Dangerous laws welling up in Postys world

unclehobart

unclehobart

New Member
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

Reuters
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; 9:02 PM

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, 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 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 (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
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14942-2003Apr2.html

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. ..huh? ... hinderances of free assembly... just like this bill? ... man.. thats just rich.
 
I believe that there are already laws that could be interpreted for just such an occasion already on the books...
 
Gato_Solo said:
I believe that there are already laws that could be interpreted for just such an occasion already on the books...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Equally almost unenforceible laws. All they are asking for is a vicious expensive uphill battle and appeals that would make most capital trials pale in comparison. This is just baseless grandstanding.
 
Not all that expensive, Unc. Tresspassing laws would work wonders for clearing the streets of disruptive protestors. Just jack up the fines to over $3,000 per person, and you'll see such nonsense vanish. This new law, however, is to vague IMO. It doesn't specify what is a peaceful assembly and what is disruptive. You could prosecute a school field trip under this ordinance. I can even see civil rights violations out the wazoo with this...
 
Hell, just enfore the eighteen double aught law that they can't congregate on main street without a burning cross and a runaway slave in tow.
 
Laws should be specific and fair. Vague laws are abhorrent.
To see our public servants passing or attempting to pass laws out of spite is despicable.
 
I agree with this proposal in principle, though I think the implementation is going to be practically impossible due to the judicial complications that will arise. I also think the mandatory 25 years is pretty stiff. Something more like a couple of months would be more in line - with longer sentences as an option depending on circumstances.

unclehobart said:
huh? ... hinderances of free assembly... just like this bill? ... man.. thats just rich.
Click to expand...
That proposal doesn't hinder the right to free AND PEACEFUL assembly, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no guarantee anywhere for "free assembly by whatever means you wish." Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your right to peacably assemble ends when it ceases to be peaceful and puts my life in danger or otherwise seriously disrupts the required business I must conduct on a daily basis.

How about we hold a protest on the runway of a base where a B2 is needing to take off for a mission. Want to place a bet that your "right to free assembly" will protect you from being forceably removed or shot?
 
I understand that and can agree with it if they would just write something that was concrete and obvious to 'johnny dullard' on the street. Its vagueness makes it so utterly wide open to abuse. Interpreting 'intent' on the fly and trusting the judgement of the judiciary to know the difference is scary. It may be fine and dany today... but it will be corrupted over time and used as a weapon like any other piece of legislation. From what I know of marches, one already needs permits and whatnot to hold marches and demonstrations. They already can be arrested for trespass and failure to obey a lawful order.
 
I agree unc. That's why I said I agree with the legislation in principle but not in practice. To be honest, writing legislation that doesn't leave itself open to later twisting and abuse appears to be fairly difficult. Even the Constitution is not immune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top