House Passes "Thought Crime" Prevention Bill

The act itself is real, but alot of what the conspiracy site the OP put up is mostly hype from what I have read.

I can see no evidence indicating that the definitions have been altered from what they already are. Aside from that, this act did nothing more than enact the creation of a committee that can investigate, but not act on, homegrown terrorism and things of that nature.

Its job is to investigate, and after 18 months report back to congress/president with possible prevention methods. These methods, as stated specifically in the act twice, must not violate the constitution or the constitutional rights of its citizens.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Who write the laws in congress this days, it is true that corporate America and interest groups do that?

BTW you will be a fine justice one day.

reply to post by grimreaper797


The problem is, you are counting on the government to preserve our constitutional rights as the bills says. The government of our day is in no way above violating our civil rights.

If indeed there is an underlying reason for this bill, and ones similar to it, what makes you think they would stick to what they put in the bill? Certainly they know the bills will be scrutinized once we get hold of them, would it make any sense to NOT include the parts about preserving the constitution?

From what I have witnessed, over the last few years, our government isn't a big fan of the constitution OR individuals rights.


Jasn

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Honestly, I feel this is just another committee for politicians to get on so they can pad their pockets with the funding that comes with it. another job= more money. They have an excuse, they exploit it.

As far as the language goes, I can't see any difference in the actual definition of a terrorist and their definition of a terrorist. Their definitions don't change anything.

It may well be just another committee for some representatives to get on, but for others it may be part of a larger agenda.

The problem with the way terms like "terrorism" are used is that they are not always used as descriptive terms; often they become proper nouns. Check out Bertrand Russell's theory of definite descriptions for more information about this process.

As an easy example, consider how many Republicans and Democrats pursue authoritarian and imperialist policies. What about about colonialism or authoritarianism suggests republicanism or democracy? "Republican" and "Democrat" are proper nouns which, nonetheless, imply that they are descriptive terms. They way "terrorism" is marketed by the federal government is more in line with a proper noun than a descriptive term. So while HR 1955 may not change the definition of terrorism, it may still change what people are willing to perceive as terrorism.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

Originally posted by marg6043
Who write the laws in congress this days, it is true that corporate America and interest groups do that?

BTW you will be a fine justice one day.

well an individual introduces a bill. Then it is sent to committee. Most bills die and are forgotten at this point. The committee then makes the changes "needed" to the bill, then it is sent back to congress. They vote on it, send it to senate. Then senate can send it to ANOTHER committee. They make necessary changes to the bill.

Honestly I could go through the entire process, but to make it short and simple, everyone gets to make their changes to the bill. Thing is, so many people have private interests that by the time it reaches the president, these private interests are usually pretty evident.

These "committees" practically rewrite the bills to how they see fit. Even if a bill is introduced to congress that is honest and for the people, by the time it reaches the president, that bill is a shell of what it use to be.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
The problem is, you are counting on the government to preserve our constitutional rights as the bills says. The government of our day is in no way above violating our civil rights.

If indeed there is an underlying reason for this bill, and ones similar to it, what makes you think they would stick to what they put in the bill? Certainly they know the bills will be scrutinized once we get hold of them, would it make any sense to NOT include the parts about preserving the constitution?

From what I have witnessed, over the last few years, our government isn't a big fan of the constitution OR individuals rights.

Jasn

Ok well think of it like this, if they are going to break the law anyway, why bother with this act?

If they are not going to stick to the act in the first place, why would they bother to make it? They could much more easily not make the act at all and do the whole thing behind our backs. Once you have this act, its out in the open. People know about it, and it gets monitered.

If you are going to do something illegal, why would you make it public?

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by grimreaper797


thanks I kind of imagine that, that is the way things are but I never knew if it was real.

We speculate so much that sometimes is nice to have some real input as what is the truth.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

If they are not going to stick to the act in the first place, why would they bother to make it?

[edit on 26-10-2007 by grimreaper797]

Marketing. Legislation as social manipulation.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

Originally posted by America Jones
It may well be just another committee for some representatives to get on, but for others it may be part of a larger agenda.

The problem with the way terms like "terrorism" are used is that they are not always used as descriptive terms; often they become proper nouns. Check out Bertrand Russell's theory of definite descriptions for more information about this process.

As an easy example, consider how many Republicans and Democrats pursue authoritarian and imperialist policies. What about about colonialism or authoritarianism suggests republicanism or democracy? "Republican" and "Democrat" are proper nouns which, nonetheless, imply that they are descriptive terms. They way "terrorism" is marketed by the federal government is more in line with a proper noun than a descriptive term. So while HR 1955 may not change the definition of terrorism, it may still change what people are willing to perceive as terrorism.

See I cannot agree with this though because the traditional definition of a terrorist has not changed at all. It doesn't change the perception at all, unless you are saying they are trying to reword it in such a way to make people paranoid of their own government. I do believe that is the last thing they want.

The fact is, it is still the same definition. Its not the laws usage of the word terrorism that is changing, but the politicians use of the word. Although the politicians write the laws, they do not interpret them, the courts do. Terrorism by law, and in the courts, has not changed, and that is what is most important. The courts are the ones who decide "what is a terrorist?", and whether or not you are guilty of being one. The politicians just write the laws.

So yes, the politicians may be trying to generalize the term, to make the public be more accepting of the idea that terrorists aren't just what the law considers them to be, but the fact is that the law considers them to be exactly what the definitions listed them as.

When you see an act that is changing the definition of what a terrorist is by law, get back to me so I can get worried. Until then, just remember that politicians can try all they want, but until they introduce the bill that changes the definition by law, it's all a bunch of bullcrap.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Because Joe Schmoe Public cares more about Survivor: China than he/she does about goings on in our government.

As I said, it's all done in small steps, some of which may not be very detrimental to us, but it's the whole of those small steps that really worries me.


Plus, throwing in the bit about adhering to the constitution makes it seem legit for those that do pay attention.

Jasn

Originally posted by America Jones

Marketing. Legislation as social manipulation.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

it would seem to me that it would be more of a negative outcome than a positive one. If you want to change the laws regarding who is a terrorist, the last thing you want to do is give credibility to the idea that a terrorist by law, is what it says it is.

Politician what you to believe them, not what the law says. People forget they write the laws, not interpret them. They don't get to decide what a terrorist is, and what terrorism is, unless there is a law enacted regarding that. If they make a law saying "terrorism is now any violent act against the government." you have a big problem. But they have yet to do that.

My main point is that if you want to conduct some act that would break the law, the last thing you will do is make it public. That is what they are doing. They just made this public. The chance they will get caught now just rose exponentially.

reply to post by America Jones


Okay, so you said it better than me; Wanna fight about it? hahahaha


Jasn

reply to post by grimreaper797


I may be wrong in saying this, but I believe the "problem" lies here in that you have faith in the system and we do not.

I don't trust ANYTHING the government says or does anymore and I think one is foolish to not believe they are giving themselves more and more power by the day and, in turn, taking more and more power from us.


Jasn

Originally posted by grimreaper797

unless you are saying they are trying to reword it in such a way to make people paranoid of their own government. I do believe that is the last thing they want.

...

Although the politicians write the laws, they do not interpret them, the courts do.

I think the Bush administration, generally, wants as many people to be as paranoid as possible.

www.au.af.mil...

People paranoid about terrorism become commodities in the War on Terror as much as people paranoid about the federal government. If people are paranoid about terrorism, they can be manipulated to support misguided policies. If people are paranoid about the government, they can be exploited to rationalize misguided policies.

And if you think that the courts aren't politicized, maybe you missed the whole Alberto Gonzales thing... Of course, there's always trial by brainwashed jury...



[edit on 26-10-2007 by America Jones]

Originally posted by SimiusDei
As I said, it's all done in small steps, some of which may not be very detrimental to us, but it's the whole of those small steps that really worries me.

This isn't a small step though. its not a step at all. The patriot act is a small step. Some of the things Ive read DHS doing are small steps. This is not a small step. This is possibily preparation for a small step toward taking away our freedoms, but it is not a step toward taking them.

I am just as much against government intervention with citizens lives as you are, maybe more. But this act is not a threat to us, and I believe that if we overreact toward these non controversial acts, when we are faced with a real threatening act, people won't listen.

They are trying to get more power, and that means taking our freedoms. But we cannot assume that everything they do is a direct step toward that. We have to identify what is a real threat to our freedoms and what is just something to watch closely. This is something you just watch closely because it is not a direct threat.

Plus, throwing in the bit about adhering to the constitution makes it seem legit for those that do pay attention.

Jasn

Law doesn't work like that. You can't just throw something in to make it look legit. It is binding. If they are caught breaking it, they could face jailtime. Without it, the whole thing may not have been passed. Thats my whole point though. If you are going to break the law, the last thing they would do is introduce this act. It would limit them far too much to be worth it.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Of course they could face jail time for breaking the law. Has that stopped them from breaking many in the past? I'm quite certain that you can't get more crooked than a politician.


Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


I wonder what ever happened to this.

Constitution

It doesn't seem to apply any more especially the "We the people of the United States" part.

There must be something in the water around here that makes us think alike. Good job.

I do not trust the entire court system in general. But I am aware of the fact there are people in politics that are looking to make a change. There are people in law looking to catch these scumbags red handed and throw them in jail for violating our rights.

I don't believe the entire government is corrupt, but coming from New Jersey, where corruption is probably worse than most other state, I know that government corruption is practically unavoidable. Now obviously some politicians and some prosecutors are corrupt, but just the same, some aren't.

I do believe that a combination of media exposure, honest politicians, honest prosecutors, and an active internet community, results in a very hard time for the corrupt to go under the radar in doing so. As a result of this combination of elements, the corrupt need to go to a greater extent to shelter there wrong doings. They have to watch every move more closely because when the internet, media, and honest people become involved, every wrong move created a thunderous echo that draws much attention.

So I do believe that a combination of the elements I listed above are making corruption more difficult, and manipulation of the system more difficult. I believe our grasp on the situation is slipping as a result of media drawing the people away from politics. As the grasp starts to slip more, you will start to see more blatent corruption going under the radar.

All in all though, this is not one of those things that alarm me. What alarms me is the stuff we hear nothing about. The things that are like whispers in the night. Things like the patriot act that are practically passed overnight when nobody really reads it. Things like that are alarming.

reply to post by MBF


HAHAHA It's possible. This South GA water does taste funky.

Perhaps it's the nuclear reactors in our area?


Or, maybe we are just mentally challenged from southern living


Jasn

Originally posted by grimreaper797
If you are going to break the law, the last thing they would do is introduce this act. It would limit them far too much to be worth it.

Provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been ruled unconsitutional twice. That doesn't stop Congress.

Your average law enforcement officer fed private propaganda from "intelligence fusion centers" may not understand that Executive Orders and Presidential Directives are not laws, as per the first clause of the US Constitution.

In my option, social justice makes retribution unnecessary. I'd rather nip these things in the bud than wait for people to suffer decades of oppression before things right themselves.