[LeatherFace]

Can you believe this?

Oregon "terrorists"

Someone needs to re-read the First Amendment of the Constitution...

25 years to LIFE?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?:angry: :angry: :angry:

 

[Damn True]

Id say they have a point.

"Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly."

I completely support the right to free speech, public assembly and protest. However, protesters do not have the right to inturrupt commerce, disrupt the movement of the citezenry, or halt public transportation.

The thought process behind doing so is IDENTICAL to that of terrorism.
"I have a gripe and people aren't doing what I want them to do so I will disrupt their lives."

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Damn True
Id say they have a point.

"Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly."

I completely support the right to free speech, public assembly and protest. However, protesters do not have the right to inturrupt commerce, disrupt the movement of the citezenry, or halt public transportation.

The thought process behind doing so is IDENTICAL to that of terrorism.
"I have a gripe and people aren't doing what I want them to do so I will disrupt their lives."

but there are laws already in place to deal with such criminal acts. If found guilty of this new legislation, they could face loss of citizenship after jail time. No, this is way too fvcked up.

Utilize the laws already in place is what I say.

 

[Serial Midget]

THe law doesn't have a chance (south of heaven) of passing. No knicker twist needed here.

"The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation."

It's merely a political stunt.

 

[Spud]

Pretty Loosey Goosey

Does a wedding procession disrupt transportation? Arguably so.

How about an unpermitted road peleton? The organizer knows that riders will blow stop signs and impede traffic. Clearly a terrorist act worth an automatic 25 years.

Cafeteria food fight disrupting schools?

 

[Tenchiro]

If it passes it will definately end Critical Mass, man those guys are already famous for blocking traffic.

 

[Spud]

Using this logic, Alabama could have given Martin Luther King Jr. 25-years to life for his role in the Selma to Montgomery March. I’m not trying to equate current events with the Selma march, just suggesting some what if scenarios.

The Selma-to-Montgomery March for voting rights ended three weeks--and three events--that represented the political and emotional peak of the modern civil rights movement. On "Bloody Sunday," March 7, 1965, some 600 civil rights marchers headed east out of Selma on U.S. Route 80. They got only as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge six blocks away, where state and local lawmen attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas and drove them back into Selma. Two days later on March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a "symbolic" march to the bridge. Then civil rights leaders sought court protection for a third, full-scale march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery. Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., weighed the right of mobility against the right to march and ruled in favor of the demonstrators. "The law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups...," said Judge Johnson, "and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways." On Sunday, March 21, about 3,200 marchers set out for Montgomery, walking 12 miles a day and sleeping in fields. By the time they reached the capitol on Thursday, March 25, they were 25,000-strong. Less than five months after the last of the three marches, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965--the best possible redress of grievances.

From the National Park Service - http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/al4.htm

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True

The thought process behind doing so is IDENTICAL to that of terrorism.
"I have a gripe and people aren't doing what I want them to do so I will disrupt their lives."

Um, True... I think you're confusing "disrupt" with "end." They are being nuisances, not terrorists. Perspective, please.

 

[spincrazy]

Insanity. Oregon is a great state and like Washington State it is very liberal and politically active. But, with an arguably extreme left, it follows with an extreme right. Unfortunatley, it looks as if the local, state government is following similar lines of what Washington state's very conservative local government is doing. Hell, it's almost like the extremely conservative current administration of New York City these days.

I doubt it will pass.

True, you ...ah forget it. Lost cause.

 

[ohio]

I forgot to add... terrorism, by definition, is an act designed to cause terror.

So DT, when was the last time you were terrified by an anti-war protester slowing down your commute?

 

[Damn True]

Oh cool it.

My point was that the thought process behind the action, not the action was the same.

You have a group with a minority viewpoint that feels their view is not recieving due attention. They attempt to make their views known. When the situation does not change they escalate the methods with which they voice their view. When the situation fails to change their escalations become increasingly vociferous and eventually lead to, out of frusteration, physicality.

It amounts to no more than a childs temper tantrum when his mother doesnt grant his wish.

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh cool it.

My point was that the thought process behind the action, not the action was the same.

You have a group with a minority viewpoint that feels their view is not recieving due attention. They attempt to make their views known. When the situation does not change they escalate the methods with which they voice their view. When the situation fails to change their escalations become increasingly vociferous and eventually lead to, out of frusteration, physicality.

It amounts to no more than a childs temper tantrum when his mother doesnt grant his wish.

Yeah... and the kid gets his wrist slapped.
He is NOT sent to his room for 25 YEARS!!

 

[Spud]

Who’s having the temper fit? The protestors or the patchouli-hating legislator who wrote the bill?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True

My point was that the thought process behind the action, not the action was the same.

That's like claiming a verbal insult should be categorized as murder because it's "the same thought process."

-That person makes me angry, so I wish to hurt them.-

One response to this thought process is a nuisance, the other KILLS PEOPLE.

Are you actually going to argue that these people are terrorists?

 

[Damn True]

Not at all. Just that the thought process behind the destructive or extremely violent anarchist style protesting (like the brick throwers in Nor-Cal) is very similar.

I think the bill is a tad reactionary when applied to most protesters but sends a clear message that conduct of that sort is not acceptible to the populace. Poor execution of a decent idea in the form of an over-reaction to a situation.

However, the brick thowers and those who have assaulted officers certainly deserve swift and sure punishment.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Spud
Who’s having the temper fit? The protestors or the patchouli-hating legislator who wrote the bill?

By the actions of the protesters and these legislators, seems like both.

 

[BarbaRosa]

no


it is not the same.

one is disruptive to make a point but the majority are not like Earth First folks who think chaos and destruction is ok, the majority want to make the news so that the idea, or point, is voiced

terrorists create a situation of fear, like who wants to go to Hong Kong right now? People fear death, even though given the ratio of bodies in that city, death is more likely to occur from getting run over by a car, or in an auto accident then to die from SARS... but terrorists create situations that weak minded people quiver in there homes for fear of going out and risking death... same people who buy loto tickets, those people that do not have any idea of what statistics are and what the risk really is.

the two snipers that randomly shot at people back east were/are behaving in a terrorists fashion

people blocking a street for a couple of hours is not a terroristic act

.... 'oooo I am late!'

 

[BarbaRosa]

Originally posted by Damn True

However, the brick thowers and those who have assaulted officers certainly deserve swift and sure punishment.

agreed on that point

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Poor execution of a decent idea in the form of an over-reaction to a situation.

Or simply: execution of a terrible idea.

There are laws that already deal with people who throw bricks and bolts at cops. You don't need to classify grandma woodstock as a terrorist just to prosecute the assholes.

 

[Damn True]

My goodness you are a textbook libertarian.

feeding on that........

Just playing :devil advocate here but is the key to effectively enforce existing laws which current events may prove to be an innefective deterant, or would a stronger law provide a more effective deterant?

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by Damn True
My goodness you are a textbook libertarian.

feeding on that........

Just playing :devil advocate here but is the key to effectively enforce existing laws which current events may prove to be an innefective deterant, or would a stronger law provide a more effective deterant?

Killing anyone who speeds is an effective deterant. Does that make it right?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by -BB-
Killing anyone who speeds is an effective deterant. Does that make it right?

Don't be silly Jeff, nobody is suggesting something that drastic.
Of course all of this must fit into the "punishment fitting the crime" template.
As I said, just playing devils advocate.

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Don't be silly Jeff, nobody is suggesting something that drastic.

I don't know--getting 25 years to life for blocking traffic seems pretty drastic to me...

 

[Damn True]

A bit of an oversimplification IMO. I don't know what all happend in the OR protetests but in the case of San Francisco and Oakland it's a bit more than JUST blocking traffic when you consider the cost to commerce, halting of emergency services mobility and assaulting police officers and servicemen.

 

[Thepagoda]

These are the prices that you have to pay to live in this country. If those outside the status quo cannot voice their opinions, then it is not really a democracy is it? (remember that only 51% if the people have to elect officials, that leaves a potential 49% of the populace silent.) Peaceful demonstration has rarely worked, but the times that it has I think that it has proved its worth. The Civil rights movement of the sixties is a great example. If people are not willing to accept a delay in you commute or they can't get to starbucks for their coffee, they might want to consider the value of the freedom that they enjoy.

 

[LordOpie]

Batman, is it time to kick some protestor @ss?

Yes Robin, I think it is.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh cool it.

My point was that the thought process behind the action, not the action was the same.

You have a group with a minority viewpoint that feels their view is not recieving due attention. They attempt to make their views known. When the situation does not change they escalate the methods with which they voice their view. When the situation fails to change their escalations become increasingly vociferous and eventually lead to, out of frusteration, physicality.

It amounts to no more than a childs temper tantrum when his mother doesnt grant his wish.

When I first read that I thought you were describing Bush and Co's reaction to Iraq. It all fits.

 

[wilde man]

I'm all for it. Every time those anti-abortion kooks show up out side a clinic give 'em 25.Who's with me, True?

 

[the law]

Originally posted by wilde man
I'm all for it. Every time those anti-abortion kooks show up out side a clinic give 'em 25.Who's with me, True?

Damn you beat me to it. I was scanning the thread and hoping no one ahd made this point yet. It always works both ways. Let's not forget that anti-abortionists were prosecuted under the racketeering statute. A lot of people seemed upset about that although their activities fit the literal meaning of the statute. People often don't consider the bigger consequences of a law. It is way to easy to limit one's view to the situation at hand with little if no foresight
Sven