Congressman: Town hall protesters committing 'political terrorism'

August 12, 2009

@ 2:22 pm by Michael O'Brien
Protesters who have interrupted town hall meetings are guilty of committing "political terrorism," one Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday.

Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a centrist Democrat, said that he can tolerate political differences, those who have shouted down congressmen and senators at town hall meetings across the country in recent weeks have taken things to a different level.

"I don't mind people disagreeing with you, but just to blow up a meeting is an act of political terrorism," Hill told the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"They have only one purpose in mind and that's to blow up the meetings that are being held and that serves no one, ladies and gentlemen," he said of the protesters, according to WISH-TV. That outlet is also reporting that Republicans have demanded an apology from Hill over the terrorism words.

<snip>

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/08/12/congressman-town-hall-protesters-committing-political-terrorism/

But in some warped world, dissent means getting in someone's face and shouting them down.

I'd love for some assbag to get into my face. I might go to one of the townhalls here to see what happens.

They really do annoy me.

And, of course the Reps will demand an apology. And, of course, liberals will be put in a position to defend his idiocy. And, true to form, he will apologize and liberals will be thrown under the bus...


YES AGAIN.

and the scope of what defines 'terrorism' has become far too broad. In essence, 'terrorism' has become "anything the government doesn't like"

Which is a very dangerous slippery slope.

Or does someone have to blow something up to be a terrorist?

You know, the way liberals are "supposed" to act. We wouldn't want to offend anyone!

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


Those who are storming the Town Halls and shouting down any discussion, carrying signs that invite and incite violence are not there to "discuss" ANYTHING. They are there to intimidate and manipulate the public. They are there to IMPEDE the democratic process.

:shrug:

part to punish political opponents, now has them in the cross-hairs. How sweet it is. :P

Edit to remove comma

accusations against people who use or threaten force, then that is his right.

To use terrorism against people who are acting boorish by shouting and disrupting is hyperbole.

Impeding the democratic process by shouting is not terrorism.

some of them are rude, boorish, and some even arguably criminal (disorderly conduct in some cases).

but "political terrorism". it is not political terrorism to loudly protest crap. nor is what move on.org does political terrorism, or any other advocacy group that makes loud or obnoxious statements to make their political point.

for fuck's sake, one of the most annoying things about the buschco era was this idea of defining ANYTHING as terrorism.

nice to see there are those on the left that can be equally hyperbolic and stupid.

fwiw, there are many here who claim that ELF, that firebombs buildings and such are not terrorists, because they target property, not people.

not that i agree with this, but IF that is true, it's pretty hard to argue that ELF aren't terrorists, but some idiots yelling at a town hall meeting is.

seriously.

I see you and I seem to have very expansive notions of civil rights by noticing your posts on other threads as well. Disappointing to be in the minority here on DU in this position.

i have also been very dissapointed at the lack of respect of civil rights - specifically 1st and 2nd amendent rights here, but so be it. i call em as i see em.

i can guarantee you some of the same people that protested ELF being classified as terrorist would be right on board with this ridiculous example of "defining deviancy up" by calling a loudmouth protestor a "terrorist".

for fucks sake, ann coulter has been shouted down many times, and even had pies thrown at her during her exercise of her 1st amendment rights. the latter is clearly assault, but it's not terrorism. the former is boorish but not criminal (unless the protestor is asked ot leave the presentation and doesn't, then it becomes trespass). i doubt anybody here would call the person who threw a pie at ann coulter, iow somebody using physical violence (with a silly object), a TERRORIST. and it would be silly to do so.

but just because you disagree with somebody's cause does not make their loud, obnoxious protest a TERRORIST act.

it's a parody of the bush'ism where the extreme is "if you don't agree with me, your a terrorist". how sad (but typical) to see similar rhetoric.

it's also very informative (imo) to study US speech law vs. european (france, the UK, germany come to mind) and canada. we are SO much more "free" in regards to speech here, but it saddens me that so many want to go "that way" and erode our freedoms to become like them.

there are many things i admire about (for example) france. i certainly like their healthcare system. but i want free speech to remain free.

rant mode off...

Although it is difficult to have the courage out your convictions when it looks likes these protesters are having an effect and not the way many here think. Hardball reported on polls showing independents were moving away from the Presidents health care plan by a 2-1 margin. We are losing this debate. A "health care" bill WILL get through in my opinion but the President will have to strip out the already watered down public option but will leave in the mandates meaning BIG BUCKS for the health insurance industry that will "promise" to be good in the future. He needs it politically at this point. And he STILL won't get many (any) R votes. Very sad.

and that's what is needed.

i have a fair amount of friends who are against obama's plan. they are pretty fricken motivated on this. i am talking people who are generally not political at all.

I'm really interested to see what happens. I have incredible insurance coverage. I am for universal healthcare, not because it benefits me. It won't. It's a "principle thang".

They are.

Nominated.

When political discussions are not allowed to go forward because some clowns want to drown out the other voice that is a Bully Tactic at best and from what I see about the guns etc. and the threats on their posters and the gun talk -- Yes they are terrorist in the pure sense of the word.

be portrayed as "concerned citizens", and you don't see the constant yelling and screaming that goes on when a congressman actually is trying to address the inflammatory statement (which was never a question), then the "terrorists" get the sympathy ...

kinda like the investigation into the Swiss bank accounts ... it may bag hundreds and thousands of cheats who sit there and whine about the high taxes they say they face but have dodged, but if you get just one image of a sick child in a wheelchair as what people will see, the "liberal media" will be all over it ...

that don't understand the bill with the trained cadre just trying to shut down the town halls completely.
Death threats against Congress and Union members? Who do they have to threaten to kill to qualify as terrorists?

Only the most craven triangulator would demand this being called terrorism to stop.

Or is this not a freedom of speech issue? It isn't speech. It's interruption and disruption.

I see little reason why this should be allowed to continue. Infantile behavior is literally killing our attempts to progress our society. You take a drunk out of the audience when they become disruptive. How is this any different, aside from being a public venue?

OK, they are disturbing the peace. So this could be construed as a violation of the First Amendment. Is that incorrect thinking?

Edit- I'm pretty sure this is incorrect logic. Freedom of speech is a general context, not a local law. I'm not saying it properly. I'm no lawyer. I'm hardly a ditch digger.

For instance, an individual can break into your home find evidence of a crime and turn it in to the cops and the courts won't have an issue with illegal search and seizure as long as the individual wasn't acting as an agent of the government. But hey I'm just a fireman there are plenty of lawyers around.

nothing that he said requires apology.

Thanks for posting this Cali!

:kick:

Because much/most of it is being organized by interested parties to disrupt/prevent democratic proceedings. This is not about a random loudmouth or two.

The Oxford English Dictionary definees "terrorism" as:



It's not about violence yet but the suggestions of violence come through loud and clear every day. Why use violence if you can achieve the same goal with only the suggestion of violence?

Intimidation? Absolutely.