House Passes "Thought Crime" Prevention Bill

reply to post by grimreaper797


I agree with you that this bill does not pose a direct threat to American civil liberties. But the attitude and social climate it promotes is dangerous.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

Originally posted by marg6043
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.

I should have quoted. I wasn't refering to your post. By the time I posted, you had posted something and I did not realize it. I will edit to include quote.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

Agreed, legislation like CALEA (which is just being fully implemented now) threatens civil liberties. And I agree that this is nothing new, that this has been in development for some time. But Clinton didn't have almost every news outlet in the country marketing his take on a Hollywood 911 to exploit, nor an endless foreign war to justify his every action.

When I read about how the "Homeland Security Command and Control" was proposed in February 2001 under the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program, I can't help but wonder who these people are who were thinking so hard about the Homeland prior to 911. I don't personally know anybody who thought of the United States as the Homeland prior to 911, but it would seem that some people were.

Motherland, Fatherland, Homeland...

Wyatt Prunty read a poem on the March 21, 2006 Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "The Retuning Dead"

Each night I make a drink and wait for them
They have become the day's concluding news,
Installments from a world without anthems
Or children, unfocusing eyes

A question that repeatedly rejects
My easy terms. They are ones who believed
And acted in the narrow and select
Ways handed them, while ordinary lives

Ran on without interruption
Or bad pictures, as though nothing had changed
Change is the one unanswerable question
Of these faces. The world can rearrange

Itself repeatedly, but these remain
The same, silent in everything they lack;
That's what they've come to, in places with names
Like Afghanistan, Iraq,

And this is the way it happens: the words
Are old - mother, father, home - and will catch
Surrounding currents in the slow absurd
Descending will of any river etched

Out of a landscape history refines
To myth. The TV blanks between
Segments, but every static face defines
Itself, holds stubbornly its private scenes

Fixed, publicly, as we are led
Back to that little negative whose lack
Is each of us, staring the staring dead,
Leaning, sometimes like grief itself; then straightening back.

Originally posted by America Jones
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.

Ok so who's political or religious beliefs are the 3 people trying to change? Are they robbing the bank to convince the people that they are being kept down?

There intent can't be for personal gain as a result of their beliefs. It has to be "these three men robbed the bank and killed the people in it because they feel that the banking institution is robbing them, and will continue to rob banks until the banks change their policies."

If they rob the bank for personal gain, its not a terrorist act. If they are robbing bank to change the banks policy, it becomes an act of terrorism because they are trying to bring about change through violent means.

edit: but I think I made my point pretty clear. I wanted to end the whole "this act is further eroding our rights" and " this act is broadening the definition of terrorism!" because it isn't...at all.

What it is doing is making ANOTHER government committee to do MORE pointless and resource wasting work.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by grimreaper797


Is ok, I understand, but I feel very worry as our governments keeps growing and growing trying to take away the power of the people.

I feel like many others in this boards that our own government must be afraid of what we the people may do as they deviate more and more from the will of the people.

Originally posted by marg6043
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.

Yes, that is why I am against it. It is just another growth of the growing government. It is a waste of resources a.k.a. tax payer money.

What worries me with this bill is that it doesn't outline in ANY specific way what actually constitutes terrorism.

Terrorism is different depending on what side of the "battle" you are on.

Right now, do you believe the Iranians and Iraqis consider US terrorists? After all, we invaded THEIR country for no valid reason. (no, war for profit doesn't count as valid)



Same thing goes for this situation. Malcolm X was used as an example. If indeed he used violent means to bring about what HE felt was a better world for him and his people (which he did), does it make him a terrorist because he used violent means to achieve his goal? Some would say yes, but, how is it terrorism if it brings about a better way of life for a large portion of the country? (Some would call it liberation, we certainly called it that in Iraq)

If our country does indeed slip into a police state where all of our civil liberties are stripped from us, does it make us terrorists if we rise up and fight fire with fire in order to take our country back? According to this new bill, YES, it does. According to me? HELL NO, it makes us patriots.

This bill leaves too many hazy areas for comfort. This is nothing but another small step toward a totalitarian state. Is this bill in itself destroying our liberties? Possibly not. But, will this bill, when combined with the many other small ones in the past and future destroy our civil liberties? Quite likely!

Jasn

Edit to add: "I'm your huckleberry"

[edit on 26-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by America Jones
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.

There intent can't be for personal gain as a result of their beliefs. It has to be "these three men robbed the bank and killed the people in it because they feel that the banking institution is robbing them, and will continue to rob banks until the banks change their policies."

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

I certainly agree with your take on the bill from a common-sense perspective, but legislation functions like machinery, and like any other machinery, people will get it to do things unforseen by the designer. I don't trust the people throwing the levers not to read into their observations whatever they'd like to see, or whatever is advantageous to them personally. Maybe just the guy who convinces the others to go along with him is the terrorist, not all three; he might still make a fine example when arraigned. I still have concerns about the language of HR 1955.

This bill reminds me of the "red scare" of the 1950's ("reds under the beds!"). People who were communists, or had friends who were communists, or had ever thought about communism were investigated, threatened, often blacklisted and lost their jobs and their reputations. The House Commitee on Un-American Activities of the 50's was not much different from the investigations advocated by this bill. This is just the last in a long list of freedoms that have been abridged since 9-11. Thinking people at all points on the political spectrum can unite on this issue.

Interesting I knew that some of the bills started that far back, but they has gone obsolete as the nation has gotten into other threats.

Funny once it was communism now is terrorism, but with a twist the term terrorist can be expanded as the situation seems fit.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
What worries me with this bill is that it doesn't outline in ANY specific way what actually constitutes terrorism.

Yes it does. It is actually pretty specific. It actually says everything that constitutes the classical definition of terrorism. A violent act, or threat of a violent act, to influence another groups political or religious beliefs.

Terrorism is different depending on what side of the "battle" you are on.

No, it is still terrorism, its just accepted because we are "at war". It is still terrorism though because we are attempting to influence foreigners political beliefs with the barrel of a rifle.

[quote
Right now, do you believe the Iranians and Iraqis consider US terrorists? After all, we invaded THEIR country for no valid reason. (no, war for profit doesn't count as valid)

For the iraqis, we are. For the iranians, its a very real possibility that we are. In the definition of the word, we are. But some believe we are at war, so that changes things. Personally, I don't feel that way. If they posed a threat to us and we officially declared war, then no it wouldn't be terrorism.

Same thing goes for this situation. Malcolm X was used as an example. If indeed he used violent means to bring about what HE felt was a better world for him and his people (which he did), does it make him a terrorist because he used violent means to achieve his goal? Some would say yes, but, how is it terrorism if it brings about a better way of life for a large portion of the country?

Point one, if he used violence, or threatened people with violence, then yes he was a terrorist. It doesn't matter if it is for a better way of life or not, if you threaten some one to change there beliefs to your beliefs, you are a terrorist. MLK was a revolutionary and a hero. He brought change without violence. He is a champion of what you can do when you attempt to change beliefs without being a terrorist. Malcolm X pre mecca visit was pretty close to a terrorist, regardless of what his intent was or if it was for the betterment of society.

Every terrorists believes they are doing the right thing. That doesn't make them right.

If our country does indeed slip into a police state where all of our civil liberties are stripped from us, does it make us terrorists if we rise up and fight fire with fire in order to take our country back? According to this new bill, YES, it does. According to me? HELL NO, it makes us patriots.

if our country slips into a police state, we will abolish this government, and these laws won't make a bit of difference. It won't matter what the government considers a terrorist. When we reach the point of people saying "we need a revolution" being arrested and the courts throwing them away on that basis, it won't make a bit of difference what laws are on the book, or what they consider a terrorist.

This bill leaves too many hazy areas for comfort. This is nothing but another small step toward a totalitarian state. Is this bill in itself destroying our liberties? Possibly not. But, will this bill, when combined with the many other small ones in the past and future destroy our civil liberties? Quite likely!

This act is nothing more than a committee. It cannot enact any prevention techniques. It cant DO anything. All it can do is report what it finds to the president and congress. From there, its THOSE bills that will matter. But to say that THIS act changes ANYTHING, is inaccurate.

When you start seeing bills that say they will be restricting the use of the internet, or start restricting specific terms and classifying those terms as terrorist terms, then you can start to scream. It is important to follow the results of this, but the act itself is harmless, aside from the money it will cost us to fund it.

Jasn

Originally posted by America Jones
I certainly agree with your take on the bill from a common-sense perspective, but legislation functions like machinery, and like any other machinery, people will get it to do things unforseen by the designer. I don't trust the people throwing the levers not to read into their observations whatever they'd like to see, or whatever is advantageous to them personally. Maybe just the guy who convinces the others to go along with him is the terrorist, not all three; he might still make a fine example when arraigned. I still have concerns about the language of HR 1955.

Honestly, I feel this is just another committee for politicians to get on so they can pad their pockets with the funding that comes with it. another job= more money. They have an excuse, they exploit it.

As far as the language goes, I can't see any difference in the actual definition of a terrorist and their definition of a terrorist. Their definitions don't change anything.

I personally feel this was hyped from certain conspiracy sites to get more hits. They either buy their own hype, or hype it to get hits on their webpages.

Could anyone possibly confirm this story through a legitimate news source?

If this is true, it's not good.

Originally posted by Sestias
This bill reminds me of the "red scare" of the 1950's ("reds under the beds!"). People who were communists, or had friends who were communists, or had ever thought about communism were investigated, threatened, often blacklisted and lost their jobs and their reputations. The House Commitee on Un-American Activities of the 50's was not much different from the investigations advocated by this bill. This is just the last in a long list of freedoms that have been abridged since 9-11. Thinking people at all points on the political spectrum can unite on this issue.

yes but you must remember that during that time, constitutional rights were abused without care. It was a time before we really had a reform of the constitutional rights. Im a criminal justice major. The fact is, constitutional rights weren't really obeyed by the police till the 60's for the most part. Great deal of changes were made during the civil rights movement.

The threats and "blacklisting" of the 50's will not happen again because our nation has transformed to an extent. Police are now closely scrutinized if they violate constitutional rights. Everytime we hear about a violation of some ones rights, it is everywhere. Back in the 50's, it didn't matter. Nobody reported it, nobody cared. Now constitutional violations tend to be reported by the media or via the internet. Either way, it is a different time, and to assume the same tactics would work now, as they did back then, would be a huge mistake on the governments part.

reply to post by ModernDystopia


Isn't "legitimate news source" an oxymoron?

Which would make it acceptable? Possibly CNN, FOX or MSNBC? Last I checked, you can pull up all their articles on it via google.


Let me run get one (or try) and I'll put it here in an edit.

Jasn


EDIT TO ADD:

Source 1

Source 2

[edit on 26-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Oops, wrong thread

[edit on 26-10-2007 by interestedalways]

reply to post by grimreaper797


Thanks for all the info I had no idea you had a criminal justice major, perhaps I missed the informtion on other threads .

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
Could anyone possibly confirm this story through a legitimate news source?

If this is true, it's not good.

www.govtrack.us...
www.cbo.gov...
projects.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by grimreaper797

 

Thanks for all the info I had no idea you had a criminal justice major, perhaps I missed the informtion on other threads .

haha I dont have it yet, but I am in the process. I am studying it. Im also going to be either minoring in political science or double majoring in criminal justice and political science.

Point is, I read this stuff alot, and Im getting use to how it is read. Initially it was some what confusing to me, but in time you get use to reading the political laws they write.

Thank you for the other sources. Perhaps "legitimate" was the wrong word. What I meant is that I have not heard of the site that the OP linked to.

Anyway, thanks again.