It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Of All The Liberties You Have Lost, Because Of The 911 Conspiracy. Which One Do You Miss The Most?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Vushta: I'll try to give you a better explanation of what i was tring to put forward with the first thread.Right now i'm going through alot of mental issues, so please bear with me. When i posted, it was a way for me to let some of my anger out, it was just a blowup. I was angry that no matter how much we learn of a certain subject, the less we really know about it. I was complaining about people not denying ignorance, people who just believe everything they here, just because it sounds nice to them. And the majority of americans are stuck at a crossroads, were all confused, and we all don't know were to go. I do try to deny ignorance, and i apologize if i sounded a little hypocritical, those were not my intentions. I have no better answer to any of the questions i posed, nor of the questions terrorism poses. I see it as a lose lose situation. Terrorism cannot be defined like a typical war, these people are this scattered. Hundreds of new recruits and the fear of another 9-11. I don't know what else to write, if you any more questions vushta, feel free to ask.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
The US Government is incompetent. They couldn't (or didn't want to) catch 19 people who attacked us on 9/11.

You think I am worried about them coming after me?


I agree, they are incompetent, however they have been arresting all sorts of people lately on "terrorist" charges
that is why you should fear them, they may cost you your job, your family, or possibly even your life all because of their incompetence

with all the information they collect, and assuming you are connected to everyone else by no more than 6 people, they can form a connection between you and hugo chavez, osama binladen, charles manson, or whoever else they think of, all within a matter of minutes of mainframe searching

that is why your privacy is so important
even if you have nothing to hide, your friends might, and if you get linked to someone through them you all will be arrested on terrorist charges, good luck getting a speedy or fair trial!

some guys got pulled over in marietta ohio the other day
had a few hundred prepay cellphones, 11,000 in cash, and airline passenger lists
they were arrested on terrorism charges along with whatever got them pulled over
after a bit of investigation the terrorist charges were dropped

they were in jail for a week
i dont know about you, but if i missed work for a week they'd fire me and i'd be in some serious poop

had these men not been arrested on terrorist charges then they probably would have been able to post bale sooner and get out sooner

no word yet as to if they lost their jobs or not
hosted.ap.org... /stories/O/OH_PHONES_TERROR_CHARGES_OHIO_OHOL-?SITE=WBNSTV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

remember, innocent till proven guilty



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
I tell you, alot of the information IS useless, cause 98% of it won't be used against anyone. The government is not going to try to steal bank account numbers, or peoples identities, etc etc. The government wants to AVOID another terrorist attack. I know what you are gonna say, that the evil government was the cause of 911... yadda yadda yadda.


none of it is useless
all of it can be used to link you to some one, some where, or some thing

scientists have theorized that everyone is connected that no more than 6 people
(you know 1000 people that know 1000 people that know 1000 people.....)

given this, the only thing seperating you and osama bin laden is the lack of information
as soon as they gather enough of it and database it, say hello to terrorism charges next time you get pulled over for a busted tail light.

:example:
you have a friend (1) that works at a convenience store
his boss(2) knows people in lebanon
one of them(3) is friends with a Hezbollah fighter (terrorist)(4)
he knows a guy(5) that knows their leader(6)

there, i just linked you to the leader of Hezbollah, hypothetically.

now if i had petabytes of data on every man, woman, and child and the baility to archive, database, and search through this information in minutes, i could actually link you to anyone i want

try it yourself, see if you can link yourself to the mayor of your town, or the govenor of your state, and see how many links it takes
i think you'll be surprised if you actually put some work into it



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut

some guys got pulled over in marietta ohio the other day
had a few hundred prepay cellphones, 11,000 in cash, and airline passenger lists
they were arrested on terrorism charges along with whatever got them pulled over
after a bit of investigation the terrorist charges were dropped



How does this not seem suspicious to you? airline passenger lists, I mean, the charges were dropped, so, they were innocent until proven guilty. Were these men tossed in these "camps" you CTers talk about? NO. were they held for months waiting trial? NO. Police have been allowed to detain people for suspiscion for as long as I can remember, and in light of the recent events, I am glad that they are on the lookout.

Where is the consiracy here? What is so wrong in this situation? What if they WERE terrorists? Wouldn't that make the police heroes?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut

:example:
you have a friend (1) that works at a convenience store
his boss(2) knows people in lebanon
one of them(3) is friends with a Hezbollah fighter (terrorist)(4)
he knows a guy(5) that knows their leader(6)

there, i just linked you to the leader of Hezbollah, hypothetically.





You are too funny, man.

Just with mySpace alone, people are connected to 100 million people in their "extended network." I would LOVE to see an actual trial where someone is convicted of knowing a guy who walks the dogs of someone who is friends with another who's mom who cooks for a guy that knows a Hezbollah insurgent. That would be awesome.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth




You are too funny, man.

Just with mySpace alone, people are connected to 100 million people in their "extended network." I would LOVE to see an actual trial where someone is convicted of knowing a guy who walks the dogs of someone who is friends with another who's mom who cooks for a guy that knows a Hezbollah insurgent. That would be awesome.


Wouldnt hold up far in court.

But oh wait....Terrorists or people suspected of terrorism dont get court trials...or lawyers...there considered Prisoners of War.

Remember the guy that was Locked away Five years without one trial? You can be held indefinitely, in Gitmo or whereever, without ever showing how faulty theyre logic was in catching you.

It may not hold up in court, but you will never see one to tell your tale.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Ok but...

If these two guys were suspected of terrorism, why did they NOT have the same fate as the other guy who was in prison for so long?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
*shrug*

Depends on when they take you, and whos in offices.

What if someone needs to be reelected? A terrorist being caught is an amazing campaign platform. He has you locked away with faulty logic, but he doesnt win, and so they come around to you and free you.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
*shrug*

Depends on when they take you, and whos in offices.

What if someone needs to be reelected? A terrorist being caught is an amazing campaign platform. He has you locked away with faulty logic, but he doesnt win, and so they come around to you and free you.


I mean, ok.

But.

If it were true that the government was throwing false charges at innocent people, wouldn't that be HUGE breaking news? I just feel that they are pretty on the money when it comes to stuff like this. I mean, how many people have actually "disappeared" or have had these kind of charges on them? Just one guy?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
You see how the News works, right?

We have a war that the government used lies to get into.

We have the NSA basically clarifying that our phones and electronic communications are being tapped.

We having the Downing Street Memos.

What makes the news? A interview with Fetzer on whether 9/11 Conspiracies are being taught in schools.

Or, an interview with Charlie Sheens Step Mother.

Or, talking points about Joe Lieberman.

The best way to hide something is in the middle of the room. The News stations are on theyre side. If they dont want something to air, it wont, it doesnt matter where it comes from.

And if it leaks, nobody cares, we live in the United States of Apathy. Nobody pays attention more then a minute or two, then they go about theyre daily drivel.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut
some guys got pulled over in marietta ohio the other day
had a few hundred prepay cellphones, 11,000 in cash, and airline passenger lists
they were arrested on terrorism charges along with whatever got them pulled over
after a bit of investigation the terrorist charges were dropped


You should look at the whole story and not just take parts of it that bolster you position:


A sheriff's deputy following the men's car, a black Taurus belonging to Houssaiky's mother, pulled the men over Aug. 8 after they merged into a turn lane without using a turn signal.



The falsification charges allege the men initially gave deputies different names than what appeared on their IDs and gave conflicting accounts of why they had $11,000 in cash.


SOURCE: hosted.ap.org...

I always use my turn signal, I always give my proper name to a Police Officer when he or she asks me, and I would never lie to a Police Officer (as apparently one of them did, since their stories were conflicting).


Originally posted by wondernut
they have been arresting all sorts of people lately on "terrorist" charges
that is why you should fear them,


Every example that has been given of people who were locked up unjustly for terrorism began with the person doing something illegal to initiate an investigation.

While it is not impossible for this to happen to me, it is highly improbable.

I obey the law.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by craig732]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut
privacy falls under "LIBERTY"

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Wondernut,

Maybe when you talk about the Constitution, it would be more fruitful for you to actually quote from the Constitution, instead of from the laundry list of reasons we decided to declare our indepoendance from Britian that were put in the letter we sent to King George. The Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. If it were, then every slave in the U.S. at the time would have been freed by the statement you quoted above.


Originally posted by wondernutthe problem is that these are not enemy combatants, they are citizens of foreign countries that are being held without cause
apparantly you missed the "all men are created equal" line in the constitution
here it is again for you

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

notice that is says "among these", implying there are more than just these but these are the ones our founders felt most important to mention to make sure they are never forgot

Wrong again, that's not in the Constitution (I can't believe all the "Civics Class" referencers in this thread haven't commented on this ignorance of confusing the Declaration with the Constitution, but I've only read about seven pages, surely among all the legal experts that have deigned to post in this thread, somebody (besides me) noticed this silliness!


Originally posted by wondernut

The patriot act -biggest traitor document to the Constitution that has EVER come to being.


99% of the laws encompassing the Patriot Act have been on the books for two or three decades.

if that's the case then why bother with the patriot act?
redundancy?
it's not the 99% good food in rat posion that kills the rat buddy, it's the 1% posion.
one need only look to the DMCA to see the harm of legislation written to stop the evil "hackers" of the 90's
the patriot act will do the same to society that the DMCA did to electronics
ever burned a dvd? Congrats your a criminal!

Criminal behavior defines a criminal. Quit burning those dvds you fellonius thief!


Anyway, the patriot act just added "terrorist activity" to another list, previously mostly concerned with Foreign intelligence agents. That's why "bother" with it.


Originally posted by wondernut

I miss the simple comfort of knowing there is accountability in government...


How long have you felt this way? Just curious.

Please don't hold the current (or previous) administration(s) accountable for your former naivete!


Originally posted by wondernut

By the way, the Supreme Court does not make law, 'nor can they change laws. A SC ruling is nothing more than legal opinion.

apparantly you failed civics, the three branches in government all trump each other
legislative makes laws
executive enforces laws
judicial interprets laws
all 3 have ways to bypass each other.

Here we go with the "Civics Class!" reference. You must have had a lousy teacher, you appear to not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration. Were I you, I'd remedy this bit of ignorance prior to speaking further about other people's supposed need for Civics remediation. Mote in your neighbor's eye and all that, don't you know.


Originally posted by wondernut

Due to the hyper-expansion in information technology, the right to privacy does not exist in the 21st century.


Ummmm.. it doesn't exist in the Bill of Rights, either; Been that way since it was written.

no it exists in the Constitution, read it sometime!
Well, you got the link right anyway!


Harte

[edit on 8/16/2006 by Harte]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
NO VUSHTA.. it is YOU that are missing the point...

I miss the rights that the sixth amendment garauntees. And if you take the time to read the Patriot ACT which I have.. you would know that ANYONE that violates ANY law of the US can be deemed an enemy combatant... ANYONE.. you, me, ANYONE... US citizen or not... what part of THAT dont you get?

I no longer have those rights GARAUNTEED end of point!.

Well, I'm gonna guess that either you haven't read the patriot act, or you must need to reread it. The term "enemy combatant" is not defined in the patriot act, nor does it appear there. It's from the "quaint" Geneva Conventions.

End of Point!!! (Does that ever really work?)


Originally posted by TONE23The ability of this to happen to you is now applicable...get it yet?.. the Padilla case has set a precident... do you know what a precident is? Im sure you do.. so you know that now ANYONE CAN BE HELD without the SIXTH AMENDMENT rights.

Goodness grief am I speaking swahili?


It's my understanding that precedent has to be set in court, not in some investigative arm of the executive branch. Padilla's case, unless I misremember, was not settled in court, the government having given up on their wish to hold him as an enemy combatant as it became more and more apparent that they would lose that case.

Unless I read it wrong, Padilla can now sue the government and the individual agents involved, which is basically the only avenue anybody can pursue if their rights are violated.

It boils down to this, there has been no precedent set that allows anyone to violate any constitutionally guaranteed right, beyond the usual examples. You know, like shouting "fire" in a theater, etc.

Harte



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by malakiem
Vushta: I'll try to give you a better explanation of what i was tring to put forward with the first thread.Right now i'm going through alot of mental issues, so please bear with me. When i posted, it was a way for me to let some of my anger out, it was just a blowup. I was angry that no matter how much we learn of a certain subject, the less we really know about it. I was complaining about people not denying ignorance, people who just believe everything they here, just because it sounds nice to them. And the majority of americans are stuck at a crossroads, were all confused, and we all don't know were to go. I do try to deny ignorance, and i apologize if i sounded a little hypocritical, those were not my intentions. I have no better answer to any of the questions i posed, nor of the questions terrorism poses. I see it as a lose lose situation. Terrorism cannot be defined like a typical war, these people are this scattered. Hundreds of new recruits and the fear of another 9-11. I don't know what else to write, if you any more questions vushta, feel free to ask.


malakiem ..no need to apologize to me, I understand the frustrating nature of these kind of disscussions. There are no clear cut explanation that will satisfy all questions. You're right about the battles to terrorism being different ythan a typical war and thats why more widespread methods of identifying whos who are needed. Its only a lose lose situation if we battle each other and throw stumbling blocks in the road by complaining about things that are mostly petty inconvienences.

Heres a question that I have asked and have yet to get an answer to.

What do you suggest for methods of identifing and tracking theses scattered fanatics and new recruits if not a widely flung net to help identify whos who?

The idea the the gubment has the interest and resources to track just any Joe Blow and what he reads or buys seems like paranoia to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
What do you suggest for methods of identifing and tracking theses scattered fanatics and new recruits if not a widely flung net to help identify whos who?


Those of us with family members who fought and died so we would not live under a "widely flung net" DETEST and DESPISE this idea.

You do not just catch everything in the ocean and throw back the ones you don't want... that is not how we roll in America.

Why not try a more focuse HOOK AND BAIT for the specific SPECIES you are trying to catch INSTEAD of throwing an ILLEGAL net over the entire populace exposing them all o possible harm from your net?

In the last decade .00066% of the population was killed by a terrorist in the US... 20 per year in the last century...

This is NOT justification for any of this: wars, big brother, fearmongering, thug geopolitics...

Your odds ar better of getting hit by an ice cream truck than killed by a terrorist under our OLD system... Why bring in a new "widely flung net"? WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID? ooh... their plan is working?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Harte,

I stand corrected on the Padilla case... to a point. You are correct about what has transpired ... but.


But as Justice Ginsburg notes, dissenting from the Court’s decision to decline the case, “Nothing the Government has done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power that Padilla protests.”

What this means is that the administration can still arbitrarily detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. on the grounds they are “enemy combatants” and then hold them without charge or trial for years. If the government charges or releases such a detainee before the case works its way up to the Supreme Court, there is no remedy for this unlawful detention.
Human Rights Watch.org


I think this is more the point I was making and you are correct it has NOT been established as legal precidence. But it has illuminated just how the Govt can circumnavigate the law and still hold someone without charging them or allowing legal representation for years. So like I said I concede the point to you about the case of precidence.. But I stand by my point that They have in fact done just what they said wouldnt happen..If the govt. had a case they wouldnt pushed it.

The other point you made was No mention of enemy combatant. Again, you are correct it doesnt specifically mention enemy combatant but let me show you what it does say.


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(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;
epic.org


So it says here point blank invovle acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of the united states. So, by its definition any violation of any criminal law could be pursued as a terrorist.

But you are right there is NO mention of the term "enemy Combatant".. but at the same time they sure did make it a pretty broad definition.Again I will partially concede to you Harte.

Thank you for your time



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The US Governement did hold someone a long time without giving them a trial.

Kevin Mitnick



Mitnick's trial didn't happen for many years. Four in fact. He was held without bail (because of his flight risk) and as the government and authorities dragged their feet assembling evidence against him, Mitnick languished in prison. Four years without bail, trial, or charges listed against him. If nothing else, Mitnick remains as one of the worst constitutional abuses by the prison system in modern times. And therefore, the question is asked again: for all the amount of trouble he caused and the crimes he was alleged to commit, was holding him for nearly half a decade without any opportunity for him to view the evidence against him justified? The answer, to anyone reasonable, is likely no.


Is this is good in the United States???

::EDIT::

Would like to add.............



www.g4tv.com...
Laporte: You went to jail for how long?
Mitnick: For five years. I was held for four and a half years without trial.
Laporte: That's, by the way, an extraordinarily long period of time to be --
Mitnick: People that are convicted of killing somebody spend less time in jail.
Laporte: Yeah...
Mitnick: But I was -- there was a lot of fear in my case.
Laporte: Yeah, why did they -- they had you in prison with a bail for a very... for so long. Why?
Mitnick: Well... well, I was a fugitive, so that probably...
Laporte: That had something to do with it. They knew you could run again.
Mitnick: I-I could do that. What was interesting in my case was that, not only was I held without bail, I never had my right to a bail hearing.
Laporte: Right.
Mitnick: They wouldn't even give me the bail hearing, but also I was held in solitary confinement for 8 months, because a federal prosecutor told the judge that I could start a nuclear war by whistling into the telephone.
Laporte: (laughs) Could you?


[edit on 8/18/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
What do you suggest for methods of identifing and tracking theses scattered fanatics and new recruits if not a widely flung net to help identify whos who?


Those of us with family members who fought and died so we would not live under a "widely flung net" DETEST and DESPISE this idea.

You do not just catch everything in the ocean and throw back the ones you don't want... that is not how we roll in America.

Why not try a more focuse HOOK AND BAIT for the specific SPECIES you are trying to catch INSTEAD of throwing an ILLEGAL net over the entire populace exposing them all o possible harm from your net?

In the last decade .00066% of the population was killed by a terrorist in the US... 20 per year in the last century...

This is NOT justification for any of this: wars, big brother, fearmongering, thug geopolitics...

Your odds ar better of getting hit by an ice cream truck than killed by a terrorist under our OLD system... Why bring in a new "widely flung net"? WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID? ooh... their plan is working?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Yeah right.... 'Appeals to Sympathy' offer no direction and the vagueness of the 'far flung net ' of statistics offer no real context. Don't believe me? Use the same method to calculate the number of people sent of to "secret prisons" or "stripped of their constitutional rights" by the evil US gubment using the population of the earth as a basis. so..what do you suggest? "Hook and bait"..who?? how do you know who to "bait"? How did you get that initial information etc. Thats a real clear concept and plan.

Listen.. all the crap you fear is basically in your ..
Its been asked before by no answer has been given so let me ask again.
"What is it that you could do 5 years ago that you can't do today?"
Be specific.



Why bring in a new "widely flung net"? WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID? ooh... their plan is working?


Why not? What are YOU afraid of? Their plan is indeed working on the gullible minority who advocate dropping our defenses because security is just soooooo inconvienient they want the 'right' to suck on their gatorade on the plane like some kind of sweet pacifier.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Yeah right.... 'Appeals to Sympathy' offer no direction and the vagueness of the 'far flung net ' of statistics offer no real context. Don't believe me?


No. It is a slow erosion... The effects of which are not yet realized.


Originally posted by Vushta
"Hook and bait"..who?? how do you know who to "bait"? How did you get that initial information etc.


How did they do it before phone companies captured metadata? Inernet traffic was logged? Before the Patriot act cam along?

I'll tell you... A JUDGE ISSUED A WARRANT. Otherwise, anyone on AMERICAN SOIL, is considered INNOCENT and maintains a right to privacy.


Originally posted by Vushta
Listen.. all the crap you fear is basically in your ..
Its been asked before by no answer has been given so let me ask again.
"What is it that you could do 5 years ago that you can't do today?"
Be specific.


Learn from history Vushta. The loss of rights and freedoms is ALWAYS a slow erosion so that the people accept it. IT never happens in one swoop.

Five years ago I could type freely on the Internet without knowing it is being logged and that the government can get this information without a warrant.


Originally posted by Vushta
Why not? What are YOU afraid of?


Artifical fear of the retard populace turning this country into a monitored police state because they are afraid of the BIG BAD TERRORISTS.

My Grandfather, Dad and two uncles would TURN OVER IN THEIR GRAVES if they had to listen to your crap.

How many generations of your family are AMERICAN PATRIOTS Vushta?

How many have died so that we may be free?

I do not live in FEAR. I CARRY ON THE LEGACY of those before me but in a different way.

How long have you been in America Vushta?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Harte,

I stand corrected on the Padilla case... to a point. You are correct about what has transpired ... but.


But as Justice Ginsburg notes, dissenting from the Court’s decision to decline the case, “Nothing the Government has done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power that Padilla protests.”

What this means is that the administration can still arbitrarily detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. on the grounds they are “enemy combatants” and then hold them without charge or trial for years. If the government charges or releases such a detainee before the case works its way up to the Supreme Court, there is no remedy for this unlawful detention.
Human Rights Watch.org


I think this is more the point I was making and you are correct it has NOT been established as legal precidence. But it has illuminated just how the Govt can circumnavigate the law and still hold someone without charging them or allowing legal representation for years. So like I said I concede the point to you about the case of precidence...


I would of course agree with you that holding a citizen without charges for an extended period could be considered a violation of constitutional rights. It is a welcome sight, I might add, to see anybody in these politically charged threads admit to any error, however small, and my esteem for you has grown proportionally, Tone23, for your concession.

And, like I said, the only course of action open to a citizen whose constitutional rights have been violated is legal redress, in civil court. Padilla may have a case. We'll see what happens.


Originally posted by TONE23The other point you made was No mention of enemy combatant. Again, you are correct it doesnt specifically mention enemy combatant but let me show you what it does say.


First, let me say that I don't care much for the Patriot Act myself. But I do believe that everyone that wants to talk about it should be aware of what it is (or, perhaps more importantly, what it is not) before they form an opinion on it - only makes sense, right? I mean, if you only go by what some of the whacked-out wingnut websites out there will tell you about it, then your view is bound to be skewed (not you personally, Tone23, I mean the general "you.")


Originally posted by TONE23

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(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;
epic.org


So it says here point blank invovle acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of the united states. So, by its definition any violation of any criminal law could be pursued as a terrorist.


Tone, you are correct in that that is what it "says here point blank..." But it only says that here because that's the way you pasted it in. Primarily, what you've posted here are the changes to Title 18 section 2331 that were made by enacting the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act itself, see, doesn't actually define "terrorism," it only makes a few minor changes to a crime which was already defined in Title 18 section 2331.

Also, you left half of these changes off in your posted version, so let me redo it for you. From your link (which is outdated, byt he way



SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(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.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.


Now, if you want to see the actual definition of terrorism that resulted from these changes (it's only in paragraph 5,) -


(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.

(My emphasis) Source
That source also contains the definition of "international terrorism" mentioned in your Patriot Act quote. You know, the paragraphs 1, 3 and 4.

So, as you see from the part I bolded, only posting half a definition results in a misleading idea of how "terrorism" is defined in US law.

BTW, as you also can see from the above, the Patriot Act made only a few changes to an already existing definition of terrorism.


Originally posted by TONE23
But you are right there is NO mention of the term "enemy Combatant".. but at the same time they sure did make it a pretty broad definition.Again I will partially concede to you Harte.
Thank you for your time

You are quite welcome Tone, as I had already spent the requisite time a year ago in another argument with a much less likeable opponent!

But, I hope you can see now that, while the definition might well be a little broad, it's certainly not as broad as it appears at first, after one examines the actual definition in Title 18.

And lastly, "enemy combatant" comes from the Geneva Conventions. Such divisions of individuals in a theater of war were deemed necessary because if there were no differences between "combatants" and "soldiers," then opponents would not be above dressing as civilians (sound familiar?) to evade detection. This was not considered just "poor form" or anything, by the way. It is (and was) a deadly serious issue to any group that thinks to regulate how wars should be conducted because it puts innocent civilians in extreme danger, basically the entire point of the Conventions was to avoid that sort of thing.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join