Donutboy 0 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 The Patriot Act will soon be used to spy on US!! Protestors to be labeled terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,044 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 The Patriot Act will soon be used to spy on US!!Protestors to be labeled terrorists? Not on US, on those who break the law in the name of protest. There is a big difference. If you don't break the law you would have no problems. Since this seems to bother you so much, why don't you tell us how you feel about the Clinton/Gore administration's use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on women & children at Waco, TX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 13, 2003 Author Share Posted November 13, 2003 The Patriot Act will soon be used to spy on US!!Protestors to be labeled terrorists? Not on US, on those who break the law in the name of protest. There is a big difference. If you don't break the law you would have no problems. Since this seems to bother you so much, why don't you tell us how you feel about the Clinton/Gore administration's use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on women & children at Waco, TX. There's a slight difference between protesting and attacking a compound whose members had fired upon federal agents. It doesn't seem to bother you that this administration can label peaceful protestors as terrorists and use the Patriot Act to violate their constitutional rights. How would YOU feel if Clinton had been able to do the same to abortion clinic protestors. Do you consider THEM terrorists? Some of the basic freedoms that this nation was founded on is the freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and the rights of all Americans to protest against their government. It's amazing to me that so many Americans are willing to give away those freedoms without so much as a whimper. Nikita Kruschev once said that America would fall without so much as a shot being fired. I'm beginning to see what he meant now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 13, 2003 Author Share Posted November 13, 2003 Just a few items from the proposed bill.... For activists, the danger lies in how A4884 defines "terrorist" organizations, as "any association, organization, entity, coalition, or combination of two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity through intimidation, coercion, fear, or other means." ...lawful dissent, such as demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, and leafleting, might fall into any one of those categories, particularly the catchall phrase "other means." The bill also seeks to prohibit people from gathering photographic or videotaped evidence of illegal or harmful activities, effectively shutting down the camcorders and other tools used by 21st-century protesters. Additionally, the bill calls for the creation of a state-run website where people convicted of "eco-terrorism or animal-rights terrorism" would be identified with photographs and stigmatized, much as states do with child molesters. Kerr and other lawyers contend that the animal- and eco-rights movements already are in the crosshairs of the Bush administration. At the moment all eyes are on Greenpeace, which ran afoul of the Department of Justice last year after two activists boarded a boat carrying wood that Greenpeace says was illegally exported from the Amazon and hung banners over the side that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." For that act, Greenpeace has been charged with violating an obscure and ancient "sailormongering" law that prohibits unauthorized persons from boarding a boat before it's moored. And when it comes to proposed laws like the one being considered in New York, ALEC has the administration's ear. Its annual meeting this past July in D.C. drew such speakers as Vice President Dick Cheney and Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The group gave Cheney its Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award, praising him for his "commitment" to "individual liberty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,044 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 There's a slight difference between protesting and attacking a compound whose members had fired upon federal agents. There is evidence those people were fired on first by the ATF! It doesn't seem to bother you that this administration can label peaceful protestors as terrorists and use the Patriot Act to violate their constitutional rights. This is not aimed at peaceful protestors and you know it. It is aimed at the tree huggers who SPIKE trees to keep them from being cut. It is aimed at animal rights nuts who break in & open cages of test animals. Who break into private property and "free" thousands of mink! How would YOU feel if Clinton had been able to do the same to abortion clinic protestors. They did & have had legistation passed to inhibit abortion protestors and have prosecuted them. Do you consider THEM terrorists? Anyone who bombs abortion clinics is a terrorist! And it is the bombers you are speaking of isn't it? Some of the basic freedoms that this nation was founded on is the freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and the rights of all Americans to protest against their government. I have no problem at all with protest, I grew up in the 1950's, 1960's and know what protest are. I saw with my own eyes what the irmingham police did to blacks. Even though I was in the service in the late 60's & 70's I still had friends who were activately protesting the war in Viet Nam and there were extreamists in that movement as well. It's amazing to me that so many Americans are willing to give away those freedoms without so much as a whimper. And you make excuses and rationalize for the CLINTON/GORE murder of women & children at Waco, TX. They could have arrested Koresh & his followers easily without a full scale military assault if they had wanted to. Clinton/Gore didn't want to. If you watched those building burn & knew those people were murdered & you still want to defend the democrats who did it, you need a life. Nikita Kruschev once said that America would fall without so much as a shot being fired. I'm beginning to see what he meant now. It is the opinion of many that the Democratic party with the help of the ACLU is in the vanguard of helping this happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 I think they ought to move so-called 'Free Speech' zones two blocks away from abortion clinics. Maybe then they won't be arrested for assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.