WTF is a THOUGHT CRIMES BILL????????

[CrimsonWhite]

Somebody needs to block Nuclear Winter from reading this. This bill would give him shit to write about for years.

 

[Larkinn]

BTW, we are already liable for thoughts. It's called Hate Crimes legislation.

Really? Tell me what thoughts that legislation made illegal?

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn

BTW, we are already liable for thoughts. It's called Hate Crimes legislation.

Really? Tell me what thoughts that legislation made illegal?

Whatever thoughts lead you to commit a crime based on hate. But you knew that.

 

[Larkinn]

Whatever thoughts lead you to commit a crime based on hate. But you knew that.

So you meant to say that its the actions that make it a crime, not the thought. I see.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
Whatever thoughts lead you to commit a crime based on hate. But you knew that.

So you meant to say that its the actions that make it a crime, not the thought. I see.

uh nope. If you commit assault and battery you get one sentence. If you commit assault and battery and there is a defined "hate" component involved, you get a harsher sentence. Hate is a product of your thoughts. Thus it is a thought crime.

 

[Larkinn]

uh nope. If you commit assault and battery you get one sentence. If you commit assault and battery and there is a defined "hate" component involved, you get a harsher sentence. Hate is a product of your thoughts. Thus it is a thought crime.

And what happens if you just commit the hate? Nothing. Therefore, its not a thought crime. Its taking in the motive as part of the punishment which there is a long and storied past to doing. Nobody says that the difference between murder is a thought crime since intent matters. But then you don't have a political bias when it comes to murder, now do you?

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
uh nope. If you commit assault and battery you get one sentence. If you commit assault and battery and there is a defined "hate" component involved, you get a harsher sentence. Hate is a product of your thoughts. Thus it is a thought crime.

And what happens if you just commit the hate? Nothing. Therefore, its not a thought crime. Its taking in the motive as part of the punishment which there is a long and storied past to doing. Nobody says that the difference between murder is a thought crime since intent matters. But then you don't have a political bias when it comes to murder, now do you?

If you just commit the hate you won't be caught and so the argument is pointless. If you commit a crime, and TPTB decide you are a hater, then you get slammed for the crime plus the hate. Thus, a thought crime.

Bias? No Comprende.....

 

[eots]

Terrorists and Terrorism Broadly Defined

In less-well publicized amendments, lawmakers added language to the Patriot Act very broadly defining terrorism and who the Justice Department and Secretary of State can designate as eligible for investigation and close surveillance according to provisions of the Patriot Act.

• You need not be a member of a terrorist group to be considered a terrorist. If you openly represent or seek community support for terrorist acts or a known terrorist organization, you could be declared a terrorist.

• Raising money for or giving money to a terrorist group is considered a direct act of terrorism if the funds are used to plan or conduct an act of terrorism.

• Providing services or assistance to terrorists can also be declared an act of terrorism unless the accused can prove "he did not know, and should not reasonably have known" the services would be used to assist a terrorist act. Knowingly providing a hideout, transportation, training or firearms are examples of services that could fall under this provision.

• Members of terrorists' immediate family may be considered and treated as terrorists themselves unless they can prove to the satisfaction of the Justice Department that they were either unaware of or had openly renounced the terrorist activity.

• Spouses and children of terrorists can be treated like terrorists themselves unless "the attorney general has reasonable grounds to believe [the family member] has renounced the activity."

What is a "terrorist activity?"
Under the Patriot Act, terrorist activities include:

• threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles.

• threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials

• any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain"

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Section 411 of the Patriot Act purportedly defines foreign terrorist organizations. However, as the ACLU points out, this provision "permits designation [of] foreign and domestic groups," since the provision defines these groups as "any political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity" - which, of course, under the Section 802 could mean lawful protest




Under existing law (8 USC 2339b), an American citizen who gives money to an organization that the Attorney General or Secretary of State has designated a terrorist organization, can be prosecuted for the crime of "providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization."
Section 802 of the Act, borrowing from the definition of international terrorism contained in 18 USC 2331, creates the federal crime of "domestic terrorism."

Among other things, this section states that acts committed within the United States "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" can be considered acts of domestic terrorism if they "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."



http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.06D.JVB.Patriot.htm

 

[manifold]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959



http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/cair-cheers-thought-crime-bill-passage/



And how many ways can this small minded marvel be misconstrude with it's vaguely worded premise????????????

I just finished reading the text of the bill and I'm a bit confused. I fully expected to be outraged by yet another obvious afront to civil liberties but I just couldn't see it. As far as I can tell, this bill merely establishes a commission to do some research and report back what they find. What am I missing?

 

[Larkinn]

If you just commit the hate you won't be caught and so the argument is pointless.

Sure you can be. Go to your local police department and say "man, but I hate *******". Watch them not arrest you. Hate isn't a crime.

If you commit a crime, and TPTB decide you are a hater, then you get slammed for the crime plus the hate. Thus, a thought crime.

Bias? No Comprende.....

Nope, its the motive that matters, not the thought. You could kill someone because they are black because you think blacks are inferior and its the only humane thing to do so they won't suffer, and you'll get charged with a hate crime.

 

[manifold]

Nope, its the motive that matters, not the thought.

Split hairs much?

 

[Larkinn]

Split hairs much?

When talking about essential civil liberties in this country? Yes, I will because knowing exactly what the government can and cannot infringe upon is important, and should be detailed and not generalized.

 

[manifold]

When talking about essential civil liberties in this country? Yes, I will because knowing exactly what the government can and cannot infringe upon is important, and should be detailed and not generalized.

I guess you don't know what that saying really means so I'll educate you. It means you are drawing a distinction where there isn't one.

 

[Larkinn]

I guess you don't know what that saying really means so I'll educate you. It means you are drawing a distinction where there isn't one.

Actually it means drawing a distinction where the distinction is perceived as unimportant. But nice try.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
If you just commit the hate you won't be caught and so the argument is pointless.

Sure you can be. Go to your local police department and say "man, but I hate *******". Watch them not arrest you. Hate isn't a crime.

Hate crime legislation says otherwise. Besides that, in your scenario, the confession would be inadmissible. The cops know that and would not bother with you.

Quote:
If you commit a crime, and TPTB decide you are a hater, then you get slammed for the crime plus the hate. Thus, a thought crime.

Bias? No Comprende.....

Nope, its the motive that matters, not the thought. You could kill someone because they are black because you think blacks are inferior and its the only humane thing to do so they won't suffer, and you'll get charged with a hate crime. Semantics. You cannot provably have hate without the ability to think. But nice try.

Well, that was boring enough.

 

[Larkinn]

Hate crime legislation says otherwise. Besides that, in your scenario, the confession would be inadmissible. The cops know that and would not bother with you.

No, it really doesn't. And assume the confession would be admissible. Its not illegal to make that statement. Clear intent of thought and hatred. But yet not illegal.

Semantics. You cannot provably have hate without the ability to think. But nice try.

So now you are saying that the crime hinges on being able to think? Sure, I'll agree to that. Almost all crimes involve that. These are no different.

 

[manifold]

Actually it means drawing a distinction where the distinction is perceived as unimportant. But nice try.

You're doing it again.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Storm trooper tactics...................against the American population which is what this bill perpetrates down the road..................more braindead Janet Reno like solutions to a very complex set of problems that we are going to experience being on the road that we are on.....................

Well, on that point Janet Reno got that one right....and I'm a very conservative fellow. But David Karesh and anyone like him, along with his followers, deserves the fate they all got.

 

[Taomon]

In some States it IS a crime to plan a crime. You never have to execute the plan and in fact the plan could just be a mental exersize, but by that State law it is a crime.

As for insurrection discussing it in an academic matter is not a crime. And I seriously doubt it ever will become a crime. But organizing , training and preparing to actually revolt SHOULD be a crime.

Now I know that it may some day be needed for us to revolt. That does not change the fact that the Government has a duty and responsibility to protect itself. The difference between a Patriot and a traitor is who wins. No matter which side your on and think is right.

So technically, you and I just commiotted a crime in some states...and the bill inquestion would make this thread evidence against you and I. This is why we must call our reps to vote down this bill. If we still have any semblence of power, we must do this.

 

[Paulie]

In some States it IS a crime to plan a crime. You never have to execute the plan and in fact the plan could just be a mental exersize, but by that State law it is a crime.

And those states have that constitutional right.

The federal government however, has no moral or legal authority to create national legislation making a thought a crime.