Anti-Biking Activists Can Be Charged as Terrorists?

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

(C) 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...

On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom penned:
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

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:
http://www.bounceswoosh.org/phorum/index.php?f=6

"Agent of Freedom" wrote in message
...
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..............

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

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
...
On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom
penned:


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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:45:03 GMT, Chris penned:


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:
http://www.bounceswoosh.org/phorum/index.php?f=6

Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom penned:

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

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"
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...624312,00.html

"Shawn Curry" wrote in message
nk.net...
Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On 11 Sep 2003 19:53:34 GMT, Agent of Freedom
penned:

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

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

You mean like the liberty to fly airliners into skyscrapers?

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:45:06 GMT, Shawn Curry penned:

P.S. Did you see the lead article in the Post? W thinks the unnatural
Act is "Weak"
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...624312,00.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:
http://www.bounceswoosh.org/phorum/index.php?f=6

"Critic" wrote in message
...

"Shawn Curry" wrote in message
nk.net...
snip
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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:45:06 GMT, Shawn Curry
wrote:

Monique Y. Herman wrote:

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.

P.S. Did you see the lead article in the Post? W thinks the unnatural
Act is "Weak"
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...624312,00.html