You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here are the basics from a proposed law in Oregon:

Quote:

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.

"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.

"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."

The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.

Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14942-2003Apr2.html
Lee Douglas article, from ReutersOregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,084 • Replies: 36

No top replies

This proposed legislation surely undermines what we are fighting for...or at least what the public is told the USA and UK are fighting for.

The UK's legislation (I think called the "Prevention of Terrorism Act"), to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland was never to prevent demonstrations, however in the 1980s and 90s it did lead to detention of suspects without 'normal' legal rights of representation and led to long periods of detention without trial for certain individuals.

We cannot support this restriction of freedoms, or we will become as subject to control of our actions and words by the governments as those regimes we seek to criticise.

0 Replies

Re: You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse?
- An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years

Is this a joke Question

Most murderers don't even get jailed for that long! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Let Freedom Ring ...

As we celebrate the "liberation" of Iraq, our own governemnt pushes to make the Patriot Act permanent, enact Patriot II, and propose actions such as that to rip our freedoms from us.

When do we "liberate" America ??

0 Replies

Scorecard:

Regime Changes: 1 current
Next Regime Changes: 2 more to go
and I DON'T mean countrys that are listed in the Evil Axis ilk...

Well, I may have to add another one needed - for OZ perhaps?

0 Replies

Question: How do you keep would-be Nazi dictators in suspense?

Answer: Send the Republican Administration a post-dated check. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

John,

That's great...especially for an accountant like me! Laughing

0 Replies

This would never have happend if Algore was president. As much as I detest Algore, I'm wishing he was our president today. Things would be much better for everybody in this world. c.i.

0 Replies

As presented, the law sounds a bit heavy-handed, but I find it hard to argue with this statement (one I expect most of you dismiss):

Quote:

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, ...

There is a line where legitimate, lawful protest crosses over into criminal behavior. That line should be defended. This law--if the report here is accurate--seems to go too far, but I think it ill advised to give anyone the impression that they can do anything they like, so long as they believe their cause is just.

0 Replies

cobalt:

Only if the movements that rose to oppose this war can stay together and became some sort of electoral force.

RETURNING SOON--THE BUSH INFORMATION NETWORK

0 Replies

Some level of disruption is necessary for a protest to be heard. If a bunch of people just wrote down their names on a bit of paper, and quietly slipped it under the door of the White House, would it make a blind bit of difference to events?

Disrupting ambulances, vandalising, and terrorising people is clearly wrong, but tell me - aren't those all covered by current laws?

0 Replies

cobalt))))

It seems to me that the proposed Oregon legislation would have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech as defined under the First Amendment.

If such a law should be passed, I think it would be overturned by the courts. The law could also be classified as "cruel and unusual punishment" which is also a constititutional no-no.

0 Replies

As with the last Presidential election, surely it would depend upon which Court had to make the decision? Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

John - you raise a good point here!

To any who wonder as to the authenticity of the report, I thought I provided the link and did copy/paste the article from the washingtonpost.com site.

Realizing that this is more political grand-standing and "taking the high moral ground", it is still (as williamhenry says) chilling that this law is going to go thru due process in Oregon. The same law in different guises is being considered in the US from city councils to universities to states. There is no doubt in my mind that part of the agenda behind the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II is to provide far more unlimited powers by "authority" the means to remove troublesome people. As the application of such sweeping powers is vague, and the capacity to incarcerate for "suspicion" alone is there, well I imagine most folks can see the urgency of dealing with this call to limit civil liberties and freedom of speech.

0 Replies

For those who did not read the full article, here are two more quotes that are of particular interest to what some posters are bringing up:

Quote:

"Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly."

And the next part is at least cause for hope:

Quote:

"Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations."

The poster who questioned that a person could have more jail time than a murderer is absolutely correct. Under sentencing laws there are huge differences in murder with intent, first degree, and manslaughter. This law has this requirement: "The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism."

0 Replies

terrorism=what governments do to their own citizens.

0 Replies

These laws are proposed and enacted by people who are elected to their position. They propose and enact them in part because they think their constituents will approve of them and reelect them. What is it in contemporary American culture that leads some people (an electoral majority in some cases) to approve of this kind of thinking and these kinds of laws? I'm not certain that I know the answer to that. But if it can be defined and successfully addressed than Bush and these kinds of politicians will not be reelected. If it can not be satisfactorily be defined and addressed than he and they will be,

0 Replies

ouch
(that 'smarts' because it is true)

0 Replies

Tres -- I think most protesters (the ones I know, anyway) are much more sophisticated than that and know the difference between peace marching and deliberate civil disobedience. The latter is also a respected form of protest, but the individual knows that he is running afoul of the law and is prepared to take the consequences. In all of the South and much of the North, it was illegal to assist runaway slaves. People deliberately broke the law. Civil disobedience finally "cured" us of that law (in many places well before the abolition of slavery, and we're really grateful for those disobeyers now.

0 Replies

and what's up with burning the flag being an act of terrorism?

Patriotism is becoming the new religion, and I really don't feel it's helping unite the world.

0 Replies

You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know