"The Patriot Act, for its part, identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the governments actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." On the bright side, if an American citizen dares to express disagreement in a manner that appears to be intended to intimidate, at least his trial will be public, and subject to scrutiny by higher courts"
1 posted on
12/26/2001 6:59:33 AM PST by
tberry
To: tberry
Well, I guess there is no room in this article for context. Since the President was talking to foreign governments especially those governments who harbor terrorists.
2 posted on
12/26/2001 7:01:11 AM PST by
carton253
To: tberry
So is it official? Is FreeRepublic now a Libertarian forum?
3 posted on
12/26/2001 7:01:42 AM PST by
Mahone
To: tberry
Well, since I do NOT subscribe to Bush's emumenical mantra "Islam is peace" that puts me in the "against" column. It's a lie.
4 posted on
12/26/2001 7:02:54 AM PST by
exmarine
To: tberry
our politicians are claiming liberty is preserved through the passing of new laws; specifically, laws that empower the government to scrutinize civilian behavior with fewer restrictions than before, laws that provide new penalties for crimes defined so vaguely that the appearance of intent is enough to convict. Certain of these new laws are only in effect for the next several years--at which time they will be repealed. Certain of these laws apply to foreigners, not U.S. citizens. He's misrepresenting the facts.
6 posted on
12/26/2001 7:08:08 AM PST by
nicmarlo
To: tberry
I read an article the other day on the "flags" that might draw police attention. One was "anyone who blames the goverment for the problems of the nation". Could someone tell me just who the h3!! we are supposed to blame? Same old story- we'll take the credit, you take the responsibility.
7 posted on
12/26/2001 7:10:45 AM PST by
steve50
To: tberry
Why does Lew Rockwell keep trolling in FreeRepublic waters to snare hits on their website...and
GET BY WITH IT!Let those who want to read their stuff go to their site and enjoy... save the bandwidth here where we need it. I've read their stuff and after reading two or three of their articles, you've read them all. They just keep coming up with new melodies for their worn-out lyrics.
They are blatantly plugging themselves and using our bandwidth to do it.
To: tberry
.
LEW ROCKWELL LIE ALERT (and it's a big one)
"The Patriot Act, for its part, identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the governments actions in a manner "that appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation." "
(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 11 (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..
22 posted on
12/26/2001 7:39:02 AM PST by
mrsmith
To: tberry
Brad needs to read the thoughts of George Orwell (an avowed Socialist). He postulated that those who defend the enemy or critisize the Allies are indeed, aiding the enemy.
To: tberry
To recap my comments for the year re: Lew Rockwell, Libertarians, etc....
These people are what I lovingly call "Agenda Leeches."
They can't attract enough attention on their own websites, so they latch on to a wildly popular CONSERVATIVE website to do their mischief.
Its because of posts like these that I've stopped handing out Free Republic business cards.
I'd like to see warnings a la "Barf Alerts" for this stuff
To: tberry
I hope that you realize that if the Patriot Act
truly "identifies as a domestic terrorist anyone who expresses disagreement with the governments 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.
104 posted on
12/29/2001 12:15:17 AM PST by
mrsmith
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson