More ridiculous law on the books...

Posted by Eric Stein - February 1, 2007 CE @ 05:57:55 UTC
As everyone knows, as soon as you are legally defined as a terrorist, you have no rights. Any chance you had of a fair trial is gone. Your right to a lawyer is gone. Basically, your life is over. You'd think there would be extremely stringent rules on categorizing someone as a terrorist, considering how severe the results are.
(b) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
     (iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-
            As used in this Act, the term engage in terrorist
            activity means, in an individual capacity or as a
            member of an organization-
            (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under
                  circumstances indicating an intention to cause
                  death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
            (II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
            (III) to gather information on potential tar-
                    gets for terrorist activity;
            (IV) to solicit funds or other things of value
                   for-
                   (aa) a terrorist activity;
                   (bb) a terrorist organization described in
                          clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
                   (cc) a terrorist organization described in
                          clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can dem-
                          onstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
                          he did not know, and should not reasonably
                          have known, that the organization was a ter-
                          rorist organization;
            (V) to solicit any individual-
                  (aa) to engage in conduct otherwise
                         described in this subsection;
                  (bb) for membership in a terrorist
                         organization described in clause (vi)(I) or
                         (vi)(II); or
                  (cc) for membership in a terrorist
                         organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless
                         the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and con-
                         vincing evidence that he did not know, and
                         should not reasonably have known, that the
                         organization was a terrorist organization; or
            (VI) to commit an act that the actor knows,
                   or reasonably should know, affords material sup-
                   port, including a safe house, transportation,
                   communications, funds, transfer of funds or other
                   material financial benefit, false documentation or
                   identification, weapons (including chemical,
                   biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or
                   training-
                   (aa) for the commission of a terrorist
                          activity;
                   (bb) to any individual who the actor
                          knows, or reasonably should know, has com-
                          mitted or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
                   (cc) to a terrorist organization described
                          in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to
                          any member of such an organization; or
                   (dd) to a terrorist organization described
                          in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such
                          an organization, unless the actor can dem-
                          onstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
                          the actor did not know, and should not reason-
                          ably have known, that the organization was
                          a terrorist organization.

Circumstances indicating intention? Wait, aren't we defining terrorist activity here? Isn't this definition recursive?

Gathering information is a terrorist activity now? This ambiguously worded clause would make picking up a subway map and then going to home depot a terrorist activity.

Where's the presumption of innocence here? You have to prove that you didn't know? Shouldn't that be that the government has to prove you DID know?

Why doesn't anyone seem to care about the constitution anymore?

For reference, here is the full text of the Real ID act.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Post a Comment

Name
Email (not published, I won't spam you)
URL (optional)
Title
Comment
opposite of good?
Worth Saying
Valid XHTML, CSS, RSS | 4ms | Copyright 2004-2024 Eric Stein