File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2001/anarchy-list.0111, message 336


From: "Old Goat" <olgoat-AT-kdsi.net>
Subject: domestic terrorism
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:27:25 -0600


Well, at least some folk be paying attention.  Hell, we may end up having to
have detention camps just to hold all us "domestics."

OG


YOU Might Be a Terrorist
by Brad Edmonds
H.R. 3162, "The Patriot Bill," or the antiterrorism bill, might make you a
terrorist. Any persons among us who have accepted that certain civil
liberties must be abridged in time of war, or forever, for the sake of
security, are going to learn Ben Franklin's lesson the hard way: Those who
would give up freedom for security deserve, and will get, neither.

First, the antiterrorism bill so loved by Congress and the White House has
redefined terrorism. According to Sec. 802, (a)(5)(B)(ii), "the term
'domestic terrorism' means activities that appear to be intended to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Again: If
the activity appears to be intended to influence the policy of a
government - not just the United States government - by intimidation, it's
domestic terrorism. Most important: Since all we require is intimidation,
how would we define that?

"Intimidation" does not seem to be defined in H.R. 3162. We thus must turn
to authoritative dictionaries, which say such things as "to make timid." Put
it in the hands of a trial lawyer, and here's how it could play out: Have
you ever felt intimidated by someone smarter, larger, older, wealthier,
higher in rank, more attractive, more physically fit, more passionate, or
more popular than yourself? That's all it takes to establish intimidation in
court - being made timid. Get a jury or judge to buy your version of events,
and you win.

So while intimidation is a weak criterion, far too easy to establish in a
court of law, you don't even have to establish anyone's intent to
intimidate, much less his success at intimidating someone. You, the
prosecutor, have to establish only the appearance of the intention to
intimidate any government, and you can try anyone for domestic terrorism.

So, those of us who disagree publicly with the government's responses to
9/11 - especially if our disagreements are reasoned, well-supported, and
impassioned - are, by definition, terrorists. The only requirement is that
someone, somewhere believes it appears we're trying to intimidate the
government. This is an ominous glower over free speech.

How ominous? It depends in part on whether you're a foreigner. Suppose a
Canadian citizen writes an anti-war column for an American website. Bush
signed an executive order on Tuesday, November 13, which allows for any
foreigner connected to the events of 9/11 to be tried by military tribunal.
This means, among other things, that the trials can be held in secret,
defendants do not get the usual protections (such as an extended appeals
process), the death penalty is an option, and Bush decides who is tried. If
the notion of "connected" is as vague and potentially encompassing as the
definition of "domestic terrorism" mentioned above, all foreigners who speak
out in disagreement with the US government might have reason to fear
suspicion with regard to 9/11.

Remember that foreigners aren't alone - H.R. 3162 applies to everyone.
Foreigners are singled out only in Bush's executive order. The only
difference between foreigners and citizens is the option of the military
tribunal.

We've all heard how new laws won't function in unintended ways: The Civil
Rights Act wouldn't result in hiring quotas; the Americans with Disabilities
Act wouldn't result in costly and ridiculous lawsuits (such as the Supreme
Court deciding the rules of golf); and the Endangered Species act wouldn't
threaten property rights.

With such unintended consequences being the rule rather than the exception,
be careful not to complain about the amount of your Social Security check or
tax liability. Don't complain about emissions regulations. Don't complain
about anything the government says or does. According to the definitions in
H.R. 3162, your speech (especially if it's cogent) need only criticize the
government, and you could stand accused of domestic terrorism.
November 15, 2001

Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com







   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005