Professor that Critisized Bush Added to Terrorist Watch List

I havent seen anyone on this thread stop for one second to question the validity of what is reported. The raw story source leads to a blog with no source of its own other than what appears to be word or mouth or hear-say. I'm not saying the story isnt true, but shouldnt we look at the story, I find it unlikely that this would happen like this.

Since the question has been broached, I reassert my request for someone else who has suffered this same fate. If anyone had been added to a terror list and found out about it, they would have been all over the news, and we would have heard about it. The alternative media alone is desperate for a story like that because it proves the point they have been trying to make. That is why I have to question why we haven't seen this with Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, any crazy Christian fundamentalist, Alex Jones, and all of the people who are involved in 9/11 truth and are vocally against Iraq. It doesn't make sense why they would target a near-nobody but no one else.

Originally posted by Togetic
Since the question has been broached, I reassert my request for someone else who has suffered this same fate. If anyone had been added to a terror list and found out about it, they would have been all over the news, and we would have heard about it. The alternative media alone is desperate for a story like that because it proves the point they have been trying to make. That is why I have to question why we haven't seen this with Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, any crazy Christian fundamentalist, Alex Jones, and all of the people who are involved in 9/11 truth and are vocally against Iraq. It doesn't make sense why they would target a near-nobody but no one else.

That was what I was thinking. I mean, we know everyone has their own agenda, be it Bush, me, you, or anyone else. Its how you present information, preferably with objective intentions. I just dont see the point of them doing this, makes no sense just to hastle him for his beliefs as it benefits no one. It certainly wouldnt help the White House's image if this were true, thats why I question this story.

How do you get to the point where the world today is fixed?

Take lessons. Watch what the "other side" does.

The only way to beat the bad guys is to beat their ideology, to give humanity the critical mass of information dissemination that's needed to counteract all the evil that's being done in our, and their name.

Conspiracy theories do one good thing. They start people thinking. They're seductive, in a way that bland truth rarely can be. People are built to love the story, the intrigue, the drama, the good guys and the bad guys. Conspiracy theories have all of that in spades, and what they're good for is starting people to question their accepted version of reality, whether the theory is true or not.

Start questioning the people around you, start converting them into thinking beings, rather than drones.

Take viral marketing to a whole new level. Spread the word, spread the stories, but make them *truth* rather than fiction. Do everything you can with integrity, and honor, but don't back down.

Be stubborn in the face of opposition. Protest, but protest peacefully.

If one hundred people read this, and even just half of them act, and convince another person to question what is happening, that's one hundred people that are awake, and then able to convince others.

Nobody wants to live in a world where the honey bees are dead, so we can't eat, where the rulers of their country are total information junkies, who control your thoughts and lives. Where wars are fought with their blood, to make the rich richer, and the poor deader.

Ask every person you know what kind of a world they want to live in. Show them how every day we are one day further from that world existing. Be rational, show them as much as they can handle, but give them the truth, and the tools to find their own truths.

The best way to convince anyone of anything, is to find out what they want, and then show them that the message you have applies in their case.

And nobody wants to live in the world that's looming at the doorstep right now.

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by dariousg
Have you read the Patriot Act(s)? If you have then you understand that some of the articles in there state that people protesting in the name of the constitution can be considered as terrorists. That people who commit ANY criminal act at the federal or state level can be considered a terrorist.

That means if you J-Walk and the officer is having a bad day you can end up on the list my friend. Spit on the sidewalk. Drop a cigarette butt. Have a bottle of pain killers that you got from your sister (controlled substance that can be used against people in a 'terrorist' act).

Can you provide a citation for these points? I haven't heard this.

I was trying to access the actual article (802) from the Library of Congress but of course that particular link is down!

It is the definition of the domestic terrorist. I'll try again tomorrow and see if the links are still down.

Originally posted by malganis
but media like the movie 'Team America' still shapes bad western perceptions of the US government's enemies.)

Actually, that movie was intended as a parody of how ridiculous the whole terrorist thing is.

So what's new?

I actually have worked for an insurance company 2 years ago that used this list. When we received a new customer we were supposed to enter the name in the database and search for a hit. It was an internet database called "OFAC" cant remember what it stands for. But banks, insurance companies, airlines and others use it. And if your name was on the list you would have to show all sorts of proof of citizenship etc., like the man with the passport problem.
So even if you share a name with someone on the list, chances are your going to be questioned when applying for loans, insurance etc.

Hear is the link to OFAC. I will allow you to take a test drive. That is it will allow you to verify one name. So if you want to see what information they have on you, or any one famous or semi famous person that is one way to do it. I did not in my name. Perhaps some day I will.

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
And how long until the war on terror widens(WWIII?) and they start rounding up people on the terrorist watch list. The average american will chear them on! After all, it's called the "Terrorist Watch List" for a reason right? Those people on the list must be up to no good. Just like the professor here, how dare he use his right to free speach! And those peace demonstators, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

We are doomed.

Vas

Wouldn't surprise me if that happened, happened with WWI where anyone that openly opposed the war was arrested, and in court if they claimed the right to free speech the judge claimed that the idea of clear and present danger overrides that right.

However as my AP US teacher is quick to point out that you need support for the war in the first place (meaning if the Presidency wanted to enact these kind of laws they should have done it in the beginning when the approval was high) now it would be much harder to enact something like this because so many don't support the war.

Anyway, This bothers me, partly because of the right of free speech going down the drain, and partly because of how many anti-bush rants I've gone on. I wonder if they think this will have some adverse effect on the mans credibility? "oh no, you shouldn't listen to him when he says bush is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, he's on the terrorist watch list...not that we put him on their or anything."

Bad Administration, we don't do that!

Speech
This is the link to this mans speech that supposedly started all this for him. It was easy to Google. I'm surprised nobody has found or watched it yet? It is about two thirds of the way down the page.

He is not radical but a comparison is made between Bush and the Nazi's and Stallinists. It is a clear attack on the Bush Administration. However it is not threatening in any way I can see. He does mention that sometimes force is needed to insure freedom and compares to Hitler and Stalin. I kept getting interupted with calls (I'm at work) but heard most of it.

Whenever someone hates another person; it is important to read between the lines because even honest people will lie or exagerate where hate is involved.

The Patriot act text is all over the net. Just do a search on your own. I'm sure there are links all over the board. What it says has been greatly exagerated by many. It's like the Constitution in that much of what people say is not now or has it ever been in the Constitution.

They have been having passport clinics up here. No one is having any trouble at all getting them so that is not true. If your name happens to match a name on the watch list; then you have to provide proof you are not that person. Do a search on your own name and most of you will find people with the same name. The people at the airports have no way to check if it is someone with the same name. If you are a criminal or have other problems it will delay you for obvious reasons. What many of these people don't tell you is they have a previous criminal history. People with Domestic Violence charges often hide that fact when they tell stories. Domestic Violence calls result in more murdered Police Officers than any other offense and they are very slow to grant papers to anyone with that in their jacket. There are many other reasons passports are not granted. Drunk Driving charges for instance. No country wants drunk drivers killing their people. We have had more than a few employees who could not get into Canada because of that. Drunks kill innocent people and you can't blame them for that.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It's more likely that we were never really free, but in fact *they* have always maintained control over us under the guise of freedom.

We don't have freedom. Just based in the fact that we have jobs that we are obligated to. We are not allowed to do what we want whenever we want. It's the inherent truth associated with living with other people, in a society that is dependent on the cooperation of the individuals to perform specific and pre-determined tasks on a very consistent basis.

Think of it this way. The well known 'cliche'..."We are only three days away from starvation.'

Without the implicit support of many individuals performing a service to get something to someone else, we wouldn't be able to eat. Truck Drivers, Railroads, the Energy we consume to ensure that tomorrow these people can do their jobs. So that we have the capacity to take it for granted(Not a negative thought!).

In my opinion, freedom is an obsolete term. Rather, and I forget where I was first introduced to this phrase, it's, "Personal Automony". Within bounds, we are allowed to conduct ourselves in various forms. We can choose...to an extent. But that is good enough. We allow ourselves to conduct our behaviour with our significant others in a pre-determined fashion, i.e. there are things we will not do in deferance to the reaction(s) we anticipate. The same goes for society. It's really just a symbiotic relationship.....

With regards to the topic at hand....it is my opinion that the government is best described as a social organization meant to ameliorate the inevitable problems that have/will arise from many people living together (who can't ALL get what they want). As a result, their M.O. is to control uncertainty. To define everything for a general populace to ensure as much as possible the lack of conflict (though we all know conflict breeds change and potentially positive progression).

With that in mind, I am not surprised that he made it on a list. I have several opinions regarding the priority regarding his existence on said list, namely nil, but the communicating the insertion of his name into the awareness of his persona also communicates this........

........other people will have seen his name and implicitly associate the negative connotation of 'the list' with vocal dissentian. As a result, it is likely most people won't carry there own dissentian(if anything more than cursory) beyond the water cooler. Because who wants to starve in three days....

[edit on 10-4-2007 by MemoryShock]

That comment about opinions around the water cooler is very true.
I know a lot of people who would never state what they "really think" in any kind of public forum or public way. Which is a little peculiar when you think we supposedly live in a free society where freedom of expression is perceived as a basic right.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It's more likely that we were never really free, but in fact *they* have always maintained control over us under the guise of freedom.

Shoot me for being an optimist!

I understand the argument for that position...and find the prospect chilling... but, I'd prefer to think that if that was ever true, it was the game that got away from the gamers...and now someone is trying to take it back.

Hopefully, justice and freedom will prevail in our nation.

The internet is the biggest source of freedom the individual currently has. That's why the likes of China, Iran etc monitor and filter content. Beware of any attempt to suppress anything no matter how much you might agree with it lest it be used as a smokescreen. One advantage of allowing everything (no matter how obnoxious) is that you know nothing is suppressed. Use the law against the perpetrators of obnoxious material.

So sites like this will definitely be monitored which is a good thing because it means the powers that be are taking note and might have to adjust their behaviour.

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by dariousg
Have you read the Patriot Act(s)? If you have then you understand that some of the articles in there state that people protesting in the name of the constitution can be considered as terrorists. That people who commit ANY criminal act at the federal or state level can be considered a terrorist.

That means if you J-Walk and the officer is having a bad day you can end up on the list my friend. Spit on the sidewalk. Drop a cigarette butt. Have a bottle of pain killers that you got from your sister (controlled substance that can be used against people in a 'terrorist' act).

Can you provide a citation for these points? I haven't heard this.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(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.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

External Source


There you go. The site is back up. What does the above state? The important statements are (A) and (B)(i)(ii).

Any acts dangerous to human life that violate laws. Did you know that it is illegal still in Seattle to show up to work or go out in public with the flu? Technically, if you went out in public sick then you can 'potentially' endanger someone's life AND break the law. If you spit on the sidewalk and you are found to have a disease you can be labeled a bio terrorist. Think I'm full of it? Well, what about (B)(i): to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. This is a huge statement along with (B)(ii). What happens when people have peace rallies and marches? You get other people that harrass them. This can cause disruption and thus fights. Now EVERYONE in that march can be labeled a terrorist. You cannot challenge your government because you can be thought of as influencing their policy by intimidation or coercion (aka a peace march to stop the war). If you make statements about the government or anyone in it you can be nailed because it can be 'perceived' as intimidation because you are inciting the public.

Yeah, this Patriot Act sure saves us. I love how they named it too. You have to be a true Patriot in order to be a true American. So they continue to use the psychological warfare on their own people to remove their rights.

Oh yeah, what happens if you end up on the 'list'? Well, one good thing is that you don't have to worry about the legal system. Now you get to be tried by the government with ZERO RIGHTS and ZERO PROTECTION. You can be sentenced to life in a military prison without ANY DUE PROCESS. You can now be tortured without retribution.

God Bless America (for as long as she survives this attack on her Constitution!)

Interesting. Is there a distinction between domestic terrorism and international terrorism? And do you know the implications of "domestic terrorism," because the term seems to be defined separately from other terrorist activities? Specifically, what does the legal status of "domestic terrorist" result in under the act, and are there different standards applied to international and domestic terrorists?

Originally posted by Togetic
Interesting. Is there a distinction between domestic terrorism and international terrorism? And do you know the implications of "domestic terrorism," because the term seems to be defined separately from other terrorist activities? Specifically, what does the legal status of "domestic terrorist" result in under the act, and are there different standards applied to international and domestic terrorists?

Only that one happens locally and the other happens abroad. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of the degree of 'terror' that they inflict. That is why the act was written the way it was. It is so broad that it could literally cover anyone that breaks an 'U.S. Laws' or 'State' laws. No distinction.

If you are pulled over for speeding you can be put on this list because your actions are endangering people's lives.