Now wouldn't you say the wording there is pretty vague? What constitutes an "extremist belief system"? Do I really want the government to have the ability to declare me a terrorist if they don't like what I have to say? It also troubles me that there doesn't have to be any actual violence or planning of violence. If they can justify a "threat" of violence, then that is defined as terrorism. What constitutes a threat? What about non-violent "force"?Originally Posted by S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Basically the bill appoints a commission that composes a report on how to identify and fight "homegrown terrorism". The part that peeves me off about this is just how Anti-American the ideas are. Anybody who pushes for social change could be defined as a terrorist if they pose a "threat". What would the Founding Fathers think of that?
Apparantly we are in grave danger of homegrown terrorists as outlined by the findings section of the bill.
I don't think it is too likely that the bill will violate any rights or liberties of Americans. It just seems rather strange to me that we are going to start declaring American citizens as terrorists despite having very few domestic terrorist actions in our country. Would the Oklahoma City bombing or Beltway Sniper attacks have been prevented by the formation of such a commission?Originally Posted by S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007