More GOP values - fascism!

[Boris Godunov]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._protests_dc_1

Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists
Wed Apr 2, 9:01 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Lee Douglas

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 (news - web sites), 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 (news - web sites) 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.

"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU), which opposes the bill.

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.

Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.

"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.

Cutting veteran's benefits, draconian tactics against protests...what next will the GOP devise? A law requiring us to shove old people under buses?

[Arrian]

I saw this article today. I noted the following:

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

It's definitely unacceptable, and I would be shocked if it didn't go down to resounding defeat.

-Arrian

[Shi Huangdi]

already been a thread on this

[Inverse Icarus]

25 years is very extreme. jailing them for a month or two though

their "street blocking protests" not only inconvience many, they make busiensses lose money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years

Street blockers should definetly get some jail time. I agree with Uber... 2 months is long enough.

[Sava]

Blocking the streets, or whatever, should have the same penalty no matter the motive.

I'm struggling to feel sorry for the people "inconvenienced" by protests when there are people dying half a world a way.

[GePap]

yeah. already came up. Won't get past committee. imbecilic law.

I chalck it up to utter stupidity, not fascism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, GePap, it seems that Boris is suprised that a legislator could propose a stupid law .

[nationalist]

Damn Boris, you got my hopes up. The Republicans are in no way fascist proto-fascist, psuedo-fascist, etc. In fact, Republican "values" often run completely contrary to fascist ideology.

[Agathon]

2 months is too much. Protesting isn't a criminal offence and blocking the streets is at most a mild inconvenience.

The law should recognise a distinction between direct action as a form of political protest and behaviour with criminal intent. Honest dissent should be evaluated on a different scale from behaviour with criminal intent.

At least this shows us that some people are scared of the protestors.

[Jules]

An essential ingredient of fascism IMO is the glorification of war, which is why I don't consider nationalist to be a fascist. Here's an article from CNN related to that:

Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'
From Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson
CNN
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 2:21 PM EST (1921 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA director James Woolsey said Wednesday that the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."

Woolsey has been named in news reports as possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a post-war Iraq.

He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just "finally noticed."

"As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous."

It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.

"Our response should be, 'good!'" Woolsey said.

Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, was taking part in a "teach-in" at UCLA, a series of such forums at universities across the nation.

A group calling itself "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism" sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA's campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night's event.

The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday's event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.

These are very, very scary people, folks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

blocking the streets is at most a mild inconvenience.

Tell that to the people that live in those cities. Blocking the streets causes HUGE economic damage.

Honest dissent should be evaluated on a different scale from behaviour with criminal intent.

Um... blocking streets on purpose IS criminal intent.

At least this shows us that some people are scared of the protestors.

You wish! It just shows that they don't want to lose anymore money from blocked streets.

[GePap]

I have had no respect for anyting James Woolsey has said in the past year and a half. Lets hope his kind are drivn from power as soon as possible.

[Giant_Squid]

Wow. I had always considered Oregon such a basically nonevil state, and then they come up with this?

And...World War IV? Did I...er...miss something? Something big?

[Sava]

We're on the side of your own people

How can the US be on the side of the people of the MidEast when they are all opposed to this war?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

blocking the streets is at most a mild inconvenience.

Tell that to the people that live in those cities. Blocking the streets causes HUGE economic damage.

Freedom to publicly express ones political opinions is more important. This goes for pro-war protestors as well as anti-war demonstrators.

Um... blocking streets on purpose IS criminal intent.

And you are supposed to be a law student. This is like saying that combat soldiers are murderers because they kill people. Context is everything.

You wish! It just shows that they don't want to lose anymore money from blocked streets.

I doubt it. The protests are politically inconvenient. Many retailers in Toronto are all for the protests because they've been making a wad of cash with the influx of people to the downtown area - who usually go shopping or buy a meal after the protests.

[edit] and to add to that on the last three marches I have been on bystanders have cheered and clapped and occasionally joined in the protest.

Besides - 25 years for blocking a street is clearly too much.

[Jules]

Originally posted by Sava
How can the US be on the side of the people of the MidEast when they are all opposed to this war?

Because apparently Woolsey took a bad dose of LSD back in the 60s. Go figure.

[Sava]

If creating traffic problems is criminal, the Illinois Tollway Authority needs to be arrested.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Freedom to publicly express ones political opinions is more important.

As long as it does not infringe on someone else's freedoms. This is a basic idea of freedom.

And you are supposed to be a law student.

Um.. yeah, and that is why I know much, much, much more about the law than you. When you block streets on purpose, you know it is a criminal act to do so, and you intend to do it. Criminal intent right there, lock, stock, and barrel.

Why do you think the people that block streets during protests get arrested?

This is like saying that combat soldiers are murderers because they kill people.

If there was a law enforced internationally that it is illegal to kill someone if not in self-defense, then yeah, they would be. But there isn't, so they are not.

I doubt it. The protests are politically inconvenient.

Why would Oregon care about their politics? Oregon is more liberal than California!! It costs them money; they remember Seattle.

[Sava]

If there was a law enforced internationally that it is illegal to kill someone if not in self-defense, then yeah, they would be. But there isn't, so they are not.

Ah HA! But then Bush would have to prove that this war is self-defence.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Agathon
Freedom to publicly express ones political opinions is more important. This goes for pro-war protestors as well as anti-war demonstrators.

There is no reason why you can't speak your mind on the side of the road or the sidewalk. There is absolutely no reason to block the daily affairs of others to make yourself heard. None.

Besides - 25 years for blocking a street is clearly too much.

This is certainly true. The proposed bill is hyperreactive crap. Traffic blockers should be charged with disorderly conduct, whatever, and given a few days in jail and a fine.

[Ming]

You have the right of free speech... you don't have the right to restrict other people rights.

Yeah... 25 years is a joke... arrest them to get them out of the way, book them, fine them, and let them go.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava: Funny .

[Jules]

Don't protestors get arrested already anyway? I don't see the need for new, harsher laws here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, GePap, it seems that Boris is suprised that a legislator could propose a stupid law .

When did I express surprise? I'm not surprised at all, considering he's a Republican!

[Imran Siddiqui]

*points at Hillary Clinton or Charley Rangel in your neck of the woods*

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, there's been at least two threads on this, if not three.