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.

 

Please clarify this section of the Patriot Act 1

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Section 802 -

(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.'.





-----------------------------------------------------------


Now with some knowledge of outline format, A, B, and C are to be taken as separate points. Usually A and/or B and/or C in cases like this. Meaning you can take out A and/or B and still have C as a stand-alone definition. So in section 5, lets play a bit and remove A and B...you get the following


`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--


`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.




Now that scares me. The way this document is written (unless I am misreading), if the gov. really wanted to nail you, they could under Section 802 5C. This could be a mistake in simple documentation, but the way it is written now means ANYTHING you do could count as domestic terrorism. Could I get some clarification?

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Cutwolf]




posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You have kitchen knives in your house.

You are one of the 'other' religions.

You speak out against the current administration.

You have an atlas in your car.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Or, according to section 5c, you do anything on american soil.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Most of the patriot act is written with the intent of amending code that has already been written. You would have to refer to the original code which the patriot act refers to in order to get a better understanding.

Of course, it would also help to be a lawyer.

DC



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The point is, section 802 of the patriot act 5c clearly says a domestic terrorist is someone who performs activities on american soil.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
The point is, section 802 of the patriot act 5c clearly says a domestic terrorist is someone who performs activities on american soil.


So, all they have to do if "we the people" wanted to take our country back, is exercise this and kill us all.

What a slick gov.

We can't fight back against automatic weapons with our kitchen knives - we're done.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Felt like bumping this for more exposure and opinions.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Well, by the laws of the Patriot act, Bush and company themselves can qualify as terrorists.

Coercing and intimidating the population. Hmmm

Weapons of mass destruction on US soil. By definition, the pollutants and garbage his cooperations pump in the air are toxic and cause loss of human life.

Assasination, kidnapping, ect.

So, when does bush get a one way ticket to Camp x-ray?



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
number (i) and number (ii) ....i find theese the most disturbing .....this basically means a large gathering of people protesting could be interpreted as doing theese things as far as coercing others to take part in a protest against the government to change there policy !!!!!
This is a real good way they have found to round people up when # hits the fan and declare them to be terrorists !!!!!
DOES THIS PISS ANYONE OFF OR WHAT !!!!
NOW IM NO LAWYER BUT I HAVE TAKEN BUISNESS LAW AND PERSONALLY KNOW SOME LAWYERS AND KNOW SOMETHING OF THE LANGUAGE AND THIS CAN BE INTERPRETED IT WOULD SEEM AS THE GOVERNMENT CAN USE THIS TO HELP DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS !!!



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
You have kitchen knives in your house.

You are one of the 'other' religions.

You speak out against the current administration.

You have an atlas in your car.


...and you have a passenger in that car.

You post on ats or other alternative websites.

You own non-mainstream books.



Delta Chaos said:
You would have to refer to the original code which the patriot act refers to in order to get a better understanding.
Of course, it would also help to be a lawyer.

Or, you can decipher the IRS tax code


[Edited on 21-4-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Section 802 -

(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.'.


Now that scares me. The way this document is written (unless I am misreading), if the gov. really wanted to nail you, they could under Section 802 5C. Could I get some clarification?



It's all in the details or in this case the grammar. Notice at the end of (A) it shows ; and at the end of (B) it says (and) this indicates that all three conditions must be met before the definition of "domestic terrorism" is met.

That aside it still ticks me off because it still restricts freedoms listed under the bill of rights. If you were to organize a demonstration, the Feds could feasibly bust you under this section.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Bleys]

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Bleys]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
However, many a person has been detained by the local police here for making "terroristic threats".
This rather nebulous euphonim has been charged to wild young radicals in numerous school systems in my county.

In other words, that means, some dumb 15 year old lost his cool and screamed at a teacher, "you m****
F****, I'm gonna kill you."

Everyone is just a little on the wacko side when tempers erupt. It takes a judge and usually several lawyers to work out what the said 15 year old actually meant. This started happening after Columbine, five years ago. The campus police have always been quick on the response where I worked for the last 15 years.
Of course, the outcome of this is always baffling to the same teenager once he's calmed down. By then its too late and he's in a world of trouble. I can just imagine how the Patriot Act will not enhance our lives, but will make it much more difficult.

Is it true that the Patriot act I is due to expire at the end of this year? If Bush wins, he'll automatically renew it. Kerry will abolish it.

The devil and the deep blue sea. Our choice, right?



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

That aside it still ticks me off because it still restricts freedoms listed under the bill of rights. If you were to organize a demonstration, the Feds could feasibly bust you under this section.


"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;"

Demonstrations are not in violation of criminal law, hence this could not apply.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;"

Demonstrations are not in violation of criminal law, hence this could not apply.



This is where I believe the Fed government could "play in the grey" Some protests have the ability to shut down emergency services, create significant damage, etc., but are not in the same league as a Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta. And as long as John Ashcroft remains AG, I am concerned about the statute being misused to suppress unpopular opinion.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Bleys your right the scariest parts of this are section (B)
(i) and (ii).....take a close look people this is where protests by people against the government can be used to round them up and declare them terrorists.......



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join