Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Attend a Protest, Go to Jail

By kpaul in News
Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:40:18 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

In the United States, Senator John Minnis has proposed a bill in the Oregon Legislature that would imprison for life those convicted of "terrorism." A minimum of 25 years would be served without the possibility of parole. The definition of terrorism in Senate Bill 742 could include people attending protests where others are disruptive.

Perhaps more importantly, the Oregon bill would also allow law enforcement agencies in that state to disregard ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850 if they are investigating terrorism. The former stops the collection or maintaining information about the political, religious, social views, associations or activities of any person or group unless part of a criminal investigation. The latter forbids using resources to apprehend people whose only offense is a federal immigration violation.


Senate Bill 742 defines terrorism as:
(1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.


Some have wondered in public if the bill (first introduced in late February) is even needed. The bill is opposed by the ACLU, Portland Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and many others. Some fear that if the bill passes into law in Oregon, it may spread to other states.

Senate Bill 742 is to be heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 24 at 8:00 a.m. The ACLU asks those who are concerned to contact Senator Minnis.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
SB 742 in Oregon
o is too USian for me to care. 21%
o scares me. 38%
o is a bill that won't pass 16%
o is a bill that will and should pass. 1%
o is a bill that should but won't pass. 0%
o is another sign of the times. 20%
o doesn't concern me. 2%

Votes: 225
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o proposed a bill
o terrorism
o ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850
o wondered
o late February
o ACLU
o Portland Bill of Rights Defense Committee
o others
o Senate Judiciary Committee
o Senator Minnis
o Also by kpaul


Display: Sort:
Attend a Protest, Go to Jail | 221 comments (212 topical, 9 editorial, 1 hidden)
No More Moldy Green Crack (4.95 / 24) (#5)
by opendna on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 04:42:59 PM EST

By current federal law "terrorism" is the commission, or threat of committing, a criminal act for political reasons. A criminal act is, of course, an act that violates a law.

Therefore someone who murders because they are psychotic is merely a murder, but someone who does it for political reasons is a terrorist. Someone who steals for personal material gain is a thief, but someone who steals for political reasons is a terrorist. Someone who breaks a window for the hell of it is a vandal, but someone who breaks a window for political reasons is a terrorist.

As described Senate Bill 742 (above) actually limits the scope of terrorist prosecutions. That's a good thing, but I think the authors have got it backwards:

Bill 742 includes mass demonstrations, a common manifestation of popular dissent, because they disrupt commerce and transportation. Likewise it includes police crowd control tactics designed to disrupt those same demonstrations (nothing like riot cops to turn an orderly march into chaos).

Bill 742 excludes assault, assassination and mass murder. Politically-motivated groups which conspire to bloody, lynch, execute and massacre individuals and groups would be excluded from the Terrorist classification.

Personally, I think this is foolishness. It tells us that 9/11 was a terrorist act because it targeted buildings, not because it killed thousands. It tells us that Hamas is a terrorist group because it disrupts bus service, not because it kills civilians. It tells us that the KKK's lynching of civil rights leaders is not terrorism, but Rosa Parks was a terrorist.

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy...



Every activity can be interpreted as political -nt (none / 0) (#137)
by Kuranes on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 07:37:02 AM EST




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
Life Imprisonment for Attending a Protest ? (2.66 / 3) (#7)
by OldCoder on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 05:11:54 PM EST

I think that is a bit much for the Oregon legislature to swallow. I predict the bill will not pass in its current form. We are probably worried about nothing. We can't fly off the handle every time somebody comes up with a bad idea.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder
Quite the opposit (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by MKalus on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 06:34:43 PM EST

We can't fly off the handle every time somebody comes up with a bad idea.

Yes you can and should. If you don't one day you won't notice what they just slipped by.

Better overreact than not react at all (in this case).

M.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Listen to OldCoder... (4.00 / 2) (#12)
by ti dave on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 06:59:01 PM EST

When you fly off the handle at the slightest provocation,
you begin to irritate1 those people with which you would share society. This state of irritation impedes the healthy flow of human interaction that is vital2 to keeping society viable.

1. See: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
2. See: "Lord of the Flies"

Endorsed by the American Taliban Association
[ Parent ]

Terrorism is any act that disrupts ... (4.72 / 11) (#9)
by pyramid termite on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 05:29:42 PM EST

(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.

"Mrs. Jones, your little Johnny threw a spitwad at the teacher in 3rd hour today. I'm afraid we're going to charge him as a terrorist and he'll be doing 25 to life ..."

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
My god! (4.50 / 4) (#20)
by carbon on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:40:38 PM EST

Will no-one stand up and protect our lunch money? If not, the bullies have already won!


Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Good in principle, bad in form (4.22 / 9) (#11)
by onyxruby on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 06:57:31 PM EST

Look, the idea of sending someone to life prison for a very long time without possibility for parole for committing terrorism is good. In this, I'll so far as to say such a person should get life, not 25 years. That being said, I find this bill rather disturbing. Let's look at how this could be used against people that aren't terrorists.
A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt: The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
Sounds good, keep people from antagonizing people that want to get togethor, could even be used to help protect protestors from over anxious law enforcement types. Problem, do something that prevents a building from being used and you could be guilty of terrorism. Something as simple as running into a utility pole or a gas main accident could keep a building - used for the assembly of people - from being used. Backhoe operator ruptures water main, goes to prison for 25 years, not good.
A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt: Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon
In some manners this is fair, it shouln't be anyone else's place to try and keep me from getting to work or anyplace else because they want to protest the flavor of the week. But this is misdemeanor behavior, hardly deserving of 25 years in the slammer. This could also be used by anyone that speeds or in any other manner breaks a traffic law.

What really worries me though is the "Commerce" section of this. Imagine, somebody shoplifts a candybar from store. This could be construed by some nutcase prosecutor as interfering with the stores ability to engage in commerce by depriving them of their product. One candybar should not equate to 25 years in prison, especially for a first time offender. Somebody plays their music too loud, or the "wrong" kind of music and gets accused of interfering with the commerce of a store and so on.

Likewise any interuption to a website could be viewed the same. Somebody cracks your webserver and uses it as a zombie. You could be held liable under the pretense that you did not properly "maintain" your system - an arguement that certainly has some validity. Thus through your neglect of not caring for your web server properly, you could be held accountable for knocking someone else's webserver off the Internet. Many other potentials for abuse of this come to mind.

A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt: The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants
This one would get violated the very first day the law became active. All of the following were considered causing a distrubance when I was in school; kid cuts class, gets into a fight, pulls a prank, or any of the other multitude of things that kids in school or college do on a daily basis across this country, and I'm reasonably sure, most others.

One thing I have learned in my observations of society and its legal system: All laws can and will be abused. The question when creating a law is not what the reasonable person will do with the law, but what the unreasonable person could do with a law. Remember it is the letter of the law that provides the gearing for our legal systems, and the letter of the law should be held to as fine a standard in its manufacturing process as any mechanical device.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Protesters blocking streets (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by AnomymousCoward on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 07:44:14 PM EST

In some manners this is fair, it shouln't be anyone else's place to try and keep me from getting to work or anyplace else because they want to protest the flavor of the week. But this is misdemeanor behavior, hardly deserving of 25 years in the slammer. This could also be used by anyone that speeds or in any other manner breaks a traffic law.

Right. I agree with everything here.

I'll point out, though, that there was an incident in West Los Angeles two days ago where the protesting crowd blocked Wilshire Blvd for a substantial period of time. One of the cars stuck in the resulting gridlock was a man taking his wife to the hospital. I never heard the outcome, and I hope she's OK. For cases like these, it'd be nice to see some stiffer penalties for the misdemeanors than "arrest, book, fine, release". Six months, or so, seems fair for those who are actively blocking traffic (ie: those sitting down in the middle of what would be a very busy intersection).

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
No offense, but your source for that? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kpaul on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:01:01 PM EST

The Daily Bruin:
Police initially used their batons to force demonstrators blocking traffic off the street. After diverting traffic, police blocked both Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Blvd., and allowed the chanting protestors to hold their positions in the road, though police constantly kept close to the chanting protestors.



2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
I have none. (none / 0) (#22)
by AnomymousCoward on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:58:34 PM EST

I saw it on Fox 11 news in LA the night it happened. It was mentioned as an aside, and I never heard the outcome. I can't find a documented source confirming it, although I'm relatively certain I heard it correct (not that my belief counts for much).

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
No prob... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by kpaul on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 09:09:43 PM EST

I believe ya. If it was substantiated, though, I'm sure O'Reilly or someone would've picked up on it.

You have to remember, though, that the TV spreads inaccuracies sometimes...


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
My other source (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by kpaul on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:05:54 PM EST

NBC 4 News:
Though the marches and rallies were generally peaceful, Bratton called for an investigation after an officer there struck at least three people with a baton.

Hundreds of protesters faced off with police in riot gear Thursday a block from the Federal Building and shut down afternoon traffic along Wilshire Boulevard. At one point, dozens of marchers dropped to the ground to create a symbolic image of imitate bodies killed in combat.

Police arrested 38 people, most of whom were cited and released, said Sgt. Terri Brinkmeyer of the West Los Angeles Station. A man who assaulted an officer and another who had cocaine were held.



2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
25 to life (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by squidinkcalligraphy on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:16:49 PM EST

Look, the idea of sending someone to life prison for a very long time without possibility for parole for committing terrorism is good. In this, I'll so far as to say such a person should get life, not 25 years.

I don't really follow your train of thought. The purpose of penalty is an attempt to prevent a crime from happening in the first place. Someone planning  a terrorist attack (let's use for the moment the stereotypical towel-headed kalishnikov toting islamic fundamentalist) will probably not be concerned with the consequenses of their actions ("oh, no, I'll go to jail for 25 to life!"), because either they'll be dead at the end of the action (e.g. suicide bombing), or they are that ideological that the punishment is of no consequence. So this kind of legislation will do nothing to stop large-scale terrorism, nor probably, even small scale. On the other hand, if we look at such laws after the crime, then it depends whether or not the punishment system is likely to reforms someone into society. In the US (and most other countries) this is not the case. People coming out of jail tend to be more likely to re-commit crimes. The obvious solution: abolish jails. Capital Punishment for All! Not just the Rich!

An identity card is better that no identity at all
[ Parent ]

Repeat terrorists (none / 0) (#124)
by onyxruby on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:59:08 PM EST

Actually terrorists are not always out to die in their initial attack. Many have attacked more than once, and would certainly do so if given another opportunity. The concept of the suicide terrorist is actually relatively new. That's why it surprised so many people that terrorists would be willing to die to accomplish their terror. Even in the 9/11 attacks Bin Laden was said to laughed at the 4 our of each set of 5 men who didn't realize that they were on a "suicide mission".

More to the point, how many would reconsider their terrorist attack if it meant unconditionally spending the rest of their lives under the US Governments thumb?

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

Kamikazee's aren't all that new..... (none / 0) (#219)
by Letifer on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:45:02 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Democracy? (4.00 / 8) (#13)
by holdfast on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 07:02:36 PM EST

I keep hearing your president trying to tell us all that you want to spread democracy throughout the world. If that's the democracy that you are getting in the USA, I won't bother thanks. Constitutional monarchies are much more comfortable!


"Holy war is an oxymoron."
Lazarus Long
hey, can i have your car? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:35:03 PM EST

here's a bicycle, thanks

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Sigh. (none / 0) (#33)
by Work on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 11:01:41 PM EST

Yes. Considering the bill isnt a law, or even up for consideration yet.

Democracy will be preserved as democracy will see it to that such tripe - along with most other garbage that legislators like to write - never sees the light of day and is forgotten in a couple weeks.

Should said bill become a law (highly, so very highly unlikely), the Supreme Court will never accept such vague wording.

Democracy is safe, and wins again. As it has so many times, over so many stupid legislators.

Remember that whole 'bill to get dead bodies from normandy'? I bet you'd forgotten about it until I mentioned it.

This is one of those kind of bills.

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute. (none / 0) (#67)
by ghjm on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:08:05 AM EST

I agree that this bill is unlikely to become law. However, if it does, and the Supreme Court then strikes it down, how is that an example of democracy?

-Graham

[ Parent ]

You're right. (none / 0) (#79)
by cdyer on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:51:57 PM EST

It isn't democracy is it, especially since the Supreme Court is unelected? But it is an example of government doing the Right Thing™, insofar as is possible. Which, in the end, is more important than buzzwords like Democracy.

Cheers,
Cliff



[ Parent ]
checks and balances? (none / 0) (#83)
by joshsisk on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:34:37 PM EST

The Supreme Court isn't elected, which is probably a good thing, but they are appointed by elected officials.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
Ain't necessarily so (none / 0) (#99)
by Domino on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:54:54 PM EST

Um, the Patriot Act passed just fine thank you. This effort is just a local moron's attempt to climb aboard that sorry bandwagon. Why would you think the Oregon legislators enjoy more wisdom and sanity than the national ones?

[ Parent ]
0, Abstain: Society is hypocritical. (2.25 / 4) (#14)
by JChen on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 07:21:23 PM EST

News at 11.

Let us do as we say.
perspective (1.50 / 2) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:38:20 PM EST

learn what the word means, then type

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I choose... (none / 0) (#21)
by kpaul on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 08:53:45 PM EST

perspective:

  • Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view

    I think if we are supposedly fighting for 'freedom,' we need to make sure we don't lose our freedom.


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
  • i think in our fight for freedom (none / 0) (#25)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 09:45:56 PM EST

    we should not be swayed by red herrings

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Then what is the threat in your opinion? [mt] (none / 0) (#26)
    by kpaul on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 09:49:05 PM EST


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    the threat to freedom? (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:16:15 PM EST

    is great in the third world

    all the fucking portesters could care less about the plight of people outside the borders of their stupid pathetic country

    i cease to care about spoiled decadent blind westerners who bite the hand that feeds them

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Good for them. (none / 0) (#80)
    by cdyer on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:58:11 PM EST

    Which is as it should be. Perspective also means that you can only see things from where you are. The only thing I know about the so-called third world is that they're poor. Plus a couple of sound bites from the media. If the people there aren't happy, they can work to change things to suit their own needs. It will be difficult, and they may need help at times, but it's not up to me to dictate how their lives should be lived. A large number of Iranians want to live in an Islamic Republic. I'm not going to try to tell them they can't, or that the only good government is a secular government. That's for them to decide. And they are deciding. They elected a reformist government in 1997, and have been making the changes they want since then.

    I think my own government and society, in the United States, is pretty horribly twisted, and I am going to devote my energies to making it a better place. Why? Because it's my home, and it matters to me.

    That's my perspective.

    Cheers,
    Cliff



    [ Parent ]
    your perspective sucks (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:53:10 PM EST

    you are a member of the human race first, then a part of your tribe/ religion called "american".

    if you value your stupid tribal affiliation over your membership to the human race, then you are a stupid ignorant fuck

    that's perspective: human race first, every other stupid tribal bullshit second

    so go on and worry and fret over your stupid american bullshit. i'll be busy caring about people who really suffer in the world. stupid fat lazy american.

    btw: i was born in and am living in the us. i am an american second, a human being first.

    you have it backwards.

    you're ignorant.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#109)
    by cdyer on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 08:38:29 PM EST

    <p>That's not perspective.  That's <em>your</em> perspective.  Mine is different.  I am a member of my family first.  Then I am a member of my hometown.  Then my state.  Then my nation.  Then the world.  My loyalties lie right where I can see them.  Now if you'll read my other comments over the past few days (they're the ones that you replied to by saying "PERSPECTIVE!!!"), you'll see that this does not mean that I want to abuse the rest of the world.  On the contrary, focusing on that which is local to me, I tend to see the human in everyone, and will not sacrifice that for theoretical or abstract "goods" that I see as dehumanizing.

    <p>Cheers,
    <br/>Cliff</p>

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#110)
    by cdyer on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 08:38:51 PM EST

    That's not perspective. That's your perspective. Mine is different. I am a member of my family first. Then I am a member of my hometown. Then my state. Then my nation. Then the world. My loyalties lie right where I can see them. Now if you'll read my other comments over the past few days (they're the ones that you replied to by saying "PERSPECTIVE!!!"), you'll see that this does not mean that I want to abuse the rest of the world. On the contrary, focusing on that which is local to me, I tend to see the human in everyone, and will not sacrifice that for theoretical or abstract "goods" that I see as dehumanizing.

    Cheers,
    Cliff



    [ Parent ]
    your point of view (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 08:43:01 PM EST

    your point of view sucks.

    your point fo view is the cause of much evil and suffering in the world.

    it is selfishness defined.

    i worry about the human race as a whole.

    my outlook is selfless.

    yours is selfish.

    and you are proud of it!

    your morality does not flow from an understanding of what is right and wrong, it flows from your own selfish interests.

    grow up. open your eyes. there is a big world out there. it doesn't care about you. so you better care about it.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cdyer on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:43:52 PM EST

    It doesn't flow from selfishness.  It flows from my love of the people around me.  I came to this view after meeting too many people who hated everyone they met in the name of "loving humanity" or "loving the world."  Also, everyone I know who has actually made a difference in the world did so out of care for individual people they knew, and expanded that love to a general principle, rather than starting from the general case.  

    Jesus, who I think was a pretty smart guy, said "love thy neighbor."  Not love the world.  No one can love the world.  There's too much horrible shit out out there.  Eventually it will just bog you down.  But you can love your neighbor, in spite of the horrible shit he might have done, because you actually know him.  You can't actually love someone without that kind of knowledge and intimacy.

    Cheers,
    Cliff

    [ Parent ]

    short circuits (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:01:42 PM EST

    It doesn't flow from selfishness. It flows from my love of the people around me.

    yes, i understand this thinking. stalin had a mother too. it is impossible for her to understand how her lovely son could do so much bad. you are equivalent to someone who will hide your son in the basement as the sheriff is knocking on the front door to arrest him for pedophilia. this is the thinking of "love the people around you, fuck the rest of the world", in action.

    I came to this view after meeting too many people who hated everyone they met in the name of "loving humanity" or "loving the world."

    huh? what? i translate this as "i came to love chocolate ice cream after meeting too many people who loved chocolate ice cream in the name of loving vanilla ice cream." huh? do you understand logic? people who hated everyone in the name of loving humanity? what the fuck are you talking about? bzzztt... short circuit...

    you don't get to talk about jesus. the tales of his life are basically a string of one selfless act after another.

    you're a work of art. you are so blind and deluded you don't see how your philosophy is nothing more than a justification for selfishness.

     

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Lack of circuits (none / 0) (#218)
    by Letifer on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:29:37 PM EST

    Alright, then. A flowerchild who supports the Operation "Iraqi Freedom" as well as protestors' rights. Is that something akin to Ghandi in the Third Reich? Or do you merely filter things to conveniently fit your view (like many of us ADMIT we do?) Who are you to bash another's perspective due to your own, in my opinion, innane philosophies? Your wild accusations regarding pedophelia and comparisons to Stalin speak for themselves but I still like commenting further. You're a straight up deluded jackass and it's time we put a little "perspective" on 'Shock and Awe' for you. What cdyer is attempting to convey for you is a very precious sentiment which you apparently have little regard for. Lack of experience on your part? Bad experience on your part? Either way I couldn't care less but I will tell you this: If you put the 'human race' before your own family, community and nation in the end you will pay quite dearly. You may find that your precious "democractic republic" (I use this term as loosely as GWB might) is worth a whole lot less to you than your own relationships in life when times get tough. You might find that OTHER people in OTHER civilizations also feel this way. Sure, humanity should be one big happy family but that is not the case. Taste the cold concrete of reality you insensitve bastard. Let your teeth scrape against the nonsense for a while. Use your eyes, your ears and more importantly, try using your brain once in a while to do more than protect your own "perspective." I feel cdyer is indeed a work of art and I appreciate the fact that he was willing to share his views. Regardless of how I may feel personally about Jesus I do find that your claim to be self-less is utterly base-less, if you will. If you're not yourself then just who the hell are you? A superior being from another dimension? You claim that you put the human race first. First strike for "democracy" and "freedom", you mean? Wake up, stretch a bit, have a good yawn and then after you've had a little real world experience go ahead and come back to the discussion table. Until then, keep on sleeping because the human race doesn't give a shit about you and neither does your "democratic" government. end.rant

    [ Parent ]
    You Word-Murder Your Children (2.50 / 4) (#24)
    by 0xdeadbeef on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 09:45:41 PM EST

    Pedant humans are stupid and evil. Word has not the substance of a fart. You do not have the mind or education to envision Nature's Time Cube.

    [ Parent ]
    cubeless education (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:11:40 PM EST

    Cubeless education - is a deadly evil.
    Cubeless educators are evil bastards.
    Humans are dumb, educated stupid,
    and evil.  They don't want to know
    Nature's Cubic Order of Creation.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a Cubarian - ask me why the fuck not (3.00 / 2) (#61)
    by thenerd on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 07:36:23 AM EST

    Teachers are hired evil word pedants who enslave childish minds to a lifetime stupidity.

    [ Parent ]
    fascism (none / 0) (#27)
    by cronian on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:07:20 PM EST

    I suggest you look it up. Some of us don't plan seeing through the window of a prison cell.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    yes, fascism (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:14:23 PM EST

    yes, overreaction
    yes, shooting a mosquito with an elephant gun

    yes, yes, yes, the whole fucking world is going to hell in a handbasket, we are burning up! we are burning up!

    and my terrible horrible evil you have righteously burned into my skull is that i don't understand the horror we are all 20 seconds away from

    yawn


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    not exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by cronian on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 11:18:54 PM EST

    I didn't say it was "bad" thing or even that I am against it. Just as many people did quite well under Nazi Germany, many will do well today. Ghenghis Khan conquered half the world, and so what? I'm just not sure you understand what you are saying.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    brining up nazi germany (none / 0) (#36)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 11:37:27 PM EST

    bringing up nazi germany in the context of anything that is going on in the world to day is propaganda

    we are so far from anything happening here from what happened in nazi germany it's not even funny

    am i being too complicit?

    or are you being too alarmist?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    comparisons (none / 0) (#40)
    by cronian on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:50:29 AM EST

    I mention Nazi Germany simply because it is the best known, and most written about totalitarian state. It also shares many similarities with the Bush administration, and provides an example of how an advanced western democratic country can be turned into totalitarian state. Germany didn't become a totalitarian state overnight, but went through various stages. If the United States doesn't warrant comparison with Nazi Germany today, what would have to happen before it does?

    Today, I think the United States is in the early stages of what could become equivalent to the Third Reich. The patriot act basically gave the government the ability to spy on US citizens without a court's permission. The Bush administration is already detaining foreigners without a trail or judicial oversight, and they have paved for locking up US citizens on a massive scale. What exactly constitutes fascism? Laws, like in the article, just help cracking down on dissent?

    Hitler first took dictatorial powers after a terrorist attack on the Reichstag(German Parliament).

    Some things are obvious but it's not obvious what is obvious
    [ Parent ]

    you are an alarmist (none / 0) (#43)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:01:10 AM EST

    by comparing the us to the nazi reich, you fall victim to overreaction

    you are not very perceptive

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    as you mentioned (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by wh4tn0w on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:41:40 AM EST

    Hitler. I now site Godwins Law and call this thread done.

    [ Parent ]
    Godwin's Law (none / 0) (#92)
    by virg on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:22:44 PM EST

    > I now site Godwins Law and call this thread done.

    Then perhaps you should drop your end of this thread and go learn what Godwin's Law is. Don't cite it until you do. Godwin's Law merely states the likelihood of a discussion turning to Hitler, not the right of someone to declare a win based on the mention.

    Virg
    "Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
    [ Parent ]
    Godwin's Law (none / 0) (#101)
    by doy on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:02:52 PM EST

    Actually, Godwin's Law does refer to a winner of the argument, but the winner is the person that doesn't mention Hitler and it is explicitly stated that invoking Godwin's Law intentionally doesn't count.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#163)
    by virg on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:09:26 PM EST

    > Actually, Godwin's Law does refer to a winner of the argument, but the winner is the person that doesn't mention Hitler and it is explicitly stated that invoking Godwin's Law intentionally doesn't count.

    No, it doesn't. Michael Godwin himself stated that his law is a description of statistics, with a dose of tongue-in-cheek, but explicitly does not determine "winners" and "losers" for a discussion. By his own words:
    As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
    That's it. According to this source, it does not allow one to claim victory, although there is a teradition of misuse to do just that.

    Sorry if this sounds belligerent, but this reference comes up if you type "Godwin's Law" into Google and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky". Please do your research before you post again.

    Virg
    "Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
    [ Parent ]
    America is fucked (3.50 / 8) (#31)
    by gordonjcp on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:22:44 PM EST

    You guys need another revolution, quickly. Otherwise, you'll become the USSR again. Fix it now.

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    again? (none / 0) (#66)
    by benson hedges on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:56:03 AM EST

    the only difference between today's USA and the USSR are the kind of economy (and neither works/worked anyway), and the fact that there are no Gulags in the US... whoops, forgot Guantanamo.
    --
    When all is One, all violence is masochism.
    [ Parent ]
    Labor camps. (none / 0) (#89)
    by tkatchev on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:08:08 PM EST

    To be honest, the horrible things that went on in the USSR were the direct product of civil war. (Something that never really ended -- there were no winners in that war, people mostly just got tired of killing each other.)

    In political terms, the USSR was a fairly typical socialist democratic government. Not too different from something like France, for example.

    (Not to defend the USSR -- the point I am trying to make is that political systems mean virtually nothing in the real world.)

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    You have a case of (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lenny on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 07:10:40 PM EST

    Missile Envy!


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    It will be overturned on appeal (4.00 / 3) (#32)
    by gr3y on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 10:36:44 PM EST

    if it is even adopted.

    I am a disruptive technology.

    Oh my god. (4.62 / 16) (#34)
    by Work on Sun Mar 23, 2003 at 11:04:04 PM EST

    Why are you people voting an article up about some dumbass legislator - a STATE legislator no less - who writes a poorly worded vague bill that isnt even up for voting yet?

    Honest to god. Learn how the goddamn government works. Should this actually come up for a vote, which is highly unlikely, then protest it.

    Otherwise this is just troll fodder. Like every other stupid 'oh my god the sky is falling' article that comes through k5 when a legislator shits on a piece of paper and tries to get a committee to pass it on.

    Oregon state politics (4.50 / 2) (#41)
    by sinexoverx on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:53:11 AM EST

    I live in the great of Oregon. I was tempted to tell everybody just what is going on here and how laughable it is, but everybody seems to be having a good time being outraged. So ... carry on.

    [ Parent ]
    Wait a minute (4.50 / 2) (#55)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:30:21 AM EST

    Why are you people voting an article up about some dumbass legislator - a STATE legislator no less - who writes a poorly worded vague bill that isnt even up for voting yet?

    Don't you think it's disturbing that dumbasses like this can get elected? He had to have shown some signs of being this dumb during his campaign, and yet, people still voted for him.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Rogerborg on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:49:10 AM EST

    We usually vote for the 2nd worst candidate.  But that's a different story.

    "Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
    [ Parent ]

    You're right, but... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ktakki on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:14:52 PM EST

    It is a poorly written bill, not much more than grandstanding on the part of a state politician who probably represents just a few thousand constituents, and it probably won't even get to the floor of the Legislature, much less pass a vote.

    But if it did pass, and believe me, stranger things than this have happened in state politics, I'd hate to think that the fight was lost because the battle was joined too late. He who hesitates...

    Nip it in the bud. Send a message to lawmakers, state and Federal, that the threat of terrorism is not an excuse to push Draconian laws that threaten the Constitutional right of free assembly and free speech. There are already laws on the books that prohibit vandalism, assault, and rioting.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel like trashing a Starbucks right now. See you at the barricades.


    k.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people
    are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

    [ Parent ]

    This Senator's Bio (3.50 / 4) (#37)
    by duffbeer703 on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:27:03 AM EST

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/minnisj/bio.htm

    This jackass was a police patrollman for 16 years -- which means that it took him about 12 years to pass the sergeant's test -- despite his marriage to some politically connected chick. He's obviously not the brightest bulb.

    This is a bill that isn't even out of comittee in the Oregon State Senate. It's a non-issue -- because there is no way that this guy will be able to push a bill like this through.

    A haiku (2.00 / 2) (#38)
    by A Proud American on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:41:47 AM EST

    If you despise war
    And hate your native country
    Make sign and protest


    ____________________________
    The weak are killed and eaten...


    Pieku? (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Hatamoto on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:34:42 AM EST

    In times of conflict
    kuro5hin denizens
    dream of tastey pie.


    --
    "Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
    [ Parent ]
    trio (none / 0) (#47)
    by kpaul on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:15:25 AM EST

    war waged in iraq
    freedoms at home on the wane
    protest photographed


    ---

    war anti-war war
    cnn fox news cable
    protest a protest


    ---

    innocent protest
    mingled with the anarchists
    grandma is in jail


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    Oregon Politics (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cronian on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:01:17 AM EST

    Isn't Oregon one of the most liberal states? I thought the state was refusing to cooperate with Ashcroft. Does this type of thing have any support in Oregon?

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism

    Although I'm not from Oregon, (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kpaul on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:57:08 AM EST

    the Portland Mercury had a story from 2001 regarding Ashcroft and the state's Death with Dignity Act.

    More recently, the Salt Lake City Tribune has reported that some cities in Oregon have followed other cities in signing a resolution against the Patriot Act.

    Would love to hear from someone in Oregon on this, though...


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    hmm (none / 0) (#48)
    by cronian on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:30:14 AM EST

    I noticed this comment. I also met someone from Oregon the other day who told me the state's economy is in the toilet, and the Bushies are giving it the fingure for its politics. Apparently, the state is considering making school four days a week to save money.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    State economy (4.00 / 1) (#54)
    by zen troll on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:07:00 AM EST

    Oregon is in the toilet (economy-wise) because of the mix of industries the state depends on. We have a lot of high tech, and also lumber and other low tech. Has little to do with Bushinomics. We went in the dumper before Bush could ever have had any effect. On the other hand the new economy hasn't helped much either. My personal feeling is that we are being screwed by our politicians who are spend and tax types. ANd by spend and tax I mean both dems and reps.

    [ Parent ]
    Oregonian here (4.66 / 3) (#51)
    by fraise on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:58:16 AM EST

    Yes, it's a liberal state. Our Death with Dignity law (passed twice by voters) is the only one of its kind in the nation, and is probably where you got the anti-Ashcroft notion from. Indeed, he isn't Oregonians' favorite person...! We also have state-funded health care for the very poor (IIRC, the only state to have such a health care program), and a bill was voted on last year to try and expand it to all Oregonians, but was voted down. There was also a bill to label all genetically engineered foods as such, but after a massive campaign against it by Monsanto, that went down too.

    OR has moderate income tax, no sales tax, and as an earlier replier said, right now OR's economy is tanking. Public schools are all but dead, and the OR unemployment rate is now the second highest in the nation. (Also see this comparison of Oregon revenue and expenditures, education with the rest of the US.)

    As far as terrorism actions and laws go, I and all the other Oregonians I know are rather dumbfounded by things. My brother studied aircraft maintenance at LCC, which has one of the best aircraft maintenance programs in the country, so many internationals are attracted to it. A few Saudis were in his class - they were quickly contacted by police and turned over for questioning to the Feds, which caused an uproar in Eugene. Overall the police force has seemed more than willing to do as it's told. We also tend to get hardline Republican senators every once in a while, and they do like to take shots at "them damned hippy liberals". I don't think this particular bill will get very far though.

    Then there's the Portland INS, which has a reputation for being abusive - it seems that horror stories come out of it regularly, about two a year for as long as I can remember, so I can only imagine what it's like since September 11.

    We've got both sides of the coin, basically.

    (Note: Yeah, I live in France now, but will always identify myself as an Oregonian. Still have plenty of family and friends there.)

    [ Parent ]
    Correct link (none / 0) (#52)
    by fraise on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:06:52 AM EST

    Sorry, I foo-barred the link to the Portland INS' reputation. And when referring to the Saudis who were turned over to the Feds, that was right after Sep. 11, of course. LCC is Lane Community College.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#53)
    by zen troll on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:00:14 AM EST

    Oregon is a rural state. But we also have a large metropolitan base too. We get nuts from both sides, but they (the nuts) are a minority. The wacko bills seldom if ever get through. The State Supreme Court has last say on everything. If you want to see past wacko bills just google for Lon Mabon, who put out a anti-gay rights bill. Every rural state, and a few of the big states have wacko state senators. It's to be expected.

    [ Parent ]
    WA (none / 0) (#64)
    by lb008d on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:17:32 AM EST

    We've got health care (albeit rather limited coverage) as well. Better than nothing, I suppose.

    [ Parent ]
    Health Care for the Very Poor (none / 0) (#134)
    by OldCoder on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 04:15:51 AM EST

    In most, probably all, US States, people who qualify for welfare also got a pretty decent health care coverage. A friend of mine was on it several years ago, he said the docs and drugs were the same but the waiting room was hours in a small chair. Things could have changed since then.

    --
    By reading this signature, you have agreed.
    Copyright © 2003 OldCoder
    [ Parent ]
    This law is for show (4.50 / 2) (#49)
    by Blarney on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:34:29 AM EST

    Minnis knows that there's no way in a million years that the Supreme Court would uphold a law which gave out 25 year prison sentences for a protest which happens to block traffic. Even Scalia and Thomas wouldn't like this law, and even if the Court's composition changes it'd be nearly impossible to find a judge who'd support this law. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court were it actually tested with a case, so what's the point? This law is invalid and unconstitutional on it's face, any criminal judge could see that the first time it was actually used.

    What this is, is an opportunity for Minnis to act tough on terrorists. If his pals go along, well then it's an opportunity for the Oregon Legislature to act tough. Still, it's a game - they all know it's unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

    Akin to flag burning laws in some states? (3.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kpaul on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:50:43 AM EST

    If I remember correctly, there are some states that have laws against burnign the flags but no one has been convicted because it would end up going to Supreme Court and getting ruled unconstitutional. Still on the books, though.

    This bill makes me wonder why he's trying to get it to pass. Seems like more important things could be going on.

    Then again, in DC they were busy renaming french fries to freedom fries...


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    Yes! FREEDOM FRIES! (4.33 / 3) (#56)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:07:19 AM EST

    The sweet, sweet grease of liberty make them tastier than regular old french fries, which as we all know, have been until now soaking in the vegetable oil of capitulation.

    In all seriousness, my girlfriend (who is French and has a heavy, heavy accent) was refused service at several restaurants in the area, a few of which she was a recognized regular at. One was a Cajun place; the proprietor of another is named Maurier. Heh.

    Now, to engage in Freedom kissing and swap the sweet, sweet spit of liberty...

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    french=freedom (none / 0) (#60)
    by chu on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:47:30 AM EST

    my girlfriend (who is French and has a heavy, heavy accent) was refused service at several restaurants in the area

    Unbelievable, isn't that against some kind of anti-segregation laws there?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh no. (2.66 / 6) (#91)
    by tkatchev on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:18:08 PM EST

    Only if you are an officially dangerous ethnic minority.

    Like, if you were a 6-foot tall nigger with a sharp knife, for example.

    To be serious, though, you don't honestly think that U.S. racial policy is based on things like "justice", "equality" and "rights", do you? The only rationale behind U.S. anti-segregation laws is that of preventing civil strife. Nobody wants a rerun of L.A. '92.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I pretty much agree with tkachev, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:53:37 PM EST

    and was about to post something similar. Technically, yes, anti-segregation laws exist and they would explicitly not allow for this type of treatment. However, because my girlfriend and I are not minorities of any significant note (I mean, she's a Gaul and I'm half-Asian, and, let's face it, Asian people don't count as a "minority" as per the definition accepted by the general populace) nobody really cared. One restaurant we told a police officer about, who said that all establishments can reserve the right to refuse service (which is technically true, but does not hold true for such things as nationality) and another we reported to the BBB, who were similarly ineffective. While the BBB promised to "take action," I highly doubt that they're going to care that two well-to-do college student types were refused service at a few restaurants.

    The wording of these particular "right to refuse service" laws are a bit tricky themselves. My lawyer friend looked it up, and it goes something along the lines of "any establishment can refuse service to a patron or customer that can be potentially disruptive to the flow of business/commerce." I'm sure we can all see how such ambiguities make any anti-segragation laws pretty much useless.

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    Re: This law is for show (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by spakka on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 07:37:38 AM EST

    Minnis knows that there's no way in a million years that the Supreme Court would uphold a law which gave out 25 year prison sentences for a protest which happens to block traffic.

    What if it involved pizza theft?

    [ Parent ]
    Stupid, ugly laws (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by edo on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:26:32 PM EST

    > > Minnis knows that there's no way in a
    > > million years that the Supreme Court would
    > > uphold a law which gave out 25 year prison
    > > sentences for a protest which happens to
    > > block traffic.

    > What if it involved pizza theft?

    Only if you'd got caught stealing a pizza twice before.

    -- 
    Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
     - Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    Pizza Theft (4.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Blarney on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:37:05 PM EST

    Well, it's never been unconstitutional to imprison pizza thieves. The question of whether California's life sentences for petty theft are cruel or unusual was just settled in the negative - the SCOTUS doesn't consider the difference between 30 days in jail and a lifetime in prison to be significant. Prison is automatically humane, in their view. Now, if California cut the hands off pizza thieves in the Santa Monica mall as a show for the tourists, that would be cruel and unusual.

    Now, I think that the "Three Strikes" lawyers should have argued this differently. In my opinion, a person on their second strike has been banished from California - knowing that one unpaid traffic ticket could put him away for life, would any rational man stay? I'd be leaving immediately for sure. The people who are getting these life sentences for petty crimes are really getting them because they were too stupid or too defiant to obediently leave the State. So if I'd been the lawyer, I'd have argued two questions instead:

    1. Has California the right to banish people?
    2. Is it cruel and unusual to give someone life imprisonment for violation of a de facto banishment decree?


    [ Parent ]
    While I do think... (4.25 / 4) (#57)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:18:16 AM EST

    ...that this proposed bill will more likely than not pass in anyway whatsoever, we must remember things such as the Patriot Act, Project Echelon, etc. that have been either deemed legal or seriously considered.

    But me? I'm still not worried. I believe that certain groups, most notably the ACLU, are annoyingly loud and bullheaded enough to give all of the more Orwellian measures, both proposed and enacted, very short shelf lives.

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.

    the ACLU are a bunch of ass' (1.83 / 6) (#77)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:29:15 PM EST

    tehy select their fights and today, they select the most outragious to fight for like NAMBLA.

    will they defend a highschool student that has a right to life shirt in school? no.

    they do however defend a student who has a prochoice shirt in school.

    I personaly am pro-choice but I find the selective nature of their defending of speech repugnant. it is based on an agenda. while they most likly will help get this law over turned, I still find them to be ass'.

    [ Parent ]

    I find your lack of grammar skillls... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:04:14 AM EST

    ...to be quite repugnant. Also, please do not speak of a subject that you are obviously ignorant of. While I do think that the ACLU can act a bit silly sometimes, they've always adhered to their own personal mission statement fairly rigidly. I have done volunteer work for the ACLU, and (until quite recently) donated a fair amount of my income to their cause, and it has been my experience that the ACLU covers a variety of cases, many of which go unpublicised or under the media radar.

    The only agenda that the ACLU is trying to push is that of the underdog, and it is an admirable quality to have. The only prickly issue that I have encountered is the ACLU's unwillingness to defend the 2nd amendment, but such "rights" have been declared anachronistic by most rational people anyway (witness how most of the world treats firearms with disdain, or how even the most liberal of Western European politicians approach the issue of gun control, for example).

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    Selective rights enforcement. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Sanction on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 08:40:00 PM EST

    You are correct, only the really strange cases the ACLU takes up are reported, but they always seem to fight for the underdog.  I am very disturbed by your statement of 2nd amendment "rights" as you put it.  If it is an anachronism, it should be properly repealed.  Until it is, it should be defended as the rest.  Otherwise, you also have to live with arguments about how privacy rights or the 4th amendment are an anachronism in a world with so many terrorist threats.  Notice how privacy rights are held in disdain in so many countries.

    Wow, This is the most amazing loaf of bread I've ever owned!
    [ Parent ]
    Good point. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:44:55 PM EST

    My bias showing through, I suppose.

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    well. (4.69 / 13) (#58)
    by chimera on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:20:25 AM EST

    it's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state.

    I hope you don't mind... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by poopi on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:11:00 AM EST

    ...but I'm going to use this as a sig. Well said.


    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    Lost me here... (2.60 / 5) (#63)
    by SPYvSPY on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:30:33 AM EST

    The latter forbids using resources to apprehend people whose only offense is a federal immigration violation.

    God forbid anyone should be *allowed* to enforce the immigration laws.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.

    The reasoning (4.75 / 4) (#69)
    by fencepost on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:29:50 AM EST

    State, municipal and even (traditionally) other Federal law enforcement groups want to avoid immigration issues because if they're seen as "immigration police" then it'll be hard to get people to talk to them in some communities. For many of those folks they'd much rather just put up with a crime (or not report one, or not come forward as a witness) than do something about it and get deported.

    Put differently, if I'm a local cop my concern is preventing crime in my area, and having to enforce immigration laws makes that much more difficult for me.

    Heck, how many more people would try to run from traffic stops if the local police were required to arrest them for immigration violations? When the penalty for trying to get away is effectively the same as the penalty if you don't bother trying, why not try to get away?
    --
    There's a constellation of traits that make up (no pun intended) the defective girl. --Parent ]

    Excellent point... (4.00 / 1) (#94)
    by SPYvSPY on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:05:18 PM EST

    ..and one that I had not considered. If it's a matter of jurisdiction, I can see it.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    silly rabbit . . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dphitz on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:38:39 AM EST

    Don't you know it's not politically correct to enforce immigration these days.  Immigration laws that don't target or favor one group over another are obviously aimed at Mexicans.  (According to Vicente Fox anyways)


    God, please save me . . . from your followers

    [ Parent ]
    Strikes (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by joecool12321 on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:41:24 AM EST

    A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:

    (b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon;

    This means that the bill could declare strikes illegal. Does anyone else find that slightly repulsive?

    "The business of America is business" (1.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jabber on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 11:57:07 AM EST

    Ergo, any act to disrupt the interests of America is a traiterous one. It does make a certain sort of sense.

    To wit, rights not explicitly granted in the Constitution, can not be presumed to be "inalienable". This includes the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

    </troll>

    [TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
    [ Parent ]

    umm, the bill of rights is part (3.33 / 3) (#75)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:23:46 PM EST

    of the constitution. so those rights and any amendment there after are inalianable...they are called constitutional amendments for a reason :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Constitutional rights (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Burning Straw Man on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:53:17 PM EST

    To wit, rights not explicitly granted in the Constitution, can not be presumed to be "inalienable". This includes the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution doesn't grant people freedom. The people already have freedom. What the Constitution does is grant the government a very limited set of "rights".

    So, to wit, rights not explicitly revoked by the Constitution, can not be presumed to be "alienable".
    --
    your straw man is on fire...
    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#95)
    by jabber on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:12:12 PM EST

    Now, if we can only convince the government of this, we'll be golden! :)

    [TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't this make the police terrorists? (4.50 / 4) (#73)
    by dougmc on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:14:10 PM EST

    Senate Bill 742 defines terrorism as:

    (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:

    (a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;

    Taken literally, wouldn't this label the police as `terrorists' when they break up a lawful demonstration? After all, that's disrupting the `free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon.' (assuming that this particular assembly is free and orderly, of course.)

    Or it could be used to label a parade organizer (and everybody else in the parade) as a terrorist. It would take only one member of the parade doing it because he knows it would reduce the business of some store along the route.

    I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm just making the mistake of reading this literally.

    It seems that our government is busy trying to do three things --

    1) reduce the legal rights of those accused of/being investigated for terrorism.

    2) increasing the penalties for terrorism to a huge degree, and

    2) defining almost every possible crime as terrorism.

    #1 bothers me. A lot. #2 I don't really have a problem with. But #3 is absolutely nuts! They've already labeled simple things like website defacement as terrorism, and now they're trying to do demonstrations? Doubleplusungood!

    Self-incrimination. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by achtanelion on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:13:46 PM EST

    Senate Bill 742 defines terrorism as:

    (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:

    (a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;

    As I read it, there need be only one demonstration, protest, or even picnic that provably does not happen for fear of pariticipants being charged under this very bill for the bill to take effect upon its drafters (and possibly every state politician in Oregon).

    So;  If this bill goes through, and you live in Oregon, please please please plan a protest.  Then cancel it. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    I am sick of this expanding definition of (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:20:31 PM EST

    terrorism...rioters are not terrorists and people that are at a protest where some rioting takes place are not terrorists.

    arg!!!! what if I was doing business and a protest happened while I was walking home? then all those damn anarchists came along and began smashig shit? I am not liable for terrorism.

    This is knee-jerking (4.00 / 1) (#78)
    by awgsilyari on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:31:02 PM EST

    This proposed bill is bullshit, but I think it's a simple knee-jerk, not a pre-planned effort to crack down on liberties. The Portland protests were extremely rowdy (example: people tossing hydrochloric acid onto parked cars) and there was some violence against the police. The state legislature is trying to appear as if they're doing something about it.

    As the protests die down (*if* they do) I think the rally around this bill will diminish.

    --------
    Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

    Yes, but... (4.80 / 5) (#86)
    by zenboy on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:51:38 PM EST

    Even when it's knee-jerking, you can still get kicked.

    [ Parent ]
    I always thought.. (4.50 / 2) (#121)
    by Magnetic North on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:17:13 PM EST

    that knee-jerking is what America is all about.

    --
    <33333
    [ Parent ]
    Acid? (none / 0) (#164)
    by captrb on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:23:50 PM EST

    What protest was this?

    [ Parent ]
    Said it before, say it again... (4.87 / 8) (#81)
    by Elkor on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 12:58:12 PM EST

    Terrorism is the Communism of the 2000's

    "Mr Citizen, are you now, or have you ever been a terrorist? Can you prove that?"

    Regards,
    Elkor


    "I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
    -Margo Eve
    anad the anti-war protesters are (1.33 / 6) (#84)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 01:50:16 PM EST

    the american haters of the 21st century.

    like david Horowitz said, "in the 60's we had the illusion that the Veitnamiese revolutionaries were going to set up a better way of life, today, how can any sain person claim that about saddam? the anti-war movement is run my far left anti-american organizations backed by N. Korea and anarchists."

    -David Horowitz, leading 60's radical, today on Fox News

    [ Parent ]

    Why does this come up so much? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Gooba42 on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:26:52 PM EST

    Is it really necessary to hate America to want it to act responsibly and peacefully?

    I would hardly say I hate America but I would like it to behave in some rational manner and I would like to practice my so oft touted freedom of speech in order to express my views. If I'm not allowed to want my government or country to behave differently then there's no reason to even have freedom of speech or press or anything else.

    A monoculture in biology, technology, or yes even politics is a bad thing. The only model for a working system we have is evolution and in it the majority always ends up dead.

    [ Parent ]

    proper peace demonstrations are fine (1.50 / 4) (#93)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 03:29:05 PM EST

    but the people that set up the rallies are these anti-american groups. one banner in the New York protest the other day said "we support our troops if they shoot their officers"

    WTF.....and then you have the damn "peace" activists that resort to violence at the protests, and all the lame marxist "blood for oil" or "USA is imperialist" which are such largly held slogans in teh movement just add to the proof that the large portion of the protesters in the world are anti-american communists who would rather allow an evil man like sadam to go on killing his people through out and out murder to redirecting electricity so warter treatment centers do not work properly to taking all the money from the oil for food (which was changed to oil for money by the french)program and giving food to those who are loyal to you as well as medicine not to mention they want Saddam to be able to ignore the ceace fire agreement.

    this is my problem, to those that are truely anti-war, I am sorry that your message has been drowned out by those with an evil agenda.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is blood for oil Marxist? (4.40 / 5) (#103)
    by Gooba42 on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:47:09 PM EST

    Are you just lumping together "evils"? I fail to see the link.

    Currently the administration hasn't made a case that says the war is for any justifiable reason. Ockham's Razor says that the reason we're going to war is most probably oil. It's the fastest/simplest link between Iraq and the current administration.

    I don't think you have to be communist/Marxist/whatever to consider life, any life, more important than money but I could be wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Ockham's razor is crap for an argument (none / 0) (#158)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:39:56 PM EST

    becasue it is equaly likely this is about freeing an opressed people and to remove the WMD. if you look deeper into the oil connection, it is much more conveluyted and relies on supositions rather than fact.

    [ Parent ]
    The mystical razor of Occam... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 11:13:56 PM EST

    ...is indeed "crap for an argument." However, if we were to apply this magical shaving implement to this current situation, it would in no way support the reasons that you espouse (why Iraq? Why not N. Korea, or Rwanda, or Pakistan? Why not a global initiative to remove tactical nuclear missles from every Tom and Dick in the world?). In this particular case, Occam's Razor says that the only reasons for war are all tied up into a secretive agenda that the US is trying to push. Oil, while a small cause, is not the major reason.

    In any case, the oil connection is in fact much less convulted and does not rely on any suppositions to make its case, more so than the argument that this is a solely humanitarian war (please show evidence that Hussein is in possession of various WMDs and support why the Iraqi people need to be liberated more than most of the African continent).

    The funny thing is, you are probably much more liberal than I am. A neo-liberal Republican of some type, if you will. In any case, I would recommend that you stop making an ass of yourself before your stupidity gets you into trouble.

    I would be very much pleased if you keep your puerile rants and raves to yourself in the future, and confine your wild masturbatory ideas to whatever particular sandbox you stumbled from. I have absolutely no doubt that good arguments for the war can be made, but I do highly doubt that any of these will come from your juvenile lips.

    Toodles
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    Simplicity of the argument... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Gooba42 on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 05:48:28 PM EST

    Our administration is run by people in the oil and defense industries. They profit just from the fact we've gone to war and will stand to profit more from the fact that we've gained oil assets/allies/whatever in the event we manage to sieze these resources.

    Freeing Iraqis doesn't lead directly to profit. Stopping one of a handful of whackos with (potential, unproven) WMD doesn't lead directly to profit. Awarding Halliburton fuel and "reconstruction" contracts does lead directly to profit by at least one person in this administration.

    We're not doing this for goodwill or we'd have done it differently. We're not doing this because of a real threat from Iraq or we would have acted on it longer ago with the knowledge that we needed to recover the weapons we had given Saddam. The "good" options are very limited.

    [ Parent ]

    if you are a true peace activist, then (none / 0) (#159)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:42:41 PM EST

    that is good, but so many of the "peace" activists are realy just anti-american assholes and anarchists who are just takeing up the war issue to get a venue to air their agenda.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you hate America? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 11:18:41 PM EST

    Why do you love stereotypes? Why are you always making grand generalizations that are nearly completely false and rather idiotic? Why don't you know how to spell? Why is everybody that doesn't agree with you an "asshole?" Why do I get the urge to slap you silly with my dong and balls? Why, oh why oh why oh why ghlahglahglahlghalhglahlahgDICKSgalghalhglahglahglahghaalhglahglahglahglahglhalh ggalhglahglahglhalgh?

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    You're quoting Horowitz? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:13:04 AM EST

    From Fox News? Unbelievable. You don't expect anyone to take you seriously after something like that, do you? That's kind of like a liberal quoting Moore or a revisionist vainly trying to defend Trotsky.

    You know, it's barely literate ideologues like you that cause people to view political discussions with such disdain. Oh, that and the fact that you seem to be rather fond of spouting off inane soundbites instead of actually trying to formulate a rational, solid argument.

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    realy... (none / 0) (#160)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:46:52 PM EST

    so what exactly are those anachist groups that attack police in the protests? how is advocating soldures shooting their officers peace activism? how is calling bush a despot peace activism? how is calling america an imperialist nation peace activism?

    none of those slogans or actions are peace activism, they are anti-americanism and anti-establishmentarianism that have at the root hate and violence, not peace and love. while both peace activists and the anti-american groups both want an end to the war, they are not equivelent in values or goals.

    [ Parent ]

    It's nice... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:58:53 PM EST

    ...that you point out the fringe group activities, while the majority of anti-war protestors are nothing of the sort. In the same way, I can say that all war supporters are fascist nazi scum pushing the agenda of the power elite.

    By the way, to be an American is to exercise the right to call Bush a despot and other, less favorable names as often as we like, and your basic history lessons should have taught you that America is, more or less, an imperialist nation. Dipshit.

    Question - are you dyslexic, or do you really have this much trouble with the english tongue? Would you like me to use smaller words, junior?

    Cheers
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    unfortunatly the fring groups (none / 0) (#205)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 01:33:40 PM EST

    are the ones getting on tv and the ones organising the protests.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, just like how all those... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 10:29:31 PM EST

    ...crazy neo-liberal Republicans are the ones organizing this war! Crazy world we live in, huh?

    toodles
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    neo-libs (none / 0) (#212)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 11:56:17 PM EST

    and neo-cons...they are all just part of a shrinking group called the moderate end of their respective parties.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll just say this once... (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Thu Mar 27, 2003 at 02:21:45 AM EST

    ...and let you figure out the rest. You're an idiot. Re-read this thread to figure out why.

    Toodles
    DLS
    ---

    I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
    [ Parent ]

    AMEN! Horowitz is an American PATRIOT! (3.66 / 3) (#133)
    by John Asscroft on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:15:24 AM EST

    From his latest newsletter that he sent to me:

    he threat of the leftist attack is real and the time has come for Americans to take it seriously. The attempt to sabotage America's war effort is not dissent and should be a wake-up call to all those critics of the Justice Department's efforts to protect us by surveilling anti-American groups that in fact we have not done enough. Clearly, both the FBI and our security laws are well behind the curve, since the saboteurs have not been deterred from their deadly ambitions. Criminal subversion and sedition are not protected by the Bill Rights and the perpetrators should be punished harshly enough to remove them from the field of battle.

    AMEN, Mr. Horowitz! Finally, someone who thinks like me! Don't you worry, Mr. Horowitz, we'll handle all those subversive traitors for you when the time comes, but we must first scare the American public with some more fake terrorist alerts before we're ready. Hey, you can't make an omlet without breaking an egg, right?

    Yours in Christ,
    Attorney General John Asscroft


    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]

    Horowitz is a traitor (none / 0) (#217)
    by opendna on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:33:59 AM EST

    David Horowitz spent his youth fighting in furtherance of a leftist revolution and Horowitz is spending his midlife working for a rightist coup. Horowitz is spending his entire adult life trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution and to institute a totalitarian form of government. Horowitz used to be a communist and he is now a fascist.

    Regardless of who's paying his way, Horowitz is against the Constitution and the freedoms and principles enshrined within. Horowitz is the prototypical anti-American demogague.

    He would like to be Goebles II, but he's not smart enough.



    [ Parent ]

    Oregon & New Mexico both confound their images (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Domino on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 02:57:56 PM EST

    Here's Oregon, generally seen as liberal land, jumping on the neo-fascist warwagon (assuming this idiot gets his bill passed), while New Mexico, generally thought of as GOP-rightwing heaven, passes a House bill that dopeslaps the "Patriot Act" to within an inch of its sorryass life:

    " WHEREAS, federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions in Public Law 107-56, known as the USA Patriot Act, and related executive orders, regulations and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties"

    The resolution directs the state police to

    " (1) refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws;

    (2) seek adequate written assurances from federal authorities that residents of the state of New Mexico and individuals in the custody of the state who are placed in federal custody will not be subjected to military or secret detention or secret immigration proceedings without access to counsel and, absent such written assurances, refrain from assisting federal authorities to obtain custody of these individuals;

    (3) refrain from engaging in the surveillance of individuals or groups of individuals based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment to the United States constitution, such as political advocacy or the practice of a religion, without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct unrelated to the activity protected by the First Amendment to the United States constitution;

    (4) refrain from using race, religion, ethnicity or national origin as a factor in selecting who is subject to investigatory activities unless race, religion, ethnicity or national origin is part of the description of a specific suspect to be apprehended;

    (5) refrain, whether acting alone or with federal law enforcement officers, from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership unless such information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activity and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct;" among other amazing directives. Read the whole wonderous thing at

    http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/03%20Regular/memorials/house/HJM040.html

    So I guess Oregon will have to launch a preemptive strike against New Mexico. To see a preview of the attack, get a copy of Night of the Living Dead.


    New Mexico is a haven for traitors (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by John Asscroft on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:10:06 AM EST

    You got all those HIPPIES up at Taos and down at Los Cruces and Silver City. Why, they voted for *GORE* last Presidential election! Right now I'm trying to hint to the Department of Energy that we ought to have a little "oops" over there at Los Alamos, but they don't seem to be getting the hint. Oh well.

    Yours in Christ,
    Attorney General John Asscroft


    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm surprised that nobody else (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by terpy on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:18:19 PM EST

    is pretty confused about what other specific acts could be considered terrorism under this law.  Unless I am somehow reading it wrong.  The following list concerns me greatly, since I live in Oregon and according to this list, I am a horrible terrorist who probably needs a cummulative sentence of about 300 years.

    SECTION 3. Section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001, as amended by section 5, chapter 696,
    Oregon Laws 2001, is amended to read:
    Sec. 19. The crimes to which section 1 (11)(b), chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001, applies are:
    (1) Bribe giving, as defined in ORS 162.015.
    (2) Bribe receiving, as defined in ORS 162.025.
    (3) Public investment fraud, as defined in ORS 162.117.
    (4) Bribing a witness, as defined in ORS 162.265.
    (5) Bribe receiving by a witness, as defined in ORS 162.275.
    (6) Simulating legal process, as defined in ORS 162.355.
    (7) Official misconduct in the first degree, as defined in ORS 162.415.
    (8) Custodial interference in the second degree, as defined in ORS 163.245.
    (9) Custodial interference in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.257.
    (10) Buying or selling a person under 18 years of age, as defined in ORS 163.537.
    (11) Using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, as defined in ORS 163.670.
    (12) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.684.
    (13) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree, as defined in ORS 163.686.
    (14) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the third degree, as defined in ORS 163.687.
    (15) Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the first degree, as
    defined in ORS 163.688.
    (16) Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the second degree,
    as defined in ORS 163.689.
    (17) Theft in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.045.
    (18) Theft in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.055.
    (19) Aggravated theft in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.057.
    (20) Theft by extortion, as defined in ORS 164.075.
    (21) Theft by deception, as defined in ORS 164.085, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (22) Theft by receiving, as defined in ORS 164.095, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (23) Theft of services, as defined in ORS 164.125, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (24) Unauthorized use of a vehicle, as defined in ORS 164.135.
    (25) Mail theft or receipt of stolen mail, as defined in ORS 164.162.
    (26) Laundering a monetary instrument, as defined in ORS 164.170.
    (27) Engaging in a financial transaction in property derived from unlawful activity, as defined
    in ORS 164.172.
    (28) Burglary in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.215.
    (29) Burglary in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.225.
    (30) Possession of burglar?s tools, as defined in ORS 164.235.
    (31) Unlawful entry into a motor vehicle, as defined in ORS 164.272.
    (32) Arson in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.315.
    (33) Arson in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.325.
    (34) Computer crime, as defined in ORS 164.377.
    (35) Robbery in the third degree, as defined in ORS 164.395.
    (36) Robbery in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.405.
    (37) Robbery in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.415.
    (38) Unlawful labeling of a sound recording, as defined in ORS 164.868.
    (39) Unlawful recording of a live performance, as defined in ORS 164.869.
    (40) Unlawful labeling of a videotape recording, as defined in ORS 164.872.
    (41) A violation of ORS 164.877.
    (42) Endangering aircraft, as defined in ORS 164.885.
    (43) Interference with agricultural operations, as defined in ORS 164.887.
    (44) Forgery in the second degree, as defined in ORS 165.007.
    (45) Forgery in the first degree, as defined in ORS 165.013.
    (46) Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, as defined in ORS 165.017.
    (47) Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree, as defined in ORS 165.022.
    (48) Criminal possession of a forgery device, as defined in ORS 165.032.
    (49) Criminal simulation, as defined in ORS 165.037.
    (50) Fraudulently obtaining a signature, as defined in ORS 165.042.
    (51) Fraudulent use of a credit card, as defined in ORS 165.055.
    (52) Negotiating a bad check, as defined in ORS 165.065.
    (53) Possessing a fraudulent communications device, as defined in ORS 165.070.
    (54) Unlawful factoring of a credit card transaction, as defined in ORS 165.074.
    (55) Falsifying business records, as defined in ORS 165.080.
    (56) Sports bribery, as defined in ORS 165.085.
    (57) Sports bribe receiving, as defined in ORS 165.090.
    (58) Misapplication of entrusted property, as defined in ORS 165.095.
    (59) Issuing a false financial statement, as defined in ORS 165.100.
    (60) Obtaining execution of documents by deception, as defined in ORS 165.102.
    (61) A violation of ORS 165.543.
    (62) Cellular counterfeiting in the third degree, as defined in ORS 165.577.
    (63) Cellular counterfeiting in the second degree, as defined in ORS 165.579.
    (64) Cellular counterfeiting in the first degree, as defined in ORS 165.581.
    (65) Identity theft, as defined in ORS 165.800.
    (66) A violation of ORS 166.190.
    (67) Unlawful use of a weapon, as defined in ORS 166.220.
    (68) A violation of ORS 166.240.
    (69) Unlawful possession of a firearm, as defined in ORS 166.250.
    (70) A violation of ORS 166.270.
    (71) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or
    firearms silencer, as defined in ORS 166.272.
    (72) A violation of ORS 166.275.
    (73) Unlawful possession of armor piercing ammunition, as defined in ORS 166.350.
    (74) A violation of ORS 166.370.
    (75) Unlawful possession of a destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.382.
    (76) Unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.384.
    (77) Possession of a hoax destructive device, as defined in ORS 166.385.
    (78) A violation of ORS 166.410.
    (79) Providing false information in connection with a transfer of a handgun, as defined in ORS
    166.416.
    (80) Improperly transferring a handgun, as defined in ORS 166.418.
    (81) Unlawfully purchasing a firearm, as defined in ORS 166.425.
    (82) A violation of ORS 166.429.
    (83) A violation of ORS 166.470.
    (84) A violation of ORS 166.480.
    (85) A violation of ORS 166.635.
    (86) A violation of ORS 166.638.
    (87) Unlawful paramilitary activity, as defined in ORS 166.660.
    (88) A violation of ORS 166.720.
    (89) Prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.007.
    (90) Promoting prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.012.
    (91) Compelling prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.017.
    (92) Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor, as defined in ORS 167.075.
    (93) Unlawful gambling in the second degree, as defined in ORS 167.122.
    (94) Unlawful gambling in the first degree, as defined in ORS 167.127.
    (95) Possession of gambling records in the second degree, as defined in ORS 167.132.
    (96) Possession of gambling records in the first degree, as defined in ORS 167.137.
    (97) Possession of a gambling device, as defined in ORS 167.147.
    (98) Possession of a gray machine, as defined in ORS 167.164.
    (99) Cheating, as defined in ORS 167.167.
    (100) Tampering with drug records, as defined in ORS 167.212.
    (101) A violation of ORS 167.262.
    (102) Research and animal interference, as defined in ORS 167.312.
    (103) Animal abuse in the first degree, as defined in ORS 167.320.
    (104) Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree, as defined in ORS 167.322.
    (105) Animal neglect in the first degree, as defined in ORS 167.330.
    (106) Interfering with an assistance, a search and rescue or a therapy animal, as defined in ORS
    167.352.
    (107) Involvement in animal fighting, as defined in ORS 167.355.
    (108) Dogfighting, as defined in ORS 167.365.
    (109) Participation in dogfighting, as defined in ORS 167.370.
    (110) Unauthorized use of a livestock animal, as defined in ORS 167.385.
    (111) Interference with livestock production, as defined in ORS 167.388.
    (112) A violation of ORS 167.390.
    (113) A violation of ORS 471.410.
    (114) Failure to report missing precursor substances, as defined in ORS 475.955.
    (115) Illegally selling drug equipment, as defined in ORS 475.960.
    (116) Providing false information on a precursor substances report, as defined in ORS 475.965.
    (117) Unlawful delivery of an imitation controlled substance, as defined in ORS 475.991.
    (118) A violation of ORS 475.992, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (119) A violation of ORS 475.993, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (120) A violation of ORS 475.994.
    (121) A violation of ORS 475.995, if it is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
    (122) A violation of ORS 475.999 (1)(a).
    (123) Misuse of an identification card, as defined in ORS 807.430.
    (124) Unlawful production of identification cards, licenses, permits, forms or camera cards, as
    defined in ORS 807.500.
    (125) Transfer of documents for the purposes of misrepresentation, as defined in ORS 807.510.
    (126) Using an invalid license, as defined in ORS 807.580.
    (127) Permitting misuse of a license, as defined in ORS 807.590.
    (128) Using another?s license, as defined in ORS 807.600.
    (129) Criminal driving while suspended or revoked, as defined in ORS 811.182, when it is a felony.
    (130) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants, as defined in ORS 813.010, when it is a
    felony.
    (131) Unlawful distribution of cigarettes, as defined in [section 3 of this 2001 Act] ORS 323.482.
    (132) Terrorism, as defined in section 1 of this 2003 Act.
    [(132)] (133) An attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit a crime in subsections (1) to
    [(131)] (132) of this section if the attempt, conspiracy or solicitation is a felony or a Class A
    misdemeanor.

    ---
    "I'd rather punch myself in the dick all day than drink a Pepsi. "-egg troll

    Do the Patriot thing (none / 0) (#100)
    by Domino on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:00:26 PM EST

    and get rid of that gray machine.

    Guess I'll have to leave the old Underwood typewriter at home if I ever move to Oregon.

    [ Parent ]

    Dang. (none / 0) (#182)
    by baron samedi on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 05:03:51 PM EST

    That's a pretty comprehensive list. If this passes, what types of petty crimes in Oregon won't be classified as 'terrorism'? 25 to life with no parole for prostitution or intentially mislabeling a videotape? And WTF is a 'gray machine'?

    Oregonians, don't let this happen.
    "Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
    [ Parent ]

    Gray machines (none / 0) (#201)
    by andfarm on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 12:53:13 AM EST

    According to Google, a "gray machine" seems to be either an electrical device similar to a Van Der Graff generator or an unlicensed slot machine.

    [ Parent ]
    Ammendments (4.75 / 4) (#97)
    by gengis on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 04:44:40 PM EST

    Though I'm not a constituent (I live in Portland, OR), I called Senator Minnis today to express my view that the bill as written is reactionary, excessive and unnecessary.  I spoke with an aide who told me there have been numerous ammendments to the bill which seriously alter it's content, but are not available electronically.  I gave her my address and she said she would send me a copy of the ammendments today.  When I get it, I'll post it online somewhere.

    Hark! (none / 0) (#102)
    by terpy on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 05:06:23 PM EST

    Another Portlander! We aren't as rare on K5 as I thought.

    ---
    "I'd rather punch myself in the dick all day than drink a Pepsi. "-egg troll
    [ Parent ]

    Federal Law vs. State Law (4.75 / 4) (#104)
    by StrifeZ on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:05:35 PM EST

    State Senators are small fries in the US. Massachusetts has a law on the book that makes running through crowds of pigeons illegal. Theres lots of reactionary lunatics in state governments simply because its so easy to get elected, that any idiot with an idea can do it. I wouldn't read more into it than that. Non-Americans wouldn't understand exactly how small time this guy is. Think of it like this. Each of the 50 States have their own govenor, and, with two exceptions, two houses: a State house of representatives and a State senate. Just like the Federal government, these two places get together to work on State (notice the capital S, only the US can have a lower case s). It is in the constitution of the USA that no State can pass a law contradictory or in violation of Federal law. i.e., just as Oregon can't pass a law that makes murder and rape and segregation legal, they can't pass a law that limits the right to assembly.

    So don't worry about this and don't blow it out of proportion. Its a small time Senator proposing it in a small time venue of politics of a law that is clearly in violation of the constitution. Federal Government is the only thing that matters anyway.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    I take your point but... (none / 0) (#204)
    by harrystottle on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 05:55:15 AM EST

    the real problem is that this is not an isolated case. There are a significant number of influential people - including politicians - in the United States, who genuinely believe that this kind of policy is appropriate. Many of them appear to be in high places. American Society (and, to a lesser extent the rest of the World) is polarising between those who place Liberty as the first social priority and those who believe Security comes first. This is going to be the root of the worlds problems for the next few decades. The battle between the two sides may well destroy the species.

    Mostly harmless
    [ Parent ]
    Dynamic. (none / 0) (#206)
    by StrifeZ on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 04:36:46 PM EST

    I wouldn't worry about it.

    Theres an old saying in politics. "No one re-elects an asshole". If the Senator pissess off his constituents, he won't be re-elected. This dynamic has kept American politics fairly centrist over the last 227 years.


    KITTENS@(_%&@%@_($&@(_$&^@$()&@%@+(&%
    [ Parent ]
    Terrorism (4.25 / 4) (#105)
    by the77x42 on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 06:53:28 PM EST

    Although I am subjected to hordes of riots, protests, people shoving pamphlets in my face, and people yellow over megaphones as a student on campus at SFU, it is hardly terrorism.

    Where is the terror?


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    The terror lies in you maybe believing them (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Hektor on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:37:53 PM EST

    Imagine the horror of that, being subjected to other points of view and ideas not backed by the "powers that be".

    Won't somebody please think of the children???

    [ Parent ]

    Protestor BO == Bio-weapon (2.33 / 3) (#115)
    by The Turd Report on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:39:02 PM EST

    The combined odor of pachouli and hippies will make the average human pass out from lack of oxygen with in 2 minutes of being enveloped within 'sphere of stink' surrounding the group. It is why the riot troops wear gas masks.

    [ Parent ]
    The Title is Great (1.12 / 8) (#107)
    by Lenny on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 07:15:16 PM EST

    I'd sign any bill that puts that law into the books!

    Don't like the way something is going? Fucking do something about it! Don't march next to a bunch of zombies with signs.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    Amen! (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by John Asscroft on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:06:29 AM EST

    Don't these pinko commie hippies know that their protests against our God-appointed Leader is treason?!Pass some laws, I say! The free speech zone in the Nevada desert awaits these seditious traitors. Praise the Lord!

    -- Atorney General John Asscroft


    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]

    My point was... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Lenny on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:59:35 AM EST

    I favor action over bitching. Protesting is bitching. Instead of bitching, do something. Run for office. Visit the official you have a beef with and talk to them. Help people to register to vote that share your concerns. Don't wave a piece of cardboard. Do something. Anything.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    so what are you doing (none / 0) (#150)
    by gr00vey on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 11:35:50 AM EST

    besides bitching? I voted to impeach dubya, but he is still in office.... I haven't attended any protests, but I am against this war. So, what has your sorry ass done?

    [ Parent ]
    nothing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Lenny on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:51:41 PM EST

    You voted to impeach him? Thats funny; I don't remember that going up for a vote. But anyways, I don't attend protests.

    As far as what I've done...about what? The war? I am in support of what we're doing. There's nothing to protest. I'm fairly content with what is happening.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    So, wait (none / 0) (#178)
    by carbon on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:33:15 PM EST

    You're saying that it's okay to be lazy and not do anything if you support the war, but it's not okay to be lazy and not do anything if you're against the war?

    Not to mention that the protests are accomplishing something; they're at least demonstrating conclusively that a lot of people (not neccessarily a majority, just a lot) are against the war.


    Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
    [ Parent ]
    pretty much (none / 0) (#179)
    by Lenny on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:48:50 PM EST

    You're saying that it's okay to be lazy and not do anything if you support the war
    In short, yes.
    When you put money into a Pepsi machine and press the Pepsi button and a Pepsi comes out, do you cheer?

    protests are accomplishing something
    They could accomplish a whole lot more and do a lot less damage. They cost cities millions of dollars. They disrupt the lives of countless people that are uninvolved. And BTW, blocking someone's car or destroying their property is not the way to win friends and influence people.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#187)
    by HypoLuxa on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 06:18:32 PM EST

    People go into the streets because it is their last and only resort. They can't run for office, because they cannot get the political backing of either major party, without which they cannot win election. And you cannot simply go talk to the person that you have a problem with. Believe me I've tried, and even at the lowest levels a common citizen cannot get access.

    Protesting is action. Going into the street and waving your cardboard sign is designed to do one thing, and that's to gather attention for your dissent. I agree with you, in part, that more steps need to be taken. I think protests need to be actual protests again. But to say that you accomplish nothing, when they actually accomplished their sole goal of getting media attention for their views, then you are doing a disservice.

    --
    I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
    - Leonard Cohen
    [ Parent ]

    are you? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Lenny on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 07:20:32 PM EST

    because they cannot get the political backing of either major party
    There are usually pretty good reasons for this...

    to gather attention for your dissent
    Are you talking about the 1400 arrests? The bag of moltov cocktails found? The 5 felony bookings? The parts of town that were shut down, keeping taxpaying citizens from driving in their own city? The destruction of government property? The $500,000 spent by the city? What kind of attention were they looking for?

    A protest area should be designated in every major city. Give them a space out of the way so they can yell and scream and disrupt themselves all they want. Any citizen interrested can go there and check it out. People not interrested can go about their lives. Uninvolved people should not be forced to listen to, be disrupted by, or have to fight their way through events in which they do not care.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Len (none / 0) (#155)
    by tonedevil05 on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:31:58 PM EST

    When and where do you get the opportunity to sign bills into Law. I want to stay as far away from that place as possible.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd = I would (none / 0) (#167)
    by Lenny on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:02:03 PM EST

    I do not get the opportunity to sign bills into law. That is why I used I'd...as in I would...

    Ho hum.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Confusion yours not mine (none / 0) (#173)
    by tonedevil05 on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:20:51 PM EST

    You said I'd sign any bill that puts that law into the books! What needs to be rephrased to infer that you are claiming the power? Thank you though, I do feel better knowing that you don't.

    [ Parent ]
    you're wrong (none / 0) (#180)
    by Lenny on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 04:16:38 PM EST

    What needs to be rephrased to infer that you are claiming the power?
    huh? This is very simple: I would sign the bill. The only thing it infers is what I would do.

    Maybe you're reading too much into it...


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    i have a serious question for anti-war protestors (1.25 / 8) (#108)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 08:37:19 PM EST

    if you believe in something, you will fight for it, no?

    i am not talking about rhetoric, i am talking about action, physical fighting, war, violence.

    the more you believe in something, the more you will fight for it.

    so if you have 2 intransient point of views, then eventually, rhetorical conflict leads to physical conflict if the stakes are high enough.

    now, if you protest war, then you have a point of view that prevents you from pursuing support of your opinion into the realm of the physical, escalating from the rhetorical.

    as such, if you cannot fight for your belief that nothing ever needs to be fought for physically, then how can you ever represent your opinion as one that will survive?

    because it seems to me that your two options are both dead ends:

    1. stop fighting. proving that there is little heart in what you believe in.
    2. go from rhetorical fighting to physical violence. in which case, you have just become a hypocrit.
    now some of you are probably ready to say to me: "why does the fight ever have to go to violence?"

    if you don't understand that taking the fight for what you believe in doesn't ever have to go to physical violence, then you don't understand the real world.

    lesson one for the pacificists: it is very often not up to you when things become violent. if you express a belief to someone who you then obstruct through nonviolent means, they may take their argument into the sphere of violence if they are determined enough. then what do you do? stand down? how do you fight a violent, stupid person if they attack you phsyically? do you lecture them? i mean seriously!

    an old tired quote, but one that applies: a man is a pacifist until he sees his wife getting raped, the he becomes a realist.

    you may say i am a warmonger, supporting the need for war, having a blood thirst.

    but that stereotyping of my point of view is just part of your problem. i loathe violence as much as you do. i am fully aware of its terrible outcomes, just as much as you. but the difference between you and i is that i am aware of when it becomes, UNFORTUNATELY, necessary.

    you somehow live in a world where no one would go to violence in order to apply their will on your lives, to impel you to do as they wish, to deny you the rights you so cherish, to suppress your existence and peace and happiness, to stop you from protesting, to stand in line and march as they insist you to march, to kill your free speech, to kill your rights to equality and free will.

    do you deny such people exist? you would never physically fight for what you believe in? really? i don't understand that. doesn't that mean that the force of your beliefs are weak then? that the very strength of what you believe in is suspect, is ill-thought out, is flawed?

    in short, i would fight for your right to protest, but do so only because i hope some you grow up someday and would join me in the fight for your rights, for our rights. because, really, you live in a sort of stunted teenager's view of reality (some of you actually ARE teenagers, a time in life when you think you know everything, when you actually know nothing).

    and so having a naive understanding of the world, you have a naive morality.

    grow up.

    really.

    your displays of a lack of awareness and experience in the world are stunning to me.

    you are children.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    if you believe in something, you will fight for it (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by simul on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:34:54 PM EST

    yes. people who resist authority, like peace protestors, can be pushed to concrete action. this is not hipocracy. this is reality. action, however, does not always resemble a frontal, violent ground assault. it can be media disruption (information violence), boycots (economic violence), and backing your enemies enemy (diplomatic violence). physical violence, as well, is not necessarily a "frontal assault". there are infrastructure attacks, assasinatinos, etc. i'm not antiwar because i think "peace at all costs". i'm antiwar because i think that this will only worsen the situation in Iraq. i'm not dumb enough to think that Saddam backed the Saudi terrorists that attacked us, and that our government just "didn't tell anyone" about it. if they had evidence, i'd be 100% for the war, no doubt about it. saddam was steadily losing popularity, support, income and power over the last 12 years. the pressure was working. iraq was not a credible enough threat to this country enough to justify a physical assault. if we had hard evidence that he was, then I'd be all for it. saddam has a 4 billion dollar army. we have thrown 1% of our 360 billion dollar army, which is mostly engineered for defense, at him. even factoring in our high-tech weapons, 10 to 1 isn't good enough odds in urban, guerilla warfare. unlike airstrikes, a land war in the desert is extremely costly, and innefective. journalist's polls show that saddam is now more popular than ever before in the arab world. this war will act to continue to increase the power of terrorists and fundamentalists. there were reports of private saudi citizens arming themselves and heading to iraq to help out. the saudi people, by and large, hated saddam until this week. so not only is this war an overreaction to the situation, it is also a poor dimplomatic move, and, regardless of the outcome, a losing proposition in the long run the best thing we can do is pretend we achieved our mission, with minimal loss of life, and get out before we get near baghdad.

    Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
    [ Parent ]
    you are different (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:52:45 PM EST

    you are not a pacifist, by your own definition

    you are for war, only if it is just

    so you are not against war per se, only against THIS war

    that is totally different

    i disagree with you as well, but for different reasons:

    1. sept 11th proves the world is bad off as it is. i keep hearing people talking about it will only get worse if we invade iraq. hello? sept. 11th? do you not consider that to be about as bad as it gets? so who cares if it could get theoretically worse- it sucks enough as it is!

    and it COULD get better. you must, in intellectually honesty, admit that it could also get better by invading iraq. i admit to you, in intellectual honesty, that it might not get any better. no one knows. but worse? uh uh.

    the choice between no better and maybe better is a no brainer to me.

    now... do you say nukes are worse? dirty bombs are worse? chemical/ biological attacks are worse?

    aha, very interesting you bring that up.

    2. who could use such weapons? al qaeda? al qaeda has a nuclear research program? where? no where? so they must buy the stuff/ cajole it from our enemies?

    a lot of people who fail to see the connection between saddam hussein and al qaeda are correct: there is no connection.

    but that doesn't change a damn thing. do you wish that the proof that ther eis a connection, or could be a connection, to be found out after los angeles/ chicago becomes a nuclear desert? is that the proof you want before we invade?

    exactly. in a world of swords and guns, you don't need to confront your belligerent enemy until he is shooting at you or swinging your sword.

    but in a world with nukes?

    waiting for your belligerent enemy to nuke you before you attack him is suicide.

    you would now say to me of course that this is paranoid thinking, that by being the aggressor in the attempt to defeat him you become no better than the aggressor.

    really? what are our goals again? take out saddam hussein. is this becoming as bad as saddam hussein?

    and yes, of course, the old tired blood for oil complaint.

    is this about oil? is it not? the truth is simply this: it is partially about oil. intellectual honesty compels me to admit this. we won't be going after kim il jong, even though we should, because he has no oil. saddam controls oil. so, in intellectual honesty, you must admit that that is not ALL we have on our agenda in invading iraq: bringing democracy to iraq, attempting to get the middle east out of it's cycle of violence (you can disagree that this will help, invading iraq, but you can't disagree that it is a possible goal), etc.

    so, do you want a man with nukes and control of vast oil reserves in a volatile middle east who has proved his brutality? or do you want him removed?

    are we there to kill iraqi children? or saddam hussein?

    don't believe the hype.

    we will kick out saddam hussein, instill democracy in iraq, and the whole world will hate us for it all the time. sigh.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Control? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Zero Sum on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 07:00:26 AM EST

    so, do you want a man with nukes and control of vast oil reserves in a volatile middle east who has proved his brutality? or do you want him removed?

    That will apply equally to GWB when he is in control, won't it?

    You of only a choice of evils.


    Zero Sum - Vescere bracis meis
    [ Parent ]

    you are an idiot (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:27:41 AM EST

    gw bush is the head of a DEMOCRACY

    he will be gone in 2004 THROUGH DEMOCRATIC MEANS

    who willl you yell about then moron?

    meanwhile, saddam's sons will take over the yoke as kim il jong took over the yoke from his fathe rin north korea.

    how many decades of evil in iraq and north korea is about right for your conscience?

    while you attack a guy who will be gone NEXT YEAR

    hello?????????????????

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Takes one to misidentify one (none / 0) (#154)
    by tonedevil05 on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:29:09 PM EST

    So much of what you write is imbecilic but this one is glaring.

    he will be gone in 2004 THROUGH DEMOCRATIC MEANS

    If indeed there exists in these United States "DEMOCRATIC MEANS" then how do you know he will be gone. I mean there havn't even been primaries let alone elections, which would seem one of the cornerstones of "DEMOCRATIC MEANS".

    [ Parent ]

    i am the illuminati (nt) (none / 0) (#168)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:02:54 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    More like Illuminutcase /nt (none / 0) (#174)
    by tonedevil05 on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:23:28 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    we are watching you lol ;-) (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:28:14 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    referring to GWB here i hope (none / 0) (#215)
    by simul on Sun Mar 30, 2003 at 11:55:11 PM EST



    Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
    [ Parent ]
    Coercion to freedom (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kuranes on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 07:59:31 AM EST

    we will kick out saddam hussein, instill democracy in iraq, and the whole world will hate us for it all the time.

    You think people can be coerced to be free? Thats quite hypocritical (and, taking a view at Afghanistan, doesn't work all too well).

    So, given your view of the world that "Oh, the world is a bad place, so we have to kill all our enemies...", the USoA will be preemptively striking all the world until anyone surviving loves them. Very plausible.

    The US can't pose as World's Sheriff forever. Progress can only be made by cooperation.

    Disarm everybody.


    Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
    [ Parent ]
    wrong (3.00 / 1) (#142)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:25:22 AM EST

    if someone is under the boot of the tyrant, their natural desire to be free is unable to be revealed. how do expect iraqi democracy to flow naturally? are you willing to wait decades or centuries and have the iraqis suffer the whole time? this is superior to you?

    the usa will not be preemptively striking out at the world. only in places where violent tyrants build their machineries of war at the expense of their populace. you are talking about iraq and north korea only.

    the us is already the world's sheriff. and it is treated as any policeman in any part of the world is treated: hated, vilified, loathed... and absolutely indispensible.

    are you aware that rumsfeld was drawing up plans to withdraw from south korea, and the south korean govt said "please don't" to this, in a country where anti-american sentiment is huge? here is a story. so we are hated, and are needed, at the same time. we are but a political football. roh used anti-american sentiment to get itno power, and now that he is power and the us is proposing a troop pullout, he is begging us to stay. interesting, no?

    the philippines kicked the us, and all of its military bases, out in the early 1990s... now the philipine govt is inviting the us right back in.

    the us is already the world's policeman , and the us suffers the policeman's repuation: hated, but necessary. such is our lot. as long as countires of hypocritical demonstrating youth and pragmatic older governments exist.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... did you really say "disarm everybody"?????????

    pray tell fine sir, would please submit to me your plan for disarming saddam hussein, kim il jong

    exactly, you are for the us's action, not against it, you just haven't thought things out far enough.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with Sheriffs (none / 0) (#202)
    by Kuranes on Wed Mar 26, 2003 at 04:52:44 AM EST

    if someone is under the boot of the tyrant, their natural desire to be free is unable to be revealed. how do expect iraqi democracy to flow naturally? are you willing to wait decades or centuries and have the iraqis suffer the whole time? this is superior to you?
    You state that people have a "natural desire" to be free ("free" means of course being able to participate in an US-ish FREE lifestyle, right?). Just something that just jumped into my brain:
    The percentage of Americans in the prison system has doubled since 1985
    ---System of a Down, Prison Song
    Back to our subject.

    You're totally right in stating that the US indeed are the World's Sheriff, and their allies (e. g. your example of South Korea) need them.

    But, as we have seen in the US "cooperation" with NATO and UN, the US is tempted to abuse this power (just like Sheriffs sometimes do).

    Ensuring peace AND freedom (the freedom to choose lifestyle) can only be ensured by cooperation.

    And for the disarmament thing, you know, that's the long term plan.


    Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
    [ Parent ]
    No reason for this war (none / 0) (#149)
    by azurensis on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 11:03:53 AM EST

    and it COULD get better. you must, in intellectually honesty, admit that it could also get better by invading iraq. i admit to you, in intellectual honesty, that it might not get any better. no one knows. but worse? uh uh.

    It's already getting worse. The US is succeeding only in increasing the ranks of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Everything bad that they have ever heard about the United States is being verified by the Bush administration's actions.
    2. who could use such weapons? al qaeda? al qaeda has a nuclear research program? where? no where? so they must buy the stuff/ cajole it from our enemies?
    Remember that they didn't need anything more than box cutters to kill 3000 of our people. When the next attack comes, it will be equally unexpected.
    but that doesn't change a damn thing. do you wish that the proof that ther eis a connection, or could be a connection, to be found out after los angeles/ chicago becomes a nuclear desert? is that the proof you want before we invade?
    You are arguing for preemptive attack based upon fear and nothing else. You could justify attacking *anyone* with that criteria. After all, we can imagine a possible attack scenario from anyone at all.
    waiting for your belligerent enemy to nuke you before you attack him is suicide.
    Not starting a war is now suicide? War is peace? Slavery is freedom?
    and yes, of course, the old tired blood for oil complaint.
    Not so much the oil as for the determination of what the global currency is for the oil trade. Iraq switched to the Euro as its medium for the sale of oil in 2000. The US *cannot* allow anything but the dollar as the global oil currency or it could no longer afford to run with such a monstrous debt. It would literally go bankrupt.

    [ Parent ]
    same old tired cranks (none / 0) (#171)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:14:24 PM EST

    the difference between you and me is that you react to fear, uncertainty, doubt

    i act from principles

    you are afraid of terrorism, and complicitly back down from any action which might provoke them

    you do not make the world safe by appeasing those who would threaten it

    you make the world safe by REMOVING those who would threaten it

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    not quite (none / 0) (#191)
    by azurensis on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 07:25:46 PM EST

    the difference between you and me is that you react to fear, uncertainty, doubt
    I'm not the one advocating bombing any random country that the president claims could somehow be a threat.
    you are afraid of terrorism, and complicitly back down from any action which might provoke them
    What we did in Afghanistan was perfectly justified (though horribly executed). When we are attacked, we are completely justified in attacking back. We are not justified in attacking Iraq. It does nothing to advance the goal of stopping terrorism. If you had looked at the links I provided or searched for yourself, you'd see what I mean.
    you do not make the world safe by appeasing those who would threaten it

    you make the world safe by REMOVING those who would threaten it
    So who was Iraq a threat to again?

    [ Parent ]
    iraq (none / 0) (#195)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:54:50 PM EST

    iraq didn't attack any nation on earth, you are correct

    it was a peaceful government bent on the pursuit of... growing pretty clouds that look like  mushrooms lol ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Calm the fuck down. Really. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Innocent Bystander on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:15:01 PM EST

    You are reacting like a victim. Something terrible happened. A lot of people died. It was a tragedy.

    That doesn't give you carte blanche to run around the world killing people so you'll feel safe again. That'll just lead to escalating cycle of violence, where invasion leads to new enemies to new invasions.

    I hate to say this, but the reason the US is so reviled abroad is that your government has committed evil in your name. You've supported brutal dictators, you've torn down democracies, you've bombed civilians, you've supported invasions of sovereign territory.

    The real way to stop terrorism is to stop pissing people off so much that they're willing to die just to slap your face. "Shock and Awe" isn't going to stop terrorism, unilateral action isn't going to win friends.

    Swallow your pride, work through your anger, stop killing so many people. Please.

    [ Parent ]

    the truth of the pudding (none / 0) (#170)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:11:17 PM EST

    let us see you lift a finger in the interest of my safety

    then i will listen to you

    i see instead you do not give a shit about me

    do not be surprised then if you cease to matter to me, and i continue my crazed victimization as you put it

    want to get rid of me? want to shut me up?  make sure the world is safe for us all

    not americans, not europeans, the whole world

    i am a member of the human race first, and that is where my concerns stem from, not some stupid tribal nationalist agenda

    you don't make the world safe by telling victims of terror "shut up and deal with it, it's all your fault anyways"

    i didn't know that al qaeda was the truth and justice patrol of the world, or is that how you understand their agenda?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    mmmm, pudding. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Innocent Bystander on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 05:27:25 PM EST

    a.

    Don't shut up. You must continue to expose your ignorance so it can be corrected.

    b.

    You're going to have to deal with it. As cold-hearted as it sounds you're going to have to deal with it eventually. I'd just rather you could do it before you bomb anyone else into the stone age.

    c.

    What have you done for my safety? Fuck, what have you done for your own? You a member of the Armed Forces you so fervently support?

    Do you honestly believe that US foreign policy is insuring your safety? How is pissing off the rest of the world making you safe?

    d.

    I do care about you. But just because I love my brother doesn't mean that I let him kill my friends.

    [ Parent ]

    we agree to disagree (none / 0) (#186)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 05:34:59 PM EST

    watch history unfold before you

    it will diverge towards my pov, or towards yours, no?

    i have full confidence in my pov, as you do in yours

    you think i'm a deluded fuck, i think you're a deluded fuck

    all of this is fine and well, because history is happening, and its events will diverge towards the way you see the world, or towards the way i see it

    i honestly think you will think of me again in the near future, when you realize how things are happening as i see them

    meanwhile, i will promptly forget about you after this post lol ;-P

    it's all about how well someone understands reality and human nature. i honestly think i have a better grasp of it than you do.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    As bad as it gets? (none / 0) (#153)
    by raukea on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:25:24 PM EST

    I don't mean to suggest that the terrorist action in New York on 11.9 2001 was not a bad thing, but I find the term as bad as it gets a bit... exaggerated. There are many places on this earth that are worse, I could refer to many, but how about, for example the massacres that happened in the Rwandan civil war in the 90s. Places like this are the breeding grounds of terrorism and the fact that apparently many people in the United States do not realize this and want to take revenge through this war on terrorism is ample proof of this. Let me ask you though, if you are faced with people who are ready to take their own lives to get back at their perceived enemies, what can you do? Reply with empty rhetorics about good and evil and the killing of innocents? The so-called coalition are clearly not ready to die for any of their 'democratic' beliefs, choosing instead to employ their high tech bombs instead. I do not mean to sound pessimistic, but I fear that if the US continues with this stubborn crusade ignoring any who suggest something different, the only result will be tragedy to us all.
    Quod me nutrit, me destruit.
    [ Parent ]
    you do what you can (none / 0) (#172)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:16:40 PM EST

    you do what you can in this world, knowing you can't undo every injustive, but you do what you can

    the weight of that thought should never lead you to do nothing, and never try

    the us is trying, it's principles and goals are sound, and so many cynics and doubters do nothing but sit and watch

    well, watch history unfold before you, and watch as it adheres to realism and pragmatic efforts, not pessimistic fatalism

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#221)
    by raukea on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:18:01 AM EST

    and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Lets just abandon the high rhetorics for a while, you do what you can yes, and I won't get to arguing about whether US motives are right or wrong. You can't really be sure of that and when you look at the CV of the US foreign policy, some people are right to be sceptics. And anyways, is every action done without a gun considered sitting around doing nothing. And yes, we will see history unfolding before us, lets just hope it's unfolding in the right direction and that people from other parts of the world can have a say in that too? It's funny that the anti-american terrorists use pretty much the same arguments. Who's right? I wouldn't trust neither side.

    [ Parent ]
    Err.. (4.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Magnetic North on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:12:14 PM EST

    What has this got to do with anything? Did you even read the article?

    And when did anti-war equate to anti-violence? Are you implying that everybody who protest against a specfic war, must be pacifists?

    On a side note.. It's funny how easy it was to convince scum like you (US citizens in general) how necessary it was to go to war against Iraq. Not that I mind really (the country I am coming from is set to make a lot of money on this war), it's just amusing.



    --
    <33333
    [ Parent ]
    why are you talking to me? (1.00 / 4) (#122)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 10:25:52 PM EST

    i don't have anything to say to you, as you don't address the way of thinking i am talking about, and you attack my americanism, which i don't care about.

    you are not a pacifist, by your own definition

    you are for war, but only if you think it is just

    so you are not against war per se, only against THIS war

    that is totally different, so why are you talking to me?

    is it to insult me because i am american?

    being antiamerican doesn't prove anything

    i am a member of the human race

    i am glad you hold such affiliation to your tribal nationalist notions

    too bad it doesn't mean a damn thing

    democracy is all that matters in the world

    oh shit!

    i am so sorry for breaking your stereotypes

    where is my cowboy hat? kill iraqi children for oil! yeehaw!

    better now? can you sleep better tonight now that i have resumed my stereotypical sheeplike thinking you have equated me with?

    ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    That's the way it is. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Eivind on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 08:48:57 AM EST

    Because I think pretty much all the people opposing the current war are against *this* war, and not nessecarily principally opposed to all wars.

    Most people agree that there exists situations where your best option is to physically figth. It's only that many people, me included, don't think that the current situation is one of those situations.

    [ Parent ]

    ok, fine (none / 0) (#144)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:29:59 AM EST

    i am glad that you have that opinion

    but we are ALREADY IN IRAQ

    so, does that fact change your opinion in any way?
     

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    So? (none / 0) (#146)
    by azurensis on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:45:49 AM EST

    Why would it? This war was immoral before we went into Iraq and it doesn't suddenly become acceptable because our president decided to waste some American lives. The people who switch their views once the war begins are just plain old hypocrites. Either it was a good idea or it wasn't. Nothing has changed.

    [ Parent ]
    not so (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:48:56 AM EST

    the war is not immoral

    if you believed it was immoral before the fighting is started, maybe the question is asked too soon

    if the war achieves its objectives, then maybe in a few months/ years you will come to see it was not immoral

    i asked if you saw how someone who viewed it as immoral beforehand would have a different opinion now

    question asked too soon

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously not (none / 0) (#156)
    by azurensis on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:32:16 PM EST

    if the war achieves its objectives, then maybe in a few months/ years you will come to see it was not immoral
    Like Vietnam? The longer after the war was over, the more information came out supporting that it was immoral. Time only verified what those protestors were saying.

    [ Parent ]
    the immorality of the war in vietnam (none / 0) (#169)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:04:50 PM EST

    it was in the fight against communism

    it was poorly executed

    history has shown communism to be a historical mistake

    now vietnam is about as communist as a socialist democracy, the vietnamese have abandoned the principles the north fought for

    time will tell indeed


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a question for you then (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by NotQuiteSoProsperous on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 06:14:35 AM EST

    What about Ghandi? He managed to get his point across reasonably successfully.

    Your statement: "if you believe in something you will fight for it, no?" is false. Clearly if you believe that all forms of violence are wrong, you won't physically fight for that belief. The more strongly you believe the less likely you are to fight. It is wrong to equate belief in a cause with willingness to inflict harm on those who oppose your view.

    [ Parent ]

    i have an answer (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:09:10 AM EST

    what is the value of a person that you expect to try to punch you, who talks to you instead

    such a person is very impressive and persuasive

    but i am talking about the person you expect to talk to you, who punches you instead

    gandhi was a great man, he existed in world that promised violence, and he delivered peace, very impressive, he should be revered and his example should be followed at all times possible

    but how do you apply the example of gandhi to a world in peace where violence is delivered?

    do you deny that such people exist?

    saddam attacked kuwait, iran

    we live in a world of september 11ths, not british colonial overlords.

    different world, different strategies, no?

    and so if you apply lessons from the world of gandhi, to a different world, with different rules of conduct, then gandhi's strategy is not necessarily the most effective

    so your people who would never fight underany situation, seem to be doomed. not because they will get killed, but beause their beliefs cease to sway anyone, cease to impress anyone, cease to persuade anyone

    nonviolent protest is not how you fight the likes of al qaeda, saddam hussein, kim il jong

    these are not great horrible overlords in a world of pain.

    these are snakes in the garden of eden of peace

    gandhi was a great man, who taught a great lesson to the world, but his situation is not the situation we find ourselves in today.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (none / 0) (#162)
    by basse on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:55:10 PM EST

    Actually, Gandhi lived in times that were very much like our times. The best example of his non-violence is the process which lead to the independence of India. It could have been a very bloody and violent revolution, but wasn't.

    [ Parent ]
    then tell me something (none / 0) (#175)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 03:26:51 PM EST

    where is the gandhi of today's world if it is so similar?

    if gandhi were born today in a number of conflicts you can draw parallels to, such a man would not gain prominence

    why? because his tactics of peace would not rise him to fame and popular interest

    too much of evil selfish interests within the conflicts of today is allied against such a person

    the indian desire for independence was a noble and pure desire, birthing a leader who was noble and pure in action

    the conflicts of today are dirty and selfish and rotten, and so only dirty and selfish and rotten human beings rise to prominence

    what are driving the conflicts of today, who is controlling the agenda, are terrorists: the extremes of society, not the center. until the tide shifts, and the moderate middle takes control of the agenda over the extremes, no gandhi-esque character will rise to prominence.
     

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Kintanon on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 04:57:44 PM EST

    Are you implying that peacefully led resistence groups are so common around the world that Ghandi wouldn't draw comment if he were active today? I think you're right bonkers then. A massive peaceful protest will always draw comment, especially if people are attacking the peaceful protestors. 100,000 people camped outside of the whitehouse would certainly draw attention to their cause.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    200,000 marched outside my apt this weekend (none / 0) (#184)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 05:26:33 PM EST

    do you see much influence or impact?

    (manhattan, btw)

    a mass of deluded peaceniks does not equate to a figure like gandhi

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    They marched.... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Kintanon on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:48:09 PM EST

    and then went home.
    That's the issue. They aren't commited enough to their cause to go in for the long haul. Camp.
    A giant makeshift refuge camp outside the whitehouse would draw attention as a permanent structure the way a temporary march won't.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    read this and come back (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by humble on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 06:56:11 PM EST

    "Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I undertake to cultivate compassion and learn ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life."

    continues...
    Indymedia - Civil society's not-so-secret servicetm
    [ Parent ]

    very nice (none / 0) (#196)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 10:03:37 PM EST

    allow me to give you some other peaceful words

    2. To advocate a New Order was to seek freedom and respect for peoples without prejudice, and to seek a stable basis for the existence all peoples, equally, and free of threats. Thus, it was to seek true civilization and true justice for all the peoples of the world, and to view this as the destruction of personal freedom and respect is to be assailed by the hatred and emotion of war, and to make hasty judgments.

    6. Of two through five above, which is civilization? Which is international justice? Justice has nothing to do with victor nations and vanquished nations, but must be a moral standard that all the world's peoples can agree to. To seek this and to achieve it - that is true civilization.

    7. In order to understand this, all nations must hate war, forsake emotion, reflect upon their pasts, and think calmly.

    who said these wonderful words?

    hideki tojo, mastermind of the japanese war machine, defending himself during his trial for war crimes

    words are nice, aren't they? but they fall like rain on the truth that is human deceit, human misery, human violence.

    i believe we will live in peace some day, but it begins by dropping the evil men in this world, peace will be delivered through action, not inaction... it is through action we will recieve peace in the world, not by becoming ascetic monks devoid of passion.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Oregon government is potentially 100% corrupt. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Futurepower on Mon Mar 24, 2003 at 09:23:04 PM EST

    Here is an article that gives background information about Oregon government: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.

    bah (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by dh003i on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:55:51 AM EST

    Much as I hate those PETA-nutcases and anti-choice nut-cases, being disorderly and disrupting residents, etc, is not terrorism. And all of the individuals in the group shouldn't be punished just because one of them plans such.

    The illegal actions that individuals in protest-groups usually commit are trespassing, destruction of property, harassment, stalking, etc, especially for anti-choice and PETA-protestors. However, this is not terrorism.

    Blowing up an abortion clinic or research lab -- that, however, I'd be willing to call terrorism.

    As it stands, this bill is unconstitutional, as it's definition of terrorism is bogus (what is this bullshit, is everything we don't like going to be called terrorism now?). Furthermore, it punishes an entire group of people for the actions of only one of its members. No different than punishing all black people because some black people commit roberies.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.

    Burn the American Flag and your ass is in (1.00 / 6) (#128)
    by sweetie on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:00:52 AM EST

    jail. I think some of the protestors are sick son of a bitches. You don't burn the American Flag. What the fuck are they thinking??? You anti war people suck ass.


    "If god thinks he's doing me wrong , he'll strike his ass down with a lightning bolt!"
    Have you been fucked with the wrong way? If so then post that Bitch or Dick to my Dick
    Don't worry (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by John Asscroft on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 02:03:14 AM EST

    As soon as I get the go-ahead from Tom Ridge (when he declares Code Red), we'll round up all these seditious traitors and let them practice free speech at the Free Speech Zone in the middle of the Nevada Test Site. A few surplus Army tents, and a lot of razor wire, ought to do the trick of letting them practice their 1st Amendment rights without bothering God-Fearing Americans like you and me. Halleleuya! Praise the Lord! Lalallllalalllwlllalallal laluhllalal lul lalala feel the Spirit! Amen!

    Attorney General John Asscroft


    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]

    The protestors are acting like terrorist, they (none / 0) (#183)
    by sweetie on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 05:11:07 PM EST

    should be ashamed of themselves.


    "If god thinks he's doing me wrong , he'll strike his ass down with a lightning bolt!"
    Have you been fucked with the wrong way? If so then post that Bitch or Dick to my Dick
    [ Parent ]
    Like Terrorists, How? (none / 0) (#190)
    by dlkwnt on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 07:25:27 PM EST

    How exactly, are anti-war protestors are "acting" like terrorists. Do they have churches as fronts for fundraising operations to buy explosives, and arms? Have the protestors threatened to kill anyone? Have anti-war protestors taken any hostages?

    Also, how is burning the american flag (or any other flag for that matter) such a bad thing? The only signifigance of a flag is what it symbolizes to people. Many people, yourself included tend to believe that the american flag symbolizes freedom. And maybe it does, to you. However what you don't realize that when people burn the american flag, they are thinking of it symbolizing freedom, rather they are burning it in the context of it symbolizing our corporate government and what it has mutated into since the 1900's.

    Maybe the next time that you see someone burning the American flag, you should ask yourself. "Why am I offended by this action?", and "What do those people know that makes them feel that that action is appropriate?". It's not like you are the only rational person out there, everyone is rationally justified in their own minds given their circumstances. By becoming angry at people who see things differently than you, you are allowing yourself to become judgmental and close yourself off from examining an issue from another angle.

    Sorry, had to get that off my chest. And don't think that I didn't notice that this was a Troll...

    [ Parent ]

    Correct response sweete. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Wulfius on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:43:41 PM EST

    Your patriotic expression has been noted.

    When the purges come, our Patriot militia will avoid  your house.

    ---

    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
    [ Parent ]

    Update 3/25 (none / 0) (#157)
    by kpaul on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:56:31 PM EST

    The Oregonian:
    After the hearing, the judiciary committee's three Democratic members spoke against the bill, all but killing its chances of surviving intact. All Senate committees are divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, and a bill must get a majority of committee votes to move forward.

    "This bill chips away at the very freedom we profess to enjoy in the face of terrorism," said Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton. "I would not want our servicemen in the Middle East and elsewhere to return and find that the freedoms they are risking their lives for overseas have been damaged while entrusted to the care of the Oregon Senate."

    Sen. Ted Ferrioli of John Day, one of three Republicans on the committee, said Oregon law needs to be changed to more clearly define acts of civil disobedience and acts of terrorism. But two other Democrats on the committee, Vicki Walker of Eugene and Ginny Burdick of Portland, said they won't support the bill.

    Minnis said he will rewrite portions of the bill in an attempt to address concerns about the broad language and role Oregon police agencies would have in federal terror investigations. No additional hearings have been scheduled on the bill.

    2014 Halloween Costumes
    Perhaps more importantly (none / 0) (#161)
    by kpaul on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:55:06 PM EST

    LOS ANGELES TIMES:
    The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a preliminary challenge to the government's expanded powers to wiretap and search people who are suspected of having links to foreign terrorists.

    The justices refused to allow the American Civil Liberties Union to appeal on behalf of Arab Americans and others who believe they may be being secretly monitored.

    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    meanwhile in Texas... (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by humble on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 06:23:32 PM EST

    Update: Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act by Lara Jill Rosenblith

    This article was originally copied from the environment.about.com website:

    Update: Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act

    Civil Rights vs. Fear of Terrorism

    Animal rights and environmental activists are the targets of a new bill introduced into the Texas Legislature in February 2003 by Representative Ray Allen (R-Grapevine). H.B. 433, the so-called "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" is loosely modeled after federal laws designed to combat the "war on terrorism;" however, this bill uses fear as the tool to implement legislation seeking to criminalize any activity pertaining to animal rights or environmental activism. Did I mention that the model bill was drafted by the national lobbyists group, The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA)? The USSA, along with the America Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)are promoting this bill nationwide.

    A Glimpse at some of the Wording of H.B. 433:

    • Definition of Animal Rights or Ecological Terrorist Organization under this bill: Two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or natural resources.

    • Definition of Political Motivation: any intent to influence a governmental entity or the public to take a specific political action. If passed in its current form, H.B. 433 would destroy Texan's civil rights. Under the bill, anyone could be considered a "terrorist" if they were to participate in any activity (legitimate peaceful protest, civil disobedience, demonstration, or debate) on behalf of environmental or animal welfare. Similarly, contributing money or contributions in any form to these supposed "terrorist cells" would be punishable.

    The bill would also create a state-run Website similar to the state-run sex-offender sites, wherein all offenders would be required to register their name, address, and provide a current photo for three years.

    Furthermore, the bill language implies that a journalist could not enter a facility (any facility that is potentially harming the environment or animals) to photograph or record any wrongdoings for the purpose of informing the public or defaming the facility for such acts. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance has lobbied variations of this bill to legislators in Mississippi, Washington, New York and Wisconsin for 2003 as part of a state-by-state campaign to bring down the radical environmental and animal rights movements.

    My personal opinion is that the only people this bill stands to hurt are the activists engaging in legitimate means of protest. Several bills trying to curb politically motivated acts of "eco-terrorism" have been passed in Oregon and Washington; yet, the numbers for these crimes continue to rise steadily. Frustration and fear on the part of lawmakers and federal agents have left them with the idea that all activists are involved in illegal activity; however, proposing laws such as these which rob us of our basic constitutional rights is not the answer.

    Similar bills have appeared within the past few weeks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maine, and may soon appear in (at least) Wisconsin, Mississippi and Washington.

    original article


    Indymedia - Civil society's not-so-secret servicetm
    Lets cut to the chase. (4.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Wulfius on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 09:37:04 PM EST

    Why dont the Americans just stop wasting everyones time with this bullshit?

    Lets just admit that the founding fathers were wrong.
    Lets just admit that freedom of expression and democracy was a big, big mistake.

    We are wasting precious energy arguing backwards and forwards.
    All words, empty words.
    It is quite apparent that ideas of humanitarianism and liberty mean nothing in the crass commercial realities of today.
    Worse yet, they have been stolen, repackaged and are merchendised to the sheep masses.

    Come get your freedom fries here!
    And while you gorge yourself with the calorie intake that would feed a family of 11 into an early grave do watch the TV.
    Do buy our products.
    Do buy the chemical drugs that will never cure you but will shred your body systems while making
    fat profits for the same corporations that
    have contracts with the military to make weapons
    of mass distruction.
    Keep consuming untill your body takes a lardy splatt into a cheap plastic coffin because your
    familiy can not afford a good one, burdened with
    debts to the eyeballs.

    If the current trends continue (exercise: Plot on a graph, extrapolate) the US will become a facist
    state by the year 2013.

    I say we are losing an excellent commercial opportunity here!

    Embrace fashism america now!
    Sexy black shirt fashions!
    Inspiring chants of USA! USA! USA!
    Entertaining TV as our rightous armed forces
    crush the rest of the world.

    Why wait 10 years when you can have the trains fun on time NOW!

    No more untidy dissenters, no more troubling liberal media, no more arabs, chinks or niggers.
    If you disagree you are a terrorist.

    We know what you are doing, our total awareness system is spying on you everytime you buy a porn mag, every time you get a whore, every time you buy bad food in the supermarket.

    We know all your sins and the fuhrer is grinning
    with the idiot smile.

    ---

    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!

    Is that yours? (none / 0) (#216)
    by bakuretsu on Tue Apr 01, 2003 at 10:39:57 AM EST

    That is amazing. God how much I love editorial and cynical postings.

    I think what's most disturbing about this piece is how true a lot of it seems (read: education and government is more of a business now than ever before; can you say 'campaign finance reform'?)

    But aren't you glad you live in America where you can post that without literally fearing execution by the SS of your own government?

    TIA is fucking scary, but at least the FBI isn't knocking down your door to murder you for disagreeing with the establishment.

    --
    Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu


    [ Parent ]

    misdemeanor commercial terrorism in Utah (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Robin Lionheart on Fri Mar 28, 2003 at 04:42:24 PM EST

    Even a misdemeanor can be an act of terror.

    In Utah, you could be convincted for "misdemeanor commercial terrorism" for picketing in the parking lot of a shopping mall.

    (1) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he enters or remains unlawfully on the premises of or in a building of any business with the intent to interfere with the employees, customers, personnel, or operations of a business through any conduct that does not constitute an offense listed under Subsection (2). A violation of this Subsection (1) is a class A misdemeanor.

    I suppose Martin Luther King was a "commercial terrorist" for his 1960s lunch counter sit-ins.

    Subsection (2) describes acts that graduate to "felony commercial terrorism", such as if you were to "alter, eradicate, or remove any merchandise, records, data, or proprietary information of the business" or "damage, deface, or destroy any property on the premises of the business".

    So if you do strike in Utah, don't spray any graffiti or risk being locked up as a felon and losing your right to vote.



    Attend a Protest, Go to Jail | 221 comments (212 topical, 9 editorial, 1 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!