Anti-Biking Activists Can Be Charged as Terrorists?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:36:25 -0600, "MattB"
wrote:

"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


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

"Marty" wrote in message ...
"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.

And not a cheap one either, Gunny.

JD

Critic wrote:
"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?


Do your homework. That was already very illegal.

"Shawn Curry" wrote in message
k.net...
Critic wrote:
"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?


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?

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:42:16 GMT, Critic penned:

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

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:42:16 GMT, Critic wrote:

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)

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:42:16 GMT, Critic
penned:

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.


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

Case closed.

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


"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:42:16 GMT, Critic
penned:

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.


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

ando (Agent of Freddom) wrote:

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

From: (Corvus Corvax)

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...