Letters to the Editor • Police State
Ernest Hancock
Letters to the Editor • Police State
Legislators to appeal to Americans used the name “Patriot
Act” to market perhaps the most insidious bill in U.S. History. The Act was passed quickly after 9-11 and most Congressman admitted they did not read it. There were so
many well written, thought out and deceptive paragraphs in the ACT, one might wonder how the writers constructed the provisions so fast following 9-11. For
example, The “Patriot Act” broadly defined supporting "terrorist activity” as any
criminal activity that "participates" in "World Markets"
that terrorist may use or depend on for their support.
On the face that appears
logical until you consider anyone distributing illegal-drugs could be
charged with supporting a “ Market” that terrorists use—based on the
Act's premise (both criminals and terrorists) use the same world markets, networks and
organizations to "distribute" illegal-drugs; and have interests in
criminal activity." In that regard the Patriot Act is—logically flawed
when you consider an ordinary car thief could be charged with supporting
terrorism for selling a stolen car on a "criminal market" that a single terrorist uses—among 500 non-terrorists thieves. The Act's broad use of the work "Market" could as easily allow U.S. Government to claim that because “terrorists” use a specific vehicle to move explosives, that anyone who buys those vehicles
supports a "vehicle Market” terrorists depend on for their support.
Alarmingly U.S.
Prosecutors can use broad provisions of the “Patriot Act” to charge any commerce is part a world “Market” terrorists depend on for their support,
because all legal and illegal “markets” are linked at some point by
commerce.
U.S. Government tried
before to merge lawful and unlawful commerce to forfeit innocent owners’
property. You may read that “Government Concept” in United States v. 92 Buena
Vista Ave. (91-781), 507 U.S. 111 (1993) at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-781.ZS.html