Maxmars' first argument
I was struck by a question TruthWithin asked.
So, how would Thomas Jefferson be labeled a terrorist in today's terms? Well, if he were a citizen of the US, then he would have to be
categorized as a "Domestic Terrorist".
I find myself in the position of requesting that we agree that this debate topic presumes American citizenship. I am hoping we can agree on this,
because if the issue of Terrorism is viewed from an international perspective, the debate landscape changes dramatically... it's best to get this
kind of thing squared away early
- - - - -
As I proceed, I will first sample a few 'realities' in today's legal landscape. I will not delve into legal rationale, nor will I attempt to
apologize for the state of our union; but I will nevertheless show what I believe marks the tragic reality with which Mr. Jefferson would have to
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ACT OF TERRORISM-
(A) CERTIFICATION- The term `act of terrorism' means any act that is certified by the Secretary, in concurrence with the
Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States--
(i) to be an act of terrorism;
(ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to--
(I) human life;
(II) property; or
(iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside of the United States in the case of--
(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph (5)(B); or
(II) the premises of a United States mission; and
(iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest,
as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States
Government by coercion.
Notice... it is a 'violent' act OR
an act that is 'dangerous' ...
The addition of the notion of something 'dangerous' is exceptionally vague. Especially if that juxtaposition of danger is meant to 'coerce'
'influence' the policy or conduct of the US Government.
Further, note this excerpt from the same resolution:
SEC. 301. CERTAIN AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(r)(1) Any action that this Act provides may be taken only upon the affirmative vote of 5 members of the Board may be taken upon the unanimous
vote of all members then in office if there are fewer than 5 members in office at the time of the action ....
Now this gives the Federal Reserve the final authority in execution of the law; "Any action that this Act provides
may be taken only
upon the affirmative vote of..."
Interesting, especially considering that ...
Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions
of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual
law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." .... He also advocated that the national debt should be eliminated. He did not believe
that living individuals had a moral obligation to repay the debts of previous generations. He said that repaying such debts was "a question of
generosity and not of right."
This identifies him as a proponent of a 'dangerous' idea, most certainly to the Federal Reserve which relies on our Federal Government's
acquiescence to the nature of the debt THEY ALONE create on behalf of the citizens. I would expect them to consider him at the least an economic
terrorist, had he the power to institute his ideas in government. I would further expect them to take the case to the courts to compel him to comply
with their will.
Of course, that is just supposition.
But here is another for consideration...,
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose
of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(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.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a
group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
"(2) ... the process of adopting
or promoting an extremist belief system ... " It's one thing to 'promote' something, it's entirely
another to adopt (or believe) it. According to "(2)", violent radicalization - as a criminal activity - is now a prosecutable offense if you
'believe' the undefined 'extremist' belief system.
"(3) and (4) ... the furtherance of political, religious, or social objectives" is illegal if it is in the form of 'force' ... So today, even a
call for a demonstration of dissent for these ostensibly 'free-speech' rights CAN be considered illegal, if the prosecutors care to categorize it as
Mr. Jefferson, who also aligned himself with the French Revolutionary movement, would be no stranger to this categorization.
- - - - -
But more importantly, is the fact that a term above was used, one which clearly identifies a new 'concept' regarding such legislation; namely, the
phrase "the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof
Suddenly, a particular unnamed, yet definable entity is being protected.. 'any segment thereof'. Which means that qualifying as a terrorist is now
irrespective of the intended target of coercion or intent. Simply protesting the IRS qualifies you as attempting to coerce a 'segment' of the
United States Government, attempting to conduct a 'civil arrest' upon a 'protected' individual can be considered terrorism. Blocking access to a
nuclear power plant can be considered extremist and radical in nature, and again, might cast one into the net of 'terrorism.' Threatening to close
down the Federal Reserve would probably get him killed...
Mr. Jefferson was a political agitator, a publisher of ideas that called for the utter dissolution of the colonial government, so he was clearly not
averse to being labeled a 'traitor' to the British establishment, and was no shy about his political beliefs.
Were he the President now, it would be a tremendous blow to watch the law, dissect him into subversive and impeachable bits and pieces. But that they
Far from safe, Mr. Jefferson would have to curtail his political activities severely were he to advocate the removal of the Democratic and Republican
elements from our Federal Government. His concepts of personal freedom and inalienable rights is in direct opposition to those who wish to regulate
those freedoms and rights as 'granted' by the government, as was the Napoleonic trend at the time.
Jefferson would have to go underground and start printing subversive pamphlets to get his ideas disseminated, lest he be completely silenced by those
who are crafting a society where it is increasingly illegal to disagree with the current oligarchical-corporatist paradigm we face today. In today's
world there is no 'distance' that would protect him from the intent of those against whose interests he would speak.
His beliefs would be considered extreme and his efforts subversive. He would be labeled a terrorist out of simple expedience to silence him. IF he
had any protection of legitimacy, he might suffer only professional marginalization and media ridicule; but if he were to live up to his reputation as
a passionate "Founding Father", he would be forced to confront the system head-on in direct rebellion. Sadly, he would be made a criminal by a
system that naturally sees all dissent as potentially criminal and radical.
But the saga does not end here. Mr. Jefferson has more than simply 'government entrenchment' to fight. There are powerful ideologues who command
vast media resources... and you can bet THEY would label him a terrorist.., because they account to no one for their words...
TruthWithin, it's up to you now....