Terrorism Law Applied With Vigor.

Radio ^ | 1/16/2002 | self

[Poohbah]

The crime? He threatened the Judge and prosecutor.

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.

[OWK]

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?

[AAABEST]

The USA PATRIOT Act may well have serious flaws.

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.

[Poohbah]

Of course, were I the judge threatened, it would not have gotten to the point of filing charges against the cretin. After all, you can't try a corpse under American rules of jurisprudence.

[Poohbah]

Yeah. Amazing thing: in most states I've heard of, it's called "communicating a terrorist threat."

That may be where the statement about the guy being a "terrorist" came from, not the USA Patriot Act.

[OWK]

Yeah. Amazing thing: in most states I've heard of, it's called "communicating a terrorist threat."

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?

[Poohbah]

If there is, it's in the sense that threatening a judge over the official performance of his duties is actually threatening ALL of the "commoners" in one pass.

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.

[OWK]

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.

[michigander]

US CODE
TITLE 18
PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 7 ASSAULT

CHAPTER 18 CONGRESSIONAL, CABINET, AND SUPREME COURT ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT

[Razz]

That's probably because you've made sweeping claims and generalizations without bothering to cite the actual provisions that you believe are cleaerly unconstitutional.

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?

[Razz]

Too true. thanks for the link. I know for sure that when the day comes, I will keep my mouth shut and not sign anything.

[Poohbah]

That's just IT. It's called a "terrorist threat" without reference to the common definition of "terrorism," which is politically motivated violence.

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?"

[Chad Fairbanks]

ALl it takes is a few words that could be taken the wrong way, and a large group of left-wing psychotics who hate you... that's really all there is to it - the recipe for success... ;0)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Dammit... I had never heard of Chapter 18... oh well, I guess I need a new plan... Back to the old drawing board... bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa

There... THAT's how ya do it, Laz... ;0)

[michigander]

Chapter 18 or How to arrange an SS visit 101. :o)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ya know what? I've just decided - I'm gonna write me a song called "Chapter 18" heh heh heh ;0)