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

G_j

(40,366 posts)
17. --
Tue Oct 8, 2013, 10:02 AM
Oct 2013

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;'.



-----
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 nation’s 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>
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
Really? Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #4
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
Good Lord FreeJoe Oct 2013 #67
please see my sig line and apply liberally. for fuck's sake. cali Oct 2013 #70
Besides I think treason is a better word for what they are doing. There are bringing down Maraya1969 Oct 2013 #3
What is this McCarthyist mania that has suddenly gripped so many? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #5
sickening, but it's just so fucking moronic as well. idiots. cali Oct 2013 #71
Article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution begs to differ MNBrewer Oct 2013 #19
Treason is not voting in a way that we disagree with, Maraya Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #63
There's a little matter of the US Constitution. longship Oct 2013 #8
Elections are NOT the solution fasttense Oct 2013 #9
So get rid of the voting process? Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #14
I think in the end we will get rid of all the processes. fasttense Oct 2013 #15
I think the point was made clearly meanit Oct 2013 #64
No, our problem is trying to use the despicable Patriot Act Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #69
The conservatives are fine with the Patriot Act meanit Oct 2013 #82
I am all for a march in DC, but people gotta vote. longship Oct 2013 #39
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
Sedition is *action* magical thyme Oct 2013 #20
Read response 29 down thread. longship Oct 2013 #43
not entirely... magical thyme Oct 2013 #48
Well, as I pointed out, treason is defined in the Constitution, too. longship Oct 2013 #49
Excellent !! N/T GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #83
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
See, there you go...potential yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #13
Such a lawsuit is frivolous and should be penalized as such. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #16
So...it someone dies yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #18
For sedition? With a vote as the gravamen of the complaint? Correct. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #21
I am talking about personal lawsuits... yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #32
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the congress is immune from civil lawsuits Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #37
You didn't think that all the way through did you? GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #84
Sorry I am not a lawyer... yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #85
It doesn't take a lawyer to think things through that far. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #87
Live with it? yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #88
Political tolerance is part of democracy. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #89
Wow...you are promoting Political Tolerance yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #90
Absolutely, Yes. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #91
So I should just tolerate Racists? yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #92
Yes. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #94
I don't care how they VOTE...that is up to them, however... yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #95
We are talking about in Congress and in public, not in private. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #96
Even if that person... thinks a Dictatorship would be yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #97
I am against dictatorships. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #98
No...I just don't want people yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #99
All your caring still does not entitle you to have a dictatorship. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #102
Wow this is fun... yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #103
Your postings prove that you don't want democracy. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #104
Sayonara.. yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #105
-- G_j Oct 2013 #17
I like it. Maraya1969 Oct 2013 #22
Congress IS the government. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #23
what about intimidating the populace? G_j Oct 2013 #25
Congress is NOT breaking any laws. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #26
The population is not being intimidated, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #27
jobs, investments, retirement G_j Oct 2013 #28
Yes, and the way to correct this is to vote these idiots out of office, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #30
I don't advocate applying the law G_j Oct 2013 #31
What about the people who claim to have lost jobs and wages to the ACA? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #33
threatening default, is intimidation G_j Oct 2013 #36
You've got a good point here, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #40
and you make a good point G_j Oct 2013 #46
Everyone needs to tone down the rhetoric, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #47
An enemy operates outside the US political process. These are politicians operating in the system Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #62
surprisingly G_j Oct 2013 #66
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
This message was self-deleted by its author G_j Oct 2013 #72
once you've spent it G_j Oct 2013 #73
Yes, but until it is appropriated it isn't spent. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #77
I don't get it G_j Oct 2013 #80
Debate for appropriations of debt limit? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #81
reply G_j Oct 2013 #78
K and R for the Cavers and freepers. Kingofalldems Oct 2013 #24
You are welcome to this fantasy Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #29
It says, "except for treason" and I found this on another thread. Maraya1969 Oct 2013 #50
Or it could backfire badly and turn the teaparty into martyrs. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #52
You are so, so wrong. Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #55
YOU FAIL !! GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #86
Tarred, feathered... BluegrassStateBlues Oct 2013 #34
I don't know who got you guys so wound up... Abq_Sarah Oct 2013 #35
I like how you think. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #42
And hardly Democratic. Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #57
Thank you Abq_Sarah! Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #61
Good grief! HappyMe Oct 2013 #38
10000+ Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #41
This doesn't make a lick of sense to me. HappyMe Oct 2013 #44
Me either. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #45
"How can any progressive support using the Patriot Act,...? oldhippie Oct 2013 #53
We are overrun with people who are just fans, not progressive, not liberal, just fans Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #59
And they should be recalled libodem Oct 2013 #51
There's no provision in the Constitution for a recall of fed. officials. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #54
Then vote them out libodem Oct 2013 #56
I'm right there whit ya brother, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #60
I'm your sister libodem Oct 2013 #74
So sorry about that. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #76
I mix up genders here too libodem Oct 2013 #79
Oy vey! Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #58
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
This message was self-deleted by its author cali Oct 2013 #75
I have despised this sexist, homophobic, old buzzard since the 90s. Beacool Oct 2013 #93
I've used the term "aid and comfort to the enemy" more than once in this debacle. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #100
You are just as dangerous as they are. tritsofme Oct 2013 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»They should be tried for ...»Reply #17