Do the GOP actions fit the PATRIOT Act definition of "domestic terrorism"?

[G_j]

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to 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; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

-----
http://publicintelligence.net/the-continually-expanding-definition-of-terrorism/

<snip>

One of the defining features of terrorist acts has always been a component of violence. Even under the expanded definition of terrorism created by the USA PATRIOT Act, there must be an act that is “dangerous to human life” indicating some form of physical harm to others could arise from the action. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, extended the definition of terrorism further by including any act that is “damaging to critical infrastructure or key resources.” Though this definition differs from the legal definition of international and domestic terrorism under 18 USC § 2331, the modified definition is currently used by DHS as the basis for their own activities and intelligence products that are disseminated to federal, state and local law enforcement. The modified definition of terrorism is presented in a revised Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon published last year by DHS:

Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Notice that the statement “potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources” is part of a disjunction, indicating that the act need not be “dangerous to human life” for it to be considered an act of terrorism. This means that, according to DHS, a non-violent actor could be capable of committing an act of terrorism simply by engaging in “potentially destructive” behavior towards some part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Due to the fact that large sections of domestic infrastructure, including everything from banks to bridges to milk processing plants, are now considered critical infrastructure, a wide range of “potentially destructive” actions could be investigated by DHS or any one of the dozens of fusion centers around the country as potential acts of terrorism. The DHS Domestic Terrorism Lexicon states that the definitions presented in the document are designed to “assist federal, state, and local government officials with the mission to detect, identify, and understand threats of terrorism against the United States by facilitating a common understanding of the terms and definitions that describe terrorist threats to the United States.”
<snip>

[2naSalit]

1. For some of us

yes.

[FarPoint]

2. It very well could...

I believe their goal is to evoke a US default and make the stock market plummet into a major recession....blame the failure on the Obama Administration.

Then, as always, they, GOP-Teabaggers, they claim innocence and profess how they tried to negotiate with the stubborn Democrats who refused to do so under their terms. Next thing ya know, 2016 looks great for the GOP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Abstractions don't count.

Delaying the employer mandate a year could cost people their insurance eligibility. That could keep people from getting adequate coverage. That could keep people from seeking vital medical care. That could be life threatening. OMG! Obama's a terrorist!

[petronius]

4. I think 5(A) directly above your bolded section is the relevant bit

Unless the GOP actions "are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State," then I think the answer to your question is "no"...

[gopiscrap]

5. I would think so!

[MineralMan]

6. Legally? Not a chance.

Nobody will attempt to make it so, either.

No member of Congress can be coerced to vote for or against something. It is the privilege of members of Congress to vote as they see fit, or to withhold their vote.

Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to apply this law against a member of Congress with regard to actions taken in Congress regarding a bill.

The President of the United States is in his right mind. Therefore, nothing of the sort will occur.

These issues will be resolved in the usual way. Not without much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but they will be resolved. Not as soon as we would hope, but they will be resolved.

Next year, we will have another opportunity to make Congress what we want it to be.

GOTV 2014!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. *

Nobody in their right mind would ever attempt to apply this law against a member of Congress with regard to actions taken in Congress regarding a bill.

The President of the United States is in his right mind. Therefore, nothing of the sort will occur.

^ There it is!

[G_j]

10. Oh, it would never happen!

no possible way..

Nevertheless, it sounds like it could technically apply to this situation.

[Demo_Chris]

8. Patriot only applies to us serfs, and all peasants are terrorist under that law. nt

[santamargarita]

9. Terrorist that hate our country and hold it hostage...

HELL YES!!!