|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2007 : 18:14:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is who the act applies to; notice the bolding. If the executive believes that someone may (they are thinking and talking or writing about) commit violence this order applies. |
Yes, thank you, Jerome, for showing that it's not enough to be "thinking about disputing Americas effort in the Iraq war," and for proving that you were wrong to say, "...if the executive branch deems that you were thinking about disrupting Americas effort in Iraq you will lose your property."
If you really wish to argue that merely thinking about committing a violent act is enough to get the Feds to act, you'll need to provide evidence that it is. No matter how vile this administration is, they haven't yet resorted to criminalizing thought, and the wording of that E.O. is nowhere close to suggesting that they have done so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 18:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is who the act applies to; notice the bolding. If the executive believes that someone may (they are thinking and talking or writing about) commit violence this order applies. |
Yes, thank you, Jerome, for showing that it's not enough to be "thinking about disputing Americas effort in the Iraq war," and for proving that you were wrong to say, "...if the executive branch deems that you were thinking about disrupting Americas effort in Iraq you will lose your property."
If you really wish to argue that merely thinking about committing a violent act is enough to get the Feds to act, you'll need to provide evidence that it is. No matter how vile this administration is, they haven't yet resorted to criminalizing thought, and the wording of that E.O. is nowhere close to suggesting that they have done so.
|
It is the thought that is illegal. There is no action outside of the thought needed according to this order. I do not have to prove that the Fed will act sometime in the future,as I said a certain type of thought is made illegal by this order.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 18:50:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is the thought that is illegal. There is no action outside of the thought needed according to this order. I do not have to prove that the Fed will act sometime in the future,as I said a certain type of thought is made illegal by this order. |
There are plenty of laws and EOs written with such verbage, Jerome. That you don't understand the legal difference between thoughtcrime and "clear and present danger" standards doesn't mean that the people following the EO don't. Merely thinking about committing a violent act doesn't mean that one poses "a significant risk of committing" a violent act.
There are plenty of people on this forum, Jerome, who have thought about committing simple battery upon you. That doesn't mean that they actually "pose a significant risk" to you, as few of them would beat you if given the opportunity (although a few might).
There is no "just thinking about it" clause in the EO. And you, Jerome, can't make one magically appear simply by repeating the falsehood that the EO makes certain thoughts illegal. Because thinking is not the same as "a significant risk of committing," and never will be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 19:06:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is the thought that is illegal. There is no action outside of the thought needed according to this order. I do not have to prove that the Fed will act sometime in the future,as I said a certain type of thought is made illegal by this order. |
There are plenty of laws and EOs written with such verbage, Jerome. That you don't understand the legal difference between thoughtcrime and "clear and present danger" standards doesn't mean that the people following the EO don't. Merely thinking about committing a violent act doesn't mean that one poses "a significant risk of committing" a violent act. |
We are not going to agree on this.
| There are plenty of people on this forum, Jerome, who have thought about committing simple battery upon you. That doesn't mean that they actually "pose a significant risk" to you, as few of them would beat you if given the opportunity (although a few might). |
I am a big strong guy, that might be a difficult task.
There is no "just thinking about it" clause in the EO. And you, Jerome, can't make one magically appear simply by repeating the falsehood that the EO makes certain thoughts illegal. Because thinking is not the same as "a significant risk of committing," and never will be.
|
If the executive "thinks" you are "thinking" about committing violence it is illegal according to this order. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 19:19:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We are not going to agree on this. |
Because you're refusing to examine the legal precedents.| If the executive "thinks" you are "thinking" about committing violence it is illegal according to this order. |
Show me where the word "thinking" exists in the EO. Again, "thinking about committing an act of violence" is not the same as "posing a significant risk of committing an act of violence." You know they're different, and so does the Executive Branch. The only reason that I can think of for your persistence in this falsehood is to paint the Administration as a bunch of 1984-type governmental thugs.
There's the real reason we're not going to agree on this, Jerome: there's enough real evidence that Bush and his cohorts are thugs who should never have gained the power they have that I don't need to go inventing more, while you appear to feel an irrational need to do so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 20:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; |
This is who the act applies to; notice the bolding. If the executive believes that someone may (they are thinking and talking or writing about) commit violence this order applies.
|
Nope. They have to do an overt act such as gathering supplies to carry out the act of violence or be in on planning sessions for an act of violence.
Take a look at existing conspiracy laws within state and federal governments. Same verbiage. Not defining though crime, but overt acts to commit or attempt violent felonies. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
H.R. 1592 - restricting free speech or not?
