Skip to comments.
Man Charged Under Patriot Act for Laser
news.yahoo.com ^
| 04Jan05
Posted on 01/04/2005 4:27:48 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-178 next last
To: eleni121
Aiming a laser with sufficient power density at the pilot's position should be harshly punished, I agree.
Pointing an annoying laser, though, that probably is under the fed guidelines for commercial laser shows, though? I don't think so.
Laser beams spread out after a distance. They are pretty parallell out to a certain distance, then spread rapidly. When I run the equatin for a 532nm green laser with a 1mm aperture, I get a beam spread of 12 to 15 feet at 2 miles. 5 mW spread over that big a circle is .5 microwatts/cm2, and at one mile is about twice that, 1 uW.
If he's in a Laser Free Zone the limit is 50 nW/cm2, this is about two miles from an airport and a very low laser power.
The next zone out is the Critical Zone, running out 10 miles, and the laser beam limit is 5 uW/cm2- vey difficult to get with a 5 mW pointer.
Beyond that, is the Sensitive Flight Zone, and the beam limit there is a whopping 100 uW/cm2.
This is from
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/chapter_29.htm
the FAA regs on outdoor laser operations. If a laser hits a plane below these levels and out of the designated zones, it's not a crime per se.
Using the Patriot Act for this case is not good and not a good harbinger of things to come. Remember when the Clinton justice department used RICO laws to silence abortion protest?
101
posted on
01/05/2005 7:27:43 AM PST
by
DBrow
To: dljordan
I've noticed a trend in the news and by the talking heads in Washington to describe things that used to be crimes as terrorism. Gee, who could have seen that one coming....?
102
posted on
01/05/2005 7:30:59 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: brushcop
As far as I'm concerned, it's a terrorist act. Define terrorism.
103
posted on
01/05/2005 7:31:50 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: DBrow
This is the kind of information that we need to know and I appreciate that you provide your expertise in the matter.
Our govt should take heed before it willy nilly uses Patriot - needed legislation if used properly - for crimes that are not terror related.
Yes, I do remember well, RICO used for pro life protestors...horrible.
104
posted on
01/05/2005 7:32:51 AM PST
by
eleni121
(4 more years and then 4 more again)
To: NJ_gent
Yeah, odd and alarming. Over zealous application of the wrong law could see this guy getting set free. recall a story last week - no link or specifics, so could be wrong - about attempts to charge a gangster under the terms of the P.A. A bad guy, no doubt [if found guilty], but nothing to do with terrorism.
This kind of mission creep could easily extend to going after anti-abortionists.
105
posted on
01/05/2005 7:34:52 AM PST
by
johnmilken
(question the government)
To: johnmilken
"This kind of mission creep could easily extend to going after anti-abortionists."
One of the first EOs of the new Hillary administration. After all, they're "terrorizing" all those women seeking 'health care'. Some folks can't see past the end of their nose when it comes to things like this. If they, themseves, haven't been locked up under a new law, they don't see a problem with it or understand that problems can happen in the future. The other danger here as that 'terrorism' becomes a diluted, meaningless concept. When everone's a terrorist, being a terrorist a'int so bad. People using passenger aircraft as missiles or who use trucks as bomb delivery tools are terrorists. People who strap bombs on their chests and walk into the most heavily populated place they can find are terrorists.
A strip club owner with shady financial dealings is not a terrorist; nor is some idiot who hears about shining lasers up at airplanes on the news and decides to try it out for himself.
106
posted on
01/05/2005 7:54:47 AM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: freeeee
"Define terrorism."
'Terrorism - anything I dislike or disapprove of' [/honesty]
107
posted on
01/05/2005 7:56:10 AM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: NJ_gent
Such an absurd definition would be funny, if it weren't true.
108
posted on
01/05/2005 8:10:23 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: NJ_gent
"A strip club owner with shady financial dealings is not a terrorist" The money laundering laws included in the Patriot act are not, and were not intended, to be used only against terrorists.
If you had some knowledge of the Patriot act, I hope you could comment more intelligently.
109
posted on
01/05/2005 8:10:57 AM PST
by
mrsmith
To: mrsmith
The money laundering laws included in the Patriot act are not, and were not intended, to be used only against terrorists. True. The Clinton administration first tried to get them and were blocked by Repubs. So they went back on the Justice Departments shelf. And when America was kicked in the ____, and was in no mood for reasoned debate, an opportunistic government decided that would be the right time to get their wish list enacted.
How very slimy.
110
posted on
01/05/2005 8:17:30 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: dljordan; GingisK; Mad_Tom_Rackham; freeeee
He can be charged as a domestic terrorist. I've noticed a trend in the news and by the talking heads in Washington to describe things that used to be crimes as terrorism. It's the new "in" thing.
Yep. According to the Patriot Act, "domestic terrorism" can mean anything that involves "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State." Under this definition, any crime anywhere committed by anyone can be considered an act of domestic terrorism.
And to think that some brave "patriots" here are just fine with that.
111
posted on
01/05/2005 8:17:46 AM PST
by
sheltonmac
("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
To: sheltonmac
And to think that some brave "patriots" here are just fine with that. They'll change their minds just as soon as someone they don't like is in office and not one moment sooner.
The entire design of American government escapes them. The idea isn't give government unlimited powers and hope the 'right' people get elected. The idea is to limit powers to begin with because eventually someone bad *is* going to abuse their powers.
112
posted on
01/05/2005 8:23:34 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
To: OneTimeLurker
Well I guess we are starting to realize the Patriot Act isn't just about Terrorism. It's about giving the federal government more power.
The terrorism label was just the spoonful of sugar to make us take the medicine. Once again, I point out that there are no astericks next to the first 10 Amendments with footnotes saying "unless we think the guy is a terrorist or a drug dealer."
If you want to change the Constitution, you may pass an Amendment. If you want to suspend civil liberties, you can declare martial law. The Patriot act is unconstitutional, and this is only the beginning of the abuses we are going to see, especially when the future President has a (D) beside his or her name.
To: freeeee
To: NJ_gent
Charge people for crimes if you have evidence against them, but for goodness sakes, charge them with the right crime using the right law.The MSM couldn't possibly wrong about the charges and what laws were applied by whom with the reporting on this incident. - sarcasm
To: NMC EXP
For God's sake don't believe what the govt tells you.And don't believe what the MSM is telling you either...
To: sheltonmac
And to think that some brave "patriots" here are just fine with that. I'm not fine with it.
To: sheltonmac; freeeee
"anything that involves "According to the Patriot Act, "domestic terrorism" can mean acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State." " Ah, the Big Lie is brought out for the sheep LOL!
Maybe you'll catch a few newbies who don't know and don't care what the law actually says.
118
posted on
01/05/2005 8:50:39 AM PST
by
mrsmith
To: mrsmith
Maybe you'll catch a few newbies who don't know and don't care what the law actually says.
Well, since I quoted what the law actually says in Section 802 (amending 18 U.S.C. s 2331), I'm not sure what your point is.
119
posted on
01/05/2005 9:11:27 AM PST
by
sheltonmac
("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
To: mrsmith
Section 802 of Patriot Act:
"(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 of of any state;
"(B) appear to be intended-
"(i) to intimindate or coerce a civilian population;
"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
120
posted on
01/05/2005 9:12:54 AM PST
by
freeeee
("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-178 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson