Thinking for your self will now be a crime, democracts will declare you a criminal.
"Ms. Harman, a California Democrat, thinks it likely that the United States will face a native brand of terrorism in the immediate future and offers a plan to deal with ideologically based violence."
"While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it."
For the rest of us, here's the lowdown. NOT what I THINK, but what it actually is. Where my opinions are stated, I've so noted with "IMO (in my opinion).
View the actual bill here:
IMO, here's what the hoopla is about:
2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
What, exactly, does this mean? Let's break it down:
The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
The term `violent radicalization' means the process of promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
What I've done here is to simplify the statement by splitting it at the "or" junction without changing the meaning. Let's take the first part, "adopting."
The terminology in this statement is ambiguous. How would one determine
*for what purpose* someone adopted a belief system? IMO, it seems contradictory that anyone would choose to believe something in order to promote violence--that's nonsense, isn't it? If I wanted to promote violence, it wouldn't be necessary for me to adopt any belief. The only way to promote anything is through behavior. If I wanted to promote violence toward green-eyed people for example, it would benefit me to promote the belief that green-eyed people are evil, but it wouldn't help me in any way to adopt that belief myself--I already have (in this example only, of course) the desire to promote violence against them. Therefore I assert that the adoption of any belief as a means to promote anything is nonsense.
Now the second part, promoting. Certainly, it is possible to trigger (facilitate) ideologically based violence; therefore IMO it makes sense that someone could promote a belief for that purpose. It is possible to cause injuries and deaths by promoting a belief in a dangerous situation by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Therefore, promoting beliefs can in certain cases lead to injuries and deaths.
Promoting the belief in an ideology which favors violence may cause violence. This isn't opinion, it's a statement of possibility. It's just as true, IMO, as the statement that yelling FIRE in a theater may lead to injuries and/or deaths.
So, it makes sense IMO that this type of belief promotion should at least be discouraged, though I don't know enough yet to decide whether or not I think it should be outlawed. After all, That's essentially what Thomas Paine did when he roused the founding fathers to rebel against the British, isn't it?
The weird part is the last part. "...adopting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence **to advance political, religious, or social change"**
Why not just end after the word "violence"? Is violence OK if it's not done for the purpose of advancing political, religious, or social change? That would mean that if I promoted a belief system (say, by starting a green-eye hating cult) which led to the mass murder of green-eyed people would be fine, as long as I did so because I hated green-eyed people, rather than in order to advance political, religious, or social change.
So far, this bill isn't looking very sensible. Yet out of the 410 members of the HOR who were present, 404 of them voted in favor of this bill...
You mean like they looked at McCain-Feingold? The problem with this new thing is that who decides what is extreme, and what exactly is violent?
This could be as simple as making it illegal to operate a terrorist cell vs. having to wait for them to blow something up before we can take action. If that is indeed the idea, it could be a good thing.
However, I applaud you for being suspicious. Interesting we can do all of this within our own borders, but we cannot detain non-citizens who we caught red-handed and suspect have critical information?? I detect a slight odor here, if only in the who/when category.
Most likely they won't rule on this for a long time, it depends on the courts ideolegy at the time. `(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
As long as you have the correct ideolegy as defined by ????? your safe from the inqusitor.
I'm not quite that far along in questioning/opposing it, but I know what you mean. I don't know about your states, but in FL, they snuck a seat belt law by the masses (no joy in being right) on the grounds that it would never be enforced by itself. I always wear seat belts, but it is not the job of the nanny state to ensure that I do so, AND, now we have seriously obnoxious ads, no doubt funded with tax dollars, on the theme "take that ticket and stick it" - oh wait, that's my name for it, they call it something different ;) You get the idea: it's low-grade tyranny.
Here is another way to look at it: is conspiring to plan a crime a crime? Certainly conspiracy to commit is a crime (a felony IIRC). Yet another (arguably questionable) new law might be unnecessary.
The media frequently gripes about a do-nothing congress. If only we had one.
I disagree--even though it could be a good thing in the hands of benelovent interpreters of the law, ambiguous, open-ended wording in legislation is interchangable with dictatorship. Dictatorship itself is not bad to live under if the dictator is wise and belevolent; the problem is that the dictator has so much power that if he ceases being wise and benevolent, he can cause an incredible abount of destruction. That's too much responsibility for any one person or group of people.
I didn't know the government couldn't do that. Are you referring to ordinary non-citizens, or those with some special diplomatic or political status?