The ACLU goes into the new, broad definition of terrorism in the newly-passed USA PATRIOT Act (somebody spent way too much time fiddling up that acronym). Even though the 9-11 terror violated all three existing federal definitions of terrorism, the new Act creates a new definition:
Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and 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.
… This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization protesters, have engaged in activities that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, once the government decides that conduct is “domestic terrorism,” law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new crime of “harboring” a terrorist (Section 803) or for “providing material support” to “terrorists.”
The ACLU does not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties. However, such crimes often are not “terrorism.” The legislative response to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists.
Far-fetched? Recall how RICO has expanded in its use from busting the Mob to busting any sort of “organized” criminal activity.
There are certainly plenty of folks who consider Operation Rescue to be “terrorists.” And others who consider PETA to be terrorists, or the anti-WTO types, or the Environmental Liberation Front. And then we have “terrorist” unions. And “terrorist” union-busters. And “terrorist” gay-bashers. And “terrorist” pro-choicers. And …
How many terrorists do you want to have? Now you can have all you want. Figure out how they are threatening human life, figure out how they are coercive, and any group of people can be labeled as terrorists. And then the Feds can monitor them, detain them, investigate them, all in secret, and both them and their “supporters.” Donated to one of the groups above? Or to a group that supports one of the groups above? You, too, may get a knock on the door, or discover folks going over your records.
This is bad law-writing, folks. I don’t think it’s a deep, dark conspiracy (ever being the optimist). I just think it’s bad law-writing. And I hope it doesn’t take too many abuses of it before it’s changed.
(Via Bornfamous)