finknottle Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Damn McVeigh...just another wacko left winger with an agenda. No, wait, just another righter-than-right conservative who hated the 20th Century. Nah, maybe just a mixed up kid.... No, now I see it clearly--we have no real idea what made him tick. According to the Paulites, home-grown terrorism is an impossibility, and even setting up a commission to study the question is a hard charge down the road to totalitarianism. And, for reasons that still remain unclear to me, government monitoring of the internet. (See HR 1955). So no, we'll never know what made him tick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 According to the Paulites, home-grown terrorism is an impossibility, and even setting up a commission to study the question is a hard charge down the road to totalitarianism. And, for reasons that still remain unclear to me, government monitoring of the internet. (See HR 1955). So no, we'll never know what made him tick. Ron Paul hit a nerve with you, eh? Paul didn't vote on this bill. The concern that Paulites have with the bill is simple: it doesn't define what an "extremist belief system" is, and thus it is up to the government to define what that is. A valid concern, in my view. Paul himself noted that it is not a large concern at this point, not that it was an impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Paul didn't vote on this bill. The concern that Paulites have with the bill is simple: it doesn't define what an "extremist belief system" is, and thus it is up to the government to define what that is. A valid concern, in my view. Paul himself noted that it is not a large concern at this point, not that it was an impossibility. From the Man himself: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization." The primary purpose of the bill is to set up a commission to write a whitepaper on the causes and prevention home-grown terrorism. It has no power other than the power to ask for testimony. The bill also authorizes the setting up of a university-based 'Center of Excellance' (there are about a zillion such centers) to study and produce academic reports on the problem. I would characterize it more as useless than dangerous, and Paul's response as suspiciously over-the-top. Ok, so they don't define "extremist belief system." Should a bill initiating the investigation of whether climate change is occuring define precisely what climate change is and is not? Should a bill authorizing a study on trends in organized international terrorism declare which groups they are allowed to consider terrorist and which they are not? Can there be no legislation authorizing a study of pornography, without a clear-cut and legally binding definition of thev term up front? These are things that should come out of a study, not be mandated upon it. And I have news for you - it is up to the government to define "extemist belief sysem" regardless of whether this committee is established. They only write a paper, they do not write legislation. But the debate over "extremist belief system" is a misdirection anyway - the bill already defines violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence. At what point should it stop defining terms and just get on with it? My only explanation for the rabid response to this essentially empty legislation is that the campaign against the bill was initiated by the John Birch Society, and Paul doesn't want to alienate the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 and thus it is up to the government to define what that is. But doesn't Government know best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 But doesn't Government know best? Yes. When you are coming through my lock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 From the Man himself: Indeed, I've read it. He still didn't vote on it. The primary purpose of the bill is to set up a commission to write a whitepaper on the causes and prevention home-grown terrorism. It has no power other than the power to ask for testimony. The bill also authorizes the setting up of a university-based 'Center of Excellance' (there are about a zillion such centers) to study and produce academic reports on the problem. I would characterize it more as useless than dangerous, and Paul's response as suspiciously over-the-top. Ok, so they don't define "extremist belief system." Should a bill initiating the investigation of whether climate change is occuring define precisely what climate change is and is not? Should a bill authorizing a study on trends in organized international terrorism declare which groups they are allowed to consider terrorist and which they are not? Can there be no legislation authorizing a study of pornography, without a clear-cut and legally binding definition of thev term up front? These are things that should come out of a study, not be mandated upon it. The idea that is scary to the Paulites is giving the DHS the rope to define it themselves, especially since they have done such an incredible job of not abusing their powers. Of course, doing an overly-broad study will also waste a ton of money. And I have news for you - it is up to the government to define "extemist belief sysem" regardless of whether this committee is established. They only write a paper, they do not write legislation. But the debate over "extremist belief system" is a misdirection anyway - the bill already defines violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence. At what point should it stop defining terms and just get on with it? When there are enough definitions to not be stretched to people past what the original intention was (not to mention that the three definitions you talked about are fairly broad). These definitions in the study will also present a standard of a sort in order to base a solution on. It is extremely important to make sure that they get the definitions right, so any subsequent recommended solution is targeting the correct people, and not an overly broad base. This is personally my biggest complaint about the way the bill is written. My only explanation for the rabid response to this essentially empty legislation is that the campaign against the bill was initiated by the John Birch Society, and Paul doesn't want to alienate the base. Its not just the Paulites who oppose it. Ex: http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2007/11/here...ght-police.html http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/20/5920/ (originally published in Minnesota newspaper - a bit over the top for my view on the law, but nonetheless I'll link it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 The idea that is scary to the Paulites is giving the DHS the rope to define it themselves, especially since they have done such an incredible job of not abusing their powers. 1. Do you think it is illegal or unconstitutional for an organization to define a term for their own purposes? Do you think they don't do that now? If, for example, DHHS wanted to study chronic drug abuse, they would be stymied in their desire until congress gave them an official definition through legislation? And you fancy yourself an opponent of waste in government, lol. 2. How does this give DHS anything? Some clowns go off and write a paper, filled with observations and recommendations nobody is obliged to act on. How does that empower DHS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I know I'm going to get lambasted for this but I wish they hadn't killed him. We might have been able to find out more about the plot. There were more people involved than him and Nichols. I know some of you will think he'd never have broken but you never really know. They could find out more by things in his letters or by guilty confession or by telling another inmate. I think there are a lot of people who were involved in that who are walking around freely today. I tend to agree, but what do you do to get the guy to talk? Waterboarding? Oops, can't do that. The civil libertarians will have a field day. I believe it wasn't just McVeigh and Nichols. They had plenty of help, but from where, we'll probably never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts