This Terrorism Definition Is Even More **** Than Most Of Yours

[acropolis]

The term "terrorism" means any activity that...
A) Involves an act that:
ii) Is a violation of the laws the united states (or any of the several states etc.)

B) Appears to be intended
i) to intimidate or coerce civilian population
ii) to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion...

Its on page 9 of the homeland security bill.

'It's only terrorism if it breaks US law'

what a bunch of twat mongers

[Nodrog]

terrorist

[Starbucks]

Terrorist

I am more concerned about the last-minuted add-ons to the bill, like the section of it that makes it illegal to sue pharmaceutical compaies for damages related to vaccenes they produce, even n the case of gross negligence. The fact that this was put into place just as Pharmaceutical giant and Republican supporter Eli Lily is facing massive loss in lawsuits which claim its vaccenes caused autism in children 10 years ago, is quite co-incidental, not to mention completely unrelated to homeland security.

Another last minute add-on is the repealing of an earlier senate law in which companies which flee the United States and set up offshore in order to avoid paying income taxes are not allowed to bid on government contracts. That measure has now been revoked, even though logic would dictate barring these ex-pat tax-evading comapnies from holding US government contract would seem to be in the interest of national Security.
However, it was not in the interest of Republican special interest.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
Its on page 9 of the homeland security bill.

'It's only terrorism if it breaks US law'

Only for the purposes of the Homeland Security Bill. I suppose they could define it in terms of any breach of Bulgarian law, but I don't think that would be an improvement.

The real problem is the use of the word any. Any violation of US law with the intent to intimidate or coerce civilians or to influence government policy is a terrorist act. That means a mugger, who intimidates and coerces his victims, is a terrorist. Someone who is arrested while protesting against the government is a terrorist. Etc

They've just redefined most criminals as terrorists, and so rendered the term meaningless. :/

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Only for the purposes of the Homeland Security Bill. I suppose they could define it in terms of any breach of Bulgarian law, but I don't think that would be an improvement.

The real problem is the use of the word any. Any violation of US law with the intent to intimidate or coerce civilians or to influence government policy is a terrorist act. That means a mugger, who intimidates and coerces his victims, is a terrorist. Someone who is arrested while protesting against the government is a terrorist. Etc

They've just redefined most criminals as terrorists, and so rendered the term meaningless. :/

Yeah. That too.

I was saying that I didn't see how any reference to law was necessary, but it almost seemed like they put that in there to say 'only countries besides the US can commit terrorism'

Anyway, I stand by my "what a bunch of twat mongers"

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
I was saying that I didn't see how any reference to law was necessary, but it almost seemed like they put that in there to say 'only countries besides the US can commit terrorism'

Hm, I guess I don't see that. I think some reference to the law is necessary, otherwise you can have the situation where someone is a 'terrorist' without having broken any laws. As usual, however, they are painting with far too broad a brush.

[Chrism]

Angels and ministers of grace defend us

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by acropolis

Its on page 9 of the homeland security bill.

'It's only terrorism if it breaks US law'

what a bunch of twat mongers

You're looking at this backwards. An act isn't terrorism because it violates American law, however, an act that does not violate American law then cannot be charged as terrorism. This is actually one of the few sensible protections to liberty I've seen in this bill.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Hm, I guess I don't see that. I think some reference to the law is necessary, otherwise you can have the situation where someone is a 'terrorist' without having broken any laws. As usual, however, they are painting with far too broad a brush.

whereas I'd prefer that the department stops them before they crash jets into buildings...

I'm not really concerned about law enforcement here.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
You're looking at this backwards. An act isn't terrorism because it violates American law, however, an act that does not violate American law then cannot be charged as terrorism.

That's an awfully low bar though. By the act's definition, if you illegally park your car on your neighbor's lawn to try to intimidate him you could be classified as a terrorist.

[HobbieRogue4]

The "ii) to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion..." scared me the most.

"Please call your local representative and voice your concerns with regards to this legislation..."

: R O L L E Y E S :

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by acropolis
whereas I'd prefer that the department stops them before they crash jets into buildings...

Conspiracy to commit a felony is also a crime. You don't have to wait for the jets to crash before arresting people, but on the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to require some evidence of wrongdoing before throwing people in jail.

I'm not really concerned about law enforcement here.

The protections are for your benefit, Citizen.

[W]

Hi. I'd just like to mention that I live in Norway. Thank you.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by W
Hi. I'd just like to mention that I live in Norway. Thank you.

That's almost interesting.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by Gaunt
I am more concerned about the last-minuted add-ons to the bill, like the section of it that makes it illegal to sue pharmaceutical compaies for damages related to vaccenes they produce, even n the case of gross negligence. The fact that this was put into place just as Pharmaceutical giant and Republican supporter Eli Lily is facing massive loss in lawsuits which claim its vaccenes caused autism in children 10 years ago, is quite co-incidental, not to mention completely unrelated to homeland security.

.

The bill does not in any way prevent lawsuits...although i agree it didnt need to be added to the homeland security bill all the provision did was force people to go through a mediation process first if they did not like the boards findings they could still sue.

[xtrasyn]

I'm boycotting the US succesfully for a few days now

It's not that hard, really, as all the nifty things are non-us almost by default.

The only rough time was yesterday, as I felt like having a burger, but in stead of going to Ol' MacDonald's I drove around to the Kebab shop and funded some sleezy arab's cause.

It tasted better, and was a product of thousands of years of cultural evolution.

Bye Bye US products!

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Tactitus

That's an awfully low bar though. By the act's definition, if you illegally park your car on your neighbor's lawn to try to intimidate him you could be classified as a terrorist.

No, thats not what it means at all. It isn't saying that any illegal activity one might engage in is terrorism, but it is saying that any activity that is not illegal cannot then be terrorism. So like if you were publicly denouncing the government, or even endorsing the terrorists goals or whatever, that isn't terrorism. It isn't attempting to set a defination for terrorism, but a defination of what isn't terrorism.

[Seed of Chaos]

Originally posted by Starbucks
Terrorist

LoL. Funny stuff

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
No, thats not what it means at all. It isn't saying that any illegal activity one might engage in is terrorism, but it is saying that any activity that is not illegal cannot then be terrorism. So like if you were publicly denouncing the government, or even endorsing the terrorists goals or whatever, that isn't terrorism. It isn't attempting to set a defination for terrorism, but a defination of what isn't terrorism.

You keep focusing on the half of the glass that's empty. It's certainly true that anything which isn't illegal cannot be terrorism (as per the legislation), but it is also true that anything which is illegal could be classified as terrorism (note could, not will).

Since the set of all possible actions which are not illegal were already not illegal, the bill doesn't really add any new protections at all.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Rick

What if the pharmaceutical companies sued every person who used their products and got their life saved 57 million dollars (thats what one life is worth right, its priceless, its why when someone gets killed, someone has to shovel out xx million) Does that make sense? It does to me, If a person gets their life saved by something, say a drug, they should be obligated to
a) pay the company whatever their life is worth
b) kill themself because they dont want to have had their life saved
c) accept that their life has more worth then money, and agree not sue if bad things happen, and not have to pay (other then the actual drug cost) the worth of their life.

Its totally acceptable for McDonalds to put rat poison in their Big Macs. If it were ok for people to sue McDonalds for poisoning them, then it would be ok for McDonalds to sue all its customers for having their life saved by their cheeseburgers (they'd have died of hunger otherwise).

what

If there had been a contract involved where the drug companies had declared "Hey, we dont know if this is 100% safe or not, and we're making no guarantees. Take it if you want, but we disclaim responsibility for any side effects you might get", then yes, youd have a point. However, this isnt what is happening. They are being sold with no mention whatsoever that there are potential side effects, and that is the problem.

Even if your logic was right, it would still have no place whatsoever in a "Homeland Security" bill. Which is what the discussion was about.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Rick
What if the pharmaceutical companies sued every person who used their products and got their life saved 57 million dollars (thats what one life is worth right, its priceless, its why when someone gets killed, someone has to shovel out xx million) Does that make sense? It does to me, If a person gets their life saved by something, say a drug, they should be obligated to
a) pay the company whatever their life is worth
b) kill themself because they dont want to have had their life saved
c) accept that their life has more worth then money, and agree not sue if bad things happen, and not have to pay (other then the actual drug cost) the worth of their life.

And if caring enough about them to not make laws that push them outs business, then yea republicans are for "big pharmaceuticals" because killing the goose that lays golden eggs because it honks is sure a stupid thing to do.

Ah Rick, up to your usual intellectual standard in posting I see.

You owe me 57 million dollars for not having you killed. I have the capacity (if I horribly abuse my position and risk getting instantly fired and/or arrested) to find out everything about you in half an hour, your family, friends, home, bank account etc.

I have chosen not to do this and then go after you with a rusty hatchet. Thus you owe me 57 million dollars.


Now that your absurd comparason is gone, lawsuits prevent reckless action. The Suit against Eli Lily is that if ingested by preganant women, it causes autism in children, not 1 in a million times, but about 1 in 3 times. Of course thats just the suit, and remains unproven, but the whole principle of libaility it to protect people against foolhardy and reckless action. If C company markets warm urine as a small-pox vaccine, they can be held liable for their fraud. In less extreme circumstances, if a company markets a drug they have not yet tested for side effects as 'safe', they can be held liable.

Your opposition to this actually failed to make any sense, which to be fair is not atypical for you... Lawsuits, though horrendously abused in the US, are a critical way of redressing wrongs and preventing gross fraud, or dangerous incompetence. Drug Companies cannot be put above the law, nor treated in any way different from other companies, just because they contribue millions of dollars to the Republican war chest.

[Tzencath]

it's all the beurocracy, let us take you over again, re-establish the british empire, and everything will be fine again!
no more 'i'm a us citizen, i can't be tried anywhere but america' or 'americans are dying out there, so are millions of other foreign soldiers, but they don't count, some american bloke died, lets nuke 'em' crap.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Tactitus

You keep focusing on the half of the glass that's empty. It's certainly true that anything which isn't illegal cannot be terrorism (as per the legislation), but it is also true that anything which is illegal could be classified as terrorism (note could, not will).

Since the set of all possible actions which are not illegal were already not illegal, the bill doesn't really add any new protections at all.




I vew the passage as saying that nothing now legal will be made illegal by this legislation. Its a matter of interpertation, I want to always view laws as restricting government whenever possible, not heaping more regulation on the people.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Tzencath
it's all the beurocracy, let us take you over again, re-establish the british empire, and everything will be fine again!
no more 'i'm a us citizen, i can't be tried anywhere but america' or 'americans are dying out there, so are millions of other foreign soldiers, but they don't count, some american bloke died, lets nuke 'em' crap.

Shocker in
'America to look out for Americans'

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by WarFalcon



Shocker in
'America to look out for Americans'

Further shocker when Americans revealed to not be a species in their own right. Scientists said to be confused and baffled (note these are the same scientists who once proposed to refill the ozone layer by firing chemicals at it from battleships, true story).