Twoofers think new Act targets their "thought crime"

[orphia nay]

I read about this at a woo/twoofy forum thread (http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66030).

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml)

has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html), Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com (http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9825287-38.html?tag=nefd.top), Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kathryn__071128_urgent_3a_help_to_topp.htm) , and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/221107stopped.htm).

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration.


Some of the twoofers comments at the forum I mentioned:

"If they come to my or any others door. It will be time to take up arms."


"The total irony is that it's now legal for the press to lie, for federal agencies to lie and for attorneys to fabricate "evidence" in courts.

But TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT LYING IS BECOMING A CRIME.

Filth rules when the people turn their backs too long. "


"Passing of this bill would be a 'Reichstag' fire without the fire."



This all sounds like the usual twoofy paranoia, but is there any danger of loss of free speech for US citizens? (I'm still reading through the Act, but thought others might like to discuss this.)

[Gravy]

It's ironic, because if the truthers controlled America there would be no free speech and no due process of law.

Don't be too hard on them, though. I was about to make a thought crime-retaining foil beanie when I heard that Darat was experimenting with a forum auto-banning system. The "official" explanation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100317) is innocuous, however. Maybe too innocuous.

Jeff Rense is a source they "know and trust?"

"Well there's yer problem!" [/Adam Savage]

[OldTigerCub]

I have to agree with Gravy...here at jref the freedom of speech is obvious, as it is at some "debunking" forums...no censorship, no messages erased...whereas many troother forums erase, delete or otherwise censor what they don't want the fence-sitter to see.

[Coffee]

My understanding is the act is aimed at groups who would use their ideology to facilitate acts of violence. That has nothing to do with truthers posting their silly claims on the internet. It would apply to a truther group that used "911 was an inside job!!!" to incite members to go out and commit acts of violence.

[Coffee]

I read about this at a woo/twoofy forum thread (http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66030).

Wow. Plenty of comments in that thread show massive amounts of paranoia and an extreme lack of reading comprehension skills.

[defaultdotxbe]

Wow. Plenty of comments in that thread show massive amounts of paranoia and an extreme lack of reading comprehension skills.
i find it very telling that in all the quoted text in that thread none seems to quote the bill itself

[orphia nay]

Jeff Rense is a source they "know and trust?"

"Well there's yer problem!" [/Adam Savage]

:newlol :newlol :newlol


My understanding is the act is aimed at groups who would use their ideology to facilitate acts of violence. That has nothing to do with truthers posting their silly claims on the internet. It would apply to a truther group that used "911 was an inside job!!!" to incite members to go out and commit acts of violence.

Yes, that's my understanding, too.


Wow. Plenty of comments in that thread show massive amounts of paranoia and an extreme lack of reading comprehension skills.


Exactly! :)

Did you like this exchange?:

"What can we do about those people? There are models in the world we can follow yet, sick SOBs always find a way to steal power and inflict their sick policies on us."

"Seek and find God."

[Redtail]

Exactly! :)

Did you like this exchange?:

"What can we do about those people? There are models in the world we can follow yet, sick SOBs always find a way to steal power and inflict their sick policies on us."

"Seek and find God."

The one that got me was the hyping Paul Washer. :D

[1337m4n]

Am I missing something, or is there nothing in that Act that means the end of free speech?

[Sabrina]

You probably aren't missing anything, 1337m4n. These twoofers, on the other hand, have again demonstrated their staggering lack of reading comprehension skills.

[Drudgewire]

"Passing of this bill would be a 'Reichstag' fire without the fire."

This comment was written by an idiot savant, without the savant.


"If they come to my or any others door. It will be time to take up arms."

If they come to your door, it just may be too late. "Excuse me, but could you give me an hour? I need to hit a pawn shop."

[pomeroo]

It's easy to dismiss the twoofers as paranoid loons, but in the old days you could criticize the President of the United States. Nobody is allowed to say anything bad about George W. Bush.

[The Doc]

It's easy to dismiss the twoofers as paranoid loons, but in the old days you could criticize the President of the United States. Nobody is allowed to say anything bad about George W. Bush.

:dl:

Well said, Ron!

[Coffee]

It's easy to dismiss the twoofers as paranoid loons, but in the old days you could criticize the President of the United States. Nobody is allowed to say anything bad about George W. Bush.

You're in big trouble. You're not even allowed to use his name in any format: text, speech, etc. You have used his name in your post. Now THEY will come and get you.

[pomeroo]

You're in big trouble. You're not even allowed to use his name in any format: text, speech, etc. You have used his name in your post. Now THEY will come and get you.


Now you tell me?! I'm writing this reply from a FEMA re-education camp.

[Unsecured Coins]

they're called "happy camps" Ron.

say it!

*cattle prod*

SAY IT!

[pomeroo]

they're called "happy camps" Ron.

say it!

*cattle prod*

SAY IT!


Don't prod me, bro !

[Stellafane]

"If they come to my or any others door. It will be time to take up arms."

Yeah, take up mommy's arms and cry "HIDE ME!! HIDE ME!!"

[scissorhands]

All the 14 year old revolutionaries at LCF are heading to Roxdogs house when the "endtime is near", in order to engage the forces of the New World Order.
He has posted numerous photos of his gun collection to impress them.
Unfortunately they have made that quite apparent on a publicly accessible internet forum, so no problems rounding them up then.

Is there a convenient death camp near Nashville?
It would cut down on the transport.

We need to keep the carbon footprint down these days, at least in the early stages of proceedings. :)

[Unsecured Coins]

He has posted numerous photos of his gun collection to impress them.

And now I'd like to show you what I like to call a "bad day at the office"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0024.jpg

some yutz with a pitcure of him standing next to a couple of assault rifles just does not color me impressed.

[Drudgewire]

All the 14 year old revolutionaries at LCF are heading to Roxdogs house when the "endtime is near", in order to engage the forces of the New World Order.
He has posted numerous photos of his gun collection to impress them.
Unfortunately they have made that quite apparent on a publicly accessible internet forum, so no problems rounding them up then.
Between that and Rev telling us where his underground bunker is going to be, they make it too easy for us sometimes. :cool:

[scissorhands]

He has a large labrador dog also.

[Unsecured Coins]

He has a large labrador dog also.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/2192640ey8.jpg

that's not my dog. but if it was... that'd be awesome

[scissorhands]

FEMA death camp attack dog version 14, if Im not mistaken.

[Unsecured Coins]

in Rome, that dog would be named Awesomous Maximus

[scissorhands]

Apart from the head, it needs a larger jaw like a german shepherd (my preferred dog type).
Ill ask the FEMA animal experimentation and transplantation department to have a look.

[Coffee]

All the 14 year old revolutionaries at LCF are heading to Roxdogs house when the "endtime is near", in order to engage the forces of the New World Order.
He has posted numerous photos of his gun collection to impress them.
Unfortunately they have made that quite apparent on a publicly accessible internet forum, so no problems rounding them up then.

Knuckleheads - all of them.

Even if they used both hands and a map they still couldn't find their arse. Anyone counting on them for revolution has hitched their wagon to the caravan of fail.

[Gravy]

Between that and Rev telling us where his underground bunker is going to be, they make it too easy for us sometimes. :cool:
He has a large labrador dog also.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/2192640ey8.jpg

Favorite post sequence ever!

[boloboffin]

I've been tryin' to tell you guys about this. It is Amaz!ng to me how wide the idiocy surrounding this piece of juicy pork has spread.

[Coffee]

I've been tryin' to tell you guys about this. It is Amaz!ng to me how wide the idiocy surrounding this piece of juicy pork has spread.

Are you talking about starving inbred hillbillies fighting over a juicy pork chop or are you talking about truthers? :)

[scissorhands]

Are you talking about starving inbred hillbillies fighting over a juicy pork chop or are you talking about truthers? :)

I really hope it doesnt get to that stage at Roxdog Manor.
:)

Much.

[Checkmite]

This whole situation reminds me of this YouTube video I once saw, made by this loon who calls himself "John Conner". In the video, he announces that the Patriot Act could be interpreted such that standing in public and denouncing the government becomes an act of terrorism, for which you can be arrested - an obvious ploy by the government to silence dissent! In an attempt to prove his point, he picks a county courthouse and runs back and forth across the street in front of it, shouting about how horrible the government is. Of course, nobody comes out and arrests him, because his fairyland legal interpretation is simply untrue. However, he concludes that his lack of arrest means the cops in the area are "on his side".

[PhantomWolf]

Well from reading through it, unless they are adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change, then they don't have a problem... oh, wait, that's right, a few of them were promoting the idea of armed insurection weren't they... perhaps they do have something to be worried about......

[orphia nay]

Well from reading through it, unless they are adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change, then they don't have a problem... oh, wait, that's right, a few of them were promoting the idea of armed insurection weren't they... perhaps they do have something to be worried about......

I conveyed similar thoughts in the thread, and got asked, "You NSA?" :newlol

Their perceptiveness is uncanny. ;)

[tomwaits]

I ask the SLC dudes, who is currently the truther "most likely to go postal"? Wasn't it that guy who pulled the gun out at a meeting for no reason?

[Alareth]

And now I'd like to show you what I like to call a "bad day at the office"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/DSCI0024.jpg

some yutz with a pitcure of him standing next to a couple of assault rifles just does not color me impressed.


.30 cal belt feed?

[uk_dave]

.30 cal belt feed?


plus a 4 inch water bottle mortar.

[stilicho]

It's ironic, because if the truthers controlled America there would be no free speech and no due process of law.
I agree with this. I have seen the charge of treason thrown around by a lot of "truthers" and I doubt they know what your constitution entails to make that one stick.

This is described in the US Constitution, the very thing these people pretend to support: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

How do these "truthers" intend to obtain this testimony or confession without defying the document they say they are defending?

[Coffee]

I agree with this. I have seen the charge of treason thrown around by a lot of "truthers" and I doubt they know what your constitution entails to make that one stick.

This is described in the US Constitution, the very thing these people pretend to support: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

How do these "truthers" intend to obtain this testimony or confession without defying the document they say they are defending?

Truthers do not understand the US Constitution, truthers do not understand 9/11 and they lie about both.

[Coffee]

I conveyed similar thoughts in the thread, and got asked, "You NSA?" :newlol

Their perceptiveness is uncanny. ;)

NSA???? Their perception is crap!
I can plainly see that you're an agent from S.H.I.E.L.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.H.I.E.L.D.)

[orphia nay]

:D

NSA, NWO, S.H.I.E.L.D... as long as those pay cheques keep coming in, it doesn't matter to me who keeps sending them.

[Unsecured Coins]

.30 cal belt feed?
.50 cal. The first picture is Mk 19 reminants, the second is what fell inside the hummer with the water bottle mortars, and the 3rd is what was on top of it.

it took about 1 minute and a half of firing to get all that brass.

[Drudgewire]

.50 cal. The first picture is Mk 19 reminants, the second is what fell inside the hummer with the water bottle mortars, and the 3rd is what was on top of it.

it took about 1 minute and a half of firing to get all that brass.
On the way back from Spain I was watching an in-flight CSI where the killer used a Desert Eagle. When they found the .50 cal. casing the nerdy lab dude made a comment about how you could drink an espressio out of it. :D

[Hellbound]

Even if they used both hands and a map they still couldn't find their arse.

They could use both hands, a GPS unit, and flashing neon underwear and it wouldn't help.

[FactCheck]

Even though I think one of these people will one day kill innocent people in a McVeigh style act, I would never censor what they say.

"Live free or DIE!"

The next American terrorist act will be a truther! (If it happens I'll pretend to be a prophet like Alex Jones.) WE KNOW WHO DID IT!!! ;)

[CHF]

The government's out to get da twoofers! Soon US jail will be overflowing with single white males wearing "investigate 9/11" t-shirts.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the twoofers continue to fantasize about being a persecuted underground revolutionary movement.

Pretty pathetic.

[Hellbound]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the twoofers continue to fantasize about being a persecuted underground revolutionary movement.

While openly declaring themselves and criticising the government in public places.

*snicker*

Sorry, I can't help but chuckle every time I think about this!

[Brainster]

I ask the SLC dudes, who is currently the truther "most likely to go postal"? Wasn't it that guy who pulled the gun out at a meeting for no reason?

Hmmm, don't remember that incident. It will almost certainly be one of the We Are Changers; fortunately the cops have arrested (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/troofer-wac-job-busted.html) Jason Gerhard, the WACjob with the pipe bomb.

[Belz...]

Now you tell me?! I'm writing this reply from a FEMA re-education camp.

:D

[Vincent Vega]

.30 cal belt feed?

.50 Cal and 40mm Mk19.

*oops gota hit refresh OIAW.

The PRE-120mm tank days were far more impressive in regards to firing debris. Aft caps..hah. Try being knee deep in smoking 105mm brass.

[tomwaits]

Hmmm, don't remember that incident. It will almost certainly be one of the We Are Changers; fortunately the cops have arrested (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/troofer-wac-job-busted.html) Jason Gerhard, the WACjob with the pipe bomb.

oh! i found it.

January 2007:

John Stadtmiller terrorizes RBN workers - (Menaces workers with firearm at staff meeting, and threatens to send police to workers' home)

Although I was wrong in that this was not nominated for "truther most likely to go postal". But it should certainly be considered.

ETA: Link (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/truther-radio-wars-continue.html)

[Blackwell]

They could use both hands, a GPS unit, and flashing neon underwear and it wouldn't help.

Only because they haven't realized that their heads are already there.

[pomeroo]

:D

NSA, NWO, S.H.I.E.L.D... as long as those pay cheques keep coming in, it doesn't matter to me who keeps sending them.


This is a very sensitive subject for me. I just received a post card from Acapulco. I was not amused.

[orphia nay]

This is a very sensitive subject for me. I just received a post card from Acapulco. I was not amused.

To be honest, the cheques are made out in Ameros, and I have no idea where I can cash them. You're probably doing better out of this than I am.

[SezMe]

This all sounds like the usual twoofy paranoia, but is there any danger of loss of free speech for US citizens? (I'm still reading through the Act, but thought others might like to discuss this.)
While this thread has focused on the twoofer aspect of orphia's OP, I'd like to focus on her question above. I think the answer is a tentative 'yes'.

Consider this:
Section J(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.
In whose eyes is an "extremist belief system" to be considered. Just yesterday, Romney warned against those who seek to establish a "secular" government! (Never mind that we already have one). One can imagine a Romney Administration defining secularism as an extremist belief system.

Consider this:
Section J(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.
Under this clause, Fred Phelps is committing an act of homegrown terrorism. Now you may like that outcome but consider that it also makes those bikers who get in Phelps' face homegrown terrorists. I'll bet you don't like THAT outcome.

Or suppose you advocate here that we meet at Ground Zero and get in the faces of the twoofers and show them a thing or two. Oops, you've just committed an act of homegrown terrorism by "threatening" "any segment" of the civilian population in furtherance of the social objective of rational thinking.

Finally, consider this:
Section J(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.
Under this definition, the civil rights marches in the 60s and 70s to protest Jim Crow in the south are acts of "Ideologically based violence".

I'm not comfortable with these overly broad definitons and can easily see their misuse under a malevolent Administration. Ergo, I see the threat of the loss of free speech in this act.

[boloboffin]

Yes, the definitions are loopy, and the ACLU and the CCR are swarming over it - but rationally. The "force or violence" thing is one of the more troublesome spots as is "extremist belief system" -- who decides?

You might be surprised to see how close Bill Kristol is to committing violent radicalization. He appears on TV and is editor of a magazine that promotes a belief system, and in these places and others he advocates "ideologically based violence". Yes, he does. He want to use force or violence against Iran to promote his political and social beliefs. That's the definition.

This ideologically based violence that Kristol is promoting is done to advance political and social change in the Middle East. That's two out of three prongs of the definition of "violent radicalization."

So if you consider Kristol extreme in his belief system, then you can use this bill to find ways to stop him from promoting his belief system. If you're of the opinion that Bill Kristol might not be that dangerous, then you agree with me that perhaps we can find some better ways to define these actions.

[orphia nay]

I wouldn't think peaceful protest classifies as "ideologically based violence". Would it?

[Sporanox]

In whose eyes is an "extremist belief system" to be considered. Just yesterday, Romney warned against those who seek to establish a "secular" government! (Never mind that we already have one). One can imagine a Romney Administration defining secularism as an extremist belief system.

As long as secularists don't commit, promote, or fund ideologically based violence, which they do not, then they have nothing to worry about. This is assuming that "secularism" will be classified as extremist - which would anger at least half of America and most of Congress.

Under this clause, Fred Phelps is committing an act of homegrown terrorism. Now you may like that outcome but consider that it also makes those bikers who get in Phelps' face homegrown terrorists. I'll bet you don't like THAT outcome.

Or suppose you advocate here that we meet at Ground Zero and get in the faces of the twoofers and show them a thing or two. Oops, you've just committed an act of homegrown terrorism by "threatening" "any segment" of the civilian population in furtherance of the social objective of rational thinking.

I'm not sure if Phelps is threatening to use force of violence at his shameful funeral protests, but what I am sure of is that the bikers who oppose him DO NOT threaten or, as far as I know, even try to reason with him. They simply surround the funeral with American flags, block Phelps' idiocy from reaching others, and rev their engines so loud that nobody can hear it either. In anybody's book that should NOT constitute use of force.

Your example with confronting the truthers isn't violence either, as far as I know, because nobody is threatening the use of force. The key word here isn't "threaten," it's violence.

[boloboffin]

As long as secularists don't commit, promote, or fund ideologically based violence, which they do not, then they have nothing to worry about. This is assuming that "secularism" will be classified as extremist - which would anger at least half of America and most of Congress.



I'm not sure if Phelps is threatening to use force of violence at his shameful funeral protests, but what I am sure of is that the bikers who oppose him DO NOT threaten or, as far as I know, even try to reason with him. They simply surround the funeral with American flags, block Phelps' idiocy from reaching others, and rev their engines so loud that nobody can hear it either. In anybody's book that should NOT constitute use of force.

Your example with confronting the truthers isn't violence either, as far as I know, because nobody is threatening the use of force. The key word here isn't "threaten," it's violence.

I wish this was over in Politics or Social Issues (my pref). I don't see this as political because I agree that if a way can be found to frustrate the ability of terrorists to organize over the Internet, or frustrate the aims of people seeking to radicalize people here in the United States, while still protecting civil liberties and Constitutional rights, then we should be getting those things into law.

I agree that the key word should be "violence," and so I don't understand why the words "force or violence" are used. Why does anyone need to say "force" in that definition if "violence" is the key?

Certain non-violent protests do seem to fall under the idea of "force," like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat or the lunch counter sit-ins. These kind of protests worked because it gave the prevailing social order a choice. They could stop desegregation, or the protests would provoke force and violence in other people, causing the protesters' suffering to be displayed to the world, and forcing the national government to restore the peace.

Now let's walk through the definition as it reads:

"adopting or promoting an extremist belief system" -- the 1960s civil rights protesters could be said to promote an extremist belief system, that of their opponents. Headlines and pictures all across the world is certainly promotion. You will say that promotion means an approving promotion. The bill does not, however.

"for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence" -- without the protesters, their opponents would not be committing such overt acts of ideologically based violence. Note, this manifestly does not say that the person promoting the belief system is committing the violence. Otherwise, how could they go after people promoting extreme belief systems on the Internet who are trying to radicalize other people inside the United States? The separation of committing the violence and the promoters and/or adopters is inherent to this definition.

"to advance political, religious, or social change" -- that is the civil rights movement in a nutshell.

Any laws based on these craptacular definitions could conceivably be turned against non-violent protesters. Yes, the bill as it stands commits the entire Department of Homeland Security to the task of not violating anyone's civil rights or Constitutional rights. That is all the more reason to get these definitions under control.

[Corsair 115]

To be honest, the cheques are made out in Ameros, and I have no idea where I can cash them. You're probably doing better out of this than I am.You should have asked for payment in the form of gold bars. Or perhaps gold-pressed latinum...

[winnietheblue]

Unless I am entirely misreading the bill, don't the definitions only apply to subsection J of the Homeland Security Act (which this bill is creating), and isn't subsection J only concerned with the creation of the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism (and the associated center for excellence)? The definitions may be a little broad, but since they are describing what the commission is suppose to be studying, I am not sure that broad definitions are a bad thing. When the commission comes back with their findings, and new laws start being proposed, that's the time to get as nit-picky and as precise as possible with definitions.

[Sporanox]

Certain non-violent protests do seem to fall under the idea of "force," like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat or the lunch counter sit-ins. These kind of protests worked because it gave the prevailing social order a choice. They could stop desegregation, or the protests would provoke force and violence in other people, causing the protesters' suffering to be displayed to the world, and forcing the national government to restore the peace.

Doesn't this stretch it a little bit? I believe Parks' actions are an example of passive resistance, nonviolent disobedience, transcendental principles or soul force, whatever anybody wants to call it.

I have never once heard anybody defining the protests of Parks or Gandhi as the "use of force."


"adopting or promoting an extremist belief system" -- the 1960s civil rights protesters could be said to promote an extremist belief system, that of their opponents. Headlines and pictures all across the world is certainly promotion. You will say that promotion means an approving promotion. The bill does not, however.


Do you seriously think anybody will attempt to label their own position as an "extremist belief system" simply to tag the opposing group under this law for "promoting" it? That seems very counterproductive, and in and of itself would be a promotion.

"for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence" -- without the protesters, their opponents would not be committing such overt acts of ideologically based violence. Note, this manifestly does not say that the person promoting the belief system is committing the violence. Otherwise, how could they go after people promoting extreme belief systems on the Internet who are trying to radicalize other people inside the United States? The separation of committing the violence and the promoters and/or adopters is inherent to this definition.

It's important for any government to go after terrorist enablers and promoters as well as the actual terrorists. I suspect this is why they did not simply provide for the prosecution of those in an extremist system who commit violence. In fact, without that clause I assume this bill would be pointless.

Looking at the rest of your post, you're saying the protesters could be seen as promoting violence against themselves? True, but wouldn't that be attributing this violence to the "extremist belief system" (e.g. the force opposing the protesters) defined in your earlier quote?

So in other words the government has defined itself as an extremist belief system committing violence against the protesters and is now blaming the protesters for simply promoting it. This of course would be illegal by definition 4...

“(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 pretty sure this wouldn't fly in a court without a presiding kangaroo.

[LashL]

Unless I am entirely misreading the bill, don't the definitions only apply to subsection J of the Homeland Security Act (which this bill is creating), and isn't subsection J only concerned with the creation of the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism (and the associated center for excellence)? The definitions may be a little broad, but since they are describing what the commission is suppose to be studying, I am not sure that broad definitions are a bad thing. When the commission comes back with their findings, and new laws start being proposed, that's the time to get as nit-picky and as precise as possible with definitions.

You are reading it correctly. This bill merely creates the commission and the associated center and sets out the framework for the commission's staffing, mandate, etc. for the study of the root causes of radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

[boloboffin]

I hasten to add that I realize this bill criminalizes nothing. I'm merely saying that these definitions are substandard and should be made more precise now, not later.

[LashL]

I hasten to add that I realize this bill criminalizes nothing. I'm merely saying that these definitions are substandard and should be made more precise now, not later.


They don't seem too bad to me, as far as definitions go, in light of their purpose, which is to advance the study of the causes of terrorism. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me to utilize broad definitions in the circumstances and the context at hand. It seems to me that narrow definitions would limit and circumscribe legitimate study unnecessarily, and detract significantly from the purpose and scope of the exercise.

Just MHO, of course.

[PhantomWolf]

They don't seem too bad to me, as far as definitions go, in light of their purpose, which is to advance the study of the causes of terrorism. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me to utilize broad definitions in the circumstances and the context at hand. It seems to me that narrow definitions would limit and circumscribe legitimate study unnecessarily, and detract significantly from the purpose and scope of the exercise.

Just MHO, of course.

yes, like our own contravertial Terrorism bill which all the ativists claim will make their protests acts of terrorism, but when it came right down to it, you can't charge people short of catching them planting a bomb.