quote:

This from USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B


(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;

It would appear that voting might be a terrorist act since it seeks to affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;

If voting the bastards out is not a form of intimidation designed to retaliate against goverment conduct then what is?



You left a big part of the law out and tried to change the meaning of the law.

The law is in the link.
How did I try to change anything?

The actual language:
quote:

(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a violation of—
(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 175c (relating to variola virus), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 832 (relating to participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States) [2] 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) through (VI) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to national defense material, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places and facilities), 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), 2339D (relating to military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title;
Notice how you have to be doing part A by violating one of the other statutes listed in part B for it to be a terrorist act.

Notice the sections I bolded for you from the text you quoted. It is part of the "and" you thought I did not see.
So it would appear(note the use of the conditional)that contributing to a political party which wished to express it's displeasure with any given admministration has fulfilled both sides of the "and" arguement you have proposed.

So no voting is not a terrorist act by this law and you knew that when you made your post.

Now you are a mind reader?

This is why most people ignore you,

You are entitled to speak for yourself. If you can supply a list of "most people" whom you claim to speak for then do so.

you're dishonest

Show me were I have been dishonest in any of my posts.


and frequently make shit up to try and justify your claims.


Actually I spank your ass purple in public with the facts every time you post up your unsubstantiated opinions.

quote:

I'm breaking my usual rule for you and putting you on ignore since there is absolutely no hope of ever carrying on a rational discussion with you.

plonk

quote:

Carney On Secret Kill List: "Not Going To Engage In A Conversation About That"

Press: "Were there any other Americans or targets on that list?"

Carney: "Again I'm not going to, as others who are here when this happened, I'm just not going to engage in a conversation about that."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

Carney On Secret Kill List: "Not Going To Engage In A Conversation About That"

Press: "Were there any other Americans or targets on that list?"

Carney: "Again I'm not going to, as others who are here when this happened, I'm just not going to engage in a conversation about that."

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What the fuck was that piece of abject stupidity supposed to be about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yes, I understand it completely and ask again what does this abject stupidity have to do with anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FR
Amnesty International wants the federal government to arrest former U.S. president George W. Bush when he visits British Columbia next week.

The human-rights group said both Canadian and international law require Ottawa to detain Mr. Bush and investigate him for war crimes and torture.

“It is incumbent upon Canadian officials to investigate, arrest and prosecute former president Bush for torture when he arrives in Canada a week tomorrow,” said Alex Neve, Amnesty Canada's secretary-general.


Mr. Bush and former president Bill Clinton are scheduled to attend an economic conference in Surrey, B.C. next week.

Mr. Neve said many will argue that arresting Mr. Bush is unrealistic because the United States is a close and powerful ally or that the crisis after 9/11 required extraordinary measures.

“None of those arguments justify inaction under international law,” he said.

Mr. Neve conceded that arresting a former president would likely cause tension with the United States, but “taking a principled step merits that sort of strain.”

The rights advocate said Mr. Bush admitted in his memoirs that he authorized the use of torture against terror suspects.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/arrest-bush-when-he-visits-bc-amnesty-tells-ottawa/article2198617/

I wonder if just Bill will be visiting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its a news article.

quote:

you mean like this?