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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
You also have a duty and an obligation to follow the just laws that have been passed for all.
And you don't have the right to overthrow the gov't willy-nilly, for any old reason. You must use the procedures established for change, i.e., the ballot box. And simply because the vote does not go your way is not a reason for violence.
It is only when the procedures have been corrupted do you have that right of revolt.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Sorry but this law was not passed for the benefit or protection of anyone (not the American people anyway). Making it illegal to protest and riot is against our constitutional right.
Or did you forget about the constitution?
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Originally posted by jsobecky
You also have a duty and an obligation to follow the just laws that have been passed for all.
Sorry but this law was not passed for the benefit or protection of anyone (not the American people anyway). Making it illegal to protest and riot is against our constitutional right.
Or did you forget about the constitution?
And you don't have the right to overthrow the gov't willy-nilly, for any old reason. You must use the procedures established for change, i.e., the ballot box. And simply because the vote does not go your way is not a reason for violence.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Since when has voting changed anything? The democrats are the same as the republicans. Both parties are crooked snakes only there to further their own personal goals and ambitions.
Voting doesn't change # and you know it.
It is only when the procedures have been corrupted do you have that right of revolt.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Remember the Declaration of Independence?
We've been living under tyrannical oppression for years now, way before the Bush regime's rigged election(s). He just made it more obvious we were slaves.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
No I do not think its ok to harm someone because they believe differently. Where have I advocated violence upon anyone?
If you plan to hurt anyone that was born, raised, or "operating" primarily in the US then you're a terrorist.
Originally posted by Maxmars
1 -The architects of this law and it's introduction: I would start with Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Susan Collins (R-Me) - however there were 11 other co-sponsors
2 - Should it be allowed to stand, I think we will see the application of this draconian legislature in the protection of citizens; corporate citizens who's activities fall under resistance by those local to the corporation's activities - think protests against commercial activities which disrupt people's way of life - like the 'super highway' and 'nuclear/chemical' waste sites. It won't stop there.
Originally posted by Maxmars
As usual, the 'fear' factor will be the well spring of their power to engage in activities that the citizens would never allow given the choice. Imagine pseudo-mercenary organizations like Blackwater establishing 'facilities' in your area - suddenly housing 'undesirables' of some type - foreign soldiers, illegals in detention, or any number of things. The communities can't object other than through processes and mean 'granted' them by legislation -
Originally posted by Maxmars
if they do object differently - they are terrorists, if they discuss alternatives, they are terrorists, if they peacefully protest at the location doing sit-ins or blocking traffic, they are terrorists.
Originally posted by Maxmars
They clever use of verbiage like 'Violent', "facilitate','adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' and such is to provide a suitably 'fuzzy' open-to-interpretation application of government force and coercion to deny free-thinking people the ability to effect a change which would limit or restrict the scope of power the PTB can bring to bear on it's own citizens.
Originally posted by Maxmars
People need to pay attention to the fact that the all important phrase "intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Originally posted by Maxmars
So any belief system that purports to support the furtherance of political or social objectives is now subject to consideration by some committee as 'Terrorist".
Originally posted by Maxmars
Also note the use of the words "`ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group." What exactly does the word 'force' mean here? - it is inexcusably undefined. Should this mean that force = violence? This bears much closer examination.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Maxmars
So, in your interpretation, this law is intended to pave the way for the "Super highway" and "nuclear/chemical" wastesites?
...As it is and shall be, as long as we remain a lawful nation. Of course the legislature does not grant us our rights. Those are God-given and inalienable.
You are conveniently leaving the word violence out of your definitions in order to make your intentions seem above ground and innocent, while at the same time making the gov't seem sinister and menacing.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.'
Originally posted by Maxmars
They clever use of verbiage like 'Violent', "facilitate','adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' and such is to provide a suitably 'fuzzy' open-to-interpretation application of government force and coercion to deny free-thinking people the ability to effect a change which would limit or restrict the scope of power the PTB can bring to bear on it's own citizens.
And you cleverly omit the same phrases to gloss over your unlawful tactics.
Originally posted by Maxmars
People need to pay attention to the fact that the all important phrase "intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
____________________? What? It seems like you left a sentence dangling in mid-air.
"People need to realize that the phrase XYZ _________." What??
Force does not equal violence. Accomplishing something using the force of the law, or of free speech, can be done without resorting to violence.
Originally posted by Maxmars
...As it is and shall be, as long as we remain a lawful nation. Of course the legislature does not grant us our rights. Those are God-given and inalienable.
Not anymore, legislation like this focuses on 'qualifying' rights, and the governments available 'measures' to 'deal' with them.
You are conveniently leaving the word violence out of your definitions in order to make your intentions seem above ground and innocent, while at the same time making the gov't seem sinister and menacing.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Actually the convenience was in the phrasing ...
Originally posted by Maxmars
The communities can't object other than through processes and mean 'granted' them by legislation - if they do object differently - they are terrorists, if they discuss alternatives, they are terrorists, if they peacefully protest at the location doing sit-ins or blocking traffic, they are terrorists. That is how it begins.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Notice the term force OR violence (It was not I who separated the two). Obviously the two are meant to fall under the same 'categorization' separately or it would say force AND violence. I think you might be trying to make 'nice' here; the separation of the two semantically expands the applicability of the term "homegrown terrorist' beyond simply violence.