glu wrote:@ Redhead
While I think encouraging discourse about the bill is good, telling me I didn't bother to read it is low. You obviously don't interpret this bill as being potentially threatening to social and political activists. That's fine that we do not agree on this matter, but you could have done better to articulate your opinion rather than saying I didn't read the bill. We just see its potential differently.
Ok, let's talk facts.
You provided an uncited quote that insisted, among other things, that passage of the bill would create the potential to have an individual or a group labeled as a terrorist organization:
"...resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights."
A plain reading of this quote suggests to the uneducated reader that the bill would permit the government to strip a citizen of their citizenship and have them executed with no trial or appeal.
This is not just absurd, it is so out of touch with reality that I would suggest the author of this quote has a rather serious dissociative disorder. Of course, while this text is plastered all over the internet in relation to this bill, none of the instances I've seen have a source cited. Not surprising really.
Of course, rather than educate themselves, many people, like you I suspect, just cut and paste without bothering to exercise a little skepticism or bothering to even read the text.
I've read the entire text of the bill- where EXACTLY do you think this power to strip citizenship and execute without due process is created? How does it circumvent the due process clause of the constitution? And, if you can't show me text that creates these powers, what excuse do you have for passing such factually inaccurate information if you have read the text?
There is no doubt that there have been some "fast and loose" play with due process and "torture" in the United States recent years, but removal of citizenship and execution without due process? Even >IF< this bill provided for such, and it most certainly does not, such a law would fail even the most rudimentary due process test when put in front of even the most brazenly strict constructionist judge. That you would think the bill empowered this sort of action is a pretty clear indicator you haven't read the text- I prefer this explanation to the "you are just out of touch with reality" answer. Still, that's a pity, because it is not a particularly long bill to read, and it is a bad sign when people don't even bother.
I find the idea that the United States would field roving hearings to root out terrorist organizations a bit disturbing. It certainly smacks of HUAC like experiences. Having said that, aside from an unfortunate title, nothing in the bill gets anywhere close to the kind of crap you are stirring up.
Again, you are really doing a disservice to anyone who wants to curtail the slow creep against individual liberties by overplaying your hand here, much less actively FABRICATING a doomsday interpretation.
Be a responsible participant in democracy, please? You are wrecking it for the rest of us otherwise.
