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!

---

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!
.

---

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!!

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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 enough that they are very much aware of why we are there. We are holding them accountable for what they have been profiting from for years."

Federal surveillance is a routine part of Coronado’s life, and he says officials have been increasingly interested in his activities since he began visiting the homes of Maxxam executives. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t surprised on Sunday morning, July 6, when he was attaching a trailer hitch to his car and noticed something underneath his vehicle that wasn’t supposed to be there.

Nicosia says he was inside asleep that morning when Coronado discovered the large black devices attached behind the rear bumpers of his and his girlfriend’s cars on the driver’s side. When Nicosia woke up, Coronado showed him the strange tangles of wires and electronics. Nicosia immediately became curious if such a device had also been planted on his car. It took just a moment to discover the answer....

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
What exactly are you defending here? A percived loss of real freedoms?....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by infra172:
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...
......
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.

---

Quote:

---

If I attended a rally or march of a group that supports violence, whether it be against people,property or government,be it a left or right group, there is legitimate reason to find me suspect.
In the cases of ALF and ELF, two organized groups that use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their goals against the civilian population, that says terrorism to me.
If you could write the law, what line or circumstances would someone or some group have to cross to be considered terrorists?

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Nope. The Religious Right is the greatest threat to the U.S. - internally, anyway. Followed by medical malpractice and people who don't know how to drive. But none of these, including the gangs, are considered a terrorist threat, which was the subject here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
[BBut 'terrorism' is by definition. Tagger gangs meet the definition. Why are they not then defined as terrorists? Is it because they are not (overtly) political?

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?

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Drive-by's are meant to terrorize neighborhoods so that nobody, NOBODY, snitches on gangsters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So you agree that in the land of political freedom, political expression should be specifically made criminal;

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
and violent non-political acts are less criminal than non-violent political acts.

---

Quote:

---

That’s your interpretation. I doubt most gangs care what the neighborhood as a whole believes.

---

Quote:

---

They don’t have political or religious agendas

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay. If you say so.

I've not actually read all of it, but I don't think I have too much problem with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In general, what I find is that much of the stories I hear are overblown.

---

Quote:

---

Such as the stories about the Patriot Act not allowing due process, I’ve never seen that, nor has anyone ever pointed it out to me.

---

Quote:

---

The law before and how it changed: Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, a traditional phone wiretap could be obtained on a showing of probable cause that one of an enumerated list of crimes had been committed. Warrants were valid for only 30 days, and the government needed to report back to the court. Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the requirements for a wiretap order were more minimal: The FBI didn't need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to install a tap, but only had to certify to a judge that information resulting from such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. Section 214 doesn't change this standard but broadens the reach—making the FISA pen register/trap-and-trace power available in both criminal and foreign intelligence investigations, so long as the government merely certifies that the information obtained would be "relevant to an ongoing investigation." The probable-cause requirement in criminal cases is gone. Courts may not inquire into the truthfulness of the allegations before authorizing a tap.

---

Quote:

---

Like your story for instance: no one who voted for it, read it? I’m sure some, perhaps many, congressmen and congresswomen didn’t read it and voted for it, but many probably did. So strictly speaking you are probably wrong. Someone who voted for it, probably read it.

---

Quote:

---

Section 802, aka "Tree-Hugging Terrorists"
This section has received a lot of attention and is almost single-handedly responsible for alienating right-wing groups like the Eagle Forum, as well as fundamentalist Christians across the land. Why? Because it creates a new crime and could, critics say, be used someday to prosecute Operation Rescue protesters.

What it does: Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

---

Quote:

---

The fears over this provision are almost entirely hypothetical. Maybe Greenpeace activists really are on the hook, but that sounds a bit overheated in light of the text of the act. And while fearmongers in the press have suggested that you can now be jailed for a bar fight, the statute requires both endangering of life and an intent to influence the government. This provision is more bark than bite.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

In that case, people who merely set animals free...

---

Quote:

---

...stake trees...

---

Quote:

---

...or even burn (empty) SUVs at dealerships etc...

---

Quote:

---

...are not engaged in acts dangerous to human life...

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
I defend any group's 2nd ammendment right to protest...

---

Quote:

---

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to 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; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law,including a handful that are truly radical. The PATRIOT Act is hundreds of pages long, includes dozens of provisions, and
substantially amends numerous federal statutes. Among other things, the PATRIOT Act:
• empowers the FBI to obtain records concerning anyone at all, including people who are not suspected of any involvement whatsoever in criminal activity or espionage, and prohibits organizations that are forced to disclose
their records from telling anyone else about it (Section 215)
• for the first time in the country’s history, empowers the FBI to disregard the
Fourth Amendment’s usual requirements – including the probable cause and notice requirements – in some criminal investigations (Section 218)
• empowers the FBI to conduct searches in criminal investigations, however minor the crime, without notifying the targets of the searches until weeks or even months later (Section 213)
• expands the Attorney General’s power unilaterally to demand the credit and banking records of anyone at all, including people who are not suspected of any involvement whatsoever in criminal activity or espionage (Section 505)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
I defend any group's 2nd ammendment right to protest...

---

With guns? Right on!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Without naming names, I can see one person on this board who is already fascist. That's because he is so hyperfocused on the threat from "them" and believes that the defense is militarism (which prolly explains why his ideal society is highly militarized and regimented)- that he doesn't realize he has BECOME the Alliance.

---