http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679NON-VIOLENT dissent is a target of this bill:
"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “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.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’ It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence.
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence.
It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."
So just thinking that the government had a hand in the 9-11 inside job can end up getting you put on a terrorist list for special treatment. The Jersey Girl's 9-11 Press For Truth movement is now in danger.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
