House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill

See you guys in the gulag. It's crunch time for action. The window is closing. I'm almost afraid to mention Naomi's The End of America. For her sake.

Well, I guess I'm a terrorist

Why are you? Are you inciting violence with your opinions? Below is a summary of the bill from govtrack.us:

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Now I don't really know enough about the bill to have my own opinion on it just yet, so I'm going to let the debate unfold before taking a stance. But I don't get why people are crying out that they will be labelled a terrorist. Or is it normal practice for these newsviners to incite hatred/violence?

Please tell me what I've missed.

Please tell me what I've missed.

In a nut shell, seven years of fascist shift. I envy you.

In a nut shell, seven years of fascist shift. I envy you.

Yet my every day life has not changed, every day life of Americans hasn't changed. What freedoms did you have that you no longer do that you have actually experienced? I'm genuinely curious.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew

They haven't yet even begun that first step-- and I doubt that they are even planning to. We have more freedom in the U.S. than the vast majority of countries in the world-- always have--probably always will. (Ever wonder about the vast flow of immigration across our border with Mexico-- how come its so one way?)

We have more freedom in the U.S. than the vast majority of countries in the world

That's true, but are you taking the position that we should ignore this and similar legislation just because things haven't gotten that bad...yet? At what point should we start becoming vigilant to assure that out society remains free?

I did say "shift" didn't I?

That's true, but are you taking the position that we should ignore this and similar legislation just because things haven't gotten that bad...yet?

But they're not going after Jews, they're not going after commies or trade unionists. They're going after people that incite violence. I don't incite violence so I think I'm quite safe in the knowledge this bill won't adversely affect me. Now reading a little more about the bill, there definitely needs to be more clarification on the boundaries and what constitutes a crime. But do we need to have the right to incite violence in order to "remain free"?

Does it say who sponsored the bill?

by any use of the word "revolution".... or any gathering of more than 10 people who are not pro-life Evangelicals.... that's just my guess, and I'm paranoid

What freedoms did you have that you no longer do that you have actually experienced?

Removal of trash bins on mass transit due to fear of hiding bombs in them, mandatory ID check in government buildings, your state must comply with Real ID act or you license won't allow you to fly or enter gov't buildings, must show birth certificates and other intrusive stuff to get driver's license renewed, must show ID to fly even though they won't show you the law mandating it, must take off shoes before getting on plane, no liquids or gels in carry on, restricted airspace over most of DC, annexation of area around various DC government buildings, restricting protests to free speech zones at Bush speeches... do you want me to go on? Those are just off the top of my head, and all things that have affected me personally.

Removal of trash bins on mass transit due to fear of hiding bombs in them

With quite reason. Would you prefer to have the real possibility of being blown up (the IRA used to use trash bins in England as a bomb hiding place) or just hang on to your trash until you get home? We haven't had bins in the UK on mass transit for years, I've always coped. But is there a constitutional right to bins on mass transit? Surely that's at the discretion of the provider.

mandatory ID check in government buildings, your state must comply with Real ID act or you license won't allow you to fly or enter gov't buildings

That keeps out potentially dangerous illegal immigrants. I don't think it qualifies as unreasonable search to ask for you to clarify who you say you are to protect you from undesirables. To be honest, waving my passport doesn't bother me and takes literally seconds.

must show birth certificates and other intrusive stuff to get driver's license renewed

That's to prevent crazies like Hillary Clinton who thinks illegal immigrants should be entitled to driving licences. Really, get that fence built and you'll solve some problems!

must show ID to fly even though they won't show you the law mandating it

You're not legally required to show it on a domestic flight, you will just be designated a "selectee" and you will be allowed to board. However, your bags will be subject to a thorough search, which again, is not unreasonable.

must take off shoes before getting on plane, no liquids or gels in carry on

When you fly onboard a private aircraft (Airline jets are not government owned) the airlines are at liberty to place any restrictions they choose in order to protect their staff. I quite agree that the shoe and liquid thing is stupid, however, Richard Reid demonstrates why they search shoes and the foiled plot to blow up several airliners demonstrates why they don't allow liquids.

restricted airspace over most of DC

You think about a square mile of DC airspace being restricted is bad? You should check out France's prohibited airspace because of nuclear power stations. Almost all of London is restricted except to aircraft using Heathrow or London City airports.

Those are just off the top of my head, and all things that have affected me personally.

So is the government mandated to provide you with trash bins? You can fly without ID, a licence is a priviledge don't you think? It prevents other people using your information to potentially commit crimes in your name. You don't have to take your shoes off either actually (but they will subject you to an extra search, but you can leave your shoes on). How did restricted airspace over DC affect you?! Pilots can use DCA just fine with restricted airspace less than two mile ahead after takeoff from runway 1. So you can't protest where Bush is speaking, ah well. It's probably because so many nut jobs have attemtped to shoot previous presidents. What's more important, your right to protest or the president's right to life?

Some tough questions, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts because after several attempts at asking, you're the first person to give me any examples of freedoms, whether or not we agree that they should be a given, that you feel have been taken away. Thank you.

RedRuby,

If you read my reply in 2.10 I've answered your question, I said: "Now reading a little more about the bill, there definitely needs to be more clarification on the boundaries and what constitutes a crime."

I agree with you that boundaries and defitions need to clarified. In its current state this bill shouldn't pass. But to answer your question, I think they'll define it as an explicit call to be violent. I don't think implicit or vague notions alluding to violence will stand up in court. But if you have Mohamad al-blowup saying we need to go and kill the kufr, then I think he might find himself in a spot of bother.

Dr. Danny, how do you think they will define "incite violence"?

I could be wrong but I believe that's already been decided by the courts in numerous free speech cases.

Saying a particular politician is an idiot is not inciting violence. Saying his policies are stupid-- or comparing him to Hitler-- or saying he should be impeached-- is not inciting violence. In fact-- I see a lot of this on the 'net-- an in my email Inbox-- every day!

Saying that we should kill or injure him him would indeed be inciting violence. In other words-- actually advocating violence would actually be considered...incitement of violence.

Not advocating violence-- but criticizung a persons' policies is not inciting violence.

See?

While many of us may have different opoinions on the matter-- the opinions of the Supreme Court are the accepted interpretation of the laws of the land-- however brilliant you or I feel our opinions are-- they do not determine how the law is interpreted.

Dr Danny, you asked for examples of freedoms, not of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. I provided them. So they are real, and they exist, regardless of whether you see them as reasonable.

You are apparently misinformed about some of the freedoms that went missing. The 15 mile restricted airspace over DC and the requirement to file mandatory flight plans for all local general aviation flight led some of these airports to close for a while and the airport at College Park - the oldest continuously operated airport in the country - came a hair's breadth from closing permanentlyuntil they finally lifted some of their restrictions. DCA was completely closed for a lengthy period, during which I flew from Dulles. Someone I know has a private plane that he had at College Park that he almost gave up due to all the BS.

The airlines are not imposing the ID check, the government is. To check against their useless do not fly list, to be enforced by brain dead drones who have multiple times prevented babies from flying because the babies name matched a name on the list. And you MAY be able to fly without ID depending on the day, the employees and if you let them do a full search of your property, and the government regulations covering this are 'secret'. http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/john-gilmore.html So add not being governed by secret regulations to the list of freedoms.

Yeah, I never know why people aren't able to list freedoms when they complain about them disappearing.

Yet my every day life has not changed

You'll learn.

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.

The way this reads, violent radicalization would appear to impute violence to anyone who seemed to the government to facilitate ideologically based violence. This is an extremely confusing definition.

So would those who defend torture qualify?

no it is punishment for causing terror to a community.
unless your consider terrorist acts thought crimes.

Observer:

you constantly conflate issues. Separate crimes of violence from thought.

Isn't convicting someone for a "hate crime" punishment for thought?

Yes. They're crimes already, the "hate" parts are thoughts involved in the motivation, therefore they are thought crimes.

Isn't convicting someone for a "hate crime" punishment for thought?

Yes. They're crimes already, the "hate" parts are thoughts involved in the motivation, therefore they are thought crimes.

Exactly. The same exact action may or may not be a hate crime-- the difference depends entirely on the thought that motivated it.Simply state-- ''Hate crime laws'' do notpunish behavious-- they punish thought.

There's a long history of giving differential punishment based on intent of the perpetrator.

See: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etcetera, etcetera. By you fellas' reasoning, these differential treatments of the action of killing a human being, based on the intent of the killer, justifies calling all of them "thought" crimes. Clearly, that isn't so.

I may not like "hate crime" legislation (which is often overly broad), but it's not de facto "thought crime" legislation.

Jailing someone for thinking something (i.e. prior restraint) constitutes punishing thought.

There's a long history of giving differential punishment based on intent of the perpetrator.

That's true, but that's not what's happening here. The cases you bring up seem to be about intent of actually doing the crime, not the motivation of doing it. There isn't a seperate crime that I know of for unfaithful spouse revenge vs pet abusing lawn revenge. You're equivocating intent and motivation, which I concede in general terms mean the same thing, but in the context of manslaughter and hate crimes seem to me to mean completely different things.

It's sick and twisted. I'm a decent guy, but by law, I'm a criminal.

I think, therefore I am... imprisoned.

Are you really in jail? If so, I'm surprise that they let you have internet access.

Not right now, but I have been for expressing by views verbally and within my constitutional rights, which btw were professing no criminal actions or violence at anyone or thing.

I just can't imagine why you have the views you do. What makes you stand up for this government? What on earth keeps you singing the praise of a government that is criminal?

Krishna isn't American, that's why.

which btw were professing no criminal actions or violence at anyone or thing.

So why are you so afraid? Even with this stupid bill being passed you won't be targetted. The bill does need to be defeated, but the hysteria of the comments here is amazing.

So why are you so afraid? Even with this stupid bill being passed you won't be targetted.

Simple. I was locked up at the whim of the authorities... years ago. I was targeted. Maybe not by this bill, but by this kind of police state. Did I mention locked up? You know, in jail, behind bars. What are you a doctor of?

i'm gonna party like it's 1984

By George or W. ell. Bush,

And here this whole time I thought he couldn't read.

And here this whole time I thought he couldn't read.

Are you afraid they will put you in jail merely for thinking that?

Anyway-- how can they know what you are thinking-- unless of course-- you post your thoughts on the 'net.

Why do so many people feel so free to post their thoughts-- why aren't they afraid of being arrested for their thoughts? (And-- its not only on NV!-- I've seen numerous Americans post their thoughts elsewhere on the 'net too...!!!)

Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to post our thoughts freely? I'll post my thoughts anywhere I want to, as an American I am entitled that right.

Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to post our thoughts freely?

But if your thoughts incite violence that could potentially harm someone else, aren't you an accessory to a crime, in the strictest sense of interpretation? Do you have to post thoughts that could lead to someone being assaulted, or worse?

The point of concern for most of us is the overly broad language:

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.

Some bloggers opinion on the internet can't incite violence any more than video games, movies, music, or free thinking. You prosecute the violent, not the idea that "incited" it.

If I say "Thomas Jefferson once said 'The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.'" and this starts a riot of poor people, should I be imprisoned for that? is that terrorist action?

You prosecute the violent, not the idea that "incited" it.

This is the difficult thing though. If you can't act until a violent crime has been comitted then you have to lose potentially thousands of lives before you can make an arrest. If the government gets much more specific with their language they'll be branded racists by the same group of people calling them fascists. The government is stuck between a rock and a hard place really. This bill doesn't make things any easier though. Perhaps the Supreme Court will do their job and render it unconstitutional. But then again, it's been a while since the Supreme Court acted within its constitutional limits.

Yes, unfortunately we can't prevent all acts of violence and death. That is life. Government can't do anything about that. Even if they strip all of our rights away, it won't stop people who want to kill others for any cause. They are reaching for the stars, and we'll have to pay for their pipe dreams. They can't stop another 9/11.... they didn't even try to stop the 1st one. This isn't about protecting us. It's about controlling us while making us think it's for our own good.

If you can't act until a violent crime has been comitted then you have to lose potentially thousands of lives before you can make an arrest

Yes, unfortunately we can't prevent all acts of violence and death. That is life. Government can't do anything about that.

"The government that offers to hold you hand to cross the street ; refuses to let go at the other side"

The reality :

This isn't about protecting us. It's about controlling us while making us think it's for our own good.

and others we don't even suspect.

Ron Paul supporters? (Apparently many of them have big bucks!)

Ron Paul supporters? (Apparently many of them have big bucks!)

$100 each, yeah big bucks.

Our government is trying to break us and the best way to do that is take our jobs away, and freedom of speech.

If they are taking our freedom of speech away-- how come you can post this on the internet?

I hate Bush and believe he and everyone else in DC should be out of office

Everyone? Certainly you can't mean Ron Paul! (PBUH). The People love Ron Paul!

LOL, you love bringing up Ron Paul out of the blue, don't you? Some people do love Ron Paul... that's not half as disgusting as the people who support Rudy, or Fred Thompson.

krishna-167929, you are so tiring to me. I would block you, or what ever that action is I've never used, but you are so persistent, I have to watch and make sure others don't take you seriously.

LOL...

i find him amusing... in a sad, pathetic kind of way

You're awsome, Dwight. I am off to write my letter, too...

Roll call of votes.

Contact links:

U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate

Ruby, don't be surprised. Both parties are after the same things with slight differences here and there. They both want power and control.