Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
F
Frackal
Guest
Oregon is 2 words
Oregon Law Would Jail Protestors As Terrorists
- Thread starter The Almighty
- Start date
J
JohnyJuice
Guest
Thats total frigging garbage. Like Frak said, there are already laws for these things. Assembling without a permit is against the law. So is blocking traffic and emergency vehicles. Enforce the ones we already have.
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
I'm no street protester at least not yet! But charging protesters as terrorists if fucking ridiculous! I can't see it passing through the committee! There is no way this would jive with the Supreme Court! If it does as it is worded now! All is lost! American Revolution 2 would begin! General Frack and Dcup to the rescue! But then that would make us terrorists! 
Definition of "Terrorist": Let's Have Some Clarity
October 5, 2001
"Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.
This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."
Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.
In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:
Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.
Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.
Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.
Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.
Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.
While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.
Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.
And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.
At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.
All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.
Definition of "Terrorist": Let's Have Some Clarity
October 5, 2001
"Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.
This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."
Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.
In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:
Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.
Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.
Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.
Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.
Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.
While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.
Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.
And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.
At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.
All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.
W
Warik
Guest
Frackal said:
Good point.
I have a better idea.
We should make it illegal for cops NOT to arrest people who are blocking traffic. These disruptive protests are only going on because cops sit on the sidelines and do jack shit (as usual), right? So just make it illegal for them not to intervene. These people are clearly breaking the law, which makes the police officers accessories since they aren't doing anything to stop them.
They'd be held responsible if someone was killing somebody and the cop did nothing, so why not in this case?
-Warik
Warik said:
It is!
In Iraq. Go there and check it out!
The Almighty said:
This type of legislation in huge in Syria. head on over and check it out!
Jackass.
The Almighty said:
Saddam hates them too. They make it tough on dictators.
If some of you can't see that we are already sliding down the slippery slope of using the ambiguouas term "terrorist" to define any enemy of the government, then you deserve the totlaitarian state you will surely get.
Did anyone notice when Allen Iverson was charged with crimes that arose out of post 9/11 laws? Did that bother you? It sure as shit bothered me, because that's no terrorist.
Does it bother any of you that American citizens can now be jailed without due process in certain situations? This has never been possible in our nation's history, and now it is.
If you think the phrase "enemy combatant" can't be twisted, where were you during the "red scare" of the 1950s?
I hate those liberal douchebags too, blocking traffic, etc. They even had the nerve to block traffic right in front of the Saks Fifth Avenue flagship store in NY city a few weeks ago. Half the time they don't even understand the issues. I can't stand those boneheads.
But there are already laws to deal with that type of behavior. if cops don't want to do anything, then you have a different issue.
If protest is discouraged through legislation, you might as well move to Iraq.
Did anyone notice when Allen Iverson was charged with crimes that arose out of post 9/11 laws? Did that bother you? It sure as shit bothered me, because that's no terrorist.
Does it bother any of you that American citizens can now be jailed without due process in certain situations? This has never been possible in our nation's history, and now it is.
If you think the phrase "enemy combatant" can't be twisted, where were you during the "red scare" of the 1950s?
I hate those liberal douchebags too, blocking traffic, etc. They even had the nerve to block traffic right in front of the Saks Fifth Avenue flagship store in NY city a few weeks ago. Half the time they don't even understand the issues. I can't stand those boneheads.
But there are already laws to deal with that type of behavior. if cops don't want to do anything, then you have a different issue.
If protest is discouraged through legislation, you might as well move to Iraq.
MattTheSkywalker said:
BINGO!!!! This law is nothing short of ridiculous... Though I don't agree with some peoples' means of protest, they still have the right to engage in som civil disobedience. Hell, our nation was BUILT on civil disobedience!!! Start at the Revolutionary War and move foreward. Throughout our History, almost every major human development we've made has had its roots in some way in CD... Hell, the Civil rights movement, womens' right to vote, blacks' right to vote... If we take away these rights, what are we??? Another dictatorship, that's what... There are laws in existence NOW that cover that kind of behavior sufficiently. If you lay down in a street, and a cop tells you to move and you don't, you can, and will most times be arrested for failure to move and/or disorderly conduct. That's enough, we don't need special laws for that, ESPECIALLY laws that allow people to be called terrorists for fighting for what they believe in, even if they're misguided. They still have the right to protest...
Similar threads
