NationStates Jolt Archive

or at least that's what people (http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682)are telling me about the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955).

It seems to stem from this: `(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.

Looking over the bill, this seems somewhat exaggerated, but I haven't examined it carefully yet.

what do you guys think?

I think it's a "do-nothing" bill that people are blowing out of proportion. It's basically an excuse to let people add another committee to their resume without having to do much of anything.

time to use all those dirty thoughts whilst you still can?

Wow, this seems to take the cake for a pro-capitalist reactionary counter-revolutionary law.

This bill has nothing to do with criminalizing "thought"; ergo, this thread fails.

Doesn't the US already have laws against promoting or inciting violence? I don't see the big deal...

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.
I support this kind of violence against reactionaries.

I support this kind of violence against reactionaries.

Yes, because you a cruel, brutal man who resorts to violence to further his atrocious ideological agenda. Reasonable people disagree with your stance on such an issue.

This bill has nothing to do with criminalizing "thought"; ergo, this thread fails.

This thread isn't just about the bill, it's about the accusations about it that are already being made, accusations I want to know if there is any basis to.

Also, adopting or promoting an extremist belief system is a thought, so to criminalize it would be to criminalize a thought. I'm not sure if that's what this bill does, though.

So 'Combatting Political Terrorism=Thoughtcrime' now?

Yes, because you a cruel, brutal man who resorts to violence to further his atrocious ideological agenda. Reasonable people disagree with your stance on such an issue.
Well I won't go into the long long list of US imperialist crimes, albeit to say that in a war (against reactionism), people die.

`(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.That's the only thing that really jumps out at me as worrisome. Is a gang member now considered a terrorist, as well? How about violence committed while a criminal is doing a drug run? Etc.

I dislike the notion of adding superfluous and unnecessary (and simply incorrect) convictions onto already heinous crimes for no other purpose than extra punishment. I mean, in all honesty, the vast majority of violence is "ideologically based violence"...fuck, non-premeditated murder or assault (an act of passion) is "the use....of force or violence by a[n]...individual to promote the...individual's social beliefs" when it really comes down to it. But giving that the same connotation of terrorism seems slightly absurd, no?

Also,

adopting or promoting an extremist belief system

is a thought, so to criminalize it would be to criminalize a thought. I'm not sure if that's what this bill does, though.

Don't be so dishonest, 'adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' if it's 'for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence'.

It would be a logically step from this for the reactionary rulers of the US to ban literature and the like deemed which advocates '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', so in other words it's a reactionary counter-revolutionary protection for the capitalist status-quo, it's conservatism in stone.

Also, is a thought, so to criminalize it would be to criminalize a thought. I'm not sure if that's what this bill does, though.

Nope, the bill doesn't criminalize anything. All it does is set up a committee to study such things and maybe to try and prevent them. There is no authority given to them to pursue any legal action against anyone.


I dislike the notion of adding superfluous and unnecessary (and simply incorrect) convictions onto already heinous crimes for no other purpose than extra punishment. I mean, in all honesty, the vast majority of violence is "ideologically based violence"...fuck, non-premeditated murder or assault (an act of passion) is "the use....of force or violence by a[n]...individual to promote the...individual's social beliefs" when it really comes down to it. But giving that the same connotation of terrorism seems slightly absurd, no?

Seriously people. Read the bill. It doesn't add any convictions onto anything. It doesn't make anything illegal. It doesn't change criminal law in the least.

All it does is set up a freaking committee.

So 'Combatting Political Terrorism=Thoughtcrime' now?

If the heads of state want to end terrorism, they should go ahead and kill themselves.

I have the right to think anything I want. I have the right to say anything I want. And if someone thinks terrorists have a good cause, they have the right to believe it and share their opinions.

Can you use it against PETA?

Yes, because you a cruel, brutal man who resorts to violence to further his atrocious ideological agenda. Reasonable people disagree with your stance on such an issue.Since I've yet to see you reasonable, I'll have to assume you agree with him.

After reading the bill, I have no objections to it. All it does is set up a commission to determine ways to prevent ideologically-based terrorism, especially home-grown terrorism. It does not make anything illegal. It does not legalize anything. The only unusual thing about this commission that I can find is this:
Sec 899C, subsection q, paragraph 1: FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.
Bush is not going to recieve this final report. He won't be in office any longer. Interesting.

Here is my final opinion: If I were in Congress, I would vote for this bill.

Hey, why don't we do that - make a poll. If you were in Congress, how would you vote on this bill?

I predict that anything this comittee does will be shot down by the Supreme court.

Can you use it against PETA?
We can only hope. Not only does PETA kill animals in droves, they have openly supported funded known terrorists who have targeted medical reserach facilities. That's practicaly torching a hospital or a pharmacy.

Is it just me or does Eureka Australis seem like a puppet troll intended to paint commies in a worse light than they deserve? Don't get me wrong, communism is just plain wrong but I'd like to think of most commies as simply misguided.

I repeat:

http://www.hannekegroenteman.nl/images/bush_1984_churchsign.jpg

I predict that anything this comittee does will be shot down by the Supreme court.

The committee will merely make recommendations. It won't be able to DO anything.

What the deuce?