We’re With You, GW, Really!

lewrockwell.com ^ | December 24, 2001 | Brad Edmonds

[Dr.Deth]

The fact that some people can't distinuguish between patriotism and anti-American ideology is rather disturbing.

The fact that other people can't distinguish between patriotism and jingoistic manipulation is more disturbing.

[mrsmith]

From the article: "The Patriot Act, for its part, identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the government’s actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." "

From the law: ‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activi- ties 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 gov- ernment by intimidation or coercion; or ‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a gov- ernment by mass destruction, assassina- tion, or kidnapping;
and ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’. ,

To summarize, the construction is "A...; B...; and C...."
That each element is neccessary is obvious.

For those who've never thought about logic, or have an IQ barely sufficient for everyday activities, an example of this construction would be an order at a fast-food emporium for "regular fries, regular coke, and a Big Mac".
Of course the order would not be fulfilled by supplying only one of it's elements.

(For those, unlike Lew Rockwell readers, who appreciate logic, there is an example in clause B of an "or" construction- in which, unlike an "and" construction, any one element is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the clause.)

Now, are we to believe that an author is too stupid to understand this- even a Lew Rockwell author? Possible, but very unlikely.
The conclusion is that the Lew Rockwell readers are assumed too stupid to understand this, and that the Lew Rockwell author is consciously taking advantage of their assumed clinical idiocy to decieve them.

OWK: "Satisfaction of ANY (not all) of the specified conditions, satisfies the law. "
In a conjunction (as in the A; B; AND C; statement) all conditions must be met
In a disjunction ( as in the i; ii; OR iii statement of B) any condition can be met.

Anyone confused by the use of both "and" and "or" ( or by the use of either "and" or "or) should check out a site like "The Logical Fallacies".
In fact, in a representative government it is the responsibility of a citizen to be able to understand simple logical operations, and it is useless to try to convince me that we are already at the point that most Americans aren't.

[mrsmith]

I hope that you realize that if the Patriot Act truly "identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the government’s actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." "

Then my anger would be at least as great as yours.

But it does not, and I am very angry that someone, ie: Lew Rockwell, would interject falsehoods into the debate over such a dangerous law.
The actual law is worrisome enough.