27-03-2003 09:44									#1
	Antiterror bill meets opposition Got spare money?

quote: SALEM -- 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."

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oreg...59720379330.xml

The relevent portion of the law:

quote: (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.

So what do you think of the law? Does it overly extend the definition of terrorism? Or is it a needed measure to clamp down on protests of the type that gripped San Francisco?

	27-03-2003 09:48									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If you cant deal with the consequences of a war (ie protests) then dont support/declare war.

	27-03-2003 09:53									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia If you cant deal with the consequences of a war (ie protests) then dont support/declare war.

People are too scared where I live to stand in the middle of the street, so I can deal with it just fine.

	27-03-2003 09:53									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Demonstrations = terrorism?

I can see a backlash against the Republicans is coming.

	27-03-2003 09:55									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that bill is going much too far. If the protesters are destructive assholes, arrest them and charge them with the usual - disorderly conduct, vandalism, assault, etc. You can change existing laws to make punishments greater for, say, deliberately impeding traffic, etc. But automatic life? 25-year minimum? Ridiculous.

	27-03-2003 10:01									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

That law is quite literally the stupidest thing I've read today.

Thank you DD.

	27-03-2003 10:07									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Thank you DD.

Glad to be of service.

	27-03-2003 10:25									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The law is so vague as to invite abuse. I can't see how such a law would ever survive the inevitable appeals its passage would bring, so why waste the public's time with it?

Life in prison (or 25 years) for blocking trafic is beyond absurd. Thank God such laws did not exist back in the days of the fight agaisnt segregation.

	27-03-2003 10:49									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Terrorism is using violence for political means. This bill would only target violent demonstrators.

	27-03-2003 10:55									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There is no qualification for violence. As Dino pointed out:

quote: (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.

And even if there were, life imprisonment for vaguely defined "violence" would hardly be justified.

	27-03-2003 10:56									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

No, it would target people who 'obstruct the free and orderly assembly', or in other words whoever the cops don't like.

	27-03-2003 10:58									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Isn't that law what's on the books "public disruption" or the like?

It's one of those laws that are enacted to give the police wide discretionary powers. But nuisance charges don't usually carry a 25 year penalty.

It's ****ing insane...

	27-03-2003 11:10									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It's apt that the law was proposed in a city named Salem...

	27-03-2003 11:12									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Terrorism is using violence for political means. This bill would only target violent demonstrators.

Even if it did, violent demonstration does not merit 25 years to life in prison. Any crimes commited during a protest, such as vandalism, assualting an officer, resisting arrest and so forth are already covered by current laws and can be more than adequatey prosecuted. There is no need for such a law, and this propsed wording is so vague as to be absurd. And again, it would never survive appeals.

	27-03-2003 11:21									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The "disrupt" part can be extremely broadly interpreted, so that even jaywalking can be viewed as disrupting traffic.

	27-03-2003 16:48									#16
	Suffering from ads?

quote: (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;

By this definition, the police in Seattle (WTO 1999) could have been defined as terrorists, had this been law in Washington.

Not that I would ever make such a suggestion, of course.

	27-03-2003 17:11									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

Thanks DD, I needed a good laugh.

Standing in the street.... life in prison... Jingoism gone mad!

	27-03-2003 20:46									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sava Standing in the street.... life in prison...

I know. Running them down should be punishment enough.

	27-03-2003 20:55									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

The fact that this bill has gotten far enough to even have a hearing is absolutely chilling.

	27-03-2003 21:30									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

Worse piece of legislation. ever.

	27-03-2003 21:37									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog Worse piece of legislation. ever.

Worse than Freedom Fries or the Dixie Chicks?

	27-03-2003 21:45									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To put it in one sentence, "terrorism" can be defined as the commission of acts that inspire terror in the civilian population, in the hope that this affects the opinions of the rulers of that population. It seems to be that the sad bastards proposing acts like this have already lost their war against "terrorism" as described above and are eagerly fueling their own downfall.

My sarcastic congratulations to the zany fellows who seem to have started all this. You seem to have gotten all what you were searching for - an exit from this mortal coil and a n endothermal chain reaction that is melting away all the principles your beloved enemy was once built on.

	27-03-2003 22:05									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer The fact that this bill has gotten far enough to even have a hearing is absolutely chilling.

Hardly, since any bill proposed at least gets to committee level before dying. I refuse to be chilled by the utterly shocking notion that among the US Congress and all the state legislatures of the 50 states, there is one unmitigated idiot.

I'll be if you went a step down to the county level, you could even find two or three.