Originally posted by thewind
BUsh signed the "Patriot Act 2" into law back in december of 2003. It was repackaged and renamed "Intelligence Authorization Act,", and was voted
on when Senate passed it with a voice vote (around Thanksgiving) to avoid individual accountability. See link
I invite you to read the entire thread on the Democratic Underground that you linked me to. There's a great deal of question as to what the original
poster was talking about, and no mainstream corroboration was ever produced.
The real Intelligence Authorization Act is a yearly bill that authorizes the intelligence activities in the United States for the Central Intelligence
Agency. The point of which is to give a better public accounting of how money is being spent by the CIA in accord with Section 1 Article 9 of the
Nice little wordsmithing there to make Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT act appear as if anything can be defined as terrorism, here's the actual
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
(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;'.
Notice that it specifically indicates in article 2 section B that there must be an intent to actually use the crime to terrorize. This has to be
proven in court for the crime to be considered terrorism.
As for Mr. Sherman Austin, the actions you describe did not take place last year, but in 2002-2003. He was arrested from distributing information on
explosives and weapons of mass destruction with the knowledge that he knew these would be used in acts of terrorism. I agree with you that this is a
very gray area in the penal code, and proving the intent to be used is bloody impossible in most cases.
However, I do agree with the government that the man was dangerous. He had bomb-making materials including disguised trigger mechanisms. He had
threatened to disrupt the 2002 Olympics with terrorist acts and had participated in cyber-warfare.
He was never actually sentenced under the USA PATRIOT act, and was given a plea deal instead. The United States Department of Justice actually wanted
an even lighter punishment than he actually got (4 months incarceration) but he was sentenced to 12 months in prison, from which he was released after
serving 11 months.
Since his release he has claimed that the National Security Agency has been tracking him and trying to kill him, and that he has had allies fighting
an underground war with them. The NSA has stated that they have no interest in Mr. Austin, and that none of their people have had any contact of any
kind with him or his friends.
As for the chipping, you are right two CityWatch (an emergency texting service of Avtex) employees were chipped, however this was done voluntarily,
and RFID cards were issued to persons whom did not want to have implants.
You are right about the chipping of cops here too. The Automated Personal Location System (APLS) is being installed by the Metropolitan Police in
London. Personally I don't have a problem with chipping people, (or even more advanced cybernetics for that matter) but I can see how some would for
religious or personal reasons. For such people I can see how this would be troubling, even deeply so.
When confronted with such uncomfortable issues however, I would urge the people here to not just look to fringe or opinion media such as World Net
Daily. There are far more reputable and legitimate organizations to gain information from. Please also do not simply read a single article and
believe yourself informed. We journalists are human beings too, we have to use our own judgment to report on stories, and having multiple
perspectives is the best way to get as many angles as possible.
If something alarms you, find out as many real legitimate facts as possible on it. Even Alex Jones tells his listeners to go out and do their own
research too. We in the news media are by and large here for the expressed purpose of keeping you, the public, informed. We believe that information
wants to be heard, and just because a story comes from the BBC, CNN or New York Times, does not mean that it is in doubt. Much the opposite, these
are the news sources of record for history, and as such are generally held to much higher standards of fact checking and accuracy than smaller or