what is reasonably considered 'terrorism' ...

from Project for the Old American Century blog
_

November 29, 2006

There Must Be Limits On What Is Considered Terrorism
Filed under: civil liberties � Rowan Wolf @ 10:51 am

By: Rowan Wolf of Uncommon Thought Journal

" The government is stretching the legal definition of terrorism way too far. First it was extended with the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Then a number of states jumped on board with ecoterrorism legislation. Now the we have the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 1926.IS, S. 3880.IS, and H.R. 4239.IH) introduced by Inoffe in the Senate (4 cosponsors) and Petri of Wisconsin in the House (44 cosponsors) which Bush signed into law on Monday (11/27/06).

An analysis of the bill at Philadelphia's Indy Media states that the legislation covers a wide range of activities from impeding business to property damage to releasing animals. We can probably rest assured that it will be extended to those who support these "terrorists."

The issues at play with both ecoterrorism and with the AETA is to protect commercial interests and research facilities. The "terrorism" under AETA includes "blockades" and "trespassing." Those pushing for this legislation have primarily been biotechnology interests, corporate agricultural, and pharmaceutical companies. The concerns are primarily with interruption of their business activities.

On "Black" Friday in downtown Portland, demonstrators picketed stores selling furs. Would AETA stretch so far as to cover these types of activities? Certainly it will extend to some of the activities of groups such as Greenpeace who "interfere" with whaling operations. Or the some of the political strategies of groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Of course, those who economically support groups such as Greenpeace and PETA are by extension likely to be considered material supporters of terrorism under such sweeping legislation.

All of this is stretching "terrorism" into areas that it should never have gone. The liberal use of this term extends extra-legal surveillance and detention to a broader and broader percentage of the population. It also is clearly a slippery slope. If terrorism extends to primarily interference with economic activity, then almost anything falls into that category. Boycotting a business because of its labor practices, marching in a demonstration that temporarily restricts business access, writing a letter to the editor that speaks poorly of a business or industry, all of these can interfere with "economic activity."

Destruction of property and trespassing are already against the law. Why in the world is it necessary to make those offenses "terrorist" activities? There is absolutely no reason to do so unless one wants to extend the aggressive anti-terrorism legislation more broadly. In other words, to use the law to squash dissent and dialog.

The ongoing expansion of the legal bounds of "terrorism" should give all of us pause. Personally, it scares the hell out of me. It is a sneaky way of subverting our constitutional and civil liberties. It also raises the anti significantly for how much we are willing to risk in order to raise our voice in this country. It is one thing to participate in an activity which deliberately impedes a business doing business - a picket for example - realizing that one might get arrested for trespassing. It is quite another if the consequences of that are indefinite detention without access to counsel or courts. Also, supporting a group like Greenpeace is both a political and social statement. Being indefinitely detained without counsel or courts for that support is an effective way to quash such groups.

All of this raises even more questions about the detention facilities for which Halliburton has a $385 million contract. "

See also:
Megan Tady, 11/15/06, News Standard, House Passes "Terrorism" Act Against Animal Activists
- http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=3887&x=x

Check the Thomas legislative guide for Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 1926.IS, S. 3880.IS, and H.R. 4239.IH)

- http://poac.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/there-must-be-limits-on-what-is-considered-terrorism/

beyond what is usual, regular, customary

My mind has been grinding on the word "rendition" a long time ...

Grinding.

That word is like a loose screw lost in a gear system.

Something amiss - heard and felt every cycle, doing more damage ...


Rendition:
Main Entry: ren·di·tion
Pronunciation: ren-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete French, from Middle French, alteration of reddition,
from Late Latin reddition-, redditio, from Latin reddere to return
: the act or result of rendering :
as a : SURRENDER b : TRANSLATION c : PERFORMANCE,
INTERPRETATION


Rendition - the word might now be defined as:
"making something so obvious no one will see it"

"interpretation" - something happened, yes ... but what happened ?
What happened is what we are told happened - not what we saw happen.

"performance" - a plan of action was executed, something accomplished.
Fulfillment of a promise - plan implemented - history changed.
Done as "a public presentation or exhibition" to effect public behaviour:
Everyone forced into "the manner of reacting to stimuli"

"translation" - "performance" including images presented repeatedly
... so that what people saw became what people were intended to see.
What people did not want to see became reality impossible to ignore.
People "reacting to stimuli" exhibited to them in the performance.

"surrender" - People gave up common sense - all reason lost in flight.
No one thinks "in battle" - only reacts, acts automatically, re-reacting.
Accepting interpretation of a performance by the translation given.
People scared into "voluntarily" giving up their way of life that day.
A population *rendered* - powerless, compliant, submissive, inert.


A new and improved "extraordinary rendition" makes laws powerless.
Individuals captured from "rank and file" deprived of senses and contact:
Hooded, manacled, separated, not spoken to, no food or drink, no relief.
Flown round the world in plain view of everyone, while no one sees them
- no one knows where they are or IF they are, or will be again.

"Apprehended" *suspects* never see a court of law, people, rendered
- defenseless - knowing not what to guard against, what to fight or how.


Good and evil turned inside out ...
far and away "beyond what is usual, regular, or customary"

Paid for "voluntarily" by American taxpayers

Extraordinary

"Made in U.S.A."

.

conservative is just a word with too many meanings ...

Thus, the word "conservatism" has no meaning.


Among all the people I know, those who I consider truly conservative I can count on the fingers of one hand.

btw both my hands have five fingers.


Even among my closest friends, those who actively refer to themselves as "conservative" I do not think understand what the word means.

Those who maintain silence about "politics" I find closest to being what I can consider conservative.


Webster hits it on the head with "preservative: having the power of preserving"
... after which Webster seems to blather in regard to "defining" the word "conservative"

- "of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism" says nothing considering what follows
- "of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism" is meaningless in 2006 context
- even "of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions"
... misses the mark without considering geography
- "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions"
... would seem to give hope unless one realizes what is contained in the word "existing"
- a more 'traditional' definition "marked by moderation or caution"
... goes to the heart of those who are silent being "closest" to conservative
- "marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners" is not cool
- and last "of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism"
... nor even do so-called "Christian conservatives" truly "conserve" their religion

"having the power of preserving"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." and "in order to form a more perfect union" are phrases which do not seem important to anyone I know these days, which leaves me feeling a bit lonely now and again.

For those of you who really do not know (I am aware there are plenty of you), the first of those phrases is from the Declaration of Independence; in context:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The second phrase is from the Constitution of the United States of America:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
_

Is it unfair for me to suppose that Democrats in general (so-called Democratic Party in the U.S.) are no different; ie. have basically the same agenda as Republicans ?

There is much to like and love about Canada as I recall from my visits up there, but I see it no less commercially developed now than most any U.S. community and the socialist form of government never quite captured my fancy.

Mexico is vibrant and colorful with its "in-your-face" history I could climb on and *feel* while confronted at every turn with poverty of those wholly dispossessed of their birthright - a lawless land for those who have not enough money to purchase their "security"

So I chose decades ago to remain in the country my ancestors helped found, thinking daft anyone who suggested to me the U.S. has a socialist government even though I was aware of that goal.
I remained a citizen of the country in which I was born even as it was being subdivided and stripped - clear to me that no one "local" benefitted from the profits ... and where my "security" increasingly depends on how much I can afford.

My choice was to stay among those who use "newspeak" and words given them by their parents - none of which are part of my vocabulary - people who seemed to have an innate sense of "us" with which somehow I was never able to connect, people who divide themselves from each other as they speak ...

... people who consciously and actively divide themselves from the God they profess to "worship" and who divided themselves from their own history, and of the rich history that preceded their own - by bulldozing it flat, all of it, so there is nothing left to climb on.
_

The word "conservative" is a rip-off in almost every sense in which I hear it used now ... and what IS a "new conservative" ??
- except a bold lie !

"existing views, conditions, or institutions" are daily defended by "conservatives" who seem to have not even the flimsiest clue how different those "existing views, conditions, or institutions" are from what was originally intended for the American People, and for all people everywhere if they chose to follow it ... so there is no more "beacon" of Liberty for anyone anywhere.

Sorry, folks - the "beacon" has been sold at auction.

Check the schedule and see it at your local museum.
_

So many people I know seem to spend every waking hour engaged in a raging obsession with " ... the "------"'s (insert "conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, communist, capitalist, gay, homophobe, any sort of "activist" or the word hippie or fogey or feminist or chauvinist - how hilarious that almost ANY word will work there)

... are going to RUIN the country.
Seems as if "------"'s are going to do whatever it is the speaker most fears.

EVERYONE I know has some favourite "other" - someone to bark about.

Rarely these days do I meet anyone who can bite.

Why should I not assume that any Democrat or liberal or "progressive" is any different than any Republican or "conservative" or Fundamentalist ?

Since the 2006 elections in which Democrats supposedly "took control" of the House and Senate I do not see or hear any outcry against the physical division of the physical "United States" - the physical abandonment of the nation to a larger "union" which is referred to as NAU (is it intended to sound like "now" ?) - the North American Union.

Is there someone who supposes that the differences in "style" of government among Canada, Mexico, and the United States are somehow going to leave American government unchanged ?

Does anyone even care ?

What do the toothless people around me really want ?

Even though I was born in the United States of America, I feel as if I could have been born on Mars and only recently arrived here, like the ...

"Stranger in a Strange Land"

Know what I mean ?


.