Bush Vetoes Anti-Terror Bill

Posted By: Scott Manley
Posted on: May. 7, 2007 at 5:26 AM

34 Comments

1.7 / 5

Based on 3 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

The house voted last week (H.R.1592) to extend hate-crime protection to people who are victimized because of their sexuality. A hate crime is not just perpetrated against a number of human beings in a group - it is meant to terrorize a whole group, such as African Americans, gays, Muslims, etc. The KKK are domestic terrorists. Bush vetoed the bill. Why? Because it would give the victims of hate crime rights that other people don’t have. Perhaps he shares the concerns of Fred Phelps (left), or Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, who opposes the bill on the grounds that it could encroach on his right as a "christian" to indulge his hysterical gay panic. This is Bush’s 3rd veto. The other two are stem cell research (which could saves lives), and pulling the troops out (which would also saves lives). Now, he has vetoed hate crimes legislation, which should properly be called anti-terrorist legislation. By doing so, he is advocating terrorism, hate, crime, and death; all in the name of God. Can there be any greater heresy?

Click here to view more articles by Scott Manley

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 3 4 Next »

	Cancelled Account May. 7, 2007 at 05:40:45 AM
This user has cancelled their account with Voice of North America.

Average American

May. 7, 2007 at 06:05:42 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Hate crime legislation is retarded. All crime comes from hate, hate of others, ones self or hatred of those who have by those who don't have.

Why do we need another law on top of a law to punish more. Lets just use the system we have now and actually have people serve their time or go to death in 6 months not 22 years. That would be afar greater deterent than this stupid s***.

Bush was right to veto it. Another special right just because you are different? I don't think so. If a black man murders me, no hate, but if a white guy kills a black or gay its hate crime city.

Report Abuse

Scott Manley

May. 7, 2007 at 06:53:13 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

I guess the laws and prosecutors at Nuremberg were all retarded. AA, by your own logic, if you supported the war against Nazi Germany, that would make you retarded.

Report Abuse

Scott Manley

May. 7, 2007 at 07:56:31 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Mr. Carter, you said, "After hate crimes comes hate speech following quickly by hate thought."

The reason we have hate crimes, is because the distinction between a crime, and a hate crime, has to do with the individual victim of the hate crime, or the victim as a group. It's just like the difference between an assault and terrorism. The goal of terrorism is not to kill a certain number of people. The goal of those guys who flew the airplanes into the twin towers was not to kill 3000 people. It was to scare the hell out of the rest of us. That's what terrorism is. It was designed to induce terror.

What hate crimes legislation says is if somebody is committing a crime, and it has to do with specific criminal behavior, by the way. Hate crime legislation cannot be used on somebody just because of the words they speak. If somebody calls me a name that offends me, or if somebody calls anybody a name based on their religion or their ethnicity, or whatever; that's not what we're talking about. But when a crime is committed against a person, because they're gay, because they're black, because they're Latino, their Muslim, because they're from France, or whatever it may be, when a crime is committed against a person because they're part of a group - that is terrorism. The goal of that crime is not just to punish that person for being a member of the group. The goal of that crime is to terrify the entire group. And it typically works. The KKK was a terrorist organization. They figured if they could lynch one black man, then there would be 50 that would be terrorized by them, and did not speak out, and they were right, for a while. Hate crimes legislation should be properly called terrorist legislation, and when people are engaged in hate crimes they should properly be called terrorists. We need to call this what it is.

When John Boener gets up here and says, "Oh no, good Christians would veto this, and if you're thinking something bad, then we're going to prosecute you." This has nothing to do with thinking bad. This has to do with being terrorists.

Report Abuse

The Antichrist

May. 7, 2007 at 08:49:18 AM

View Profile

in essence he helped save lives by vetoing this bill, as homos cant reproduce, therefore a loss of life has to be taken into account with every gay couple you may come across.

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 7, 2007 at 01:09:29 PM

View Profile

Our system of jurisprudence is built upon the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and INTENT is a primary determinant is assessing the degree of criminality. Thought police, you scream? Hardly.

First degree murder is premeditated. Second degree murder is not. Third degree murder is accidental. What goes on . . . what went on . . . in the killer's head is essential to determining the degree of guilt. Deny this, and you will punish the accidental killer to the same extent as the sociopathic mass murderer.

Not that evaluating intent isn't in itself a slippery concept that we must constantly wrestle with. Let's say we had intercepted Cho before his Virginia Tech killing rampage. Could we charge him with a crime just before he pulled his gun on the RA at the dorm? Could we charge him with a crime at the point that he hatched his plan and made his videotapes? How about just after he bought his Glock? Law enforcement has prevented criminals from actually executing their criminal thoughts on countless occasions, and has imprisoned these thought-criminals nonetheless, based on sufficient evidence of intent. None of us would protest if due process were in place. None of us will object to imprisoning the terrorist caught with plans on his person to detonate a dirty bomb in NYC, or poison the water supply of a major city. On the other hand, we have hundreds of accused thought-criminals in Guantamino without anything but heresay evidence that they even wished to do the US harm, let alone were doing the US harm. This is the kind of thought policing we should be up in arms about, not hate-crime legislation,

As Scott points out, hate crime legislation does not punish you for having hate in your head. But once you have committed the crime, the motivation of racial, sexual, or religious hatred becomes relevant. Intent to terrorize a group of people has always been a greater trespass than the threatening of one individual. This is pertinent to any criminal prosecution, and penalties should reflect the greater threat that hate-crime poses to our social structure.

AA, in answer to your retarded comment on retarded hate crime legislation, I have to wonder if hanging around all this Republican talking bobbleheads has made you stupid. All crimes come from hate? Did you even stop to think if this statement made sense? Does pot smoking come from hate. Jaywalking? Speeding? How about doctor shopping for pain meds prior to you Viagra-charged sex junket in the Dominican Republic? Do you intend to thwart the new anti-smoking legislation and smoke in a bar or restaurant where the rules are not being strictly enforced? Have you thought about it? You thought criminal!!!

Report Abuse

Average American

May. 7, 2007 at 06:03:50 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Correction on my part... All violent crime MIC. I thought as a liberal you might reason that was my intent, but that's not the way your mind works is it. You go out of your way to think the worst of people. Obviously a speeding ticket isn't a hate crime.

I will start writting as if William is the only one reading it.

Report Abuse

	Cancelled Account May. 7, 2007 at 07:00:34 PM
This user has cancelled their account with Voice of North America.

www.MoronInCharge.com

May. 7, 2007 at 07:23:09 PM

View Profile

Sorry AA. I made the mistake of judging you by the words you speak and type. Next time I will use my powers of ESP to probe your mind for hate-crime and double-think, rather than trust your doubleplusungood words.

Make sure to file away everything you learn here down the memory hole, so that knowledge and awareness doesn't interfere with your next show.

Report Abuse

	Cancelled Account May. 7, 2007 at 09:35:47 PM
This user has cancelled their account with Voice of North America.

1 2 3 4 Next »