Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: They should be tried for treason along with sedition. [View all]From the US PATRIOT Act,
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
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;'.
(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;'.
-----
http://publicintelligence.net/the-continually-expanding-definition-of-terrorism/
<snip>
One of the defining features of terrorist acts has always been a component of violence. Even under the expanded definition of terrorism created by the USA PATRIOT Act, there must be an act that is dangerous to human life indicating some form of physical harm to others could arise from the action. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, extended the definition of terrorism further by including any act that is damaging to critical infrastructure or key resources. Though this definition differs from the legal definition of international and domestic terrorism under 18 USC § 2331, the modified definition is currently used by DHS as the basis for their own activities and intelligence products that are disseminated to federal, state and local law enforcement. The modified definition of terrorism is presented in a revised Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon published last year by DHS:
Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Notice that the statement potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources is part of a disjunction, indicating that the act need not be dangerous to human life for it to be considered an act of terrorism. This means that, according to DHS, a non-violent actor could be capable of committing an act of terrorism simply by engaging in potentially destructive behavior towards some part of the nations critical infrastructure. Due to the fact that large sections of domestic infrastructure, including everything from banks to bridges to milk processing plants, are now considered critical infrastructure, a wide range of potentially destructive actions could be investigated by DHS or any one of the dozens of fusion centers around the country as potential acts of terrorism. The DHS Domestic Terrorism Lexicon states that the definitions presented in the document are designed to assist federal, state, and local government officials with the mission to detect, identify, and understand threats of terrorism against the United States by facilitating a common understanding of the terms and definitions that describe terrorist threats to the United States.
<snip>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Because the other 18,347 times this has been debunked weren't sufficient
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#1
It doesn't have to be armed force. It can be speeches or surreptitious behavior.
Maraya1969
Oct 2013
#2
Which, let's admit, would enrage the opposition and independent voters because it effectively
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#7
No, sedition laws in the US require armed force. The statute has been posted numerous times by
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#6
Besides I think treason is a better word for what they are doing. There are bringing down
Maraya1969
Oct 2013
#3
You don't have to add the snark. I've seen one post on sedition. That's why I posted on treason.
Maraya1969
Oct 2013
#11
I always thought the idea of many.. many people taking these guys to court ...
yuiyoshida
Oct 2013
#10
Even the media and the irritation of having to go to a civil court would be worth it. If someone
Maraya1969
Oct 2013
#12
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the congress is immune from civil lawsuits
Ranchemp.
Oct 2013
#37
What about the people who claim to have lost jobs and wages to the ACA?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#33
An enemy operates outside the US political process. These are politicians operating in the system
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#62
The reason it's a separate vote is to force a public debate about how much debt the nation accepts
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#68
We are overrun with people who are just fans, not progressive, not liberal, just fans
Puzzledtraveller
Oct 2013
#59
I would like to give you a link to my recent thread which asks a lot of questions on this subject
Samantha
Oct 2013
#65
I've used the term "aid and comfort to the enemy" more than once in this debacle.
LaydeeBug
Oct 2013
#100