We've all spent a large part of the past few years opposing Republicans trying to strip of us of our freedoms. So now that the Democrats are in charge, everythings gonna be ok again, right?
Read the following quotation from the head of the pro-civil liberties National Lawyers Guild. Then guess whose deeds made this person fret.
"Adding the term 'terrorist' to identify activists in a recognizable civic group — that exploits the tragedies that accompany real terrorist action," said Heidi Boghosian. "We think that the wealth and pressure of big business and corporations has pushed this through, and it's an example of corporate interests working against civic rights."
Is George Bush II again rifling through our phone records, or conjuring a new Patriot Act?
Has his Republican administration again sicced the FBI on library patrons?
No. The latest federal assault on civil liberties is a San Francisco Democratic creation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein just finished ensuring the success of a bill that expands the federal government definition of "terrorism" to mean an act of protest that reduces the profits of a corporation, its suppliers, or partners.
More down there.
http://www.sfweekly.com/...
I really expected better from a former mayor of San Francisco. But then again, Feinstein has screwed us over more than once. She voted for the war dispite requests from Californians that she oppose it outnumbering those in favor of war by a 2,000 to one ratio. Her husband, BTW is CEO of a Carlyle Group contractor, and they just bought a $14,000,000 mansion up on Russian Hill. And now she's pleadging allegance to Corporate America once again.
Feinstein co-sponsored the just-passed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which claims to provide law enforcement tools needed to go after animal rights extremists who vandalize research facilities. But the measure does very little to advance law enforcement's pursuit of loony PETA brigands. Instead, it goes a long way toward making ordinary Americans rightfully nervous about boycotting, picketing, blogging, investigating, or otherwise righteously beleaguering private companies whose actions they disagree with.
"The language of this legislation was too broad and vague, and could be interpreted to infringe upon lawful practices, such as protest, whistleblowing, or boycotts," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States — a nonbrigand organization if there ever were one.
"Here is an assault on civil liberties that's upfront and blatant — labeling activists as terrorists. Yet this passed without hardly any scrutiny. It was stunning how easily this went through. And in my mind it's one of the most egregious civil liberties abuses America has seen," adds Will Potter, author of Greenisthenewred.com, a blog dedicated to examining how anti-terrorism has been used as a pretext for cracking down on activism.
Funny, these San Francisco values seem like something Billy over at Faux News would appreaciate.
I am not prepared to allow my senator to circumvent the bill of rights by labeling activists as terrorists. She should be working on getting federal DEA agents off the backs of LEGAL pot clubs here in California. But apparently civil liberties mean as mutch to her as they do to Dick Cheney, especially when corporate profits are involved.
Update: Here is the actuall text of the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/...
5 (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 43 of title 18, United
6 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
7 `` 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal
8 enterprises
9 ``(a) OFFENSE.--Whoever travels in interstate or for-
10 eign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or
11 any facility of interstate or foreign commerce
12 ``(1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting
13 an animal enterprise; and
14 ``(2) in connection with such purpose--
15 ``(A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or
16 causes the loss of any property (including ani-
17 mals or records) used by the animal enterprise,
18 or any property of a person or entity having a
19 connection to, relationship with, or transactions
20 with the animal enterprise;
21 ``(B) intentionally places a person in rea-
22 sonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily
23 injury to that person, a member of the imme-
24 diate family (as defined in section 115) of that
25 person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that
26 person by a course of conduct involving threats,
HR 4239 IH
3
1 acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass,
2 harassment, or intimidation; or
3 ``(C) conspires or attempts to do so;
4 shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).
5 ``(b) PENALTIES.--
6 ``(1) ECONOMIC person who, in
DAMAGE.--Any
7 the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes
8 economic damage not exceeding $10,000 shall be
9 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
10 1 year, or both.
11 ``(2) SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECO-
12 person who, in the course
NOMIC DISRUPTION.--Any
13 of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic
14 damage or economic disruption exceeding $10,000
15 but not exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this
16 title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
17 ``(3) MAJOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC
18 person who, in the course of a
DISRUPTION.--Any
19 violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage
20 or economic disruption exceeding $100,000 shall be
21 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
22 10 years, or both.
God, by reading this it looks like "taggers" are now terrorists. WTF.