From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
119
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

119 Views
Message 1 of 15

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

Donald Trump condemned a spate of attempted mail bombings this week as “terrorizing acts.” And his Justice Department today charged a suspect with five federal crimes, including interstate transportation of an explosive and threats against former presidents.

 

Announcing the charges against Cesar Sayoc of Florida, Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterized the mailings, which were directed at prominent critics of Trump, as “political violence”—which is a common way of describing terrorism.

 

So why wasn’t Sayoc charged with terrorism?

There’s a popular perception that investigators are quicker to label violent crimes by Muslims “terrorism” than they are, say, right-wing extremist violence. This perception is well founded, and the approach is morally inconsistent, but the reasons aren’t necessarily related to racism.

In the United States, the most frequently used terrorism-related charge, by far, is for providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization. Support can mean anything from offering money or advice to showing up in person to help a group that is on the State Department’s designated list of terrorist organizations.

 

These days, the organization at issue tends to be ISIS, though the same charge could also theoretically apply to offering support to the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out a deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 13 people.

 

Modern terrorism in the United States is largely a homegrown phenomenon; even most of the actors charged with ISIS-related offenses in the U.S. are American citizens or permanent residents. But in the eyes of the law, the connection to an international terrorist group, even if it’s only rhetorical or ideological, matters a great deal.

 

For domestic actors without such connections, the law—and the intelligence community’s investigative powers—runs up against First Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. The U.S. government does not formally designate domestic terrorist organizations. So it may not be illegal to give money to a domestic extremist group like Aryan Nations, even if some members commit violence.

 

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to associate with each other,” said Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law. “And it certainly protects the right for people to express their points of view, political or otherwise.”

 

“We don’t worry about that with foreign terrorist organizations because foreign terrorist organizations don’t have First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,” McCord said.

What about once an attack has been committed?

 

Sayoc has not been charged with the federal crime of domestic terrorism, because there is no such federal crime.

 

But domestic terrorists can still face severe penalties.

 

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, which is still the second-deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after September 11. McVeigh was tried in federal court, since there were eight federal agents among the dead; he received the death penalty.

 

Nor is it only terrorists without apparent connections to international groups who get charged with offenses other than terrorism. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people in Fort Hood in 2009; he was an American citizen who had professed sympathy for the Taliban and tried to communicate with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He was also tried on murder charges.

In effect, whether a suspect gets formal “terrorism” charges or not, the justice system still allows for harsh punishment. Sessions noted that if convicted, Sayoc could face up to 50 years in prison. But the political discussion remains acute and divisive.

“Often the question really is one that focuses just on the policy side, whether or not we want to think of this as terrorism, or whether it feels like terrorism,” said Matthew Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinates terrorism-related intelligence across the government.

Either way, with the count of mailed explosive devices now at 13 and a suspect in custody, the terror has spread, and so have the politics.

 

Source - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/mail-bomb-terrorism-cesar-sayoc/574144/

 

 

 


Would any proposed law have stopped him? 


Eh - I think about as effective as the President of the United States (using the term in it's most loosely interpreted conotation) coming up with this Stroke of Genius

 

 

Of Course if he could even be bothered to read his PDB - he would have known his own Justice Dept. has already charged the Perp with Death Penalty Eligible Crimes

 

Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i18vDgDivAE

 

 

 Eh - no, the question was, "Would any proposed law have stopped him? 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
119
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
130
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

130 Views
Message 2 of 15

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

Donald Trump condemned a spate of attempted mail bombings this week as “terrorizing acts.” And his Justice Department today charged a suspect with five federal crimes, including interstate transportation of an explosive and threats against former presidents.

 

Announcing the charges against Cesar Sayoc of Florida, Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterized the mailings, which were directed at prominent critics of Trump, as “political violence”—which is a common way of describing terrorism.

 

So why wasn’t Sayoc charged with terrorism?

There’s a popular perception that investigators are quicker to label violent crimes by Muslims “terrorism” than they are, say, right-wing extremist violence. This perception is well founded, and the approach is morally inconsistent, but the reasons aren’t necessarily related to racism.

In the United States, the most frequently used terrorism-related charge, by far, is for providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization. Support can mean anything from offering money or advice to showing up in person to help a group that is on the State Department’s designated list of terrorist organizations.

 

These days, the organization at issue tends to be ISIS, though the same charge could also theoretically apply to offering support to the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out a deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 13 people.

 

Modern terrorism in the United States is largely a homegrown phenomenon; even most of the actors charged with ISIS-related offenses in the U.S. are American citizens or permanent residents. But in the eyes of the law, the connection to an international terrorist group, even if it’s only rhetorical or ideological, matters a great deal.

 

For domestic actors without such connections, the law—and the intelligence community’s investigative powers—runs up against First Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. The U.S. government does not formally designate domestic terrorist organizations. So it may not be illegal to give money to a domestic extremist group like Aryan Nations, even if some members commit violence.

 

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to associate with each other,” said Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law. “And it certainly protects the right for people to express their points of view, political or otherwise.”

 

“We don’t worry about that with foreign terrorist organizations because foreign terrorist organizations don’t have First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,” McCord said.

What about once an attack has been committed?

 

Sayoc has not been charged with the federal crime of domestic terrorism, because there is no such federal crime.

 

But domestic terrorists can still face severe penalties.

 

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, which is still the second-deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after September 11. McVeigh was tried in federal court, since there were eight federal agents among the dead; he received the death penalty.

 

Nor is it only terrorists without apparent connections to international groups who get charged with offenses other than terrorism. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people in Fort Hood in 2009; he was an American citizen who had professed sympathy for the Taliban and tried to communicate with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He was also tried on murder charges.

In effect, whether a suspect gets formal “terrorism” charges or not, the justice system still allows for harsh punishment. Sessions noted that if convicted, Sayoc could face up to 50 years in prison. But the political discussion remains acute and divisive.

“Often the question really is one that focuses just on the policy side, whether or not we want to think of this as terrorism, or whether it feels like terrorism,” said Matthew Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinates terrorism-related intelligence across the government.

Either way, with the count of mailed explosive devices now at 13 and a suspect in custody, the terror has spread, and so have the politics.

 

Source - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/mail-bomb-terrorism-cesar-sayoc/574144/

 

 

 


Would any proposed law have stopped him? 


Eh - I think about as effective as the President of the United States (using the term in it's most loosely interpreted conotation) coming up with this Stroke of Genius

 

 

Of Course if he could even be bothered to read his PDB - he would have known his own Justice Dept. has already charged the Perp with Death Penalty Eligible Crimes

 

Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i18vDgDivAE

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
130
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
131
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

131 Views
Message 3 of 15

@mickstuder wrote:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism.   A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

 

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism.  However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism."   The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

 

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.  

 

One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose.  The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises.  This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion.  The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life - their own and those of military personnel.  Using this hypothetical as a starting point, we will go through the USA PATRIOT Act and explore the new governmental powers that could be brought to bear on Vieques Island protesters whose conduct falls within the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.   

 

Seizure of assets - Sec. 806:  Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware.  Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit:  all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.  

 

This language is broad enough to authorize the government to seize any assets of any individuals involved in the Vieques Island protests or of any organization supporting the protests of which the person is a member, or from any individuals who were supporting the protesters in any way.  Possible supporters of the protesters could include student organizations that sponsored participation in the demonstration, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, the Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network, and religious or community organizations that provided housing or food to the protesters.  

 

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome.  The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism.  The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice.  In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence.  Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney.  The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets.  Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture.  In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism. 

 

Disclosure of educational records - Sec. 507:  This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order permitting the government to obtain private educational records if the

 

Attorney General or his designee certifies that the records are necessary for investigating domestic or international terrorism.  No independent judicial finding is required to verify that the records are relevant.  This means that the Attorney General may obtain the private educational records of a student involved in the Vieques protests by asserting that the records are relevant to a domestic terrorism investigation.  These records may include information such as a student's grades, private medical information (counseling, abortions), which organizations the student belonged to, or any other information that the educational institution collects about its students.  

 

Disclosure of information from National Education Statistics Act - Sec. 508:  This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order for the government to obtain educational records that have been collected pursuant to the National Education Statistics Act.  NESA includes a vast amount of identifiable student information from academic performance to health information, family income, and race. Until now, this information has been held to strict confidentiality requirements without exception.  Again, all the government needs to certify is that the information is relevant to a terrorism investigation and the court has no choice but to issue the order.

Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants (Sec. 219):  This section of the USA PATRIOT Act amends

 

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to authorize the government to go before a singe Federal magistrate judge in any judicial district in which activities relating to the terrorism may have occurred, to obtain a warrant to search property or a person within or outside the district.   This means that the government could go to a single judge to get a warrant to search the property or person of the Vieques activists in New York, Chicago, California, or wherever else the protesters were from.  If the government chose to go before a magistrate in New York, a person in California, who wished to seek to have the warrant quashed because he or she believed it was invalid, would have to find a way to appear before the New York court that issued the warrant.  This would be a daunting task for most.

Post-PATRIOT Act Laws

Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, two other new laws have passed that implicate domestic terrorism.

 

Taxpayer Information - 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6103(i)(3)(C) requires the Secretary of the Internal Revenue Service to provide taxpayer information to the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency responsible for investigating or responding to the terrorist incident.  If abused, this provision could be used by law enforcement to gain access to confidential taxpayer information of political protesters.

 

Regulation of biological agents and toxins - 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 262a and 7 U.S.C.A. Sec. 8401 regulate biological agents and toxins.  If a person is involved with an organization that engages in domestic or international terrorism, he or she is not permitted to gain access to these regulated agents. Under the law, the Attorney General identifies individuals involved in "terrorism" to the Department of Agriculture.  Once the person is listed, he or she cannot get access to any of the regulated agents or toxins.  This provision will probably not impact most people, however, it might impact someone such as a scientist who might regularly use biological agents or toxins in their work.  

 

Conclusion - The ACLU does not oppose criminal prosecution of people who violate the law, even if they are doing it for political purposes.  

 

However, we do oppose the broad definition of terrorism and the ensuing authority that flows from that definition. One way to ensure that the conduct that falls within the definition of domestic terrorism is in fact terrorism is to limit the scope of the conduct that triggers the definition.  Thus, domestic terrorism could include acts which "cause serious physical injury or death" rather than all acts that are "dangerous to human life."  This more narrow definition will exclude the conduct of organizations and individuals that engage in minor acts of property damage or violence. 

 

Source - https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

 


I seriously doubt we need new legislation to make it illegal to mail bombs. This just seem like one more case of looking for an excuse to whine about the Republicans.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
131
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
133
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

133 Views
Message 4 of 15

@mickstuder wrote:

Donald Trump condemned a spate of attempted mail bombings this week as “terrorizing acts.” And his Justice Department today charged a suspect with five federal crimes, including interstate transportation of an explosive and threats against former presidents.

 

Announcing the charges against Cesar Sayoc of Florida, Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterized the mailings, which were directed at prominent critics of Trump, as “political violence”—which is a common way of describing terrorism.

 

So why wasn’t Sayoc charged with terrorism?

There’s a popular perception that investigators are quicker to label violent crimes by Muslims “terrorism” than they are, say, right-wing extremist violence. This perception is well founded, and the approach is morally inconsistent, but the reasons aren’t necessarily related to racism.

In the United States, the most frequently used terrorism-related charge, by far, is for providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization. Support can mean anything from offering money or advice to showing up in person to help a group that is on the State Department’s designated list of terrorist organizations.

 

These days, the organization at issue tends to be ISIS, though the same charge could also theoretically apply to offering support to the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out a deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 13 people.

 

Modern terrorism in the United States is largely a homegrown phenomenon; even most of the actors charged with ISIS-related offenses in the U.S. are American citizens or permanent residents. But in the eyes of the law, the connection to an international terrorist group, even if it’s only rhetorical or ideological, matters a great deal.

 

For domestic actors without such connections, the law—and the intelligence community’s investigative powers—runs up against First Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. The U.S. government does not formally designate domestic terrorist organizations. So it may not be illegal to give money to a domestic extremist group like Aryan Nations, even if some members commit violence.

 

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to associate with each other,” said Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law. “And it certainly protects the right for people to express their points of view, political or otherwise.”

 

“We don’t worry about that with foreign terrorist organizations because foreign terrorist organizations don’t have First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,” McCord said.

What about once an attack has been committed?

 

Sayoc has not been charged with the federal crime of domestic terrorism, because there is no such federal crime.

 

But domestic terrorists can still face severe penalties.

 

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, which is still the second-deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after September 11. McVeigh was tried in federal court, since there were eight federal agents among the dead; he received the death penalty.

 

Nor is it only terrorists without apparent connections to international groups who get charged with offenses other than terrorism. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people in Fort Hood in 2009; he was an American citizen who had professed sympathy for the Taliban and tried to communicate with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He was also tried on murder charges.

In effect, whether a suspect gets formal “terrorism” charges or not, the justice system still allows for harsh punishment. Sessions noted that if convicted, Sayoc could face up to 50 years in prison. But the political discussion remains acute and divisive.

“Often the question really is one that focuses just on the policy side, whether or not we want to think of this as terrorism, or whether it feels like terrorism,” said Matthew Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinates terrorism-related intelligence across the government.

Either way, with the count of mailed explosive devices now at 13 and a suspect in custody, the terror has spread, and so have the politics.

 

Source - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/mail-bomb-terrorism-cesar-sayoc/574144/

 

 

 


Would any proposed law have stopped him? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
133
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
136
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

136 Views
Message 5 of 15

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Wake up haters - we already have anti-terrorism laws.


Foreign Terrorism

 

Please provide any credible source of a US Statute where the Federal Government can Charge American Citizens who commit Domestic Terrorism as Terrorists

 

There isn't one - even though there are mutiple bills in Congress that would achieve this - but McConnell & Ryan won't let the Congress Vote On Them

 

 


I guess it is a matter of definition of terms. We do have "hate crime" laws. 

 

However, NPR is not quite as certain as you:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555170250/what-is-and-isnt-considered-domestic-terrorism

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
136
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
146
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

146 Views
Message 6 of 15

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism.   A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

 

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism.  However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism."   The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

 

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.  

 

One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose.  The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises.  This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion.  The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life - their own and those of military personnel.  Using this hypothetical as a starting point, we will go through the USA PATRIOT Act and explore the new governmental powers that could be brought to bear on Vieques Island protesters whose conduct falls within the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.   

 

Seizure of assets - Sec. 806:  Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most significant change of which political organizations need to be aware.  Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit:  all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.  

 

This language is broad enough to authorize the government to seize any assets of any individuals involved in the Vieques Island protests or of any organization supporting the protests of which the person is a member, or from any individuals who were supporting the protesters in any way.  Possible supporters of the protesters could include student organizations that sponsored participation in the demonstration, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, the Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network, and religious or community organizations that provided housing or food to the protesters.  

 

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome.  The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism.  The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice.  In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence.  Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney.  The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets.  Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture.  In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism. 

 

Disclosure of educational records - Sec. 507:  This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order permitting the government to obtain private educational records if the

 

Attorney General or his designee certifies that the records are necessary for investigating domestic or international terrorism.  No independent judicial finding is required to verify that the records are relevant.  This means that the Attorney General may obtain the private educational records of a student involved in the Vieques protests by asserting that the records are relevant to a domestic terrorism investigation.  These records may include information such as a student's grades, private medical information (counseling, abortions), which organizations the student belonged to, or any other information that the educational institution collects about its students.  

 

Disclosure of information from National Education Statistics Act - Sec. 508:  This provision of the USA PATRIOT Act requires a judge to issue an order for the government to obtain educational records that have been collected pursuant to the National Education Statistics Act.  NESA includes a vast amount of identifiable student information from academic performance to health information, family income, and race. Until now, this information has been held to strict confidentiality requirements without exception.  Again, all the government needs to certify is that the information is relevant to a terrorism investigation and the court has no choice but to issue the order.

Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants (Sec. 219):  This section of the USA PATRIOT Act amends

 

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to authorize the government to go before a singe Federal magistrate judge in any judicial district in which activities relating to the terrorism may have occurred, to obtain a warrant to search property or a person within or outside the district.   This means that the government could go to a single judge to get a warrant to search the property or person of the Vieques activists in New York, Chicago, California, or wherever else the protesters were from.  If the government chose to go before a magistrate in New York, a person in California, who wished to seek to have the warrant quashed because he or she believed it was invalid, would have to find a way to appear before the New York court that issued the warrant.  This would be a daunting task for most.

Post-PATRIOT Act Laws

Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, two other new laws have passed that implicate domestic terrorism.

 

Taxpayer Information - 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6103(i)(3)(C) requires the Secretary of the Internal Revenue Service to provide taxpayer information to the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency responsible for investigating or responding to the terrorist incident.  If abused, this provision could be used by law enforcement to gain access to confidential taxpayer information of political protesters.

 

Regulation of biological agents and toxins - 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 262a and 7 U.S.C.A. Sec. 8401 regulate biological agents and toxins.  If a person is involved with an organization that engages in domestic or international terrorism, he or she is not permitted to gain access to these regulated agents. Under the law, the Attorney General identifies individuals involved in "terrorism" to the Department of Agriculture.  Once the person is listed, he or she cannot get access to any of the regulated agents or toxins.  This provision will probably not impact most people, however, it might impact someone such as a scientist who might regularly use biological agents or toxins in their work.  

 

Conclusion - The ACLU does not oppose criminal prosecution of people who violate the law, even if they are doing it for political purposes.  

 

However, we do oppose the broad definition of terrorism and the ensuing authority that flows from that definition. One way to ensure that the conduct that falls within the definition of domestic terrorism is in fact terrorism is to limit the scope of the conduct that triggers the definition.  Thus, domestic terrorism could include acts which "cause serious physical injury or death" rather than all acts that are "dangerous to human life."  This more narrow definition will exclude the conduct of organizations and individuals that engage in minor acts of property damage or violence. 

 

Source - https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
146
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
150
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

150 Views
Message 7 of 15

Donald Trump condemned a spate of attempted mail bombings this week as “terrorizing acts.” And his Justice Department today charged a suspect with five federal crimes, including interstate transportation of an explosive and threats against former presidents.

 

Announcing the charges against Cesar Sayoc of Florida, Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterized the mailings, which were directed at prominent critics of Trump, as “political violence”—which is a common way of describing terrorism.

 

So why wasn’t Sayoc charged with terrorism?

There’s a popular perception that investigators are quicker to label violent crimes by Muslims “terrorism” than they are, say, right-wing extremist violence. This perception is well founded, and the approach is morally inconsistent, but the reasons aren’t necessarily related to racism.

In the United States, the most frequently used terrorism-related charge, by far, is for providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization. Support can mean anything from offering money or advice to showing up in person to help a group that is on the State Department’s designated list of terrorist organizations.

 

These days, the organization at issue tends to be ISIS, though the same charge could also theoretically apply to offering support to the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out a deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 13 people.

 

Modern terrorism in the United States is largely a homegrown phenomenon; even most of the actors charged with ISIS-related offenses in the U.S. are American citizens or permanent residents. But in the eyes of the law, the connection to an international terrorist group, even if it’s only rhetorical or ideological, matters a great deal.

 

For domestic actors without such connections, the law—and the intelligence community’s investigative powers—runs up against First Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. The U.S. government does not formally designate domestic terrorist organizations. So it may not be illegal to give money to a domestic extremist group like Aryan Nations, even if some members commit violence.

 

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to associate with each other,” said Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law. “And it certainly protects the right for people to express their points of view, political or otherwise.”

 

“We don’t worry about that with foreign terrorist organizations because foreign terrorist organizations don’t have First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution,” McCord said.

What about once an attack has been committed?

 

Sayoc has not been charged with the federal crime of domestic terrorism, because there is no such federal crime.

 

But domestic terrorists can still face severe penalties.

 

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, which is still the second-deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after September 11. McVeigh was tried in federal court, since there were eight federal agents among the dead; he received the death penalty.

 

Nor is it only terrorists without apparent connections to international groups who get charged with offenses other than terrorism. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people in Fort Hood in 2009; he was an American citizen who had professed sympathy for the Taliban and tried to communicate with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. He was also tried on murder charges.

In effect, whether a suspect gets formal “terrorism” charges or not, the justice system still allows for harsh punishment. Sessions noted that if convicted, Sayoc could face up to 50 years in prison. But the political discussion remains acute and divisive.

“Often the question really is one that focuses just on the policy side, whether or not we want to think of this as terrorism, or whether it feels like terrorism,” said Matthew Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinates terrorism-related intelligence across the government.

Either way, with the count of mailed explosive devices now at 13 and a suspect in custody, the terror has spread, and so have the politics.

 

Source - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/mail-bomb-terrorism-cesar-sayoc/574144/

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
150
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
158
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

158 Views
Message 8 of 15

Domestic Terrorism Bill - Repeatedly Sponsored by Democrat Dick Durbin & Refused by McConnell

 

 

Domestic Terrorism Bills in Congress.png

 

 

Source - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2148/text?format=txt

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
158
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
159
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

159 Views
Message 9 of 15

@rk9152 wrote:

Wake up haters - we already have anti-terrorism laws.


Foreign Terrorism

 

Please provide any credible source of a US Statute where the Federal Government can Charge American Citizens who commit Domestic Terrorism as Terrorists

 

There isn't one - even though there are mutiple bills in Congress that would achieve this - but McConnell & Ryan won't let the Congress Vote On Them

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
159
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
183
Views

Re: GOP Congress Refuses Domestic Terrorism Law?

183 Views
Message 10 of 15

@rk9152 wrote:

Wake up haters - we already have anti-terrorism laws.


So - would there be anything wrong with a law that provides for revoking the citizenship of a citizen that has been convicted of committing an act of domestic terrorism - and deporting the non-citizen - to one of trump's fabled "bleephole countries"?

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
183
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors