Oregon's proposed new class of terrorists

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 10:04  AM, Justin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tim May (2003-05-21 05:44Z) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I downloaded the PDF version of the bill, read it, and was both amused
>> and aghast.
>>
>> Amused, because it is precisely the act we have sought to help make
>> things immeasurably worse and thus bring on the destruction of America
>> the Damned.
>>
>> Aghast because of the boldness of the suspension of the Constitution 
>> in
>> Oregon.
>
> What suspension of the Constitution are you talking about?
>
> The only terrorism-related provision in the bill criminalizes willful
> [planning of] disruption of free assembly, commerce, transportation,
> education, and government.  There's the usual requirement of 2 
> witnesses
> or open court confession.
>
> I agree that the expansion of terrorism laws to cover activity not
> linked to the federal notion of "terrorism" is dangerous - those acts
> are already illegal - but I don't see how the bill ignores the
> Constitution.  It simply adds a duplicate law with a harsher 
> punishment.


The Oregon law makes a very broad class of forms of civil 
disobedience--including unscheduled gatherings which disrupt traffic, 
sit-ins in colleges, marches, etc.--the same as blowing up buildings or 
crashing airliners, and carries a mandatory, no parole, minimum of 25 
years incarceration. After 25 years, the possibility of being a slave 
laborer (in effect) picking up trash and cutting brush for the state of 
Oregon.

Had this law been in effect in America's past, very broad classes of 
public protest could have resulted (and _would_ have resulted, had the 
law been enforced uniformly) in life sentences (with possible parole as 
a brush cutter) for hundreds of thousands of those engaged in public 
acts of protest.

It may not be desirable that a bridge, for example,  gets shut down by 
marchers who pour into the streets, but it sometimes happens. The 
proper punishment is a fine for disorderly conduct, or a couple of 
nights in the local jail. Not placing them on the same footing as 
someone who crashes a plane into a building or releases Sarin in a 
subway.

This proposed law gives the authorities the power to pick and choose 
whom they wish to "terrorize" with a mandatory life sentence with a 
minimum of 25 years of incarceration followed by the rest of their 
working life (as I read the language) as a forest laborer.

When in 1970 I was at a Mobilization rally against the war, and when 
our numbers forced various shut downs of streets (not included in the 
"rally permit"), anyone who "knowingly participated in" this rally when 
"at least one of the participants" blocked a highway or street, I and 
350,000 other participants would have faced a mandatory life 
sentence....had the law been applied uniformly as written.

(The language in the PDF version, not included here because of the 
PDF/TIFF/JPEG-only options, does not say the law applies only to the 
ringleaders or main planners. It specifically includes "participation 
in" any event at which the described blockages or interruptions of 
transportation, education, etc. occur.)

So, when in 1972 several thousand students at my campus briefly closed 
Highway 101 in Santa Barbara, under this law they could/would all face 
mandatory life sentences, under this kind of law.

Or when students occupied classrooms at Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, 
and a hundred other campuses, mandatory life sentences. Under this kind 
of law.

When thousands of bicyclists take to the streets of San Francisco and 
"shut down Van Ness Avenue" as part of their Critical Mass (or Mess) 
activities, mandatory life sentences. As above, under this kind of law.

When abortion protestors exercise their freedom of assembly and the 
result is that traffic congestion occurs and some roads are impassable, 
mandatory life sentences for all participants, as above.

The purpose of this proposed law is clearly to intimidate nearly any 
form of public gathering which has any chance of "getting out of 
control."

Perhaps they were attempting to make Portland a candidate for 
international trade meetings, such as the ones where anti-free trade 
protestors caused blockages of roads.

Whatever. The effect is to terrorize people into avoiding any form of 
protest which _might_ get out of control, or where at least one 
protester may go too far.

The purpose is to squelch speech. This is the point of saying the 
terrorism charges are applicable to all participants, not just the 
actual and most blatant offenders.

And I expect the Supreme Court will agree with me that this terrorism 
law is grossly unconstitutional.

(The Boston Tea Party presumably disrupted traffic in and around the 
port where it happened. King George would have loved a law which gave 
him the power to imprison for life all of the participants on 
"terrorism" charges. With some of them let out after 25 years to work 
his tobacco farms.)

Those who pass laws like this ought to be taken out and hung. Even if 
the hanging party disrupts traffic. Heh.


--Tim May