The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Violent Radicalization bill
Nova_C
I have the needThe need for speedRegistered User regular
I have the needThe need for speedRegistered User regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
I'm trying to understand what all this bill could mean for the US. This seems like the sort of thing this board would jump on, but with search disabled I can't really look, so if this is covered, can I get the link to the thread?
Anyway, it seems like this could potentially introduce a McCarthy-esque investigative committee to basically witch hunt terrorists. However, it also seems like the Supreme Court is typically pretty good at ruling against unconstitutional laws.
What are your guys' thoughts on this?
Kinda vague, no?
EDIT: Link to the bill proper
I'm trying to understand what all this bill could mean for the US. This seems like the sort of thing this board would jump on, but with search disabled I can't really look, so if this is covered, can I get the link to the thread?
Anyway, it seems like this could potentially introduce a McCarthy-esque investigative committee to basically witch hunt terrorists. However, it also seems like the Supreme Court is typically pretty good at ruling against unconstitutional laws.
What are your guys' thoughts on this?
`(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.
Kinda vague, no?
EDIT: Link to the bill proper
Nova_C on
0
Posts
Clearly this legislation is necessary.
That would be a superb bargaining chip. "You do not want to be charged as a <insert scary T word> do you?!".
Honestly, it really is just grandstanding for a cheap misleading shot during a later election cycle.
I dunno about that. According to the article linked in the OP, which is supported by the page on the House version of the bill, this bill was made by Democrats. Though now it is being sponsored in the Senate by Republicans.
Well, it does refer specifically to the planned or threatened use of violence so not every activist group would qualify, but it is written far too broadly and I agree that it would probably be used in situations that wouldn't be generally considered to be terrorism.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
The way I read it, you have no problem charging school bullies under that. Anything you do to intimidate anybody. With a 20 word amendment to the bill there won't be any need of a criminal code.
There are so many stovepipe organizations that exist in a vacuum without benefit of coordination at the lower levels where it could do the most good. On the other hand this grants a certain amount of latitude over religious groups and could very well be a breach of Constitutional law in regards to religious freedoms.
In my opinion, this is a needed bill. It should be scrutinized and debated, and it couldn't come at a worse time with the current administration and their known zest for suspending the Bill of Rights.
Please explain, specifically, how this bill is superior to the existing laws that define terrorism and make it a crime. Keep in mind that the terror plots you mention were already crimes. Does this bill make such actions Double Secret Illegal?
How and why?? I see you repeating twice that this is something that is needed, dare I ask why? I'm not familiar with the above plots, in what way was current law inadequate?
edit:ditto.
This is just my opinion, but I'm not married to it. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
It also includes implications of violent intent which if you're applying to a group of people is pretty fucking vague.
An emergent threat? Religious extremism and terrorism has always been around and I've never been convinced it's happening in the US now more than it used to. Of course, if you can show me that there is more terrorism in the US in the 2000s over say the 80s or 90s, I'll amend that.
Creating a second punishment above and beyond the existing does not add boots on the ground for the FBI.
What "shoulda been illegal but got by on a loophole" crime does this bill solve?
All it does is slap the big T word to ordinary crime.
What does passing this bill accomplish that enforcing current laws does not?
Why can I see a DA arguing that emotional or verbal abuse is a form of violence...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
You're right on, kildy. Creating specific anti-terrorism laws is pointless. Any terrorist act falls under Murder, attempted Murder, illegal possession of explosives, and many many other charges. This is legal grandstanding which will hopefully end in this bill dying a quiet death. But mark my words, vague laws like this proposed bill lead to nothing but trouble if and when passed.
Why spend time and money fixing the FBI, the CIA and the rest of America's intelligence & anti-terrorism systems when we can pass bad-ass sounding laws? Because it makes good press!
*Sighs.* It's shit like this which convinces me more and more that the American government isn't evil, just criminally incompetent/negligent. It's not "liberal" or "conservative" to say so. The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies need tools and funding to do their job, end of story. Draconian laws (PATRIOT Act) and political grandstanding ("I hate drugs and terrorism! Vote for me!") never help people "on the ground" protect and serve the public.
I'd go back even further than that, actually - at one point Birmingham, Alabama was nicknamed "Bombingham" - not because of race riots, but because of union activism. So - show me that there is more terrorism in the US in 2008 than there was in 1908 or 1808 and we'll talk. Oh, and don't forget about that silly destruction of goods thing they did with a tea cargo and Boston Harbor and the subsequent military actions.
Rebellion? Sure. Patriotism? Sure. If it happened today, it might be called an emergent threat with domestic orgins.
Since I'm a foreigner to you, let me tell you that a lot of us are genuinely scared to visit America ever since it took just some miscommunication or a bad word from the wrong person to whisk you away to a murky dungeon.
The bill in question actually admits that it doesn't care about the rights of foreigners:
Like non-residents are not entitled to most of those rights.
It's also highly unclear sometimes where an individual ends and a group begins. If one member of Greenpeace vandalizes some SUVs does that make the whole group a terrorist organization? Under that law you could make the case that it does.
I can hardly blame you, but be aware that despite all the debate about gitmo/renditions, like 99.9999% of people here (non-residents included) are entirely unaffected by it.
Such as that douchebag from California, can't remember his name. (The kid from Marin County who they found in an Afghan prison or something. It was big news for a while and I think his family is trying to get him released from jail.)
And that other douchebag who's in a bunch of Al Qaeda videos.
Exactly because it's so rare and it only happening to foreigners makes the american public care less, that does not make it right. My point was that the makers of the bill seem to care as little as them and openly admit that. This is something I can fault them for, since they should know better than the common folk.
It's part of a mentality that is really detrimental to the international image of the US. Another example of it is not accepting the international courts set up by the UN.
The bill actually isn't about directly preventing radicalization if you read carefully (despite the name, funny that). It's just a call to document and examine the causes of radicalization, what can be done about it and gathering that information from different departments.
This is actually a useful thing to know, I'm just not sure it's the task of the government to research these kinds of matters. It really needs independent academic overview.
NO.
OH NOES PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC TERRORISM THEY'RE TAKIN' MAH FREEDOM
I get that it does nothing but lay groundwork for something very very very bad. But you know... is it really doesn't sound like a great use of my tax money. Not when we are in the middle of a depression(hyperbole)
The FBI investigates domestic terrorism already, and we have DHS to make sure information gets passed around. Why not just invest in our current resources, and save a lot of money and stress?
politics of course, but I don't see why it isn't a argument that properly framed would convince a lot on the right. I really wish the left weren't so ineffective.
seriously though, this doesn't sound cheap. I haven't heard where the money is coming from, and well there are a lot of people that at least pretend to care about that sort of thing.
http://www.hurr.hurr.hurr.hurr.com
It is mind-shattering and makes perfect sense at the same time
Ah.
If that's the case, I'm agin' it on the premise that we shouldn't be clogging the lawbooks with useless legislation.
Oh, well they say the purpose is limited.
I guess I won't worry about it then.