Holocaust Museum attack, post-Tiller: Does DU think we need another Patriot Act to Protect Us?

[Land Shark]

The murder of Dr. Tiller.

The attack on the military recruiters.

White supremacist apparently the one who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum today.

(Post more recent news if you like...)

Does DU think that existing laws are inadequate to deal with this problem, or do we need new tougher legislation AND/OR a "crackdown" in terms of concentrated enforcement of existing laws (which are already fairly draconian)?

This is building up to potentially be the excuse for yet more loss of rights, as I've posted recently, connecting up a very recent US Supreme Court decision as well. Please See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Will we be seeing Patriot Act II, -- or would it be III or IV by now?

Does anybody think that any special campaign against domestic right wing terror can be isolated to just one side of the political aisle? Can A Democratic administration and Democratic congress really crack down only on the Right wing side? We've lived through these time periods before, and we always consider it overreaction when we have perspective from history, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s, the Espionage Act, internment of Japanese as "threats" during WWII, etc.

Thomas Paine, 1795, in First Principles of Government: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Be careful what you wish for, and reply with your thoughts. I probably won't "defend the thread" -- I'd like to see what DU thinks, since my position's already reasonably clear from the linked post.

Clearly, these acts are crimes, and despicable ones, the question is what is the APPROPRIATE response, and why is the normal criminal justice process insufficient, if it is? Just because it's a despicable crime, does that mean even the sky's no limit?

If we call Tiller's murder and these other acts domestic terrorism, aren't we inviting the anti-terrorism gun to be pointed at the heads of all Americans, with officials "connecting the dots" and pre-emptively arresting, harassing or spying on people because they FEAR someone might possibly do something because their political rhetoric is passionate or heated?

Thoughts?

[JuniperLea]

1. Domestic terrorism/hate crimes...

Are already covered by the law. We need to uphold the laws we have. There will always be criminals, always. We can't stop them all. No law is going to stop these idiots.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Agree. n/t

[Triana]

42. 100% agree with ColbertWatcher. Just darned enforce the laws we have! n/t

[havocmom]

54. Yep.

under bush/cheney, domestic terrorist did not have much to fear from law enforcement.

Enforce the laws already on the book. More laws will not help if current laws go unenforced.

[Land Shark]

59. existing laws selectively enforced, leading some to call for More laws. nt

[Mari333]

2. NO

and we dont need the one we have now.

[Occam Bandage]

3. No, and I highly doubt this is "building up" to anything. nt

[Land Shark]

6. Hope you're right, but talk of "domestic Ter..." in google news for last 30 days nearly=2008 Year

For both years 2007 and 2008 there were 1,700 or so mentions of "domestic Ter..." in the News media specifically according to Google News. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=2007...

That's spiked to nearly 700 stories just in the last 30 days. (use normal google news search which defaults to last 30 days)

It won't build to anything, as long as people don't get carried away with their rhetoric and give more rights violations additional momentum - as a side effect of agitating against murders and injustices.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Talk about domestic terrorism has increased because there have been two domestic terrorist attacks.

"Domestic terrorists are in the news after they commit terror attacks" is not sign of impending rights violations. Especially not when the phrase is only 0.6% as popular as "Chrysler" is, and when "terrorism" still gets 80 times as many hits.

[Land Shark]

14. Bingo; then *arguably* existing laws are "insufficient" to protect us. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. The LAWS are fine --

it is the enforcement of those laws that are lacking.

[Land Shark]

49. I was being facetious, even the existing laws are too strong. Enforcement's a separate question nt

[Hepburn]

36. I think because the Pubbies are in such a minority at the moment...

...those who have and hold the RW wacko thoughts are rather stunned that there is a black man in the WH. Now I see Obama as a moderate...but the RWs, IMO, would see him as am ultra lib. Coupling that with their extreme hatred of things not conservative, traditional and white skinned, I can see a bit to the trapped rat syndrome which would lead to more acting out on their part.

JMHO

[endarkenment]

4. no we need to repeal all of the first one. nt.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Yes, we do!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. Amen to that .......

We got along very well without that fucking Karl Rove/Dick Cheney wet dream, the fucking Patriot Act.

The horrible truth is that we have no way to defend ourselves against murderers like this von Brunn prick. They will strike, and they will kill, and that is part of the price we pay to live in a country with free speech.

Yes, it's awful, and, yes, it's that simple..........................

[Land Shark]

15. Agreed, of course. nt

[Individualist]

25. Absolutely!

[Dappleganger]

29. Yes, repeal it before it's abused by the wrong people again.

Too much power CORRUPTS.

[Land Shark]

50. Great comment downthread by Raksha: "laws we had in place PRE-Patriot Act are more than adequate" nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. What we need to do is be careful to stop reinforcement cycles for conspiracy theorists:

See the story reported in NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html?_r=1&...

Notice this:

Law enforcement officials and others who track conspiracy theorists have long been familiar with Mr. van Brunn, in part because he maintains a Web site. He has claimed variously to be a member of Mensa, the high-I.Q. fraternity; to have played varsity football at a Midwestern college, where he earned a degree in journalism; to have been a P.T. boat captain in World War II, and to have been victimized by a court system run by Jews and black people.

There is a culture in law enforcement, criminal circles, and maybe intelligence, that views conspiracy theorists as marginalized (which they are) and unwilling to report rights violations against them (which they are, fearing THEY, whoever they may be will punish them) and as potential threats. This enables actions which work to reinforce the theorists perception of THEM (the jews, illuminati, NWO, Lizard people, whatever) being secretly in control, and radicalizes the conspiracy theorist, when they see signs of criminal harassment or investigation. Paranoia is reinforced, and they are made more dangerous. However, if paranoia is evident in an individual to the extent that the conspiracy is excessively irrational, (they hear voices etc) it is seen as "schizophrenic". Society gets compassionate, and recognizes the marginalization and increased danger the individual is in, and tries to offer some support and counseling. This is the right thing to do, and it should be extended into treatment of paranoid conspiracy theorists as well. They should be seen as individuals in need of some counseling and support, not further marginalized by being over-investigated by law enforcement and "others" as the article says it.

Peace

[Occam Bandage]

9. Men like Mr. van Brunn are seen as threats and tracked by the FBI because they are threats.

There's no way in Hell he would have accepted counseling/treatment voluntarily, and you can't commit people for the crime of having a weird website.

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. Van Brunn was a threat because of racism and hate, not conspiracy theories.

He should be lumped with other hate groups like KKK, not with conspiracy theorists as the NYTimes article does.

[Occam Bandage]

44. All part of the same dangerous mindset.

Virulent racism and hate go along with paranoia and an inability to think in an ordered, rational fashion. Those who believe absurdities are those who commit atrocities, especially when the absurdities are of the "group X is evil and must be stopped" variety.

[kestrel91316]

10. Let's first try ENFORCING existing laws against domestic terrorism,

organized crime, hate crimes, conspiracy, incitement to commit murder, etc.

[NightWatcher]

11. maybe they could stop trying to infiltrate Earth First and try some of these hate organizations

and seriously look into the Hate Radio and shut down those who are in the wrong.

[Land Shark]

16. There IS a difference, but I'm afraid it will be hard to keep the focus only on the RIght wing

Even when merited, the FBI, etc., must appear to be even-handed, not just going after one side's extremists....

[2 Much Tribulation]

51. See catwoman thread today: "Media Insistent that Left is just as bad as Right..."

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. And while we're at it,

maybe someone can explain why the RICO statutes are appropriate for going after crime syndicate figures but not against anti-choice, hate-mongering murderers like the scum who shot Dr. Tiller...................................

[Starry Messenger]

18. No, absolutely not.

The existing laws are enough and the Patriot Act is a horrible "Minority Report" type law that gives too much power to the government already.

[Land Shark]

30. and the existing laws, as DU these last years amply demonstrates, are already draconian nt

[flvegan]

19. Congress already came after the animal rights folks.

Certain AR folks were costing big pharma too much money, so the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was passed, which is completely illogical. The SHAC7 are in prison for running a website protesting a company that performs hideous animal testing.

In other words, I think it would be fairly easy to pass an act that would cover it, but I don't like how slippery that slope may be nor do I like the chances that a Congress so largely bought and paid for would pass it.

[LooseWilly]

21. I think many of the references being made to the Patriot act have been sarcasm.

I know the thought of "let's get them with their own mechanisms of oppression/torture !!" has crossed my mind. A sadistic irony that is very satisfying to imagine.

I don't think I've heard any serious voices suggesting using these incidents/this trend to pass any further surveillance powers legislation. (Though, it is an obvious argument to make, if one were to choose to make it.)

Ironically, the fact that the "justification" for new laws would be to crack down on the "right" might well be the single greatest impediment to anyone wanting to pass any new PATRIOT acts... since it is most often the "right" that thinks in those terms, but they would be loathe to even speak of "persecuting" their base. The "left", and even the "center", are rarely the sources of efforts to expand surveillance type powers of the government (unless you want to stretch all the way "left" to Stalinism... but I think the US has a long way to go to get there).

That said, I probably wouldn't not laugh if some high ranking members of the Klan, or Operation Rescue, were waterboarded for "information". It would be wrong, but it might be satisfying...

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. The point you are making is a very, very insightful one, Paul, if I may

say so. There could be no end to the misuse of the word, "terrorism". And on all known form, the arbiters of the word's meaning would not be the normal arbiters of a word's meaning, i.e. the public, usage, de facto custom. It would be the authorities and their media organs.

In fact, that would cause a lot of collateral damage. Not only would the term, "terrorism", be fraught with ambiguity, with its respective dimensions of "wanton cowardly murder", on the one hand (usually the official one, whatever its merits) and that of "freedom-fighting", on the other, but it would be diluted by being extended to all sorts of non-terrorist activities, such as these murderous, psychotic rampages.

The fact that, as Webster Tarpley pointed out, the instigation of terrorism, usually via the infiltration of hapless amateur terrorist groups by state-sponsored "agents provocateurs", or via false-flag operations, is actually the most common form, lends an element of farce to his matter of the framing of the term's meaning by the authorities! The currency of the term has already been so debased as a result of its misuse by governments that anyone with an ounce off worldly nous becomes immediately suspicious of the way in which it is used by the speaker or writer.

I believe that the step of "joining the dots" to the detriment of due process has actually been enacted in the UK very recently (our own Patriot Act - no colour-codes yet, though), so your fears of abuse of the word for questionable political ends seem to me very well-founded. How pre-emptive do they want to get? In such scenarios, much depends on the good faith of the authorities concerned. The ethical spectrum of your authorities in the US evidently covers a very wide range - on the negative side, thanks to so many years under right-wing governments. As in so many other ways, the ethical culture of your officialdom should improve markedly under Obama, shouldn't it? Let's hope so, anyway. I think we British have been making it clear (that word our politicians so love) to Gordon Brown, that we've had his control freakery from a long distance.

[WeDidIt]

24. Nah, I just think the FBI should shift some of their focus n/t

[GuvWurld]

26. America's cold civil war is going hot

I've long written about the intentional divisiveness in this country and how it has led to a cold civil war. What is now being called domestic terrorism may really be this civil war going hot. When we say we love our country it is actually the ideals behind it that we really love. Unfortunately these ideals are not upheld and don't seem possible to achieve in this configuration. I think I love the ideals better than this devolving instinct to "stay together for the sake of the kids." The American experiment is over. Long live the American experiment. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” - Thomas Jefferson

[Land Shark]

60. Wasrming up like the globe, at least -- to be sure --- thanks for comments. nt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

27. Fuck the Patriot Act!

We do not need the one we have and it should be repealed.

Only a fuckwit would want more government snooping into our lives.

[Land Shark]

28. Calling wanton murder, even with political motivations, is not "terror" but will get Patriot Act v.2

Or, rather, that's the quite substantial risk of consenting to a loosey goosey definition of "terrorism" - it's the excuse for numerous rights roll-backs already.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

31. William Cohen and his wife were at the Holocaust museum and witnessed the shooting

They were on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and Cohen's wife, who I guess is a writer was very angry and animated (which I dont blame her for) and was basically saying that these hate groups shouldn't be allowed to preach hate at all. That they should have their websites and rhetoric banned from the public square. I suppose its a slippery slope, it is one thing if someone is calling for violent action but for we as a country to start banning speech because we don't agree with it (and even as insane as it is), is not a place we want to go. So it is not completely unbelievable that as we see more domestic terrorism, and unfortunately I think we will see more, that a crackdown by the government will take place. Whether it's some sort of domestic terror Patriot Act or not is hard to say but I can see that happening.

[2 Much Tribulation]

34. Interesting detail, I urge everyone to read this reply above... nt

[Raksha]

32. Nope...the laws we had in place PRE-Patriot Act are more than adequate

to deal with RW domestic terrorism, just like any other kind of terrorism. PROVIDED of course that said laws are enforced.

[2 Much Tribulation]

33. I think you hit the nail on the head here! nt

[moondust]

35. Child molester treatment for hate criminals?

Roeder had a previous arrest record and had committed criminal acts recently. Holocaust museum killer had done prison time and written a book of hate. Perhaps some of these "hate criminals" should be tracked as closely as child molesters, prevented from going near certain places, kept under general supervision as to their whereabouts and activities, etc.

[noamnety]

38. That's an interesting post.

I would have no problem with someone convicted of threats against a clinic having to wear an ankle bracelet to track their whereabouts - and not being allowed within a certain distance of a clinic or clinic worker's residence.

Your thoughts relate to a post I made recently in the women's rights forum related to hate crimes - and by extension, hate groups: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[MadMaddie]

37. The Existing laws cover these criminals they are "Terrorist"

only until the DOJ and law enforcement treat them as such and break them apart and destroy them like they did with the Mob. Rackateering, Tax evasion, Terrorism, Hate Crimes the law has the tools it just needs the will to actually enforce them.

[Land Shark]

46. If they are "terrorist" shouldn't their hometowns be bombed by the USAF? Just askin! nt

[K8-EEE]

39. NO!!! How could there be any solution in BushCo fascist logic...n/t

[Taverner]

40. There are enough laws to get these sick fucks

The FBI just has to enforce them

[2 Much Tribulation]

52. And if/when they do they will be Hammered Hard...laws already too draconian nt

[BeFree]

41. Certainly

Anyone who doesn't hold to majority norms and act accordingly should be investigated then prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the law won't allow that then we need new laws!!
*******************

We have, fortunately, lived in a relatively peaceful country. Blacks, however, had their own special laws, gays too, and women used to have their own special laws. We've progressed away from those special laws, thank Gawd.

But the world is changing. The Bush revolution has wrought a different understanding - one that lay dormant - and this new world is gonna get hairy. There will be folks clamoring for more protection. It won't be easy to reject laws such as the Patriot Act, but we have to.

[pacalo]

43. I was hoping your question was meant to be facetious, which would have made a brilliant point.

The "Patriot" (ugh -- a dangerous word, considering how those who love the word are narrow-minded & vicious) Act was presented as the end-all solution to stop terrorism in its tracks, so what happened? And, why are the assassins being congratulated?

The Patriot Act, so thick & complicated that not many would bother to read it, was used as an instrument for the GOP to do whatever evil deeds needed to be done to hold onto power.

We don't need it. We never needed it. It was written by self-serving men with an evil, self-serving agenda.

We already had what we need to protect this country: the Constitution. It was written by wise, strong-minded, intelligent men who lost blood through their love & respect for our country.

[Land Shark]

48. It is a facetious question, for me at least, the question answers ITSELF. nt.

[Oak2004]

45. I think we need an intelligently crafted anti-terrorism law which is sensitive to civil liberties

One of the big problems with the so-called Patriot Acts is that unfettered, poorly directed surveillance doesn't just stomp all over civil liberties, it's ineffective. Dissent, even repugnant "dissent" isn't terrorism, but casting a wide net means you're wasting resources tracking people who pose no real threat. And stomping over basic rights is a fast way to radicalize those unfortunately inclined towards domestic terrorism. We need something much more intelligent than the Patriot Acts.

Unfortunately I have zero confidence that we'll get that intelligently crafted law. If we get something it will be some awful pandering to fear that further strips citizens of their freedom.

[Land Shark]

47. Good point Oak2004: "stomping over basic rights is a fast way to radicalize" nt

[H2O Man]

53. Definitely.

We need more laws, on all levels. Some may argue that there is a danger of infringing on "civil rights," but we are in the midst of an uncivil time. That said, a new Patriot Act should be followed by a Patriot Mind-set, which would designate the proper attitude to have. Let's start with prayer in school, and more emphasis on Pat Boone's records. His poems are a wonderful source of inspiration.

I'd then institute a Patriot Dress Code. Our society began to decay when hippies wore bright colors. This not only violated the rights of the color-blind, but it took away from the true meaning of life. Uniforms should reflect the positive side of our common lives, and match the painted walls of the factories that people once worked in. Small wonder jobs are being shipped overseas.

No one appreciates the Constitution more than I do. However, it should not be a suicide note. It's proper place is enshrined in glass, and kept safely guarded inside a museum-like room, perhaps the one that VP Cheney inhabited while protecting this nation from bad people who would destroy our social fabric. They hate us for our freedoms.

[Land Shark]

55. Totally funny facetiousness warning for H2OMan's response. Thanks H2oMan. nt

[anonymous171]

56. At worst the DINO left will try to use this tragedy to ban guns. nt

[bridgit]

57. hahahaha, you would have done just as well to stop at, "Does DU think?"...

[Land Shark]

58. well, and I can't resist the temptation to respond/"Defend the thread" so to speak... nt

[proteus_lives]

61. Fuck that!

I'd rather be free then safe.