Portland Riots May Not Be ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Because Courthouse Was Closed

[martin]

rn down

requires an attempt to disrupt democratic processes and such "processes"

So dumb fuck if u bomb or burn down an unoccupied building and it cant open for a month, thats not disrupting democratic processes and such "processes

Didn't say it isn't, neither did Garland. I realize this is hard for you to sort out but an attack on a building that did not disrupt "processes" thereafter might not meet the
definition in the statute. That was Garland's point. He wasn't telling the committee anything other than his understanding of the limitation of a specific federal statue.

 

[volsrock]

Didn't say it isn't, neither did Garland. I realize this is hard for you to sort out but an attack on a building that did not disrupt "processes" thereafter might not meet the
definition in the statute. That was Garland's point. He wasn't telling the committee anything other than his understanding of the limitation of a specific federal statue.

Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,


So fire bombing a police station is not an act dangerous to human life

So fire bombing an unoccupied federal or state building is not ..(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

Got it

 

[martin]

Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,


So fire bombing a police station is not an act dangerous to human life

So fire bombing an unoccupied federal or state building is not ..(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

Got it

Don't think you do "Got it".

Did Garland say anything about "fire bombing"?

The Breitbart article suggests that Garland was dismissing the illegality of an "attack" on a federal building when he was merely pointing out a specific limitation in the domestic terrorism statute.

 

[volsrock]

Don't think you do "Got it".

Did Garland say anything about "fire bombing"?

The Breitbart article suggests that Garland was dismissing the illegality of an "attack" on a federal building when he was merely pointing out a specific limitation in the domestic terrorism statute.

So an attack on a courthouse, while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism. An attack simply on a government property at night, or any other kind of circumstances, is a clear crime and a serious one, and should be punished

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...estic-terrorism-not-portland-courthouse-riot/

He said an ATTACK!!!!! on a government property at night is a crime...didn't say it was terrorism!

Is fire bombing an attack?

Is driving a truck into a federal building at night an attack?