HR 1955, how bad is it really?

[nancylebov]

I'm sorry, I posted in haste, and hadn't read the whole bill, let alone thought about it.

It does just establish a Commission to study domestic terrorism. It doesn't define crimes and punishments, and it's my impression that commissions usually get ignored anyway.

On the other hand, it's got 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., which strikes me as unnervingly vague--it's not saying beliefs that advocate violence, it's saying adopting a belief that facilitates violence, which leaves an awful lot of room for saying that a belief facilitates violence whether its promoters want violence or whether any violence occurs.

This isn't even about thought crime. This is about whether someone in power is guessing that some thoughts might be intended to lead towards crime.

Sloppy wording? A move towards total tyranny?

So I suppose that, at worst, the bill represents thought crime on the part of the government, and there are more important things to oppose.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

It honestly sounds a lot more about keeping track of the sorts of people who advocate violent resistance to, and occasionally violent overthrow of, the US government. I have great difficulty seeing anything bad about this. Advocating opposition to the government or its policies is a very different thing from advocating violence against it, and the second is fairly clearly a bad thing, especially since it quite literally leads to thinks like the Oklahoma City bombing.

I was very disappointed after that incident that the various "patriot groups" who supported McVeigh and Nichols' actions were not placed under more careful scrutiny. If they had been non-white or non-Christian, I'm certain there would have been a 9/11-like reaction to them, but instead they were almost completely ignored. If the government is going to be keeping track of them and other Americans who are advocating violence against the government, I'm quite pleased. Republican policy seems largely focused on non-violent progressives and all Muslims, focusing on groups who actually talk openly about hurting or killing people is a big step forward, as well as not (from my PoV at least) an unreasonable activity.

Even if they aren't building bombs, if someone stands on a streetcorner and gives a speech about how people should kill government officials (such things actually happen in the small towns in the midwest, largely focused around farm foreclosures. In such cases, the speeches are also usually leavened with a goodly amount of anti-semitism) or does anything similar, it makes a great deal of sense for the government to watch them very carefully. In what way is this a bad idea?

[madfilkentist]

<SATIRE>I'm very disappointed that the various "Muslim groups" who supported Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden weren't placed under more careful scrutiny. If they hadn't been a minority group which we mustn't offend, this would have happened, but instead they were mostly ignored. If the government is going to be keeping track of traitors and subversives who want to destroy the American Way of Life, I'll be quite pleased. Liberal policy seems largely focused on being tolerant of everybody (except us followers of the True Christian Way), focusing on groups who actually talk openly about hurting or killing people is a big step forward, as well as not (from my PoV at least) an unreasonable activity. </SATIRE>

The above is a paraphrase, without significant distortion, of what many people have said. I detect certain similarities.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I was very disappointed after that incident that the various "patriot groups" who supported McVeigh and Nichols' actions were not placed under more careful scrutiny. If they had been non-white or non-Christian, I'm certain there would have been a 9/11-like reaction to them, but instead they were almost completely ignored.

In fact, there hasn't been significant violence from "patriot groups" (or did I miss something?), so not pursuing them looks like it was the right thing to do so far.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Or at least not pursuing them at 9/11 levels.

[chatworthy.livejournal.com]

I went over and read the bill. When I read legislation, I both best-case and worst-case it.

Best case for this one: A complete waste of time and resources. I note that members of that commission will be paid. I'm not familiar with the pay scale mentioned, but I'd be surprised if it was less than six figures.

Worst case: opening the door more for the thought police.

My opinion: Does nothing useful. Kill it. Surely there's a deserving international mollusk commission somewhere that could use the money.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

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.

You mean, like the neoconservatives?

-- Steve'd love to see them hoist upon their own legislation, but thinks the resulting commission would be too polarized in favour of, and sadly attribution of this quote is lost, "the most radical government in American history." (2001, pre-9/11)