Why isn’t Scoble against ‘thought crimes bill?’

Better Bad News asks why I’m not speaking out against Senate Bill S-1959.

Good question.

It just wasn’t brought to my attention until now.

So, now that it is, I’ve gotta say this bill is really pretty horrid. But don’t take my word on it. Look at Justanothercoverup and what they have to say about it.

Here’s the text of the bill
.

Or even more people trying to get this bill stopped.

Thanks to Better Bad News for bringing this to my attention and forcing me to take a stance on it. Really horrible stuff.

82 thoughts on “Why isn’t Scoble against ‘thought crimes bill?’

  1. The links you provided about this bill are really short on details. One even started ranting about “internment camps” or some such nonsense. Yet none provide any actual details of the bill.

    You say that it’s “really horrible stuff”, yet none of the links you’ve provided really offer any concrete information. In fact, they all leave me with the distinct impression that what is merely a “kinda dumb” bill is being oversold as a “really dangerous” bill.

    Do you have a decent link anywhere with an actual analysis?

  2. The links you provided about this bill are really short on details. One even started ranting about “internment camps” or some such nonsense. Yet none provide any actual details of the bill.

    You say that it’s “really horrible stuff”, yet none of the links you’ve provided really offer any concrete information. In fact, they all leave me with the distinct impression that what is merely a “kinda dumb” bill is being oversold as a “really dangerous” bill.

    Do you have a decent link anywhere with an actual analysis?

  3. The links you provided about this bill are really short on details. One even started ranting about “internment camps” or some such nonsense. Yet none provide any actual details of the bill.

    You say that it’s “really horrible stuff”, yet none of the links you’ve provided really offer any concrete information. In fact, they all leave me with the distinct impression that what is merely a “kinda dumb” bill is being oversold as a “really dangerous” bill.

    Do you have a decent link anywhere with an actual analysis?

  4. The problem with this legislation is not what it will do with regards to our freedoms:

    “(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

    The problem is, as Ron Paul says that it is yet another waste of tax payers money, and like all bureaucracies, will tend to be self perpetuating.

    I wish some of you nut-jobs could get as motivated about the waste and abuse going on at other federal agencies. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do your own reading and research and stop depending on “activists” for your opinions. They have books and video tapes to sell and they will sell them by whatever means.

  5. The problem with this legislation is not what it will do with regards to our freedoms:

    “(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

    The problem is, as Ron Paul says that it is yet another waste of tax payers money, and like all bureaucracies, will tend to be self perpetuating.

    I wish some of you nut-jobs could get as motivated about the waste and abuse going on at other federal agencies. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do your own reading and research and stop depending on “activists” for your opinions. They have books and video tapes to sell and they will sell them by whatever means.

  6. The problem with this legislation is not what it will do with regards to our freedoms:

    “(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

    The problem is, as Ron Paul says that it is yet another waste of tax payers money, and like all bureaucracies, will tend to be self perpetuating.

    I wish some of you nut-jobs could get as motivated about the waste and abuse going on at other federal agencies. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do your own reading and research and stop depending on “activists” for your opinions. They have books and video tapes to sell and they will sell them by whatever means.

  7. The ACLU has a good description of the problems with the charter the bill gives to the commission at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.html

    “The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.”

    Kucinich and Ron Paul both are very articulate on this as well, Kucinich saying “If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest” and Paul commenting “This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding.”

    For a discussion of the hearings so far, see Michael Collins Scoop article at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00247.htm

  8. The ACLU has a good description of the problems with the charter the bill gives to the commission at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.html

    “The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.”

    Kucinich and Ron Paul both are very articulate on this as well, Kucinich saying “If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest” and Paul commenting “This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding.”

    For a discussion of the hearings so far, see Michael Collins Scoop article at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00247.htm

  9. The ACLU has a good description of the problems with the charter the bill gives to the commission at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.html

    “The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.”

    Kucinich and Ron Paul both are very articulate on this as well, Kucinich saying “If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest” and Paul commenting “This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding.”

    For a discussion of the hearings so far, see Michael Collins Scoop article at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00247.htm

  10. @20 and @21. What’s wrong with a law that enables the government to form a commission to study potential terrorist plots? Nothing in this bill prevents anyone from plotting to destroy the country, plotting to overthrow the govt, or plotting to kill people in the name of their God. What it does do is form a commission to study such things and what the possible outcomes would be. Now, if I’m not mistaken, most of the things they are wanting to study, if actually carried out, would be crimes. I’m also pretty sure that even plotting or conspiring to commit crimes is illegal. So, in a lot of ways we already have crimes against “thought”.

  11. @20 and @21. What’s wrong with a law that enables the government to form a commission to study potential terrorist plots? Nothing in this bill prevents anyone from plotting to destroy the country, plotting to overthrow the govt, or plotting to kill people in the name of their God. What it does do is form a commission to study such things and what the possible outcomes would be. Now, if I’m not mistaken, most of the things they are wanting to study, if actually carried out, would be crimes. I’m also pretty sure that even plotting or conspiring to commit crimes is illegal. So, in a lot of ways we already have crimes against “thought”.

  12. @20 and @21. What’s wrong with a law that enables the government to form a commission to study potential terrorist plots? Nothing in this bill prevents anyone from plotting to destroy the country, plotting to overthrow the govt, or plotting to kill people in the name of their God. What it does do is form a commission to study such things and what the possible outcomes would be. Now, if I’m not mistaken, most of the things they are wanting to study, if actually carried out, would be crimes. I’m also pretty sure that even plotting or conspiring to commit crimes is illegal. So, in a lot of ways we already have crimes against “thought”.

  13. PS: No one seems to find it worth mentioning that a major part of the charge to the proposed Commission is to make sure that the protections of the US Constitution are addressed and given weight in any recommendation.

    So I am mentioning it.

  14. PS: No one seems to find it worth mentioning that a major part of the charge to the proposed Commission is to make sure that the protections of the US Constitution are addressed and given weight in any recommendation.

    So I am mentioning it.

  15. PS: No one seems to find it worth mentioning that a major part of the charge to the proposed Commission is to make sure that the protections of the US Constitution are addressed and given weight in any recommendation.

    So I am mentioning it.

  16. OK, let’s cool it, OK. HR 1955 was the bill that passed in the House of Representatives. The authoritative version of this bill, which was forwarded to the Senate and is there as S.1959 is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110AhkghS:b0:

    So, if we are to quote things, lets find the accurate legislative history and link to the definitive versions. (The Library of Congress is definitive in every way I can imagine.)

    Finally, let us get off the Chicken Little bandwagon. This is going to make it harder to find the real scary stuff that might be happening by desensitizing all of us to ravings about this.

    First, the HR.1955 and S.1959 do not create laws in the sense of making additions to the US Code (USC). It is an Act to ammend an Act (the Homeland Security Act of 2002) in order to establish a study Commission and a Center of Excellence. These are not unusual activities and this is an ordinary way of carrying them out.

    The presumption that this is going to create laws against “thought crimes” is unwarranted. If the commission produces a report calling for such legislation, that will be an appropriate time to complain. (They will be delivering their report during the administration of the next President of the United States, by the way.)

    However, such an outcome is in no way a foregone conclusion. Since the bill did pass in the house, you might want to find out how *your* Congress-person voted on the bill and find out why. The voting record on this bill should be an useful bit of information.

  17. OK, let’s cool it, OK. HR 1955 was the bill that passed in the House of Representatives. The authoritative version of this bill, which was forwarded to the Senate and is there as S.1959 is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110AhkghS:b0:

    So, if we are to quote things, lets find the accurate legislative history and link to the definitive versions. (The Library of Congress is definitive in every way I can imagine.)

    Finally, let us get off the Chicken Little bandwagon. This is going to make it harder to find the real scary stuff that might be happening by desensitizing all of us to ravings about this.

    First, the HR.1955 and S.1959 do not create laws in the sense of making additions to the US Code (USC). It is an Act to ammend an Act (the Homeland Security Act of 2002) in order to establish a study Commission and a Center of Excellence. These are not unusual activities and this is an ordinary way of carrying them out.

    The presumption that this is going to create laws against “thought crimes” is unwarranted. If the commission produces a report calling for such legislation, that will be an appropriate time to complain. (They will be delivering their report during the administration of the next President of the United States, by the way.)

    However, such an outcome is in no way a foregone conclusion. Since the bill did pass in the house, you might want to find out how *your* Congress-person voted on the bill and find out why. The voting record on this bill should be an useful bit of information.

  18. OK, let’s cool it, OK. HR 1955 was the bill that passed in the House of Representatives. The authoritative version of this bill, which was forwarded to the Senate and is there as S.1959 is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110AhkghS:b0:

    So, if we are to quote things, lets find the accurate legislative history and link to the definitive versions. (The Library of Congress is definitive in every way I can imagine.)

    Finally, let us get off the Chicken Little bandwagon. This is going to make it harder to find the real scary stuff that might be happening by desensitizing all of us to ravings about this.

    First, the HR.1955 and S.1959 do not create laws in the sense of making additions to the US Code (USC). It is an Act to ammend an Act (the Homeland Security Act of 2002) in order to establish a study Commission and a Center of Excellence. These are not unusual activities and this is an ordinary way of carrying them out.

    The presumption that this is going to create laws against “thought crimes” is unwarranted. If the commission produces a report calling for such legislation, that will be an appropriate time to complain. (They will be delivering their report during the administration of the next President of the United States, by the way.)

    However, such an outcome is in no way a foregone conclusion. Since the bill did pass in the house, you might want to find out how *your* Congress-person voted on the bill and find out why. The voting record on this bill should be an useful bit of information.

  19. Understanding a law entails more than merely reading the full text itself. More tha anything else, it should also be taken in the proper context. The author of the bill left many loopholes for this law. In that sense, it looks good but it doesn’t really have any “meat” in it.

  20. Understanding a law entails more than merely reading the full text itself. More tha anything else, it should also be taken in the proper context. The author of the bill left many loopholes for this law. In that sense, it looks good but it doesn’t really have any “meat” in it.

  21. Understanding a law entails more than merely reading the full text itself. More tha anything else, it should also be taken in the proper context. The author of the bill left many loopholes for this law. In that sense, it looks good but it doesn’t really have any “meat” in it.

  22. Unfortunately, folks, it appears that this bill has already passed. Look on that site for “Bills with the same name – 1″ and click it. There is a bill with the same name, same text, which passed already, – bill number 1955:

    This language in this bill that disturbs me is this:

    `(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:

    `(1) IN GENERAL-

    `(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

    `(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

    All the commissions duties – whatever they may include in the effort to stop *individuals* or groups from planning to do anything involving force or violence or intimidation against the government!, citizens of USA as a whole, or subgroups…

    think about all that – read the whole bill – it sounds totally insane… and IT ALREADY PASSED!

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

    but, i bet most bills involved with the patriot act or the homeland security stuff look like this.

    sucks, doesn’t it.

  23. Unfortunately, folks, it appears that this bill has already passed. Look on that site for “Bills with the same name – 1″ and click it. There is a bill with the same name, same text, which passed already, – bill number 1955:

    This language in this bill that disturbs me is this:

    `(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:

    `(1) IN GENERAL-

    `(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

    `(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

    All the commissions duties – whatever they may include in the effort to stop *individuals* or groups from planning to do anything involving force or violence or intimidation against the government!, citizens of USA as a whole, or subgroups…

    think about all that – read the whole bill – it sounds totally insane… and IT ALREADY PASSED!

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

    but, i bet most bills involved with the patriot act or the homeland security stuff look like this.

    sucks, doesn’t it.

  24. Unfortunately, folks, it appears that this bill has already passed. Look on that site for “Bills with the same name – 1″ and click it. There is a bill with the same name, same text, which passed already, – bill number 1955:

    This language in this bill that disturbs me is this:

    `(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:

    `(1) IN GENERAL-

    `(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

    `(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

    All the commissions duties – whatever they may include in the effort to stop *individuals* or groups from planning to do anything involving force or violence or intimidation against the government!, citizens of USA as a whole, or subgroups…

    think about all that – read the whole bill – it sounds totally insane… and IT ALREADY PASSED!

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

    but, i bet most bills involved with the patriot act or the homeland security stuff look like this.

    sucks, doesn’t it.

  25. My Fellow Americans,

    There are definitely some bills worth freaking out on. One is S1959, and another is Patriot Act.

    The latter is being used to undermine our Consitutional Rights — today!

    S1959 aims to go after groups that haven’t used any violence, and more importantly the measure doesn’t discriminate between issues like radical Islam or environmental radicalism (Greenpeace, Earth First, etc) or 9/11 Truth groups.

    Instituting a research arm to assist the govt in fighting groups that aren’t doing anything … is bad.

    It’s yet another expansion of terrorism, an already poorly-defined government-apropriated word, into radicalization, which could be defined as anything counter to the norm.

    As a person who believes war is terrorism, jailing people for drugs is unconstitutional, and that Bush and co were informed of the events of 9/11 and did nothing — does that mean I’m targetted by this bill just for stating these things on your website ** without ever advocating that anyone take any kind of radical action **?

    Sure makes ya wonder!

    And if you watch my video:

    That asks people to take legal action to get Bush impeached — is that going to be targetted?

    Where will it stop?

  26. My Fellow Americans,

    There are definitely some bills worth freaking out on. One is S1959, and another is Patriot Act.

    The latter is being used to undermine our Consitutional Rights — today!

    S1959 aims to go after groups that haven’t used any violence, and more importantly the measure doesn’t discriminate between issues like radical Islam or environmental radicalism (Greenpeace, Earth First, etc) or 9/11 Truth groups.

    Instituting a research arm to assist the govt in fighting groups that aren’t doing anything … is bad.

    It’s yet another expansion of terrorism, an already poorly-defined government-apropriated word, into radicalization, which could be defined as anything counter to the norm.

    As a person who believes war is terrorism, jailing people for drugs is unconstitutional, and that Bush and co were informed of the events of 9/11 and did nothing — does that mean I’m targetted by this bill just for stating these things on your website ** without ever advocating that anyone take any kind of radical action **?

    Sure makes ya wonder!

    And if you watch my video:

    That asks people to take legal action to get Bush impeached — is that going to be targetted?

    Where will it stop?

  27. My Fellow Americans,

    There are definitely some bills worth freaking out on. One is S1959, and another is Patriot Act.

    The latter is being used to undermine our Consitutional Rights — today!

    S1959 aims to go after groups that haven’t used any violence, and more importantly the measure doesn’t discriminate between issues like radical Islam or environmental radicalism (Greenpeace, Earth First, etc) or 9/11 Truth groups.

    Instituting a research arm to assist the govt in fighting groups that aren’t doing anything … is bad.

    It’s yet another expansion of terrorism, an already poorly-defined government-apropriated word, into radicalization, which could be defined as anything counter to the norm.

    As a person who believes war is terrorism, jailing people for drugs is unconstitutional, and that Bush and co were informed of the events of 9/11 and did nothing — does that mean I’m targetted by this bill just for stating these things on your website ** without ever advocating that anyone take any kind of radical action **?

    Sure makes ya wonder!

    And if you watch my video:

    That asks people to take legal action to get Bush impeached — is that going to be targetted?

    Where will it stop?

Comments are closed.