Quote:
Originally Posted by D
I dunno... I'm a skeptic.
If there are real civil liberties issues here, they seem to have gone unnoticed by the ACLU, as I can't find any reference on the organization's website.
Too, the text of the bill, as presented to the House, has specific civil liberties considerations:
"`SEC. 899E. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
`(a) In General- In carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described in this subtitle do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1959 |
Remember back in the day, when assault was only used for when someone physically harms another person? harm as in causing injury. Now you can be charged with assault by merely touching someone, cops love using assault if you touch them etc etc. Just because they say "the meaning of the bill is to discourage terrorism blah blah blah" in the end all that matters is the true wording of the bill, not its intentions or the explaination on how they plan to enforce it. If the wording isn't specific enough they can use it to any means they please.