definition says "force or violence". So then you have to define force
and violence. If a person key-scratched a politician's car, that
wouldn't be a violent act, but it could be considered a forcible act.
And this definition only requires that someone _threaten_ a forcible
act to be considered a terrorist.
> How would that make a peaceful protester a terrorist?
> The definition says FORCE and VIOLENCE.....neither of
> which would be used by a "peaceful" protestor.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: S. Isaac Dealey
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Russia vs Terrorism
> > The unlawful use or threatened use of force or
> > violence by
> > a person or an organized group against people or
> > property
> > with the intention of intimidating or coercing
> > societies
> > or governments, often for ideological or political
> > reasons.
> > There is some wiggle room in that definition, but i
> > think
> > its clear cut enough that you can make a legal
> > distinction
> > between terrorists and non terrorists.
> I think Kevin's right, this would make most peaceful
> demonstrators
> terrorists. I think this is possibly the worst
> definition such a thing
> could ever be given. Drop the "fluff" in this
> description and you have
> "the threat of unlawful force against people or
> property". So someone
> could become a terrorist by making a verbal comment
> about
> key-scratching a politician's car. Way more than "wiggle
> room".
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
