Section 802 of the Patriot Bill defining domestic terrorism:
“”"""(i) to coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by coercion"""""
All I can say is WOW!!! Hoooly kadoozies! Where are the damn suicide machines already?!
sigh
This being handed down from a segment of the population
that subsists on coersion and is too demented to realize that coersion tends to be so easy, that many people don’t do it out of sheer boredom.
This renders any actual intelligent behavior as being necessarily coersive - as ‘they’ are clearly by default: demented. Oh!! But don’t let ME coerce you!! That would make me a domestic terrorist!
“”""“gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organization”"""
Oh, so now my family is a terrorist organization!
Where the damn suicide machines you jerk offs! Why would anybody want to give you omniscient artificial intelligence.?
You know what? You’ll never figure it out yourselves with this life-philosophy; and you’ll force suicide on those who bother. You don’t get that, nor do you care sigh Pass one single law that makes SENSE! It’s really f8ckin tough for one person to catch up on all this crap. THIS DOESN’T HELP MATTERS!
Grow up you FFUY morons!
Well, you know, to be fair to the congress, that section of the bill seems more directed to people who say, “Either set free the prisoners on the following list or we’ll blow up the superbowl…” than something like, “I told you to clean up your room! Don’t make me call your father at work!”
I think your family is safe from John Ashcroft’s list.
The problem is that coersion itself is left open. This means that coersion can be defined as the use of logical proof. That is a serious problem!
Oh, and apologies for not having noticed this earlier - I try to find out what has been written before reading it, my process is a little bass-ackwards.
Let me put it to you this way, read the patriot act again:
Section 802 of the Patriot Bill defining domestic terrorism:
“”"""(i) to present logical proof or compelling logical arguement to a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by a presentation of logical proof or a compelling logical arguement"""""
I excluded part (iii) as parts one and two make part three irrelevant. Part 1 and 2 have the effect of stating : if you are born, you are subject to being defined as a domestic terrorist under this law. Part 3 in effect states (per this metaphor): If after being born, if you engage in this life irrationally, you are also considered a domestic terrorist under this law.
Numbers 1 and 2 state the irrationality of the logic used for the discernment process; thus effectively inverting number three.
However, since number three is considered standard social law and this contradiction (inverting it) is not logically valid or ‘legal’ number three becomes void and defaults to a bill which effectively outlaws rationality itself as the premise for discernment or action.
This bill serves only one purpose; to persecute rational arguements before they appear in a court of law.
Well, except there are two problems with your analysis. First, is that the term “coerce” isn’t really understood by anybody to mean “to present logical proof or compelling logical argument”. That’s not the conventional definition of the word, and that’s not the way the word has been interpreted in the rest of Title 18.
Secondly, you’d do better to quote the entirety of 802(a)(5):
So, any action that would be defined as “domestic terrorism” under the act is already in violation of US law. This section of the bill amends title 18 to provide a domestic version of what’s already in there as “international terrorism”.
From Title 18, section 2231
The Patriot Act, in that same section, confirms that, saying
So, what that section you’ve quoted does is stop a loophole in the US anti-terrorism law, whereby people who committed terrorist acts outside of the US could be charged with terrorism, while those who did so inside the US could not.
There are sections of the Act that worry me a lot more than that.
“”""""“So, any action that would be defined as “domestic terrorism” under the act is already in violation of US law. This section of the bill amends title 18 to provide a domestic version of what’s already in there as “international terrorism”.”""""""
I disagree, and I think any half-baked lawyer or dictator would not have a problem interpreting this law as an attack against rationality if they wanted to, for their own convenience.
‘Coerce’ is a MASSIVELY complex philosophical topic; such that there are literally ‘camps’ of people who define this word differently.
You have two seperate concepts here. Convince and Coerce.
Many would argue, and I certainly do, that ‘Convince’ is something which occurs after ‘Coerce’. ‘Convince’ is stacked one conceptual layer back…
If you have been Coerced into eating food to survive, you can then be convinced to find a job to earn money to buy food to survive. The further the layers of abstraction from the innitial Coersion, the more subtle and less energy (implicit power) this intensity requires. This is when it is generally rendered perceptually indistinguishable; at which point you can run ‘black-boxes’ through the innitial Coersion without being detected.
Parents are generally Coerced into living; after several layers of abstraction they become adapted to the Coersion as a conviction of their own. Upon having a child; the Coersion is validated, rendering them incapable of establishing consent without coersion, such that it won’t collapse the meaning binding them to this life.
To allow free-will in this sense; standards are abstracted into laws - so that a child will understand that they are not property when they reach that cognitive age. This delves into other social reforms however.
The general princple is that neither the civilian nor the lawmaker have established their axioms; nor their reason for committing an act against another before committing suicide. Without this axiomic framework embedded into the law; the definition of Coersion embodies all actions which act as something to convince (or pull) ones attention. When I yell “fire” in a theater, I am convincing people to be annoyed, either at me or the first - I am Coercing them to do so against the implied social contract.
In other words… it is always implied that I can break this law to Coerce attention, focus, agreement that I exist - however, it violates law in-so-much as the phrase is also a generalized axiomic standard which others have been convinced is uttered only to save lives as a – ‘contract of social convention’ (which incidentally is now coded into law itself - so that this useful convention is not abused for the Coersion of existential validation; ultimately negating the utility of the emergent convention or contract).
We aknowledge that there is no proof established which determines that we chose to be born, chose our bodies, chose our time or conditions and also recognize that children cannot survive without Coersion. The general principle of freedom is that a person eventually makes choices on their own about whether to live or not; when they have the cognitive capacity to contemplate the argument - it is considered unlawful to effect this freedom.
Affecting this freedom; obliterates every word ever striken into a social contract. Those entrusted with governing roles are rendered logically demented in that they claim ‘right’ while striking the possibility of freedom from the lawbook. They contradict their capacity to be logical beings of freewill, by not coding a difference between Coersion and ‘convinced’ into the law.
There is nowhere in any US law which has established that a person has the right to be convinced of the law or the freedom to exit the Coersion implied in the law (check out of existence). Top this degree, the law itself has no selective pressure. This necessarily creates a situation where consent is considered the operative funtion of the use of ‘coerce’.
Whether that consent is rationally derived is irrelevant to the broad spectrum being cast.
Basically, law is coded to articulate social irrationality. If however, the law is inverted to discard rationality; except the precedent Law; which does not address this issue; then you have declared rationality unlawful in the context that it convinces someone of something arbitrarily determined inconsistent with an inconsistent law.
Basically; “let us do what we want, you can’t hold us accountable.”
Bottom line: The use of the word coerce is inexcusable. If it didn’t negate logical structure, one might be able to use an argument that it is unconstitutional; but that is effectively rendered as impossible without being subject to seizure on domestic terrorism charges. The act defines such argument as against the law; as it might effect US policy in a coersive means.
Logic itself is being used as the ‘person or danger you are threatening others with’. Without specific coding in the law against this interpretation prior to the entry of THIS law; the use of logic is considered coercive; which renders attempts to install some form of transparency ‘illegal without trial’.
“You are a domestic terrorist if you eat peanut-butter sandwiches or throw silly putty on the sidewalk; if you live; if you don’t live; only in your own territory though.”
You must live in order to eat a peanut-butter and jelly sandwhich; sections 2 and 3 cancel out all of the rest of the law.
You can’t make a law which points to the illegality of the conditions necessary to live; where a choice has not been coded into the law already - this law starts with a member of a set and then refers to the head of the entire set as illegal! It is absurd.
How can you (per the law!! or even the dictionary chuckle) possibly live without utilizing some form of coersion? Even more! how on earth are you going to possibly affect US policy without using some form of coersion??!! The coersion used to code the difference between coersion and non-coersion is not precident!! This requires that coersion is a necessity in order to ever effect US policy after this law.
We aknowledge that coersion is always used to establish social precident; we feed children until they can decide (we also allow the opportunity for them to decide and the readily available means to affect that desicion among themselves).
NONE of this is in the law yet!! We require of natural law that Coersion is required before consent can be possible.
If the exersize of this natural law is not coded into social law before ceorsion is outlawed; then you have effectively disabled the possibility to change US policy without breaking the law:
Whether your argument is rational or not!!! It blows my mind how rediculously stupid this law is.
Couldn’t acts of civil disobedience such as boycotts, sit-ins or even labor strikes be defined as “coersive” under these terms.
Couldn’t MLK have been identified as a “terrorist leader” under these terms?
I agree with the OP, the language is too broad, and the powers given to the AG are too arbitrary here, especially for an AG as unhinged as John Ashcroft seems to be.
(pointless digression: Does anybody else get the feeling that Ashcroft is probably hiding some weird sexual kink in his private life? I don’t mean anything evil, but just some embarrasing fetish, like wearing lingerie or diapers or watching women stomp on bugs. He strikes me as sort of J. Edgar Hooverish.)
Not unless the acts of civil disobedience included "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; " or involve “mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”, which really wouldn’t be civil disobedience. I guess a group like the SLA would have fit under this definition, or maybe the Panthers.
Before the law, if members of my group, for example, (The Committee for the Liberation of Steve) hijacked an American airplane in Berlin and hold the people hostage, they could be charged under the terrorism statute, but if they hijacked the same plane in Detroit, they couldn’t be. Remember, neither the original terrorist act, nor this expansion of it make illegal an otherwise legal act. The effect of the terrorism statute is to enhance penalties for the act, most notably, by providing the federal death penalty for terrorism.
Justhink, with all due respect, you’re really not coherant. If I understand your posts correctly you’re saying everything is coercive, but that’s not the way “coerce” is understood in the statue, or title 18, or prior judicial decisions. You seem to just be using your own definition that’s totally divorced from legal reality.
With all due respect Captain Amazing your point is wrong.
The statute never defines coersion, it lists coersion as a criteria for the definition of domestic terrorism; hense the word: “OR”.
Domestic terrorism = Doing terrorist activities that are already illegal domesticly OR coersion domesticly
The difference in this law is that COERSION was coded into illegality above and beyond the previous set of illegality already in the law books. The first set is not being used to define coersion!! sets 1-5 are all being used to define domestic terrorism. Only the fifth one uses the proximity definition which eludes to a domestic quality - all the others are catagorizing the proximity behavior able to be judged as domestic terrorism.
(5) the term domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
Umm… whatever! Why is this law being written? Isn’t that what every freaking law in the books is for already!!?
(B) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Ahh… coersion is the only discernable difference here. Domestic terrorism is being defined as coersion. OR…
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
And is distinguished from other forms of terrorism by its proximity as well.
All the rest of this stuff is already illegal HERE and if it’s happening on our own borders; you would think they wouldn’t need an extra law to tell us that! This law is designed SPECIFICALLY to define domestic terrorism. What seperates terrorism in general from all other illegalities? What seperates domestic terrorism from broad scope terrorism?
The only thing in this law that any reasonable human being can parse as different from the standard definition of crime under which this ‘new’ term is being defined is by the addition of ‘coersion’ to the scope of criminality; subject to these extrajudicial measures outlined in the law.
There is NO reason to place ‘coersion’ undefined into this law unless coersion was being used as a broad base simile for the sole discernment of terrorism, from all other crime that we already have on the books!
To further define catagorize domestic terrorism; a proximity value is coded into the definition.
This law is stating ABOVE and BEYOND the standard definition of that which is illegal in the US; coersion is now illegal in the US.
The use of coersion is subject to extra-judicial punishment.
Two types of coersion are selected!
*Coersion of civillians (of and for anything)
*Coersion of US policy (of and for anything)
There is nowhere in the law which states that the coersion must be illogical by definition. Nor does this law state the difference between what is or is not logical; nor does it reference another law or work for this.
This leads one to conclude that the law is defining both logical and illogical forms of coersion as illegal and subject to extra-judiciary punishment. The capacity to defend ones-self in light of this seizure or punishment is rendered NULL by the effect of it being a necessary COERSION of US policy (which is illegal in this law).
Coersion is also a property (in real life) of silence.
If I do not tell my child at five years old that they need to make a decision quickly before they have the ability to be raped, that they can proactively not coerce another human being into birth on this planet by proactively mutilating their reproductive system; then I am by necessity coercing the birth of a child who may not have wanted to ever have been born. This is axiomic; if you want the reasoning laid out, I will be more than happy to do so upon request. The very form of coersion itself is exceptionally broad in scope and implication, and outlawing it without defining it renders coersion as all acts of change or motion.
This is because coersion has been outlawed before the necessary coersion needed to define it was exersized.
Coersion has not been defined yet. Coersion needs to be used in order to standardize the system before disabling coersion from the process. This is axiomic.
Coersion has not been used to render the definition of itself to standardize the law; rather it has been outlawed before it has been defined within the context of the law.
Therefor, ANY motion to effect any aspect of policy in the US is by definition COERSION.
“”"""""""“If I do not tell my child at five years old that they need to make a decision quickly before they have the ability to be raped, that they can proactively not coerce another human being into birth on this planet by proactively mutilating their reproductive system; then I am by necessity coercing the birth of a child who may not have wanted to ever have been born. This is axiomic; if you want the reasoning laid out, I will be more than happy to do so upon request. The very form of coersion itself is exceptionally broad in scope and implication, and outlawing it without defining it renders coersion as all acts of change or motion.”""""""""
Technicaly I can get around the definition of coersion by starving this 5 year old child when it is a newborn by not coercing it to eat; or by not coercing it to NOT eat something poisonous or detrimental to its health! Kids LOVE to wander – I should definately NEVER COERCE my child to NOT cross the street in busy traffic!! That is definite force and coersion, and also the implied threat of due harm to effect their decision process.
HOWEVER, by circumventing the illegality of coersion, I am charged for negligent homocide!!
So, by coercing my child to mutilate herself before she can be raped; so that another child is not coerced into existing against their will; I am breaking several laws and killing a human being in the process. If I equally use the coersion of silence to protect this life; by honoring the motivations of an infant - I am charged with negiligence and killing a human being in the process.
Either way, I am breaking the law and am subject to extra-judicial measures. No matter how rational my defense is; I am subject to the punishment rendered in this law - without trial.
Basically, if a federal employee sees someone asking me for directions to a bus stop and I tell them it is left; and they walk to the right - I can presumably be shot for telling them anything; let alone CORRECTING them and telling them “no, the other left”.
Now I am using coersion for sure! I don’t believe that asking a question can be construed as coersion if it is not specifically aimed at my free-will of action. In this instance, I can ignore them and not break the law.
It is equally illegal for me to defend myself; whether my defense is rational or irrational; as the two types of coersion outlined are : civillian and US policy coersion. US policy is to determine that I am guilty of coersion; and any effort to effect that policy one way or the other is still rendered as act of coersion whether it is rational or irrational on either side.
Actually, generally, there aren’t federal laws against murder. Every state has laws against murder, but, generally, it’s not a federal crime.
Also, this isn’t the first time the term “coerce” or “coersion” appears in title 18. It appears 11 times in title 18, and 56 times in the entire USC. Some examples, all from 18:
From sec. 610
Sec 594
112
2422
I could go on, but I trust you get the point. Coersion means using force to get someone to do something against their will, and if you’ll get over your sophmoric attempt at philosophizing to pay attention to what the law actually says, and the way that “coerce” is used in the US code, and by judicial precedent, you’ll see it’s not as sweeping as you make it out to be.