Reply With Quote
I see...
Someone hacked into C-Span's archives, and edited their video. That's OK, I understand how you can believe that since you are a conspiracy nut.
That other jackass would've been worse imho.
I see...
Someone hacked into C-Span's archives, and edited their video. That's OK, I understand how you can believe that since you are a conspiracy nut.
Why You Can Be Branded a Terrorist for Fighting Animal Abuse
Five longtime activists are challenging a federal law that defines a wide spectrum of peaceful – and in some cases, otherwise lawful – animal rights activism as acts of terrorism. They say that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) violates their First Amendment right to free speech and has had a chilling effect on activists who are refraining from participating in what should be cons utionally protected activity out of fear of being labeled a terrorist.
They have good reason to worry. In 2009, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested and indicted four California protesters for terrorism, each of whom faced 10 years in prison. Their crimes? They “marched, chanted, and chalked” sidewalk slogans outside the homes of animal researchers and distributed fliers about their campaign.
In 2010, federal judge Ronald M. Whyte dismissed the indictments, agreeing with the defense that the charges were too vague because the “behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to cons utionally protected political protest.” Nevertheless, AETA continues to pose a threat to those participating in animal rights advocacy.
AETA, a 2006 upgrade to the weaker Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992, was a bipartisan effort cosponsored by Senators James Inhofe. R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to, in the words of Inhofe, “combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals.”
But the vague language in AETA categorizes as terrorism any activity carried out “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise,” or which causes “the loss of any real or personal property,” including “economic damage” such as a loss of profits. This may apply to peaceful acts committed against “a person or en y having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise” -- essentially criminalizing boycotts of people or ins utions invested in an animal enterprise.
AETA defines an “animal enterprise” as any ins ution “that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing.” So vague and broad is this definition that it could apply to businesses ranging from megacorporations like Wal-Mart, big agribusiness or even your local turkey-serving school cafeteria.
Stifling Dissent
According to Coalition to Abolish the AETA, corporate front-groups like the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition (AEPC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) lobbied heavily for the act's passage. It’s no accident that the chilling effect of AETA on the free speech of animal rights activists helps biomedical and agribusiness companies avoid exposure.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/15365...paign=alternet
=======
ALEC/UCA gonna Human-Americans at every opportunity, and the miliarized police goons, aka "Good Germans", gonna do their dirty work "just following orders".
roundup of relevant threads
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188564
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188008
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186853
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188147
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188120
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187345
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187341
The hackers only released part of the video idiot...gee..imagine that....wing-nuts cherry-picking videos.....who would have thought?
Are liberals and democrats hypocrites on this issue? When Bush did like this, people ed and moaned about it. However, when Barry does it, it's okay and no one has a problem with it.
spurstalkers are people too. just sayin.
are some liberals hypocrites? undoubtedly.
but there's plenty of evidence here not all of them are, if you're willing to read through.
No one has a problem with it? Do you read the internet?
Where exactly does the NDAA codify illegal detention of Americans again?
If you'd like daily emails from liberals who have a problem with the NDAA, just sign up for the ACLU's email list.
indefinite detention
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...ill/singleton/Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its le says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
Why find out the answer to your own rhetorical question when you can just take it for granted?
you there, Dan?
surely the White House has responded to Greenwald's gloss by now. are you taking dictation?
Nbadan's last activity, 1:19AM.
I look forward to your regurgitation of the party line later on.
Liberals always making excuses for their leader Barry. What about his support of the Patriot Act?
roundly denounced by notorious board libs. apparently you just like to pop off without reading anything.
You said edited.
Did he or did he not say that the administration asked for the additional protections to be removed?
The fact he is a flip-flopper and saying something else later just makes him look more like the ass he is.
This is bad in that it does away with the Posse Comitatus Act. It is the first step for Obama to make this a police state when our banks collapes and the paper gold is useless.
Yes and I'm sure the next Republican President will do everything in his power to reverse that step.
Only if Paul is elected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
