On March 24, more than 200 people gathered at the state Capitol in Salem to oppose legislation that would create a crime of terrorism in Oregon, punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.
Of those 200, approximately 80 individuals signed up to testify against Senate Bill 742 in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. No one signed up to speak in favor of the bill, which was introduced by the Judiciary Chair, Sen. John Minnis, R-Fairview.
According to the bill, which was amended by Minnis after the Monday testimony, any person who “knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any violent act that the person knows, or reasonably should know, could result in the death or serious injury of a person and is intended by at least one participant to disrupt or destroy” assembly, commerce, transportation, educational or governmental institutions could be considered a terrorist. People accused of terrorism under the bill could be subject to 25 years to life in prison.
Senate Bill 742 follows in the footsteps of other state and national bills, like the USA PATRIOT Act, in its efforts to safeguard the nation against terrorism. However, several Oregon senators said the bill goes far beyond earlier definitions of terrorism.
Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Portland, said in a press release that “the bill defines the crime of terrorism so broadly that it can — without much stretch of the imagination — encompass school food fights, unruly labor strikes or even someone throwing a rock through a window in a protest.”
Members of the ACLU added that the bill would undermine or repeal Oregon’s “181” laws — laws that encourage effective law enforcement and protect constitutional rights.
After Sept. 11, 2001, Gov. John Kitzhaber asked the Oregon Attorney General’s office to perform a survey of Oregon law and identify areas requiring revision in order to ensure the safety of Oregonians.
During the review, Deputy State Attorney General Peter Shepherd said members of the Attorney General’s office asked if changing or revising a law would really make Oregonians safer. In order to change a law, the Attorney General’s office determined the change must deter terrorism or give Oregonians further tools to protect themselves from terror.
In applying the same criteria to Senate Bill 742, Shepherd said all the bill does is re-label existing crimes as terrorism.
“Will re-labeling crimes make us safer?” said Shepherd. “We don’t think it does. Creating a new crime of terrorism will not necessarily make us any safer.”
University Students for Peace member Sarah Charlesworth said she believes the passage of Senate Bill 742 would only serve to further restrict civil rights already under attack by anti-terrorism legislation.
“If you’re afraid to act because you fear imprisonment, then you are not free to act,” Charlesworth said. “Senate Bill 742 gives the government a more insidious form of power over citizens — less overt, but more powerful. Senate Bill 742 tries to instill a sense of fear so people won’t express their opposition or their support for government actions.”
Holly Cooper, a legislative assistant to Sen. Minnis, said Minnis was not trying to do away with freedom of speech.
“He doesn’t want to do away with the First Amendment,” Cooper said. “But protesters are out in the street doing just what they say they are against. They are behaving violently, throwing things at cops and causing $200,000 in damage a day.”
Minnis has prepared several amendments to Senate Bill 742, but has yet to schedule another public hearing.
For the full text of Senate Bill 742, visit www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html.