Posted on 01/16/2002 5:49:56 PM PST by Razz
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;'.
The law was sharply criticized on its passage last October. opponents claimed the law was unconstitutional, was passed by a Congress that didn't even read the bill, and granted unheard of powers to law enforcement agencies. They claimed it wasn't a matter of if the law would be abused, but when.
Now, three months later, few, if any reports on the application of the law appear in the national press. An uncertain number of people have been detained in terrorism-related investigations, usually under minor or questionable charges, when details are even revealed. Reports range from a few hundred to nearly two thousand. Regardless of the true number of detainees, there has been no general public outcry. Claims of Constitutional violations are ignored for the most part. The detentions are justified because "they aren't Americans, they don't have Constitutional protections," and after all, they must be involved in terrorism, right?
But, despite the media's general silence, odd facts seep to the surface. For various reasons, I, like many Americans today, really on the internet for most of my news. But occasionally the news comes on the radio and I don't happen to switch stations. thus, I heard the first report of a man in a nearby town being charged with terrorism - in a domestic abuse case. A week or so later, I heard another report: of a man in a nearby town charged with terrorism. The crime? He threatened the Judge and prosecutor.
Two cases reported in two weeks, in extremely limited listening, in a very small corner of the country. How many more such cases must there be throughout the State? The Country?
Somehow I don't think this is what Congress had in mind when they passed these new Laws to combat 'Terrorism.'
Or maybe they did.
Nobody with any common sense is going to call these people terrorists.
Then again, nobody with any sense threatens the Judge and the prosecutor on his domestic violence case.
Check me if I'm wrong... but wasn't that already against the law?
My God Kevin, there's hope for you! I'm temporarlily taking you off my idiot list for that one.
I can't argue with either of your points about stupidity. Real threats of violence are stupid and illegal as they should be.
That's not where the problem lies with this act, I think both of you know that.
That may be where the statement about the guy being a "terrorist" came from, not the USA Patriot Act.
And strangely enough, it was already called assault (which was already against the law).
Or is there something special about a judge, that makes it necessary to differentiate him from the "commoners", by having a special class of crime for assaulting them?
However, in California, verbally threatening me (a "commoner") can be charged as "communicating a terrorist threat." I think the difference between that and assault is that assault requires someone's physical presence--i.e., it has to be in person--whereas "terrorist threats" can be communicated in writing or by phone. There is an element of direct threat (i.e., not shooting one's mouth off at a bar about how one will "shoot that so-and-so"), but not the direct presence.
I can assure you that communicating a threat to do harm to an individual or a group of individuals (either in person, or via some medium) was already illegal in every state in the Union, prior to the introduction of any legislation specific to terrorism.
CHAPTER 7 ASSAULT
CHAPTER 18 CONGRESSIONAL, CABINET, AND SUPREME COURT ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT
I did not make any such claims. I merely referenced other such claims. Do you deny that such have been made?
And your examples of abuse are next to worthless inasmuch as they allude to second or third-hand accounts of alleged arrests to which the word "terror" has been vaguely applied by nameless and faceless somebodies.
"Second or third-hand accounts"??? No. These were news reports which I heard on the local radio.
"Alleged arrests"?? Again, there was nothing "alleged" about the arrests or the charges "to which the word "terror" has been vaguely applied". The charges were not vague, they were specific: terrorism.
I'll give you the "nameless and faceless somebodies" because I neither know the names of, nor have ever seen the prosecuters who applied the charges. Of course, they do have names, which a bit of research would reveal.
Your post isn't a report. It is a rumor.
It is definitely not rumor. It is a report of what I have heard locally and an attempt to determine if the situation is widespread. Obviously you have an agenda of your own which precludes such knowledge from spreading. I wonder what that might be? Or do you just have a problem with reading comprehension?
It's called a "terrorist threat" in the context of attempting to terrorize a specific person.
Of course, I once changed my answering machine when I was getting a string of threats over my pro-life activities:
"Hi, I can't come to the phone. Do it at the beep. By the way, if you're calling to threaten me, I just got a new rifle from the gun store, would you be so kind as to ACT on your threats for once so I can boresight it?"
There... THAT's how ya do it, Laz... ;0)
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.