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.

 

Question About the Patriot Act's Definition of Terrorist

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Hey, was just wondering if some of you guys could help clarify something for me. My question is in regards to section 802 of the Patriot Act (specifically subsection 5 -A,B,C) which states:



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;’’.


My question is that for someone to be a domestic terrorist according to the definition given above, do they have to apply to A, B, and C? Or only just two of them, or even one?

According to Alex Jones, he interprets this by taking only A into consideration which would read:

‘‘(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;

So according to him, someone only needs to fulfill one of the 3 criteria listed as A,B and C to be defined as a terrorist by the our new law. So obviously, he's concerned about A, because alone, that could make tons and tons of people a terrorist by definition, like jay-walking even.

Or is he wrong, and the act is actually stating that a person must fulfill A, B, and C? If this were so, then it's not nearly as threatening, becuase most people wouldn't fall into B or C.

I ask this because Alex Jones' analysis (if true) is very troublesome. And I am not experienced at reading legisation and interpreting correctly. So if anyone here is familiar with doing so, could you please clarify this for me?
Thanks.

P.S. Either way, I still hate the Patriot Act for many many other reasons than just this one.




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Iv just been watching Infowars documentaries and reading some of there papers...I think its all 3, A B and C...cuz it says it must harm people, try to coerce the govt, and be inside the jurisdiction of the USA.

Both Patriot Acts 1&2 totally ripped apart the Constitution. For shame
and I cant believe congree wasnt even aloud to look at the first.



[edit on 29-6-2004 by dreamlandmafia]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
Iv just been watching Infowars documentaries and reading some of there papers...I think its all 3, A B and C...cuz it says it must harm people, try to coerce the govt, and be inside the jurisdiction of the USA.

Both Patriot Acts 1&2 totally ripped apart the Constitution. For shame
and I cant believe congree wasnt even aloud to look at the first.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by dreamlandmafia]


Did you know that congress reads hardly any of the bills before they are passed? That should make you wonder. Also, suppose our government is corrupt and everyone in the United States finally realized and turned against the government because we could prove they were wrong. I guess then we would be considered terrorist. Wouldn't we?

[edit on 29-6-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 29-6-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Yup...but it seems that "terrorists" are jsut revolutionaries. We need another revolutionary war...this time against the federal government


[edit on 29-6-2004 by dreamlandmafia]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Well, I went to the USCode site and downloaded the section you are talking about, this includeds the changes stated in the Patriot Act and should be easier to read and understand. As I am not an Attorney, I am not qualified to comment on exactly what this means legally, hopefully someone here is and can explain it to us laymen...


18 USC CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM 01/22/02

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM

Sec. 2331. Definitions

-STATUTE-
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that
-
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction 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 outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term ''national of the United States'' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term ''person'' means any individual or entity capable
of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term ''act of war'' means any act occurring in the
course of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(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.

-SOURCE-
(Added Pub. L. 102-572, title X, Sec. 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992,
106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Sec. 802(a),
Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376.) (PL 107-56 is the USPatriot Act)bold added by me

-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
referred to in par. (2), is classified to section 1101(a)(22) of
Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

Here's the USCode site...
uscode.house.gov...



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
Iv just been watching Infowars documentaries and reading some of there papers...I think its all 3, A B and C...cuz it says it must harm people, try to coerce the govt, and be inside the jurisdiction of the USA.

Both Patriot Acts 1&2 totally ripped apart the Constitution. For shame
and I cant believe congree wasnt even aloud to look at the first.



[edit on 29-6-2004 by dreamlandmafia]


I kind of suspected it may be all three. But are you certain or just postulating? But if it is all three, then Mr. Jones is being pretty irresponsible by proclaiming 802 and citing only A without B and C. I think Jones does a good job with a lot of information, but this makes him lose some validity. It seems he has enough good information to share without having to convieniently leave bits out that make things less threatening. Because taking A B and C together, then I would say it's not such an outlandish or dangerous label for terrorists. So either he's lying or twisting the truth, or he really believes that A by itself is enough for someone to be labeled as a terrorist.

I would really appreciate if anyone here is an attorney or is experienced with the form of legislation, that they could shed some light on the matter. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
JacKatMtn, I don't know if is only me but this president and his policies kind of fill more of 3 spots on that list of you of terrorist.


The patriot act to me means,

If we don't like you and you are against this administration you are'

A TERRORIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you will be busted.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well...look at C itself



‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.’’.


You cant have C by itself. You have to have A and B to make it a valid statement. "Occur primarily within the terroritorial jurisdiction of the United States" doesnt refer to anything to be occurring.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Good point. Pretty much in your face, don't know why I didn't really notice that. Any other comments? Also, since it seems to require all three, then that's bad for Alex Jones. Does he have a history of this of only telling partial information to make things appear more in the way he wants them?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Good point. Pretty much in your face, don't know why I didn't really notice that. Any other comments? Also, since it seems to require all three, then that's bad for Alex Jones. Does he have a history of this of only telling partial information to make things appear more in the way he wants them?


I tend to think so, as a hobby I listen to him weeknights on shortwave radio, (he puts me to sleep), while he may have some credible subjects he speaks to, he just seems to stretch any truth to match his conspiracy as I see it. It is always fun to listen to what the EXTREME think, and every once in awhile you can learn some things too, just be ready to research every iota of what he spews like you did this morning and eventually the truth will surface.....



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join