"is not yelling and screaming a way to coerce"

I'm not sure that you could consider the counter workers at an airport a "civilian population". Mountains out of molehills.

and you don't think prosecutors wont

pick and choose

if you go flying by someone at 100 miles an hour

and they go in the ditch cause you scare them

did you not coerce them to possibly

receive some bodily harm

it is the interpretation that is scary

kinda like the interpretation separation of church and state

the term

separation of church and state

is not in the constitution

but you here it all the time

it is actually -----

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

------------------**************************************

unless you scream and yell at a govt meeting to change something

just a thought

so you are saying the workers are

govt military workers

or

illegal aliens

which is it

cause if they are neither

then they are part of the civilian population

ya know if it was not for the molehill of the stamp act

or the mole hill of the tax on tea

we in the united states may still be british

what is it ya say about someone that likes to take advantage of ya

give them an inch they will take a mile

think about it

I believe that the law applied to a civilian population in toto, not a small part of a civilian population. I guess it really comes down to the definition of what a civilian population is.

so ya can blow up a store

cause it is not all of the population

or can you not blow up the store because part of the population is there

what can you do that will affect the population in its entirety

blowing up the world trade center did not even do that

the reaction to the world trade center comes close

but not the wtc in and of its self

I think it has long been a matter for airport security to detain anyone who runs insanely through the concourse yelling and screaming, since way before 911.

I think the woman probably didn't need to wear handcuffs while locked in a room though. And I don't think they should have abandoned here if she showed signs of insanity, or even mental instability, which she clearly did. So I would consider the airport people negligent, for sure.

now that were back on topic

i could agree with that philosopher

but as always need all the facts to be sure

which we never get

"so ya can blow up a store

cause it is not all of the population "

There are other laws, besides the Patriot Act. I'm sure that blowing a store up was a crime before the Patriot Act was passed and it's still against the law. The patriot act applies to blowing up stores in an attempt to terrorize the people or influence government policy. If the purpose of blowing up the store was to get rid of the competition or "just because", it's still against the law, but it's not covered by the patriot act. I don't see any boogy man, you are going to have to find something else, because this peice of legislation is about as scary as a mouse.

have you watched willard

Willard was a rat. Rats actually are very rarely aggresive to humans and make great pets. They are beter pets and guina pigs, hamsters and gerbils, it's just because they have a bad rep that more people don't own them. But once again, you have derailed the conversation.

and again it matters not how rarely something happens

if it happens it happens

spider you need to check out the way it is written

they are separate ideas

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

new idea

`(B) appear to be intended--

if they were intend to be codependent

(B) would be list as 1 under (A)

or would be A and A would be listed under B (which would then
be A)

as it is written they are not codepndant

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

activities that

(A) idea one

(B) idea 2

(A) is one definition

and

(B) is another definition

adj4u,

This will be my last post on the subject, unless some new information comes to light.

In order for an act to be considered a terrorist act, it would have to meet all threee of the criteria, not just one. If just one criteria made a crime a terrorist act, then Criteria would mean that any criminal activity was a terrorist act (I realize that you actually believe that is what the law says, but it doesn't) and Criteria "C" would mean that just living in America was a terrorist act. As I said before, "In order for an action to be considered a terrorist act, it MUST fit Section 802 subsection a, point 5 criteria a, b and c. "

Main Entry:
trans·por·ta·tion Listen to the pronunciation of transportation
Pronunciation:
\ˌtran(t)s-pər-ˈtā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1540

1: an act, process, or instance of transporting or being transported

2: banishment to a penal colony

3
a: means of conveyance or travel from one place to another
b: public conveyance of passengers or goods especially as a commercial enterprise

so it is not really transportation unless all definitions are meet

ok that is clear

that was from

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transportation

i am pretty sure they know how an outline works

adj4u,

The difference is that you are offering a definition and the patriot act has guidelines for a trier of fact to determine if a terrorist act occured.

http://censorware.net/essays/obscene_jt.html
==============================================================
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
==============================================================

Above are the guidelines that are applied to determine if a book, movie or picture is pornography. Using your understanding of how a legal guideline works, anything that "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (like Comic books, most movies and most other books, movies and pictures) are pornography. Heck, a description of a rape, given in a news paper or a court of law would apply to guideline b. It's when all three guidelines are put together that you get the real criteria for what the law considered pornography. It's the same way with the criteria for determining if an action is terroristic in nature.

SEC. 808. DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF TERRORISM.

what part of definition are you speaking of

this whole discussion is on the definition

spider the point is

if an argument can be made by me

then some high and mighty u s attorney

would be better at it

and know were the commas and the periods go and such

to use it in a manner perhaps not as it is meant

therefore it is wrong

to make it a law