OK, I didn't agree with Bart Stupak holding up the show on health care, and I'm certainly not alone in that viewpoint. But I can agree with him when he replies to Rick Sanchez at CNN that "you could define this as domestic terrorism."
I was down in the cafeteria at lunch a few minutes ago. CNN was on the TV screens down there, and Rick Sanchez was talking to Rep. Stupak about the recent wave of violent rhetoric. The news about the white powder being sent to Rep. Weiner's office had just broken, and Sanchez asked Stupak: "Could you say this was domestic terrorism?"
Stupak replied, "Yeah, I guess you could call it domestic terrorism."
Let's look at the definition quickly. According to the ACLU, domestic terrorism was expanded by the PATRIOT act to include:
A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) 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.
This definition is broad enough that telephoned threats could be interpreted as domestic terrorism. The kicker is the phrase "dangerous to human life" -- well, in this case it is at least potentially dangerous to the life of the person receiving the threat. Slashing the lines on a propane tank? A single spark could have sent the house up in flames. Simulated (or, God forbid, real) anthrax? Is there any doubt?
The people who are doing this -- on any side, though I have yet to find anything linking a liberal or Democrat to any sort of action like this -- are trying to influence the policy of a government (the federal government) by intimidation or coercion. Assuming a link can be found to an action that is "dangerous to human life," we have a link to domestic terrorism.
And of course there's another side to this. Quoting from the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Is not what these people are doing levying war against the United States? Are they not trying to overthrow the legally established government thereof? Many of those who are doing so are misinformed, certainly, or are being goaded by others who are using them for their own selfish ends. It's hard to condemn someone who is agitating for what they think is their best interest, even if they're dead wrong. But for those who are leading the charge, as well as those who are taking violent action based on the example of those leaders . . . well, let's at least call it what it is, and maybe someone will notice.
We can't back down on this. We are not in the wrong. The only thing we on the left have done is respond to eight years of Republican misrule by electing a Democratic president and Congress, and a black President at that. Once again Republican leadership is projecting; they're accusing us of doing what they're doing in hope of muddying the waters. We need to call it out for what it is.
Thank you for reading my rant.