting yourself.

That’s rather imaginative.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How does it not? The head of FBI counterterrorism testifies that eco-terrorism is one of the top priorities of the FBI.

The head of the FBI counterterrorism did not, however, testify that “eco-terrorism” was, as you claimed, “More than the threat from al Qaida.”

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is the London Times good enough for you? www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Oh, I know- the London Times is published by conspiracy nuts, kind of like the BBC.

I don’t know who publishes the London Times or the BBC, but there’s nothing in that article about Bush lying. Whatever evidence that you see here would seem to be your imagination.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
except for the BBC and Hero's posts

Neither one would seem to support your argument. Both suggest that “eco-terrorism” is a serious threat; neither seems to suggest that it is more serious then Al Qaeda. That’s like the third time, I’ve said that.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When you baselessly accuse people of supporing terrorism, then it is intimidation

That’s your imagination.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not dismissing terrorism as harmless. Why are you suggesting that I am?

This is what you said:

“This is really the central problem of the debate. The Bush administration had sought to make a whole new classification of crime for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around due process. The fact of the matter is, everything that is bad about terrorism was already illegal. Every bit of it could, and should, have been prosecuted under the pre-9/11 laws.”

Now your speculation about the intent of the Bush administration aside, 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. 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?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:31 PM

CHRISISALL

Finn, I'm gonna take a shot here..you're in your very early thirties, and never was too politically minded as a teenager. Which gives you at most a decade and a half of political awareness (you can tell me if I'm wrong).
I was there during Viet Nam, Phoenix project, Watergate, Noriega, Iran-Contra, etc. I used to want every detail, every name connected, I filled my head so full o' facts I'm surprised I didn't go Scanners!
In this millenium I calmed down, corruption and conspiracy are like flies on cows, how ya gonna keep 'em away without killin' the cow?
Best we can do is to know that the man means us no harm, long as we pay him and don't ask him to explain his actions.
Oh, and never, ever defend yourself against a law official, no matter what he is doing to you.

Continue to vote, everyone.

Little pearls Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, I'm gonna take a shot here..you're in your very early thirties, and never was too politically minded as a teenager. Which gives you at most a decade and a half of political awareness (you can tell me if I'm wrong).

Mid thirties, but that’s just a few years off from very year thirties.

As for the political stuff; I’m not sure what it means for a teenager to be “politically minded.” I don’t know very many teenagers, including myself, who really have the education to grasp political ideas. That being said, from about 18 to maybe late twenties, I was quite politically minded to the extent that it was possible in the opposite direction in many ways then I am today. I was what one might call a Postmodern Liberal, socialist, an idealist, an arteest. It was posh to be a Postmodern Liberal, but most of what I believed was basically propaganda; there was little substance to it. That all changed in graduate school, when I started to read widely in political circles, not just pundits but histories and sociological studies, and I discovered that much of what I had been told was largely untrue in one way or another. Hitler really wasn’t a “right-winger;” Reagan really wasn’t a “Nazi;” and Communism really doesn’t look good on paper. Tolerance is not exclusive to the Left and racism is not exclusive to the Right. I would say today that I didn’t become politically minded until graduate school. But that’s not what I would have told you twelve some-odd years ago: I would have told you that I was a die-hard Liberal. Who do you believe, me or me.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:29 PM

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:
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)

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
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?

It means you don’t want an act of murder, for instance, committed in furtherance of a terrorist agenda, called terrorism.

Quote:
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)

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?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:16 PM

Quote:
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!

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:23 PM

Quote:
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.

I think often that is true, particularly when one starts defining murder based on the degree to which the killer “hated” the victim.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:30 PM

OPUS

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:01 PM

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:
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.

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:

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:51 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:07 PM

I and one of my friends have deceided to start a paper speaking out about whats going on and we intend to spread it on my school college Campus, so does that make me a terroist.

I have to admit that I'm scared I'm going to be put on a list or something..but I can't just sit around not doing anything!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials say.

Okay, where is this a bad thing? The key word here is VIOLENT! When any animal rights or environmental group resorts to violence, they SHOULD be viewed as terrorists! That's just common sense!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

I hate to sound crass but wake up people ... its the fact that they are NOW saying that these groups pose some great threat..they don't!!

can't you see whats happening , 1rst it was AlQaida ..now its the eviromentalist..next its going to be you and me!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:44 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I and one of my friends have deceided to start a paper speaking out about whats going on and we intend to spread it on my school college Campus, so does that make me a terroist.

I have to admit that I'm scared I'm going to be put on a list or something..but I can't just sit around not doing anything!!

Good for you. Do something. I suggest getting a job.

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.

Odds are you'll still get on a list. Heck, I was on a list in college. Try being a conservative activist on a liberal campus. I got called out by the administration every time we a big-name liberal speaker came to campus. It was my own fault, speaking out, asking questions and all that. Do what you gotta do and accept what comes.

You can't get a reaction (which I presume is the goal of your speech efforts) without getting a reaction.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:45 PM

Quote:
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.

The Shadow is defintely growing our freedom is systamatically being stripped away, but hoping like hell isn't going stop it, and I don't see anyone around who is going to fix it, action is going to have to come from average citzens standing up and taking action

give me Liberty or give me death , I think thats what its going to come down to unfortuantely, everyone is going have to put aside their fear or embrace it and show who has the Power..we have the power to resist and refuse and if we don't , then we are all just going to have to deal with the consequences of not doing anything!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:49 PM

MACBAKER

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I hate to sound crass but wake up people or rather sheeple... its the fact that they are NOW saying that these groups pose some great threat..they don't!!

can't you see whats happening , 1rst it was alqueda ..now its the eviromentalist..next its going to be you and me!!

Crass? No. Lacking common sense? Yes!

Scary how you can't see the difference between a peaceful environmental or animal rights activist, and a violent one. Where are these FACTS you speak of? Back up what you claim with sources!

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:50 PM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

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!

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?
If that's correct,then how, if you knew or believed the subject was part of larger group, would you catch the rest of the group?
Or, when they catch someone the investigation should stop with the individual? Don't investigate where they get their money or training?
Any investigation into the subject is going to require checking into people they delt with.
I would suggest, that people engaged in legal demostrations and or protests would not be hanging around with terrorists/sabateurs and if they discovered one was in their midst would turn them in.
If they didn't, and had knowledge of his activities, they would be just as guilty as him.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:19 PM

Quote:
Really, the differance is that terrorists acts involve criminal acts.

here you go again with the right wing left wing stuff..you just can't seem to get past that..I'm beyond you!!

If you can't see that what is happening in this country is beyond political ideology, then so be it when the Crap hits the fan I doubt if anyone will care much about your views!!!

The whole point to all of this is that you don't have to commit any criminal acts to be considered a terroist....and obviously a criminal act alone doesn't make somebody a terrorist because if that was the case then everyone who ever commited a crime no matter what the crime would be a terrorist

if standing on a sidewalk and giving an opinion about your government can get you branded a terrorist thrown in jail or put on some government list... then YES I have a serious problem with that and no I'm not talking about some college list..

once again I don't know why I even bother responding to your post..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:26 PM