This is what happens when you let the gov. stomp all over the constitution.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

HR1955 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01955:) is making good enough progress to eventually end up being signed by the President!

This is a blunt attack on the constitution, and most people don't care. This bill is so broad that churches can some day be shut down. The internet will easily be controlled as well. Do you guys really want this??

[Sam!]

On its face, this bill does not alarm me although I admit I only read the summary and not the full text.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

In addition the summary refers repeatedly to VIOLENCE. No Church ought to be advocating systemic violence for beliefs and so that doesn't frighten me. If a pastor teaches that muslims deserve to die, and God will reward those who make it happen--well, I'm not worried if his "church" gets shut down and he goes to jail. The First Amendment was first and foremost designed to protect people from their own government... not protect the right to kill people or advocate illegal activities by citizens against other citizens.

[mat1583]

HR1955 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01955:) is making good enough progress to eventually end up being signed by the President!

This is a blunt attack on the constitution, and most people don't care. This bill is so broad that churches can some day be shut down. The internet will easily be controlled as well. Do you guys really want this??

Part of the bill...

`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.


and...

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle:

(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

(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.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I see the problem here...

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

My worries are with definition 2 (VIOLENT RADICALIZATION) as it states:


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.


It is unrealistic and and impossible to determine what belief system one has adopted. This in itself cannot be criminal. You can't, under any legal process determine the intent and future actions of someone based on their belief system.

For example, I wouldn't mind if the IRS suddenly burnt to the ground (with no innocent lives taken of course!) but that doesn't mean I'll do it. This bill would make it criminal to even express such a wish.

As much as I dislike Fred Phelps, he has a right to have his weird church (read: family) and brainwash them as it is their choice to be there or not. This bill would land him and anyone associated with his doings in jail. (It's GITMO for you, Fred!)

Note the words facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change. Facilitating is an extremely vague term. Someone blows up Planned Parenthood, after being inspired by a sermon that some pastor who was furious about abortion, and they can place this pastor under arrest.

Sure, these are all unlikely scenarios at the moment. But it lays the groundwork down for a more oppressive leader if we are ever to accidentally elect one.

[Sam!]

I'm all about people being allowed to think or believe whatever they want. I am against hate-crime legislation. Either the act is illegal or it isn't... it isn't better or worse because of the victim or the state of mind of the perpetrator.

That said, there is a distinct difference between believing something and teaching a system of beliefs to others which advocates violence.

Do you think a pastor teaching that "the individual people making up the government are inherently evil, pose a threat to the lives of individual church members, deserve to be brutally beaten and killed, and furthermore that church members ought to do the beating and killing" should be protected speech?

Why should we hold those who encourage terrorism unaccountable? If we truly ant to stop terrorism we are going to have to stop people from teaching that it's GOOD to commit suicide while murdering other people. Otherwise, people will continue to do just that.

[mat1583]

It is unrealistic and and impossible to determine what belief system one has adopted. This in itself cannot be criminal. You can't, under any legal process determine the intent and future actions of someone based on their belief system.


Should it be legal for al qaeda members to start a cell here in the US that advocates violence against Americans?

-washboard

[middletree]

I'm all about people being allowed to think or believe whatever they want. I am against hate-crime legislation. Either the act is illegal or it isn't... it isn't better or worse because of the victim or the state of mind of the perpetrator.

Not exactly. If a person shoots or otherwise harms someone, whether they meant to do it is the basis for whether or not they are charged. And attempted murder is a more serious charge than assault, is it not? Fact is, the person's mindset is very much a factor in how lots of our laws are enforced. For example, in many states, premeditation is a requirement for a murder conviction.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Sam! and Mat1583,

You two pose some good questions. Both of which of which I agree that it shouldn't happen. But my problem with HR1955 is that it's too vague, and should at the least be rewritten containing more specifics. For example, Leviticus has rules written that are extremely violent. We don't use these of course, but we use the very book that has Leviticus. And the principal role of Leviticus is to tell you what to do (since they are laws, regardless of how we interpret them in our own way). Stoning someone for adultery would be considered violence by a group to promote the groups religious beliefs (as defined by section 899A definition 4). If someone did this, they should be put in jail of course. The problem is that their source of personal beliefs comes from the Bible. The book itself can facilitate their ideology.

But again, chances are no one, at this present moment will likely outlaw the Bible. But there's nothing against this measure, and all it could take is some crazy group to commit some kind of a horrible act and give their reason as Biblical, after which someone can start pushing for the removal of certain literature.

[mat1583]

But again, chances are no one, at this present moment will likely outlaw the Bible. But there's nothing against this measure, and all it could take is some crazy group to commit some kind of a horrible act and give their reason as Biblical, after which someone can start pushing for the removal of certain literature.

It's a HUGE leap to say our government could go from banning violent acts by religious groups to banning the Bible. If it gets to that point, then I hope I'm not alive then...because liberty would just be an imagination of the past.

Besides, even the Roman government didn't allow Jews to carry out capital punishment.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Should it be legal for al qaeda members to start a cell here in the US that advocates violence against Americans?

-washboard
If it was up to me, these kinds of groups should be removed completely. But, the thing is, there's measures to prevent them from working already (not just AQ, but supremacist groups as well). Warranted espionage for example. This bill will of course make these groups illegal, but all this will do is drive them further underground and make them more difficult to track. I doubt that they'd be concerned about breaking a law that doesn't allow them to talk about it when they're willing to create terrorism in the first place.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

It's a HUGE leap to say our government could go from banning violent acts by religious groups to banning the Bible. If it gets to that point, then I hope I'm not alive then...because liberty would just be an imagination of the past.

Besides, even the Roman government didn't allow Jews to carry out capital punishment.

-washboard

It is a huge leap, but it's one that has taken place in other nations before. We're only immune to it thanks to our respect for the Constitution. But vague definitions like the ones in HR1955 and the removal of certain check and balances could allow someone with an alternate agenda to abuse the system.

[mat1583]

It is a huge leap, but it's one that has taken place in other nations before. We're only immune to it thanks to our respect for the Constitution. But vague definitions like the ones in HR1955 and the removal of certain check and balances could allow someone with an alternate agenda to abuse the system.

Then maybe you should give examples of specific definitions or explain why it's vague. I still don't understand why you believe it's so vague.

-washboard

[Backpacker777]

I'm new here but this disturbs me. It seems we don't have the rights we used to and that more and more our liberties are being pushed aside by the govt's of the world.

[Pouye]

Definition 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."

Let's take a look at this a little closer. It is wise, when voting for legislation, to not allow legislation to be stated so vaguely that it can justify things which the writer did not intend. It is also wise, however, to make legislation not so specific that it doesn't apply to similar situations which the author would have intended for it to apply to.

First off, what is an "extremist belief system"? Would REAL Christianity be considered extremist? Could be... after all, Jesus was a radical! The legislation states that merely adopting and/or promoting such an extremist belief system is OK just so long as it is not "for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence".

"facilitating" is a vague term here, simply because it is hard to tell what a leader is actually "facilitating". This is subjective. Also, "ideologically based violence" is vague. Why have "ideologically based" in the sentence? Just having "for the purpose of facilitating violence" makes more sense. Who cares if the violence is "ideologically based"! And how is "violence" defined? Does it include saying things that could be taken as offensive or verbally abusive? Or does violence have to include physical harm? My guess is that this legislation is truly targeting religious extremists, and therefore they are specifically calling it "ideologically based violence".

I do not understand why the legislation gets so specific at the end: "...to advance political, religious, or social change"

For me, if a leader incites people to harm others, why be specific? Who cares if the leader(s) want to advance political, religious, or social change? What if they want to do it because they feel like it? It is still wrong, either way. The only reason I think they are being specific here is so they can point to this piece of legislation when "busting" a group like the Neo Nazis, the KKK, or other terrorist/hate groups. Just promoting or facilitating violence could be enough to be busted and shut down -- even if violent actions never actually occur.

The scary thing about such legislation is that it can potentially be used to punish people before a crime is committed -- and this is exactly what it is designed to do. For instance, it is illegal to plot to harm someone (especially a higher authority, such as a President). Even if a plot is never carried out, it is still illegal and carries a penalty. This legislation is somewhat in the same vein. It is an attempt to criminalize someone before the violent acts can occur. Legislation like this could potentially be abused, but there are "safeguards" in the rest of the legislation, such as:

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.'

In other words, it is still subject to interpretation by a court of law as to whether the one charged is being fairly charged according to their legal rights (if any).

Interesting,

Rock

[Evanescence]

I don't have time to read and study this but we need to be careful with what Bills are passed by this Govt. Things like Homeland Security, Patriot Act and the other bill that essentially declares anyone who opposes or interfres with the war a terrorist, are scary.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Then maybe you should give examples of specific definitions or explain why it's vague. I still don't understand why you believe it's so vague.

-washboard

I tried thinking of how it should be more specific, and I honestly can't find an example. The fact is, we have measures to prevent terrorism here. Groups that promote violence or hint at it are usually kept an eye on. This bill in essence is not very helpful. We already prevent homegrown terrorism with warranted searches and espionage. (as well as unwarranted now, thanks to the patriot act). In my opinion, this simply goes too far, and affects a normal civilian more than anything else.

Take gun control for example. If we make gun possession illegal, it will more than likely only affect those who exercise this freedom, while not really affecting the doings of criminals (as if they'd stop carrying a gun to do their crimes, because carrying a gun is criminal in the first place). Similarly, with HR1955 you enforce what is essentially a thought crime, and it only affects those exercising their freedoms, not the criminals. In other words, AQ can still plot attacks with or without HR1955. This will not stop them or anyone else. It'll affect the drunk guy who goes on a rant out int he street about his apathy towards the government who then wakes up in GITMO.

Pouye, you have a good point. It reminds me of Minority Report.

Maybe I'm overreacting. I hope that's the case. But a while back, I watched this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc) and it made me to a little more research after which I found myself looking deeper. I don't believe Bush is evil, I won't draw that conclusion, he may have good intentions when he signs this bill, but it scares me that they are willing to give up certain liberties for protection. The Red scare and McCarthyism was heading the same way. Problem is, we've gone farther than they ever did.

[mat1583]

Maybe you should think about it this way...

The Declaration of Independence states that man has three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some groups such as extremist Islamic groups, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi's advocate violence in the name of social or political change. They advocate harming someone else's life, liberty, and property - all violations of a human's rights. I do not believe it is right for these groups to continue functioning, and I believe that they forfeit their rights to function by advocating and participating in those violations I named.

-washboard

[Pouye]

Maybe you should think about it this way...

The Declaration of Independence states that man has three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some groups such as extremist Islamic groups, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi's advocate violence in the name of social or political change. They advocate harming someone else's life, liberty, and property - all violations of a human's rights. I do not believe it is right for these groups to continue functioning, and I believe that they forfeit their rights to function by advocating and participating in those violations I named.

-washboard

Good point!

Rock

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Maybe you should think about it this way...

The Declaration of Independence states that man has three inalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some groups such as extremist Islamic groups, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi's advocate violence in the name of social or political change. They advocate harming someone else's life, liberty, and property - all violations of a human's rights. I do not believe it is right for these groups to continue functioning, and I believe that they forfeit their rights to function by advocating and participating in those violations I named.

-washboard

That is a good way of looking at it. I'm all for getting rid of those groups, but just remember that any rights we wish to remove from someone runs the possibility of eventually affecting us. If there's ever an extremely oppressive government in our midst, we may have no choice but to go to jail (GITMO!).

[kiwisongbird]

Sounds like it might be time to go find a nice little cabin in the wilderness somewhere? :)