Basejumper.com - archive

Hey y'all! check out this part of the new patriot act (fascist over control act, + pork) that passed the house, but some senatiors are threatening to fillibuster. among many other disturbing things the pork in the act includes to specifically:

• Create a new federal crime of photographing or videotaping bridges, garages, tracks, warehouses, or other facilities used by railroads, boats, or airplanes--if such recordings were made with the intent of doing harm. Anyone attacking anyone else near such facilities with a weapon--the list includes "a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1⁄2 inches in length and a box cutter"--can be punished with stiff prison terms and even the death penalty.

If somehow a parachute, boots, or a hook knife were to be classified as a weapon, and if authorities wanted for some strange reason to pursue their potential authoritive options . . . this could be a real concern?

thoughts???

here is the web address of the article and in it you can download a pdf of the entire act if you have heaps of time on your hands.

http://news.com.com/Must+we+renew+the+Patriot+Act/2010-1028_3-5989887.html

I apologize, but I rarely post, maybe someone could make a clicky and repet the very simple path to do this yourself??

thanks,

wdc

http://news.com.com/...-1028_3-5989887.html

clicky

Generally, I hate the Patriot Act, but I don't think there is much to be alarmed about with this language. For the video/photo portion to constitute an offense, it would have to be done "with the intent of doing harm." Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think most people video their jumps with such intent.

With respect to the weapons portion, in order to commit an offense, you would have to attack someone near such a facility with a weapon. So as long as you don't attack anyone with your parachute, boots or hook knife (or other weapon) near such a facility, you should be in the clear (at least with respect to this provision). If you do, you have already committed an offense (aggravated assualt), so you would be in trouble anyway. This would just add the potential of a federal rap (and probably a more harsh penalty).

  These things are open for interpretation.

where is lawrocket when we need him??? Please comment on this lawrocket. Thx.

What's to stop them from just saying you were doing harm in some way and throwing you in jail without access to any lawyers?

This is heading towards the Speakers Corner huh?

Is the Patriot Act even enforceable on a local level??

pope

>>Just like what happened to Santa. Sneaking into people houses at night and placing suspicious looking packages everywhere. None of us are safe!

While I'm not Lawrocket, I did sleep at a Holiday Inn during law school.

The problem with the Patriot Act's new provisions will be determining Congress' intent with the phrase "intent to do harm." Does it mean intent to damage the object being photographed? Does it mean intent to commit an illegal act on the object being photographed? This law will be used in whatever way a skilled prosecutor can convince a judge. Just remember that the RICO statute was originally passed to combat the Mafia; it ended up being applied to business executives (some justifiably so, and so not) because the plain language of the law was able to be read in an expansive manner, even if it was far outside the original intent of Congress.

Best not to let anybody know what you're doing.

Fear controls the masses.

Patriot act = propaganda of fear, no doubt.

Cops can bust you any time for anything. But ultimately, the prosecutor still has to PROVE you had the intent to do harm. As for throwing you in jail without access to lawyers, an offense under the Patriot Act does not render you an "enemy combatant" and then allow the government to wisk you away to a dark hole Guantanamo. You are still entitled to due process, which includes representation by counsel.

RICO has definitely been applied in contexts that were not contemplated by Congress when they passed it, but application of RICO beyond the mafia does not require a strained interpretation of the express terms of the statute. In fact it is a rather easy fit. But in this case to read "harm" as encompassing the commission of ANY illegal act is a BIG stretch, as there are MANY illegal acts that do not result in any kind of harm at all. BASE jumps, to the extent they involve the commission of a crime (i.e., trespassing, illegal aerial delivery, etc.) generally do not result in harm. And even when they do (crashing through a window of a building), there was no INTENT to do such harm. Furthermore, if Congress' intent WERE brought into the mix, I would think that would actually cut in favor of a jumper, as I am pretty sure Congress' focus was on people scoping objects with a view to some kind of attack as opposed to merely jumping off. Finally, I just can't see many federal prosecutors investing any of their time trying to stretch this provision to cover BASE jumping. Aside from the NPS, I don't think many people in this country really regard BASE as a public menace (if they are aware of it at all), so that kind of case would not be the kind of case that would get them anywhere within the DOJ, and thus, would not be the kind of case worth pursuing.

Going to the text of the conference report, http://news.com.com/...onference_Report.pdf, the legislation is both more expansive and more restrictive than the news.com article implies. (See pages 34-37 of the pdf file.)

In addition to photographing or videotaping, if an individual "knowingly and without lawful permission -- ... surveils, diagrams, or otherwise collects information with the intention to plan or assist in planning" ... "terrorist attacks or other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems."

Violent acts against transportation infrastructure are defined to include, but not limited to, anyone who knowingly "sets fire to, undermines, makes unworkable, ... any -- tunnel, bridge, viaduct, trestle, track ... or any other structure, property, or appurtenance used in the operation of, or support of the operation of ..." transportation infrastructure.

Namaste,
marg

Note: Opinions are mine alone.

we must all realize that "illegal aerial delivery of a person without a permit" for use against base jumpers was extremely contrived. in fact, do you realize how nutty these federal guys can get? when John Vincent jumped the St. Louis Arch, he got away but they arrested his friend who happened to be video taping it... they threatened to put the guy away for "commercial photography without a permit on federal property," with a hefty federal prison sentence. ;( John turned himself in to alleviate this persecution of an essentially innocent person.

   At 3:00 am intent is determined by law enforcement .E

 

 

What--did the guy owe him money?