Activists on terror lists

[Tormod]

Without wanting to start a firestorm, I wonder if Naomi Wolf wasn't too far off after all.

Originally Posted by Washington Post

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

washingtonpost.com

It shows how easy it is to lose your freedom in a Democracy when someone takes their job too seriously.

[Racoon]

Freedom of Speech is eroding in America.

You can find numerous examples where either protesters were unlawfully detained for advocating/expressing an idea..
Or the Police have underminded protests in order to break them up and turn it into a fiasco to further a politcal agenda

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by The Sedition Act (1798)

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour, in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SECT. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SECT. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

This was passed by congress and signed by President Adams in 1798. Times have changed and we are a much more established nation now. Back when this was passed the Vice President was the person who came in second during the presidential election. This acts served the purpose of allowing criticism of Thomas Jefferson (criticism of the VP is not listed as a crime) while making it a crime to criticize the President or the Congress.

Why do I bring this up? Because things we do today cannot always be the worst things that have ever happened. That policy swings with time and is governed by the framework of the Constitution. There is no guarantee of a mistake free society, only that we will eventually recognize and correct our mistakes. The sedition act was written with an expiration date that helped to prevent it being reviewed by the Supreme Court, but during its lifetime people were indeed prosecuted over speaking their political minds. This was not putting a person on a list, this was prosecution and it was far worse than the infringements of speech rights in our current time.

Oh yeah, we survived. It was not good, but it was not the end.

Bill

[Tormod]

I guess the text you quote only goes to show that the democratic rights in the US are extremely fragile and that they can be taken away on whim if anyone representing the government thinks that you may act against it.

The "mistakes" made by the opposing party here are kind of hard to spot. Is it acceptable that an overzealous bureaucrat or field agent spies on his own co-citizens no matter what they are doing? It appears to me there is no safety valve mechanism in place here.

Who draws the limits? When a "mistake" is made against a person or group of persons, and that mistake causes them to be listed as "enemies of state" for simply disagreeing with the politics that the state represents, then when would you say it stops being a mistake and start becoming a trend? When does denying people a right become oppression?

[pgrmdave]

I don't know that I would say they're fragile - they have waxed and waned throughout the years, but they have never been taken away for long, and we have always increased our rights. It's kind of like the stock market. Day to day we sometimes are up, sometimes are down. Sometimes we even lose a LOT over the course of a few days, weeks, or months. But in the long run, the trend is positive.

[Tormod]

My point is mostly that if someone can take away your rights and the government is free to define which freedoms you can enjoy when, and which groups of people should be barred from those freedoms - is it a real democracy?

The activists is a case in point. They are no threat to your country. They are a *part* of your citizenship and your constitution gives them the right to be activists. But then someone decides that they need to be placed on a terrorist list and suddenly they are unable to travel, get credit etc. It becomes very difficult to get off that list again.

It is practically the same as saying that they are guilty of treason until the opposite is proved. Is nobody seeing this point?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Is nobody seeing this point?

I am. And it should be obvious to everyone.

[jackson33]

During periods in American History, usually in time of War or in the protection of people in high office, Constitutional Rights have been altered or suspended. Lincoln and FDR, were both more active in that process than Bush has ever been.

There is a fine line between social activism and/or terrorism in the name of some ideology. It's become the duty of the general public to report any person showing or demonstrating any desire to cooperate or participate in activity that could harm the US, its people or the ability for government to operate. It's then up to Government, be it State or Federal to CHECK out these reports, follow through, ignore or place on standby any person mentioned. Those 53 individuals (non violent not material) were processed and for whatever reason fit some current policy. I might add, 99% of all those on that list or any such list are non violent when placed on a list and that if anyone is deemed violent, they would be on other more restrictive list probably being sought for that violence.

Factually, any person listed and many are that are neither violent or activist have the right to seek recourse. They can be dropped off the list and if a source for being placed there, can take action against that person, group, government or organization for Liable and seek damages, if any.

One more thing; Every police department in the US TODAY and over at least the past 100 years, has a local list of people complained about by their fellow citizens. Every department dealing on any social issue, keeps list of potential fraud or criminal activity by handlers or recipients, including the IRS. This Terrorist list is given far to much mention and there is no telling how often the actual use of the list has successfully been used...IMO.

[questor]

We do have crime in this country..and home-grown terrorists, and murders. William Ayers comes to mind. These people blow things up and kill people. When activists gather, how are the police to know if they will blow things up or are just gathering peacefully? I would assume that when they stage their gatherings they are looking for publicity? Why not have them on a list or even publish it in a newspaper? Has their presence on the list harmed their life in some way? I would think they have recourse to have their names removed unless they actually commit a crime. Frequently these gatherings result in fires, property destruction and personal injury, I see nothing wrong in knowing who they are. I do not think they should be listed as possible terrorists unless their group is so disposed. A permit is usually issued and I would think all members of the group should be named and the purpose of the gathering. I look with disfavor on having them block public streets and hiways to carry on their protest.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

We do have crime in this country..and home-grown terrorists, and murders. William Ayers comes to mind. These people blow things up and kill people. When activists gather, how are the police to know if they will blow things up or are just gathering peacefully? I would assume that when they stage their gatherings they are looking for publicity? Why not have them on a list or even publish it in a newspaper? Has their presence on the list harmed their life in some way? I would think they have recourse to have their names removed unless they actually commit a crime. Frequently these gatherings result in fires, property destruction and personal injury, I see nothing wrong in knowing who they are. I do not think they should be listed as possible terrorists unless their group is so disposed. A permit is usually issued and I would think all members of the group should be named and the purpose of the gathering. I look with disfavor on having them block public streets and hiways to carry on their protest.

Questor, it doesn't bother you that activists with no violent history or connection with violence were listed as terror suspects? These people could have been denied many of their rights as US citizens for being on this list. Oh, wait, I forgot you are a Neo-Conservative, of course this doesn't bother you, none of the activists were Conservative activists, only Liberals! Well hell why didn't we just shoot them and nip this problem in the bud? What if your Conservative views resulted in you being put on a terror suspect list? I bet you would squeal like a little girl. Questor when the rights of the people you dislike are harmed by the majority you open the door for the possibility of your rights being limited by your views. Get real Questor, even though I think your stance on most things is dangerous to the country as a whole I would never agree to limiting your rights in anyway. To do so is Un-American, it's the American way to disagree with our government and our leaders, it's a uncommon and wonderful thing that we can do this, we must not allow our rights to disagree, sometimes vocally and with great passion, with the powers that be to be infringed. We should be glad of these rights while we grit our teeth and allow the BS spouted by the other side go in one ear and out the other.