Under H.R. 1955/S. 1959 It’s possible that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute if the Commission so deems. No more pesky demonstrations on the capitol grounds. Obama supports this legislation by the way.

I recommend reading Robert Dreyfus’ Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam for a historical account of how the CIA, that notorious “leftist, anti-American, anti-globalization force” empowered a few militant Muslims into a force capable of blunting the Soviet Union’s expansion into the Middle East.

Well, now that I’ve been exposed, it’s off to jail I go-go.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

Who, pray tell, gets to decide what’s “wrong?”

Our benevolent leaders, who have only our best interests at heart.

“Our benevolent leaders”? Which would those be?

we all must look — and act.

p e a c e

Would calling for an economic boycott of a given company constitute “planning a use of force” — in
this case economic force — and thus bring someone making such a call subject to this bill?

Would participating in a strike constitute “a use of force” — in this case, removing one’s self from the workforce, thus forcing a business to either shut down or seek alternative employees?

I fear for how these kinds of questions would be answered, should this bill become law.
reply

for a preview of coming attractions, look to AETA – the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act”

Sigh. What did authoritarians use before “terrorist”?

Oops. Silly me.

Communist.

From Green Is The New Red:

PENALTIES FOR NON-VIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN A “TERRORISM” BILL?

The penalties section of AETA is like a Christmas list for industry groups, making the penalties in AEPA look tame by comparison. AEPA spelled out that an individual who causes less than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned up to six months, and someone who causes more than $10,000 in economic damage could be imprisoned up to three years.

Earlier versions of AETA, though, started out with penalties for non-violent civil disobedience, and worked their way up.

(1) for an offense involving exclusively a non-violent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury or death or property damage or loss–
(A) not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 6 months, or both, for the first offense; and
(B) not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; [emphasis added]

That’s right: “non-violent physical obstruction,” also known as civil disobedience, could earn an activist 18 months in prison, plus fines, in a terrorism bill. This was one of the biggest concerns I raised when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the legislation. In the final version, the phrase “exclusively a non-violent physical obstruction” was removed. But the first segment of the sentencing section still spells out penalties of

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and—
(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or
(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000

;
[emphasis added]

Remember, we’re looking at a terrorism bill here, one that industry groups say is needed to combat “violent” animal rights “extremists,” and we’re only dealing with non-violent crimes that don’t even “instill” a “reasonable fear.”

One explanation for this sentencing provision is that it could be intended to target acts of “conspiracy.” (For instance, if a group of activists conspired to vandalize a cosmetic testing facility but their plot was foiled, and resulted in no economic damage or “reasonable fear”).

But disturbingly, on the floor of the House on the day AETA passed—just hours after a ceremony breaking ground for the new MLK memorial—Representative Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, acknowledged that this “terrorism” law could still target non-violent civil disobedience. “… there are some who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil disobedience,” he said. “If a group’s intention were to stage a sit-in or liedown or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be breaking…

“To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied.”

In other words, those “who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest” through civil disobedience could be labeled terrorists. But only if they intended to make a difference.