> Voting would not be considered terrorism. > > Violence is the key here.
But what you have to understand here is what the government considers "violence". They stretch the term quite a bit, including acts of vandalism under its unbrella. According to the government, organizations such as the ELF and ALF are "violent", even though their ideology is "non-violence" and they have never injured anyone, or attempted to. Firebombing a verified-to-be-unoccupied building is considered a "violent act". The Romania dealership arsons were labeled as "violent". An organization such as the Justice Department (the terrorist organization, not the branch of government) was violent. They specifically targeted people and committed acts of violence. The Unabomber... another classic example. There are many other surprising definitions of violence, but I can't remember as I'm out of that loop anymore. And no, I don't condone the above organization's acts, I think they are despicable, but again, do believe in the Constitution and see this as a small step amongst many of a government who wishes to oppress its people. You hear Bush now often refer to drug traffickers as "drug terrorists" now. This is how it's going down -- ala the Patriot Act. Broadening definitions to broaden your power. > > But then, they've just cast our founding fathers as terrorists, haven't > they? _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
