C. I. I hope that I can help.
Quote from Judges by Donald Dale Jackson--
P. 13
'
quote
"Each state has a court of last resort, the State Appealate Courts, sometimes called the Superior Courts, District Court, Circuit Court or State Supreme Court, which has the FINAL WORD ON ALL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES HEARD IN ITS TRIAL COURTS EXCEPT THE FEW THAT FOR VARYING REASONS, ARE TRANSFERED TO FEDERAL COURTS."
Italgato wrote:If no answers to these questions are forthcoming after all the jeremiads on this thread, then the complainers are just partisan moaners and groaners( As i would expect).
That is not a logical statement. It could mean a host of things, not the least of which might be that they might not wish to address you or submit to your "challenges". Such is life.
In any case the "partisan" allegation falls flat for the Republicans herein who have voiced concern about the Patriot Act.
My only qualm with the Patriot Act is the name, I dislike when controversial proposals are framed as being "patriotic" as it's a logical brainfart. The dissent to the act can be just as "patriotic".
I agree with Craven, in theory.
Dissent to the Patriot Act can be just as patriotic as support of it--if the dissent is based on protection of this country or it's citizens, and if the dissent is based on something more than partisan politics.
I think what supporters of the Patriot Act want to see is evidence that the Patriot Act has not assisted the US in protection from terrorists--and how it has hurt the average American.
Though the Act is widely criticised here, and among partisans elsewhere, it's harm has not been shown to me, and considering the number of terrorists thwarted--I am led to believe it is effective.
blatham said--
Quote:Recall firstly that the Patriot Act has already been engaged in an instance involving environmentalists
They are environmentalist
terrorist groups, some of whom have earned their place on the FBI's most wanted list.
According to Europol radical environmentalist and animal rights movements have maintained a limited campaigns, but caused extensive material damage throughout Europe.
Seems, we define 'terrorist' (in the legal meaning) (until now) differently, then you do.
Sofia wrote:I think what supporters of the Patriot Act want to see is evidence that the Patriot Act has not assisted the US in protection from terrorists--and how it has hurt the average American.
I don't think it has. And I am also not one of the Patriot Act's opponents (though I do think the choice of the name was low and insulting).
But I think the criticism of the Patriot Act is best couched in terms of a slippery slope argument and haven't seen many reasonable arguments that state that the end of the slope is already upon us.
sofia
You make part of my point, madam. Does everyone on the FBI's wanted list fall under category of 'terrorist'? Are acts of civil disobedience included? Would elements of the act, if it had been passed into law thirty five years ago, potentially apply to ML King's marches?
No one could possibly equate the peaceful behavior of MLK as terrorism.
Terrorism is the threat of, or perpetration of violence to achieve your political/religious/etc goals.
Quote: Does everyone on the FBI's wanted list fall under category of 'terrorist'?
Of course not.
Quote:Are acts of civil disobedience included?
If they don't include acts of terrorism, no.
Quote:Would elements of the act, if it had been passed into law thirty five years ago, potentially apply to ML King's marches?
I'd have to be acquainted more closely with the Act to answer definitively. Can you think ot one that may apply?
sofia
"Terrorism is the threat of, or perpetration of violence to achieve your political/religious/etc goals."
- a political protest march on abortion leads to a confrontation where a sign is grabbed from someone's hands and used to bonk another person
- the manager of a non-union logging firm threatens to slug a unionized logger for his political ideas
-etc
Section 102 0f the Patriot Act:
SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANS.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American.
(2) The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States should be and are condemned by all Americans who value freedom.
(3) The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all religious, racial, and ethnic groups.
(4) When American citizens commit acts of violence against those who are, or are perceived to be, of Arab or Muslim descent, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
(5) Muslim Americans have become so fearful of harassment that many Muslim women are changing the way they dress to avoid becoming targets.
(6) Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety;
(2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans be condemned; and
(3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds.
-----------
Didn't think I'd ever see this part in print.
There is also a section of extending and increasing benefits and pay of law enforcement officers, and other positive sections. Many sections are based on, what I consider to be, common sense items that should have been inplace already--like actually following student visas, to make sure people are where they said they would be, and doing what they said they came here to do...
I think the job of policing the safety of such an open country is nearly impossible. I think the Patriot Act was designed to make that job more possible.
Certainly Section 808 (Definition of Federal Crime of Terrorism) describes, what could apply to situations similar to the MLK-marches.
Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." This is broad enough to cover more and more ... .
I gotta say, as with most such issues, the matter's proponents and opponents alike have far more familiarity with what is SAID ABOUT the subject of discussion than WITH the actual subject of discussion.
Quote:Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." This is broad enough to cover more and more ...
I don't buy this. A peaceful march or protest cannot fall under this section that Walter suggests. Peaceful protest is not illegal, or in 'violation of any Federal or State law..."
Still interested in member's specific direction to a part of the Patriot Act that harms Americans.
jespah and Italgato, I'm talking about federal laws such as the Patriot Act. Laws that are established by congress. These laws surely supercede anything the states and local governments may wish to 'establish' in contravention of federal laws.
Sofia wrote:Quote:Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." This is broad enough to cover more and more ...
I don't buy this. A peaceful march or protest cannot fall under this section that Walter suggests. Peaceful protest is not illegal, or in 'violation of any Federal or State law..."
Still interested in member's specific direction to a part of the Patriot Act that harms Americans.
I said so, because exactly such was done in the UK.
Responding to blatham's--
Quote:sofia
"Terrorism is the threat of, or perpetration of violence to achieve your political/religious/etc goals."
- a political protest march on abortion leads to a confrontation where a sign is grabbed from someone's hands and used to bonk another person
- the manager of a non-union logging firm threatens to slug a unionized logger for his political ideas
-etc
...and I guess your average three year old could be deemed a terrorist, if someone wanted to be silly ... I did think we were talking about reasonable definitions of terrorism--not individual acts of anger.
So, I'll defer to the US govt's definition--
Federal law, 22 U.S.C. ยง. 2656f(d), defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents."
This is consistent with the common American understanding of the term, as reflected in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language [4th ed.,2000] definition of "terrorism" as "the unlawful use ... of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Blatham-- I guess "premeditated" enters in to your bonking with signs, and fisticuffs by non-union types.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Sofia wrote:Quote:Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." This is broad enough to cover more and more ...
I don't buy this. A peaceful march or protest cannot fall under this section that Walter suggests. Peaceful protest is not illegal, or in 'violation of any Federal or State law..."
Still interested in member's specific direction to a part of the Patriot Act that harms Americans.
I said so, because exactly such was done in the UK.
But, we're talking about the Patriot Act, and America.
Sofia wrote:
But, we're talking about the Patriot Act, and America.
In this case, shouldn't it be narrowed to the USA?
You play very adeptly at the periphery of the point. How good are you at addressing it?
Sofia wrote:You play very adeptly at the periphery of the point. How good are you at addressing it?
They didn't teach specifically US-public, civil and/or criminal law at my university. So I really can just play circumferentially around the point.
And 'no', I don't think I'm good enough to address it.
