Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

Anti-Biking Activists Can Be Charged as Terrorists?

Started by Agent Of Freedo · · Last activity · 23 posts · 1,616 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
11 September 2003
Last activity
30 September 2003
Original author
Agent Of Freedo
Posts
23
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,616
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 23
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hello All:

    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and having recently read an
    article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin County, CA (including mentioning our familiar
    friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by name), the following thoughts came to mind.

    If anti-cycling activists intentionally boobie trap trails in an effort to injure mountain bikers,
    including those trails perfectly legal for off road cycling, it is entirely possible those
    individuals, as well as any environmentalist groups they belong to, may face the possibility of
    prosecution as domestic terrorists under newly revised laws passed under the Patriot Act. For
    example, Section 802 of the Act changed parts of Title 18 (US Code) to include "Domestic Terrorism"
    as follows:

    TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 113B, Sec. 2331:

    (Item 5)

    (5) the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -

    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
    States or of any State;

    (B) appear to be intended -

    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

    (iv) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

    Since boobie trapping trails certainly qualifies for all three sections of this revised law
    pertaining to domestic terrorism, persons undertaking such actions appear to be chargeable with a
    federal offense. It is conceivable that pro-cycling groups could record individuals taking part in
    such activities, and turn that evidence over to federal authorities in order to identify those
    responsible for terroristic acts.

    Even more interesting, are the parts of the Patriot Act that pertain to organizations that harbor
    terrorists. The following sections also come from the Patriot Act:

    Sec. 803. Prohibition against harboring terrorists. Both the House and Senate bills included this
    provision to establish a new criminal prohibition against harboring terrorists, similar to the
    current prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 792 against harboring spies, and makes it an offense when someone
    harbors or conceals another they know or should have known had engaged in or was about to engage in
    federal terrorism offenses.

    Sec. 813. Inclusion of acts of terrorism as racketeering activity. Both the House and Senate bills
    included this provision to amend the RICO statute to include certain terrorism-related offenses
    within the definition of "racketeering activity," thus allowing multiple acts of terrorism to be
    charged as a pattern of racketeering for RICO purposes. This section expands the ability of
    prosecutors to prosecute members of established, ongoing terrorist organizations that present the
    threat of continuity that the RICO statute was designed to permit prosecutors to combat.

    While I may not be a legal expert, I have to wonder if an oraganization, such as the local chapter
    of the Sierra Club, has one of its members take it upon themselves to boobie trap a trail, the group
    may be chargeable for harboring terrorists if said member talks freely to others about their
    exploits. If multiple members are caught boobie trapping trails for bikers, it is entirely possible
    the entire chapter may be identified as a Terrorist Organization and prosecuted under RICO statutes.
    This may also apply to other groups, such as local hiker and equestrian advocacy organizations.

    Hmmmmm... I wonder how Mikey V. and Terri A. would react if they got caught doing bad, bad things,
    and were charged as terrorists?

    I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups look at such a strategy might
    bring a more cooperative spirit and push the radical environmental fundamentalists to the side in
    the dispute...

  2. On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]> penned:

    Quoted message said:

    Hello All:

    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and having recently read an
    article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin County, CA (including mentioning our familiar
    friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by name), the following thoughts came to mind.


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups look at such a strategy might
    bring a more cooperative spirit and push the radical environmental fundamentalists to the side in
    the dispute...

    Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a law
    you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes you believe
    to be right?

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such laws
    lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    --
    monique

    My pointless ramblings: bounceswoosh.orgindex.php

  3. "Agent of Freedom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hello All:

    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and


    having

    Quoted message said:

    recently read an article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin


    County, CA

    Quoted message said:

    (including mentioning our familiar friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by name),


    the

    Quoted message said:

    following thoughts came to mind.

    If anti-cycling activists intentionally boobie trap trails in an effort to injure mountain bikers,
    including those trails perfectly legal for off


    road

    Quoted message said:

    cycling, it is entirely possible those individuals, as well as any environmentalist groups they
    belong to, may face the possibility of


    prosecution

    Quoted message said:

    as domestic terrorists..............

    If something like that EVER happened to me or mine the HUNT would be on regardless of what the law
    says or doesn't say. I cracks me up they way some people believe they can cause that kind of hurt to
    people and believe it has no PERSONAL consequences to themselves. Is that a threat?

    Damn straight.

    Marty

  4. "Monique Y. Herman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]>


    penned:

    Quoted message said:

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    Exactly: as disgusting as most of the Patriot Act is, if it could get a trail-barbed-wirer (worst
    verb ever) locked away, and the Sierra Club to back away, I could maybe kinda pretend to almost
    seemingly overlook, but not quite, the blatant illegalities and Bill-of-Rights violations included
    in the Patriot Act.

    Sorry if I ruined your carefully worded ("Whether or not you approve of the patriot act"😉 post 🙂

    Chris

  5. On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:45:03 GMT, Chris <[email hidden]> penned:

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly: as disgusting as most of the Patriot Act is, if it could get a trail-barbed-wirer (worst
    verb ever) locked away, and the Sierra Club to back away, I could maybe kinda pretend to almost
    seemingly overlook, but not quite, the blatant illegalities and Bill-of-Rights violations included
    in the Patriot Act.

    Sorry if I ruined your carefully worded ("Whether or not you approve of the patriot act"😉 post 🙂

    Chris

    No apologies necessary, but I can't figure out whether your statement was intended to endorse using
    the "patriot" act to nail trail-sabotagers or not. Probably, like me, you're not sure?

    --
    monique

    My pointless ramblings: bounceswoosh.orgindex.php

  6. Monique Y. Herman said:

    On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]> penned:

    Quoted message said:

    Hello All:

    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and having recently read an
    article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin County, CA (including mentioning our familiar
    friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by name), the following thoughts came to mind.

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups look at such a strategy might
    bring a more cooperative spirit and push the radical environmental fundamentalists to the side in
    the dispute...

    Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a law
    you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes you believe
    to be right?

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after Americans
    for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a law that
    requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an anti-organized crime law,
    may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the feds, hmm....then again.....=)
    Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after terrorists. My answer to your question,
    Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good
    choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight can and should be done without it, for the sake of
    the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn

    P.S. Did you see the lead article in the Post? W thinks the unnatural Act is "Weak"
    denverpost.com0,1413,36~6439~1624312,00.html

  7. "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Monique Y. Herman said:

    On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]>


    penned:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Hello All:

    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and


    having

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    recently read an article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin


    County, CA

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    (including mentioning our familiar friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by


    name), the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    following thoughts came to mind.

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups


    look at

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    such a strategy might bring a more cooperative spirit and push the


    radical

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    environmental fundamentalists to the side in the dispute...

    Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a law
    you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes you
    believe to be right?

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after
    Americans for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a law
    that requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an anti-organized
    crime law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the feds, hmm....then
    again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after terrorists. My answer to
    your question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a
    repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight
    can and should be done without it, for the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn


    You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?

  8. On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:45:06 GMT, Shawn Curry <[email hidden]> penned:

    Quoted message said:


    P.S. Did you see the lead article in the Post? W thinks the unnatural Act is "Weak"
    denverpost.com0,1413,36~6439~1624312,00.html

    Ah, I did read about that, on the Washington Post, though (old habits die hard). His specific point
    was interesting -- that they're allowed to go after drug traffickers (I think; anyway, certain
    groups) in pretty much unconstitutional ways, but not terrorists.

    His point is a good argument -- for repealing the pre-existing exceptions, not for adding new ones.

    Slightly tipsy so I may have my factoids slightly wrong, but I think that's the general gist of
    my opinion.

    --
    monique

    My pointless ramblings: bounceswoosh.orgindex.php

  9. "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after
    Americans for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a
    law that requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an
    anti-organized crime law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the
    feds, hmm....then again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after
    terrorists. My answer to your question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a
    repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight
    can and should be done without it, for the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn


    You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?

    I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's already laws against that.

    Matt

  10. Shawn Curry said:
    Monique Y. Herman said:

    Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a law
    you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes you believe
    to be right?

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after Americans
    for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a law that
    requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an anti-organized crime
    law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the feds, hmm....then
    again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after terrorists. My answer to your
    question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise
    wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight can and should be done without it, for
    the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn

    Well said. This is EXACTLY my take on the so-called "Patriot" act.

    Quoted message said:


    P.S. Did you see the lead article in the Post? W thinks the unnatural Act is "Weak"
    denverpost.com0,1413,36~6439~1624312,00.html

  11. MattB said:

    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after
    Americans for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a
    law that requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an
    anti-organized crime law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the
    feds, hmm....then again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after
    terrorists. My answer to your question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a
    repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The
    fight can and should be done without it, for the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn


    You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?

    I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's already laws against that.

    Matt

    And would it matter? Those that hijacked the planes probably wouldn't have cared.

  12. Critic said:

    "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Monique Y. Herman said:

    On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]>

    penned:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Hello All:
    >
    >While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and

    having

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >recently read an article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin

    County, CA

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >(including mentioning our familiar friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by

    name), the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >following thoughts came to mind.
    >

    <snip>

    >I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups

    look at

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >such a strategy might bring a more cooperative spirit and push the

    radical

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >environmental fundamentalists to the side in the dispute...

    Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a law
    you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes you believe
    to be right?

    On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?

    Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after
    Americans for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a law
    that requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an anti-organized
    crime law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the feds, hmm....then
    again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after terrorists. My answer to
    your question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a
    repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight
    can and should be done without it, for the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn

    You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?


    Do your homework. That was already very illegal.

  13. "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Critic said:

    "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Monique Y. Herman wrote:

    >On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom <[email hidden]>

    penned:

    Quoted message said:

    >>Hello All:
    >>
    >>While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and

    having

    Quoted message said:

    >>recently read an article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin

    County, CA

    Quoted message said:

    >>(including mentioning our familiar friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by

    name), the

    Quoted message said:

    >>following thoughts came to mind.
    >>
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >>I realize it might be a longshot, but having cycling advocacy groups

    look at

    Quoted message said:

    >>such a strategy might bring a more cooperative spirit and push the

    radical

    Quoted message said:

    >>environmental fundamentalists to the side in the dispute...
    >
    >
    >
    >Here's my question, and it's one I've been pondering for a while: is it a good idea to use a
    >law you find morally repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong for the benefit of causes


    you

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >believe to be right?
    >
    >On one hand, why not use the tools that are available? On the other hand, doesn't applying such
    >laws lend them legitimacy in the court, providing nasty precedence for later cases?
    >
    >Whether or not you approve of the patriot act, it seems like a good question.

    The problem with the "Patriot" Act is that it makes it simpler for the feds to come after
    Americans for acts that are already crimes. Making terrorism against the law is like passing a
    law that requires everyone to breath-its already been taken care of. OTOH. RICO, an
    anti-organized crime law, may be very useful against these freaks (the anti-mtb ones not the
    feds, hmm....then again.....=) Mountain bikers don't need the "Patriot" Act to go after
    terrorists. My answer to your question, Monique, is: No, its not a good idea to use such a
    repugnant/unconstitutional/otherwise wrong (good choice of words) law for our benefit. The fight
    can and should be done without it, for the sake of the rest of our liberties.

    Cheers, Shawn

    You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?


    Do your homework. That was already very illegal

    Oh, thanks. I would have had no idea had you not told me. Do YOUR homework and answer this question:
    had we not been so worried about these terrorists "rights" would 9/11 have even happened?

  14. Quoted message said:

    Oh, thanks. I would have had no idea had you not told me. Do YOUR homework and answer this
    question: had we not been so worried about these terrorists "rights" would 9/11 have even
    happened?

    And tell me this -- with the much-vaunted "improved security" at our airports these days, is there
    really anything to stop an intelligent ne'er-do-well from causing a great deal of harm?

    Of course not. It's impossible to prevent harm from someone who's willing to die in order to
    accomplish their mission.

    Here's a better question for you: once we've stripped all the rights from the potential terrorists,
    i.e., you, me, and everyone else in the world, are we still the United States of America, the land
    where freedom rings?

    I'm sure you've heard it before, but to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice freedom
    for temporary security deserve neither."

    Bah, why am I bothering? Keep it up and lock everyone down -- and then, when they call your name,
    cry to the heavens that no, no, I'm the good guy, I swear, you meant to arrest that terrorist down
    the street, the one with the long hair and the vaguely middle-eastern looks! What do you mean,
    held indefinitely without charge? That was supposed to be for the bad guys, not for me! You've
    made a mistake!

    Problem is, by then, all the people who might have fought for your rights will be locked up already,
    or too afraid to speak.

    --
    monique

    My pointless ramblings: bounceswoosh.orgindex.php

  15. Critic said:

    and answer this question: had we not been so worried about these terrorists "rights" would 9/11
    have even happened?

    I certainly felt more secure sitting in a cold airport in sock feet in the dead of winter waiting
    for airport security guards to finish searching some little old ladies' bags for fingernail
    clippers. How they could catch any terrorists when they're so busy jerking the rest of us around is
    beyond me. But it does make it pretty apparent who lost rights in this process, and its not the
    terrorists.

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

  16. "Monique Y. Herman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    penned:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Oh, thanks. I would have had no idea had you not told me. Do YOUR


    homework

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and answer this question: had we not been so worried about these


    terrorists

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "rights" would 9/11 have even happened?

    And tell me this -- with the much-vaunted "improved security" at our airports these days, is there
    really anything to stop an intelligent ne'er-do-well from causing a great deal of harm?

    Of course not. It's impossible to prevent harm from someone who's willing to die in order to
    accomplish their mission.

    Here's a better question for you: once we've stripped all the rights from the potential
    terrorists, i.e., you, me, and everyone else in the world, are we still the United States of
    America, the land where freedom rings?

    I'm sure you've heard it before, but to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice
    freedom for temporary security deserve neither."

    Bah, why am I bothering? Keep it up and lock everyone down -- and then, when they call your name,
    cry to the heavens that no, no, I'm the good guy, I swear, you meant to arrest that terrorist down
    the street, the one with the long hair and the vaguely middle-eastern looks! What do you mean,
    held indefinitely without charge? That was supposed to be for the bad guys, not for me! You've
    made a mistake!

    Problem is, by then, all the people who might have fought for your rights will be locked up
    already, or too afraid to speak.


    Number of US planes hijacked on 9/11: 4 Number of US planes hijacked since: 0

    Case closed.

  17. On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:33:43 GMT, "Critic"

    Quoted message said:


    "Monique Y. Herman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    penned:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Oh, thanks. I would have had no idea had you not told me. Do YOUR


    homework

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and answer this question: had we not been so worried about these


    terrorists

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "rights" would 9/11 have even happened?

    And tell me this -- with the much-vaunted "improved security" at our airports these days, is
    there really anything to stop an intelligent ne'er-do-well from causing a great deal of harm?

    Of course not. It's impossible to prevent harm from someone who's willing to die in order to
    accomplish their mission.

    Here's a better question for you: once we've stripped all the rights from the potential
    terrorists, i.e., you, me, and everyone else in the world, are we still the United States of
    America, the land where freedom rings?

    I'm sure you've heard it before, but to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice
    freedom for temporary security deserve neither."

    Bah, why am I bothering? Keep it up and lock everyone down -- and then, when they call your name,
    cry to the heavens that no, no, I'm the good guy, I swear, you meant to arrest that terrorist
    down the street, the one with the long hair and the vaguely middle-eastern looks! What do you
    mean, held indefinitely without charge? That was supposed to be for the bad guys, not for me!
    You've made a mistake!

    Problem is, by then, all the people who might have fought for your rights will be locked up
    already, or too afraid to speak.


    Number of US planes hijacked on 9/11: 4 Number of US planes hijacked since: 0

    Case closed.

    You left off the number of US planes hijacked before 9/11

  18. (Agent of Freddom) said:


    While doing some online research in regard to the US Patriot Act, and having recently read an
    article on anti-mountain biking activists in Marin County, CA (including mentioning our familiar
    friends Mikey V. and Terri A. by name), the following thoughts came to mind.

    TROLL - O - METER

    1 5 10
    |-------------------|-------------------|
    ^
    /|\
    |
    |

    CC

  19. Quoted message said:

    From: [email hidden] (Corvus Corvax)

    Quoted message said:

    TROLL - O - METER

    Go ahead and dismiss it as being a troll if you'd like, but keep that in mind when the
    "environmentalist" whack jobs try to close your local trails. Intentionally boobie trapping a trail
    is not much different than any other form of terrorism, where someone is trying to cause injury of
    death to further their particular cause. If there's a tool out there to stop nutcases the likes of
    Mike V. and Terri A., then the better.

    Don't think for one moment that they'd hesitate to use the same laws against mountain bikers if
    they could. If there was a way that they could do so, it would happen in an instant if it were
    up to them.

    Personally, with all the flaws I see in the Patriot Act, if it can be used againt the lunatic fringe
    environmentalists if they step over the line of moral and legal behavior, so be it. The key word is
    legal, because their rights to voice their opinions are still available as long as they break no
    laws in the process.

    The issue of using the Patriotic Act against other types of criminals is already rearing its head in
    other areas, just as it may here...

  20. "Shawn Curry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    snip

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>
    >
    >You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?
    >
    >

    Do your homework. That was already very illegal

    Oh, thanks. I would have had no idea had you not told me. Do YOUR


    homework

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and answer this question: had we not been so worried about these


    terrorists

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "rights" would 9/11 have even happened?

    Do you mean the attack that totally caught us by surprise on September 11, 2001? You know, the one
    were we had "intelligence" from the previous month that indicated that terrorists may want to
    hijack airliners and fly them into the WTC? The one where the FBI was knocking on the door of the
    flight school that trained some of the terrorists a few days later because internal memos told
    them were to go, but they dropped the ball? The terrorists that Pres. Clinton had rained cruise
    missiles on, but caved (the [censored]) under Repubican pressure because it was distracting them from
    the peep show they were jerking off to? Homework? I'm set. Two presidents didn't do theirs and
    3000 or so are dead. The terrorists "rights" were never an issue. Their was plenty of probable
    cause out there to bust the whole lot and search every scrap of their property, with lots of time
    to spare. The issue was a bunch bureaucrats and elected officials with one thumb up their ass and
    the other in their mouth (as usual). Not to mention our wondrously people friendly Mideast policy
    (oops, just did). Revoking your's and my Constitutional rights (You US citizens out there) won't
    fix those problems. An educated and practicing electorate will, as long as we can still vote
    freely (sorry Florida, you've missed the


    boat).

    Quoted message said:

    Are you so afraid, that you'll cave to these fascists? Are you one of


    them?

    Quoted message said:


    Shawn

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire

    Now go ride, while you're still free to do so.

    Excuse me, but it is the Wilderness and not the Patriot Act that might prevent me from riding. The
    threat is not from the right, it is from the left.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.