House Passes "Thought Crime" Prevention Bill

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by America Jones

 

If Congress is the one passing these Bills, aren't they the ones you really have an issue with. Bush is in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. How can you cite what Congress is doing as something you can impeach Bush over?

I don't see your point. Did you read my whole post? I didn't say anything that implies Bush should be impeached over this legistlation. The first sentence of my post aside, the bulk of my post is quite directly related to criticism of the specific language of the legislation, and what I perceive to be the assumptions and contradictions that underlie the drafting of the text.

Impeachment must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. If this legislation represents the condition of the House of Representatives, I see little hope for impeachment (much less charges of treason). One might be inclined to argue that removing Bush would largely be a symbolic act, but I would argue that acknowledging in such a manner that our republic has a problem would be the first step towards addressing that problem. I think my statement was pertinent. Moreover, if you think this legislation was drafted without the knowledge of the White House, I would consider such a position to be somewhat untenable.

Given that I don't believe the House of Representatives is functioning in a useful capacity, I don't believe the next step is violence. I take issue with the federal government covering their asses like this, but citizens still have a way to address our county's problem directly if our elected representatives are unwilling to do so. We still have the vote.

I'll be writing in "America Jones" on my ballot in 2008. If enough people write in the name of the pretend candidate of their choice, the government and the media will have a hard time spinning the election results as anything other than a "no confidence" vote in the federal government. Moreover, if enough citizens vote for pretend candidates and demand to see their vote in print after the elections, we will have a way to independently verify the statistical accuracy of our voting system.

Maybe it's naive of me to think that such a simple course of action could have any effect. I understand that the toxic environment of American politics is such that many people will vote Democrat simply because they're afraid of another Republican president, and that many people will vote Republican just in case enough people are willing to say "enough!"

But I think there are worse things than another Republican president. I don't buy in to the logic of a politics of simple opposition. If Democrats define themselves as whatever Republicans aren't, whenever Republicans change their own definition, the definition of Democrat must change too.

The two-party system functions like a Soviet one-party system and I refuse to legitimize it with my vote.

I have to ask, did anyone actually read the bill?

If you are for violence as a means for political change, I guess you would feel threatened against this. Personally, I am against people who bomb abortion clinics as a means to convince people it is wrong.

Now, if you are for this violence, this bill did not change much of anything before you, because you would probably still have gone to jail for the rest of your life before it.

The ONLY thing this bill threatens is our internet. That is it.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

that is probably the only alarming part of this act. It introduces the real possibility they may aim, in the future, to regulate the internet as a result of cracking down on terrorism.

As for civil liberties threat?

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Not so worried, when it comes to this bill, at least.

This applies to people looking to force their political beliefs on other people and the government through violent means. Aside from the danger it posses to the internet, this act, although pointless and a waste of taxpayer money, is not going to completely violate our civil liberties and freedoms.

This act is not what most of you are making it out to be, unless you are for political coercion of other people via violent means. Then, by all means, panic, cause they are targeting you.

What on earth has happened to America and her citizens?Thought crimes in a "democratic" society?
I'm beside myself as to how such a bill could be brought up.Excuse my terminology since I'm not American and feel free to correct me.
From what I understand this hasn't passed a vote but the fact that it's contemplated is absurd.Vague wording leads to trouble.
First you had the Patriot Act, then the Military Commissions Act.Now this.Someone used the stepping stone analogy which seems to be on the money.
For the love of your sanity and freedom get rid of those in charge and find someone less destructive.

reply to post by grimreaper797


This bill, through it's generic term usage, gives the government the right to label anything they choose as homegrown terrorism simply by saying that it may INCITE violent opposition.

It does NOT just say in the bill you have to commit the act, it says they can get you if you even THINK or TALK about committing the act.


"What this country needs is a good revolution"

No revolution does not imply violence. Revolution implies a change. Saying "what we need is to shoot the president and blow up the white house", that would be investigated, and with merit. If some one is threatening to blow anything up, they should be looked at if nothing else.

Now, those are definitions. What is the actual point of the act? To investigate the causes of homegrown terrorism, and what ways we can use to prevent it. And remember number 8 when it comes to prevention.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

I am all for digging up the conspiracies, and finding out unconstitutional/unjust laws, but the only threat this act posses is to the internet.

Anything that is a belief, and followed up with the threat or intent of violence, should be investigated by some body, whether it be local authorities or others. Im not for warrantless searches and such, but I am all for watching people and there actions when they threaten violence to sway political beliefs.

If I come out and say Im going to bomb something to change peoples political beliefs, I deserve to be investigated by the authorities. Its like saying, "That guy threatened to blow up an abortion clinic to further his extremist christian views, but it is unconstitutional to look into it! If you investigate him for thinking that, you are taking away our freedoms!"

In reality, what they are saying is they will investigate those people. They don't say anything about arresting them and throwing away the key. No where in that act, ANYWHERE, does it state that they would be doing anything unconstitutional when it comes to prevention. They do define who they will look into. People who threaten violence to sway political beliefs.

My concern is with the fact that they are looking into how they can control the internet in a sense. They are worried about the ease in which terrorist can utilize the internet for their means. What worries me is not the act itself, but what could become of it as a result of its findings.

edit: for the hank william jr. thing. It does say violence, but it has no political or religious motivation. You need to have both. You need to show intent to cause violence along with intent to sway or control political sentiment amoung america or its government.

Just because you say something violent doesn't mean you will get the label homegrown terrorist. Just because you say something to try and change political views doesn't mean you get the label homegrown terrorist. What gets you the label is the threat of violence with a political or religious agenda. (meaning you are going to do acts of violence to sway and control what others believe). Should they be investigating those people? Hell yes.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by grimreaper797


What you say is true, from a logical standpoint.

However, the reason this bill is dangerous is because it gives the government the power to determine if what you say is "terroristic" or not. They could (and likely would) judge the comment about needing revolution as a form of "homegrown terror" simply based on the fact that it MIGHT imply violence.


Jasn

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I have to ask, did anyone actually read the bill?

If you are for violence as a means for political change, I guess you would feel threatened against this. Personally, I am against people who bomb abortion clinics as a means to convince people it is wrong.

Now, if you are for this violence, this bill did not change much of anything before you, because you would probably still have gone to jail for the rest of your life before it.

The ONLY thing this bill threatens is our internet. That is it.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

that is probably the only alarming part of this act. It introduces the real possibility they may aim, in the future, to regulate the internet as a result of cracking down on terrorism.

As for civil liberties threat?

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Not so worried, when it comes to this bill, at least.

This applies to people looking to force their political beliefs on other people and the government through violent means. Aside from the danger it posses to the internet, this act, although pointless and a waste of taxpayer money, is not going to completely violate our civil liberties and freedoms.

This act is not what most of you are making it out to be, unless you are for political coercion of other people via violent means. Then, by all means, panic, cause they are targeting you.

I was wondering the same thing. Read the Friggen Bill! You are all upset at this "Thought Bill" mantra. READ THE BILL!! It basically makes a committee or commission to find Facts and makes a recommendation. You are all getting all worked up because of a Irreputable Source in the first place. I swear, you claim others are sheep when your the sheep getting all worked up on someones personal baseless agenda. Kinda hypocritical done you think?

Read the Bill.
It protects your Constitutional Rights for one thing. It says it over and over again.

Now, is this bill necessary? Im not so sure, it was authored by a Socialist. Which means that party's ultimate goal is Communism.

Just read the bill for yourselves for once. I know some of you have and still think its a little wonky, thats great. Thats your opinion based on your own first hand research. Congradufrigenlations.

Yes but that argument would not hold up on court. Why? Was the industrial revolution violent? No, and it is really that simple. They can try to accuse you of intent to do violence, but after a couple people sue the government for Defamation of character along with many other charges because that argument of the government was so weak it wasn't worth wasting the courts time, you will see a change in that.

If the government arrested some one because they said "We need a revolution in this country" 1. the media would be all over it. 2. they would now be liable for defamation of character if they cannot bring any evidence to court. (if that statement was all they had, you can bet it would be thrown out of court)
They cannot do it in secret unless they are breaking the law. In that case, they would have done it, regardless of this act, correct? If they are going to break the law, then they wouldn't need to modify the lawful term of a terrorist. Since that is cleared up, let us get back to the focus of the argument.

You said something like "we need a revolution". They aren't going to secretly kidnap you for the reason listed above. If it is going to be out in the open, they aren't going to be able to benefit from it at all unless they really do believe you have violent terrorist connections. In that case, they would bite the bullet, attempt to get as much information out of you as possible, then come to terms on a settlement when their case gets thrown out.

If there is no indication that you are going to do something violent, with evidence to back it up, they would have to be completely stupid to walk into that trap.

Unfortunately, if they investigating within lawful limits, there is nothing you can do about it. They cannot investigate outside lawful limits. So even if they are investigating you, they need a warrant to do anything serious.

This doesn't change any of our rights. It does not change the definition of a homegrown terrorist. It doesn't matter if your view is "extreme" or not, if you are going to act violently on it to influence other peoples thinking, it is extreme.

You could feel carebears deserve a spot on primetime TV. If you are going to bomb fox TV station to convince them to do it, your views just became extreme. If some one says "Im going to blow up this building because I believe the government is infringing my first amendment right" they are a homegrown terrorist.

You have to understand, when the founders said the right to abolish government and start over, they weren't talking about some guy feels his rights are being violated, so hes going to take a gun to the front lawn of the white house. What they were talking about is there are blatent and numerous cases where people are being thrown in jail for voicing opposition, and when challanged the courts do not overturn it. THAT is when the abolishment of the government comes into play. At THAT point, it won't matter what laws are in place, or what the definition of a terrorist is.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by SimiusDei


I agree. grimreaper797 makes some valid observations, but the fact is, we already have plenty of laws to address violent crime.

The focus of this bill is to study the causes of radicalization, and to find ways to diminish the effect of radical ideologies. So we start getting into the area of what qualifies as radicalism or actions motivated by ideology. Does citing the Declaration of Independence to criticize the government qualify as a threat of force? What does it mean when the bill distingishes between force and violence? Speaking forcefully? Economic boycott? Vandalism?

When considering the actions of citizens, the answers to these questions depend on what motivations and intentions the federal government chooses to invoke to account for some observed behavior. How closely will the behavior of US citizens be scrutinized? In Jose Pedilla's trial it was alleged that he had been communicating with secret code words; what do the paranoid nutjobs in the federal government with access to the NSA's domestic communication intercepts make of all the strange turns of phrase you use when sending emails to your close friends?

Somehow I doubt the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism will be looking at the ways in which the federal government uses and threatens violence or force to "intimidate or coerce...the civilian population of the United States." Suspend habaes corpus? Possee comitatus? McCarthyist wiretaps? Blacklists? Rape in prisons? Death penalty?

There are countless obvious gripes a decent citizen may hold against the federal government, and I don't think this bill is designed to figure out how the needs of US citizens in a globalizing economy might be better addressed, or how to break up oligopoly, or how federal tax dollars might be spent in a manner less likely to engender resentment. This bill is about controlling the hearts and minds of citizens, and keeping citizens in line while they endure exploitation and oppression.

Originally posted by America Jones
the fact is, we already have plenty of laws to address violent crime.

The focus of this bill is to study the causes of radicalization, and to find ways to diminish the effect of radical ideologies. So we start getting into the area of what qualifies as radicalism or actions motivated by ideology.

Simple explaination. If you are going to act on those beliefs violently, you are getting into radicalism. No belief is radical, so long as it stays peaceful.

When you threaten people for not believing your ideology, you become radical. The point of this commission is to identify it, how to prevent it from gaining more momentum. The prevention must abide to the constitution though, as #8 states.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by America Jones
the fact is, we already have plenty of laws to address violent crime.

The focus of this bill is to study the causes of radicalization, and to find ways to diminish the effect of radical ideologies. So we start getting into the area of what qualifies as radicalism or actions motivated by ideology.

Simple explaination. If you are going to act on those beliefs violently, you are getting into radicalism. No belief is radical, so long as it stays peaceful.

When you threaten people for not believing your ideology, you become radical. The point of this commission is to identify it, how to prevent it from gaining more momentum. The prevention must abide to the constitution though, as #8 states.

Then hate crimes become terrorism, and crimes motivated by a desire to get out of poverty... Malcolm X becomes a terrorist, as does Dick Cheney. The term "terrorism" becomes so broad it's useless, and its application becomes arbitrary.

Or do we just trust the federal government to act responsibly while war profiteers, oligarchs, lobbyists, and authoritarians try to pull it every which way? We have attorneys general who don't care an iota about the Constitution, a President who thinks he can violate it at will, and a Congress unwilling to stand up for it. I don't trust those people.

If that hate crime is motivated to change peoples political or religious beliefs, then yes, it is an act of terrorism. Why wouldn't it be?

Did malcom x ever commit acts of violence as a means to convert people? If so (which I never read of) then yes he would have been a terrorist. I like malcom x post mecca visit. Was an activist for peace at that point.

But my point is, that is what a terrorist is. There really hasn't been much change in definition. A terrorist is somebody who commits acts of violence to influences political or religious beliefs. If somebody kills a bunch of people to make them afraid to support gay rights, they are a terrorist. It may have been a hate crime against a homosexual, but if it was motivated to sway political beliefs, rather than just attack that person for being a homosexual, they are a terrorist.

That definition of a terrorist isn't something new though. What do you believe a terrorist is suppose to be?

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by America Jones
crimes motivated by a desire to get out of poverty...

How does a crime to get out of poverty relate to influencing political or religious beliefs of other people?

I can see how a hate crime may be a terrorist act, but a crime to get out of poverty is not a terrorist act. It may be an act of violence, but without a political or religious motivation with the attempt to influence others political or religious belief, it is not a terrorist act.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Did malcom x ever commit acts of violence as a means to convert people?
[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

"By any means necessary" could be construed as a threat.

My basic problem isn't that I don't think the federal government should find ways to address terrorism. My problem is that I don't think the prevention of terrorism should consume so much of our resources. Drunk drivers and handguns kill more people every year than terrorists have in the last six. We don't talk about revising our views about civil liberties because of drunk driving. Effective mass transit as a way to get drunk drivers off the road hasn't become a national security priority.

Given that the federal government is whipping the populace into a frenzy over terrorism, that the populace is not well educated on the issue (how many people still think Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda?), and that lawmakers are publicly manipulated by challenges to their "patriotism," I think I have reasonable concerns about what legislation like this might be used for.

If the federal government wants to examine who might try to persuade US citizens toward some radical ideology, the two possible sources are domestic influences and influences from abroad.

As far as influences from abroad are concerned, imperialism isn't even on the radar for most Americans when they consider how the United States is perceived elsewhere. Yet HR 1955 contains the phrase "or any possession of the United States" in SEC. 899A. Americans dismiss charges of Imperialism as anti-American rhetoric, because, after all, we are a Republic, and already cast off colonialism.

As far as domestic influences are concerned, it seems that the federal government is trying to prevent people from becoming upset with their subjugation. Why shift focus from international terrorism to domestic terrorism now, rather than after the Oklahoma City bombing? There's an effective marketing apparatus in place now that didn't exist when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building, and it's being milked.

Did you notice last September that bin Laden trimmed his beard and converted from radical Islam to Marxist socialism?

www.csmonitor.com...

Think about where this # is headed. It's not pretty.

reply to post by yahn goodey


yahn goodey,

Do you see that # in my previous post? ATS just censored me.

I think you may be confusing the idea I am for this act with the fact I don't believe it is a threat to us as US citizens. I am against the War On Terror, and I am against this act.

I am against this act because I know that the WOT cannot be won, and it is a waste of resources to try. I am a hardcore libertarian, and a big ron paul supporter. Fact is though, this act does not change the definition of terrorism, or endangerous our civil liberties at all, like some would like to claim.

The definitions don't apply to political activists unless threatening violence to make change. Those people tend to be looked into, and I am not surprised nor all that outraged about it. Do I feel we should put monsterous resources into the war on terror? No. Do I feel we should keep an eye on politically active people threatening to use violence to sway beliefs? Yes.

BTW, malcom x pre mecca visit was a racist militant, and was one step short of a terrorist at that point. Had he done any violent act, he would have been a terrorist for sure.

and keep in mind the threat of violence is often enough to oppress people. In that case, you don't need to commit the act of violence to be a terrorist. You are forcing people to change beliefs on the threat of violence, which is just as terroristic as the violent act itself.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by America Jones
crimes motivated by a desire to get out of poverty...

How does a crime to get out of poverty relate to influencing political or religious beliefs of other people?

SEC. 899A. says "the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof." One person gets two others to help rob a bank because the Man is keeping them down. Terrorism.

Funny how this bills just help make government bigger and bigger. Also many of this bills are passed very fast and quietly after events affecting the nation but no necessarily link to the bill itself.

Originally posted by America Jones
As far as domestic influences are concerned, it seems that the federal government is trying to prevent people from becoming upset with their subjugation. Why shift focus from international terrorism to domestic terrorism now, rather than after the Oklahoma City bombing? There's an effective marketing apparatus in place now that didn't exist when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building, and it's being milked.

Read up about the anti terror laws during the clinton adminstration before you assume that we weren't monitering homegrown terrorism then. Clinton used oklahoma as an excuse to moniter pleanty of christians under the idea they were violent extremists as well. This whole domestic terrorism thing is nothing new.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by grimreaper797


my friend I made no mention of presidents in my post, but I do mention that this bills has been passed from time to time.

It doesn't matter the administration but since 9/11 came to pass we have seem more of them.