Action needed--the ACLU's on your side for this biggie.

[gnome]

Ordinarily I wouldn't jump on everyone to get involved in something they didn't find their own way to... but I'm convinced this one is especially important.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=15502&c=24

Here are the reasons they cite to oppose this in the strongest terms:

This legislation would not deter terrorists. This legislation will almost certainly have no deterrent effect on suicidal, politically motivated terrorists such as members of Al Qaeda. Not only do these terrorists seek death in their actions, well-publicized executions are far more likely to create a perverse incentive by giving terrorist organizations the gift of publicity – often the most important tactical goal of any terrorist action.

Expansion of the death penalty under the vaguely worded “terrorism” definition of the PATRIOT Act would chill protests. Protestors and activists from Greenpeace to Operation Rescue would risk being sentenced to death and executed for participating in civil disobedience events that are now defined as “terrorism” under the PATRIOT Act, if they resulted in a death of one of the participants or someone else.

This bill would actually hurt the war on terror. Many nations in Europe and elsewhere that have abolished the death penalty are unwilling to extradite or provide evidence in federal terrorism cases if the death penalty might result from their cooperation. This bill would further limit their cooperation and participation.

Unless you love the death penalty even more than national security, I should think that conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and progressives alike should be acting against this.

Even if you agree with the current administration and don't have much sympathy for protestors, chilling dissent is a two-edged sword--sooner or later someone else will be in power.

Send your free fax ASAP.

(or discuss your objections or support here)

 

[Grammatron]

Ordinarily I wouldn't jump on everyone to get involved in something they didn't find their own way to... but I'm convinced this one is especially important.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=15502&c=24

Here are the reasons they cite to oppose this in the strongest terms:



Unless you love the death penalty even more than national security, I should think that conservatives and liberals alike should be acting against this.

Even if you agree with the current administration and don't have much sympathy for protestors, chilling dissent is a two-edged sword--sooner or later someone else will be in power.

Send your free fax ASAP.

(or discuss your objections or support here)

That does sound rather horrible, however I would like to see the passages in the proposed Act where someone from Greenpeace can end up on Death Row just for civil disobedience.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Action needed--the ACLU's on your side for this biggie.

That does sound rather horrible, however I would like to see the passages in the proposed Act where someone from Greenpeace can end up on Death Row just for civil disobedience.

That's not what they argued--they said the current definition of "domestic terrorist" includes actions of civil disobedience that lead to a death...

So, for example, if there is a Greenpeace protest, and it turns violent, anyone that participated could be held to be a "domestic terrorist" whether they were directly involved in the violence.

Hangon, I'll find the exact wording...

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Action needed--the ACLU's on your side for this biggie.

That's not what they argued--they said the current definition of "domestic terrorist" includes actions of civil disobedience that lead to a death...

So, for example, if there is a Greenpeace protest, and it turns violent, anyone that participated could be held to be a "domestic terrorist" whether they were directly involved in the violence.

Hangon, I'll find the exact wording...

That would be helpful.

Meanwhile, if I read the parts in the Act correctly -- and I am by no means a lawyer -- it's not as much Greenpeace who should be worried but people like ALF and ELF who firebomb labs and dealerships. The way it's worded it looks like there needs to be a death resulting from the activity committed by organization for someone to get a death penalty, even then, I don't know what parameters the organization needs to fit in to be considered for such a clause.

 

[gnome]

Here's a link to the text of the provision, for the sake of discussion:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2934:

A summary for those who hate legalese:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02934:@@@D&summ2=m&

From the Patriot Act:

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;'.

 

[gnome]

Note that I am not arguing such actions should be free from punishment... but if one was even a little worried that a protest they were going to might get unpleasant--this could easily scare them into staying home.

That is exactly the chilling effect I describe.

 

[Nigel]

(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;

Does that mean that going 70mph in a 65mph zone on the interstate makes you a domestic terrorist? Driving certainly "involve(s) acts dangerous to human life", and speeding is "a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State", is it not? Or is speeding a civil crime? (Certainly a misdemeanor, but not being a lawyer, I could be wrong on all counts. But if I am wrong, someone please clarify.)

 

[Grammatron]

Here's a link to the text of the provision, for the sake of discussion:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2934:

A summary for those who hate legalese:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02934:@@@D&summ2=m&

From the Patriot Act:

Where's the death row part?

 

[phildonnia]

Re: Re: Action needed--the ACLU's on your side for this biggie.

That does sound rather horrible, however I would like to see the passages in the proposed Act where someone from Greenpeace can end up on Death Row just for civil disobedience.

I think the argument is that is has a "chilling effect", not that it actually results in injustices like this. The chilling effect has always been generally seen as an intrusion on speech rights.

 

[gnome]

Does that mean that going 70mph in a 65mph zone on the interstate makes you a domestic terrorist? Driving certainly "involve(s) acts dangerous to human life", and speeding is "a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State", is it not? Or is speeding a civil crime? (Certainly a misdemeanor, but not being a lawyer, I could be wrong on all counts. But if I am wrong, someone please clarify.)

They'd have to catch you on section B in order to apply the law.

So... speeding on the way to a civil disobedience protest, and getting into an accident with a fatality?

Joking aside, isn't it clear that the language defining "domestic terrorist" is overly broad? Combine that with a death penalty and you have something truly dangerous.

 

[Nigel]

Re: Re: Re: Action needed--the ACLU's on your side for this biggie.

I think the argument is that is has a "chilling effect", not that it actually results in injustices like this. The chilling effect has always been generally seen as an intrusion on speech rights.

True, Bush's administration has tried to curtail the public's rights of speech with the patriot act, and now things are brewing with the Guantanomo Bay captives. It's the old 'give him an inch, and he'll take a mile' though. Where will it stop?

 

[gnome]

Where's the death row part?

Sec. 2339D. Terrorist offenses resulting in death

(a) A person who, in the course of committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

"Conduct that results in death" is the manslaughter standard, not the murder standard, by the way. They would not have to prove intent to kill.

The law is similar to the law that offers a death penalty for deaths caused in the commission of a violent crime. For example, if you are robbing a 7-11, and your gun goes off and shoots someone, you can get the death penalty (at least in Florida).

The difference is that in the existing laws, the perpetrator committed a violent act (armed robbery). That standard is lacking in the proposed provision.

 

[Tony]

A good rule, when judging the merits or negatives of a piece of legislation, is not to look at the benefits or downfalls of it, but to look at how it can potentially be abused.

 

[Grammatron]

"Conduct that results in death" is the manslaughter standard, not the murder standard, by the way. They would not have to prove intent to kill.

The law is similar to the law that offers a death penalty for deaths caused in the commission of a violent crime. For example, if you are robbing a 7-11, and your gun goes off and shoots someone, you can get the death penalty (at least in Florida).

The difference is that in the existing laws, the perpetrator committed a violent act (armed robbery) with intent. That standard is lacking in the proposed provision.

I guess we need a laywer person here since I don't know what this "really" means. However I don't remember any Greenpeace protests resulting in death. This is all a bit confusing since on one hand you say manslaughter standards on the other it falls under "PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST MURDERS" in your link.

 

[Grammatron]

As I read through TITLE 18 , PART I , CHAPTER 113B I came to the conclusion that the definition of terrorist is rather vague and I can't see how they differentiate a crime from a terrorist crime.

 

[Nigel]

They'd have to catch you on section B in order to apply the law.

So... speeding on the way to a civil disobedience protest, and getting into an accident with a fatality?

Joking aside, isn't it clear that the language defining "domestic terrorist" is overly broad? Combine that with a death penalty and you have something truly dangerous.

It is clear the language defining "domestic terrorist" is overly broad. That's why I asked such a (seemingly) ridiculous question. But that's one way it can be abused.

edit to add:

I guess we need a laywer person here since I don't know what this "really" means.

Lawyers won't decide this, at least not by themselves. I predict (take that Interesting Ian!) this will go all the way to the Supreme Court before it gets solved.

 

[Tony]

So... speeding on the way to a civil disobedience protest, and getting into an accident with a fatality?

In all seriousness, what if you're speeding as an act of civil disobedience, get in a wreck, and someone dies.

Would that make you eligible for the death penalty under this law?

 

[gnome]

I guess we need a laywer person here since I don't know what this "really" means. However I don't remember any Greenpeace protests resulting in death. This is all a bit confusing since on one hand you say manslaughter standards on the other it falls under "PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST MURDERS" in your link.

I notice that. Maybe we need Suddenly... "Is there a lawyer in the house?" ... but I believe the binding part is the language-- "Conduct resulting in death"... and not the title.

But also think about it--just who is the death penalty in this case supposed to scare? Not real terrorists, surely?

They're obviously trying to scare someone--and I think it's us.

 

[gnome]

As I read through TITLE 18 , PART I , CHAPTER 113B I came to the conclusion that the definition of terrorist is rather vague and I can't see how they differentiate a crime from a terrorist crime.

So... does that mean you'll send a fax?

 

[roger]

In all seriousness, what if you're speeding as an act of civil disobedience, get in a wreck, and someone dies.

Would that make you eligible for the death penalty under this law?

I don't see how that meets conditions Bi, Bii, or Biii.