Posted on 10/26/2001 9:17:04 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
Even after the Supremes gut this deal, we'll continue to rue the day.
America has passed itself some blatantly fascist legislation here, and I, for one, shall oppose it to the utmost.
True patriots have many enemies, and the majoritarian American Police State is now chief among them. Hysterical democracy reigns supreme over Constititutional Republicanism once again.
I'm not impressed with the Constitutional lip service on the part of Bush-43 or Fashcroft, or anyone else who supports this sh!t.
We can only hope that some Constitutional judges quickly begin slapping down the tyrannical provisions of this law.
War is no excuse to negate the Constitution; those parts of the Constitution which are subject to suspension in time of War are clearly stated, and this law clearly exceeds those provisions.
The consent has been manufactured masterfully here.
H.R.2975
See SEC. 309. DEFINITION. in Text of Legislation This link may "time out" so you may have to use the previous link.
Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)
`Sec. 25. Federal terrorism offense defined
`As used in this title, the term `Federal terrorism offense' means an offense that is--
`(1) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against government conduct; and
`(2) is a violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to violate- section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175, 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 792 (relating to harboring terrorists), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956 (relating to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government), 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to protection of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992, 2152 (relating to injury of fortifications, harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to production of defective national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture);
`(3) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284);
`(4) section 601 (relating to disclosure of identities of covert agents) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421); or
`(5) any of the following provisions of title 49: section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3), (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'; and
(2) in the table of sections in the beginning of such chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 24 the following:
`25. Federal terrorism offense defined.'.
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) by inserting `(or to have the effect)' after `intended'; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `(or any function thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or threat thereof)';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by inserting the following paragraph (4):
`(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; and
`(B) appear to be intended (or to have the effect)--
`(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 (or any function thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or threat thereof).'.
Bears repeating....
They had their chance in 1994, and promptly blew it.
Notice that the new class of crimes really is the just the same acts as already defined but with an added element of intent to influence government.
You know, I was positive he said "civil liberties" of all Americans.
I guess my hearing is worse than I thought...
This bill met with an overwhelming -- overwhelming agreement in Congress, because it upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
Oops...there it is. Hmmm...I'll take my constitutional rights, how about you?
If I have a scowl on my face would/could that be considered "intimidation"? If an e-mail to my Senator/Representative is "critical" could/would that be construed as "retaliation against government conduct"?
Seems somewhat vague to me, but what do I know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.