• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Violent Protestors -Are They Terrorists?

cenimo

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team
Mar 17, 2002
2,000
78
To your right
Visit site
✟25,182.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oregonian- Violent protesters: Are they terrorists? [font="verdana, arial, helvetica"]<B>Antiterror bill meets opposition at hearing

HARRY ESTEVE

SALEM --</B> A bill that would define violent protesters as terrorists and subject them to possible life imprisonment came under attack Monday at a packed and sometimes tense legislative hearing.

Antiwar activists and civil libertarians showed up in force to criticize Senate Bill 742, which they said contains overly broad language and gives police expanded powers to investigate people based on ethnicity.

"We are living in the McCarthy era all over again," said Patty Caldwell, an antiwar activist from Welches. "Then, you were called a communist. Now, you're called a terrorist sympathizer."

The statements came during the bill's first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Committee Chairman Sen. John Minnis, R-Wood Village, author of the bill, threatened to clear the hearing room after repeated bursts of applause for speakers and interruptions shouted from the audience.

Minnis said he introduced the measure to put all crimes that could be construed as terrorism into a single law with tough punishment guidelines, and to require Oregon police agencies to cooperate with federal investigations into terrorists.

But the wording of the bill left many concerned that it could be applied to relatively minor acts of vandalism or misbehavior during a demonstration. The bill applies to acts of violence committed while someone is disrupting commerce, transportation, schools or universities.

Anyone convicted of terrorism would get an automatic life sentence with a 25-year minimum before being considered for parole.

"Many of the protesters arrested last week in Portland for misdemeanor conduct may have qualified for prosecution" under SB 742, said Susan Russell of the Oregon Criminal Lawyers Association. Crimes, such as throwing a rock through a window, or lighting flags on fire while demonstrating, do not warrant potential life sentences, she said.

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.

"Unfortunately, there's a lot of hysteria associated with some of the original language" of the bill, he said. "I will bring something back and see if it works."

target=_blank>http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oreg...59720379330.xml
[/font]
 

Brimshack

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2002
7,275
473
59
Arizona
✟12,010.00
Faith
Atheist
This particular law was not drawn up so as to help protect us from terrorists planning to kill Americans or destroy substantial landmarks, etc. It was drawn up so as to include those engaging in petty acts of violence during demonstrations. the goal here was not to sharpen our ability to fight terrorism, but to use the prospect of terrorism as an excuse to eliminate political opposition.
 
Upvote 0

JillLars

It's a Boy! Jace David- Due 1/20/07
Jan 20, 2003
3,105
115
42
New Hope, MN
Visit site
✟3,944.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
This law sounds like a bad idea all around. Its important not to throw around the word "terrorism", I think its thrown around way to much nowadays, especially by people protesting the war. Terrorism by definition is purposely targeting civilians in acts of violence in order to strike fear into an entire population. I don't think petty acts of violence during protests would equal terrorism. If I decided I wanted to go get into a fight with some protestors, it wouldn't be so that i could strike fear into an entire population, it really would be no different than a bar fight. So, I think its a bad idea. (IMO)
 
Upvote 0

Miyu

Active Member
Mar 27, 2003
51
0
58
Visit site
✟164.00
I agree...

Protestors that break existing laws should be punished according to existing laws...no need to make up new laws...

btw, liberals also use laws in a wrong way to silence conservative protestors...an example would be the use of federal racketeering laws against pro-life protestors...the Supreme Court recently ruled that those laws do not apply...likewise, anti-terrorist laws should not be applied to anti-war protestors.
 
Upvote 0

Gerry

Jesus Paid It All
May 1, 2002
8,301
17
Visit site
✟14,307.00
Today at 02:08 AM Brimshack said this in Post #9

It doesn't exlude anybody. The point is that making a point to lock some college kid up for life because he threw a rock through a window isn't going to help us quash any terrorist cells.

As you know, I have a great deal of respect for your wisdom. I would love to hear some of your ideas about what WILL help quash terrorist cells. I hear lots of talk but no concrete ideas and what it will take to get this job done. I am SURE you have some good ideas.
 
Upvote 0

Brimshack

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2002
7,275
473
59
Arizona
✟12,010.00
Faith
Atheist
I'm sorry to say I don't have any specific proposals for improving national security. The point is that neither did this politician, the author of the bill. It is questionable as to whether or not that was his goal to begin with. There are those (in homeland security, etc.) who are working on sound policies that may help. Some of their proposals are also questionable on various grounds, but at least there are reasons for what they want to do. But this guy wasn't doing anything constructively related to improving security against terrorists. That simply wasn't the point of the law he proposed.

My goals in this thread, and several others here are limited to making sure that the threat of terrorism and the current war do not serve as an excuse to attack American citizens for political reasons. Where someone is advancing genuine security interests, I would show a little more deference if not uncritical acceptance, but in cases such as these I think we are looking at a blatant attempt to use the war to advance a domestic political agenda. Until I see reason to believe otherwise, I remain opposed to this bill or anything like it.

I'm sorry that's the best i can do on this topic.
 
Upvote 0

Gerry

Jesus Paid It All
May 1, 2002
8,301
17
Visit site
✟14,307.00
Today at 03:03 AM Brimshack said this in Post #13

I'm sorry to say I don't have any specific proposals for improving national security. The point is that neither did this politician, the author of the bill. It is questionable as to whether or not that was his goal to begin with. There are those (in homeland security, etc.) who are working on sound policies that may help. Some of their proposals are also questionable on various grounds, but at least there are reasons for what they want to do. But this guy wasn't doing anything constructively related to improving security against terrorists. That simply wasn't the point of the law he proposed.

My goals in this thread, and several others here are limited to making sure that the threat of terrorism and the current war do not serve as an excuse to attack American citizens for political reasons. Where someone is advancing genuine security interests, I would show a little more deference if not uncritical acceptance, but in cases such as these I think we are looking at a blatant attempt to use the war to advance a domestic political agenda. Until I see reason to believe otherwise, I remain opposed to this bill or anything like it.

I'm sorry that's the best i can do on this topic.

NOT what I am looking for. I am looking for specifics. Positive specifics. The Department of Homeland Security does not have all the answers either. No one does but there ARE answers. The question is are we tough enough and determined enough to seek and implement them. Are we willing to make some sacrifices in order to assure our safety and Freedom.

What about 911? We all know it could happen again, and though it may not be as easy as it was before, it could happen and very likely will. We have many many National Guard Units scattered around our country. Why not implement shifts and have 5 of them stationed atop every skyscraper in this country with anti aircraft guns aimed in every direction fully armed and ready to take down any plane zeroed in on them. What is the extra cost in that. We pay the National Guardsmen anyway, often just to march around a field a couple times a week. Sure I know there is other traing they do as well, but this is also training. So what would be the extra cost? A few more anti aircraft missles? Cheaper than a few thousand innocent lives and untold billions of dollars in property damage. I have not seen the Dept. of Homeland security come up with a better idea than that unless you call a color code a better way of protection.

There are many many other positive things we could do if the people would get of their duff and start thinking and acting rather than protesting that an idea like this is impractical an somehow infringes on someone's rights.

Our WORLD changed with 911, and we better get used to living a different way, for it will never again be as it was.
 
Upvote 0

Brimshack

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2002
7,275
473
59
Arizona
✟12,010.00
Faith
Atheist
Once again I think you are working toward a different goal than the individual who authored this bill. What you just suggested may or may not be a good idea, but it is at least intended to promote national security. What this bill would have done was to lock up political opponents for misdemeanor offenses under the pretense of calling them terrorists. When such laws come up I will continue to oppose them. As to your own suggestion, I simply cannot tell if that would actually improve security or add to the general insecurities of the nation as a whole. Some rights may indeed have to be restricted, but when there isn't even a positive benefit to be derived from such restrictions, one has to wonder who is the greater danger. If we become a police state in response to 9-11, then they've won. If we do so for frivolous reasons, or out of shear panick, then we are doubly to shame.
 
Upvote 0

Gerry

Jesus Paid It All
May 1, 2002
8,301
17
Visit site
✟14,307.00
I don't suggest we become a Police State, nor do I suggest the terrorists have won. But I do think we need to face the fact that the World changed that day, whether we like it or not, and we must adapt to the changes. It is no longer business as usual.

I think the time has come for Americans to grow up and quit playing their silly little political games. Democrats oppose a bill because it is authored by a Republican and vice versa and the opposition is based on nothing else.

When there is a sincere difference voice it and work it out, but the childish games that go on in Washington between the left and right is beyond absurd.

Yes, my idea is a good one and one that will work if implemented. And no it will not add to the "insecurities" of the nation but rather sooth them. But that is only one idea. There are many more and it is time the voters start electing representatives based on something more than tradition. Besides you can't tell a democrat from a republican these days without looking between their legs. Anyone who thinks their congressman really cares about them and their problems are too naive to vote anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Brimshack

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2002
7,275
473
59
Arizona
✟12,010.00
Faith
Atheist
Roflol, I'm not even gonna go there with your last comment.

I hear what you're saying. The games often interfere with sound laws. On the other hand, the opposition can also eliminate unsound laws, or at least catch the unsound aspects of a proposed bill. It's frustrating, and it could be dangerous, but frankly I'm at least as concerned that a few bills have gotten through without proper scrutiny as I am about any that have been held up.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll return to this topic again. I bushed.

Goodnight Gerry.
 
Upvote 0

Gerry

Jesus Paid It All
May 1, 2002
8,301
17
Visit site
✟14,307.00
Today at 04:14 AM Brimshack said this in Post #17

Roflol, I'm not even gonna go there with your last comment.

I hear what you're saying. The games often interfere with sound laws. On the other hand, the opposition can also eliminate unsound laws, or at least catch the unsound aspects of a proposed bill. It's frustrating, and it could be dangerous, but frankly I'm at least as concerned that a few bills have gotten through without proper scrutiny as I am about any that have been held up.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll return to this topic again. I bushed.

Goodnight Gerry.

GREAT talking with you again. I have missed it. Have a GREAT night!
 
Upvote 0
Today at 10:02 AM Gerry said this in Post #16

But I do think we need to face the fact that the World changed that day, whether we like it or not, and we must adapt to the changes.

Care to enlighten me on how exactly the world outside America changed on Sept. 11th? It seems a little presumptious to assume that since America changed the entire world must therefore have changed as well.
 
Upvote 0