The Next Veto Threat - Bush *Hearts* Hate Criminals

[Vyan]

Fast on the heels on his second all-time Veto, President Bush has already begun the rumblings for his third. This time though the issue isn't Stem Cells, or the continuation of the Iraq Escalation - this time he's threatening to Veto legislation that would help prevent hate crimes.

Because, y'know Hate Crimes are something we certainly need more of...

Now exactly why would the President and Conservatives have a hard time with this bill? Could it be that they think they have a right to be bigots? From USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.

The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.

"Equal protection?" - hm, seems some people are a bit more equal than others in the Conservative mind.

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

Although the vast majority of Hate Crimes reported in 2005 were cases of Racial Bias (4,691 offenses), the level of Sexual-Orientation Bias is still quite significant with 1,171 offenses. That is only slightly less that the incidents of Religions Bias (1,314) and more than bias based on National Origin (1,144) - not counting of course the recent Police Riot against immigrants on May Day in Los Angeles.

One point that should be emphasized is that this legislation also protects people assaulted for their gender - even if they happen to be straight - which is a statistic which isn't recorded by the FBI Hate Crime stats. In other words, it would protect women and as we've seen in the wake of the I-Mess the attitudes that continue to be projected onto women are no small contributor to violence perpetrated against them.

Somehow I'm not exactly surprised that conservatives who have evicerated Civil Rights Enforcement, attempted to change the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and gave us the so-called partial birth-abortion ban which won't save a single child, but will put far more women at greater risk or serious injury and possible death, especially those who are only 17-years-old and younger - really don't give a rat-ass about protecting women from Hate Crimes either.

I mean, let's not make a Federal Case out of this stuff...

It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

That's right - y,see - people like Ann Coulter have a Constitutional Right to call John Edward's a "Faggot" in reference to Isiah Washington's onset rant, or to say Al Gore is "Totally Gay". Rush Limbaugh is constitutionally protected when he wonders who would design Edward's "Inaugural Gown."

But if some violent religious nutbag like say - Eric Robert Rudulf - should take things up a notch from a few fighting words and - I don't know - decide to plant their own IED near a Women's Clinic or a Gay Bar - we wouldn't want to bother the FBI with it would we?

Even so, the legislation in question doesn't address hate speech - vile as much of it may be - it addresses hateful actions, not that James Dobson or John Boehner seems to know the difference.

Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.”

This news was posted while I was halfway through this diary, and it brings up something I had considered including by was going to let is slide. Well, not anymore.

The idea that "Hate Crimes" constitute "Thought Crimes" is frankly a total load of BullCrap. Everyday in courts all around the country the question of intent and Premeditation are regularly introduced. What you were thinking when you kill someone is the difference between manslaughter, 2nd and 1st degree murder.

BOHN-er is simply full of it. And in point of fact the focus of the legislation is very limited:

This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”

All it's doing is allowing already protected federal rights, such as voting, from being abridged for women, gays and the disabled in the same way that it is already (allegedly) protected for racial and ethnic minorities.

For the record, I'm not gay - but I don't see any reasonable problem with that, although I do think I have an idea why some of these guys really can't stand the idea.

Here's some more details from the Hate Crime Stats.

Sexual-Orientation Bias
In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual- orientation bias.

* 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
* 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
* 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
* 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
* 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexua

I've long argued that crimes committed against male-homosexuals are actually crimes against women-by-proxy. In the mind of a rough, tough Malboro kind of man - he's is to adored by women - and women only. The idea of some other guy being attracted to him, and possibly thinking about him in the same way he would treat a women - is repugnant. Those guys don't want someone else treating them the way they treat their girlfriends - FUCK THAT NOISE!

So naturally anyone who even sniffs at this "Man's Man" the wrong way is going to get, and deserves a beat down, right?

IMO there's a common thread among the "Macho Men", particular those who join the military (although thankfully far from all of them) linking the mindset that took us from Tailhook to Abu Ghriab.

It's not an accident that General Pace thinks homosexuality is immoral - despite the latest Scientific information which tends to indicate that being gay is biological and not neccesarily psychological, which means that discrimination against them is exactly a vile as that initiated on the basis of race or other biological factors.

The only "immoral" persons in this situation are the President and his Conservative enablers who continue to seek to deny all of us, gay and/or straight, the equal protection of the law as was promised 139 years ago, yet still has not been realized, by the 14th Amendment.

There are details on how to Contact Your Representatives and let them know how you feel in This Call To Action Diary.

Vyan

[ashling]

1. He's on a roll

just got proof that he can say no and the dems. will roll over.

[Handsome Pete]

2. Gawd, I luv Chimpy!

No one works harder to insure that the Dems will win the White House in '08 than the Bushter.

(raises glass to toast lame duck idiotic near/sub human Prez)

Here's to you, Mr. Hand-Brake of Democracy! Keep that veto pen flying, and pay no heed to the anguished screams of all the Repugs running for President in 08.

Heckuva jorb, Bushie.

[Divine Discontent]

3. well

I will throw a conniption if he pulls this stunt! but your point is awesome because, could you imagine the dark lower keyed music playing on a commercial and it saying, "George Bush and the Republicans fought equal rights for all citizens and claimed that people's equal rights were being taken AWAY because they couldn't hate on people for their gender or sexual orientation?"...

I cannot stand shrub... so many people say, "oh, he's an idiot but he's a good man"... bull shit! I'm not in the best mood, I got an email from an idiot wannabe comedian on youtube who said there's nothing funnier than staging a joke routine about a gay man getting a 'beat down' and I am just too political if I don't get the humor!
bastards...

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[blondie58]

8. welcome to du, Handsome Pete!

and thanks for the truthiness and the early morning chuckle.

[Prophet 451]

4. Not a surprise

According to the late Molly Ivins, he vetoed similar legislation in Texas and for much the same reasons too, it was the inclusion of gay people that was the deal-breaker for Bush. Granted, this may be akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" but one is forced to conclude that Bush doesn't want federal legislation interfering with the wholesome family game of "smear the queer".

[outlookin_in]

5. worried about this law...

I am all for equal protection and so on, but the wording of
HR1592 allows for our thoughts as expressed either verbally or
in writing to be criminal if those thoughts express hatred or
disagreement with others thus promoting the possibility of
physical violence.  The law boldly attempts to stop hate
crimes before physical violence is done by regulating
thoughts, teachings, words, writings, art in all forms in
order to remove the inner voice of hate before it can produce
a violent action.  Can we really, should we really legislate
thoughts, teachings, words, writings, art in all forms in
order to stop violence before it starts?  

If the law was more specific to address physical violence
actually carried out, I would be less worried.  However the
one they passed does not limit the crimes to actions and
stretches the limit to include any expression of hate for
another person's race or religious convictions or sexual
preferences.  On the surface: what is wrong with that? 
Nothing, until I stop and realize that some of the emails and
letters and calls I have made voicing my opinion about the
occupation of Iraq could be interpreted under HR 1592 as a
hate crime mearly because I express a fundamental difference
of opinion with  Bush who is in there pushing an agenda he
believes to be a mandate from his God.  

Okay here's a positive: all the cop shows and movies that make
fortunes because of their dedication to perfected reinactments
of rapes, molestations, and murders could be challenged under
HR1592 as expressing hate towards women, gays, or children and
these shows would then become accomplices to crimes that can
be documented as matching the ones in the shows.  I am in
favor of a less violent society by a less violent diet of
shows and movies, so maybe I do want HR1592 to pass?  How
about ending all of the "heavy metal" music that the
"shooters" seem to gravitate too for motivation to
commit their heinous actions?  That may not be a bad idea
either!  However, what if some person out there decided that
my singing of "Onward Christian Soldiers," was
promoting a violent path?  I don't sing hymns or go to church
ever, but I still don't think I want to crimilize these
freedoms of worship and expression?  

The first ammendment guarantees the right to speak our minds
freely and be protected from violent retaliation for our
opinions.  However HR1592 for me, is a worrisome legislation
because in the wrong hands the first ammendment could die. 


This is not a good time for this law because it gives Bush the
power to arrest all of us who openly express hate for him.  It
is that open!  

Bottom line: I just wish the law were more specific towards
guaranteeing justice to victims of hate crimes without trying
to eliminate the first ammendment rights to feel or think what
we feel or think.

[Vyan]

6. Wow...

nice set of talking points you have there. Do you come here often, what's your sign?

Too bad everything you're spouting has nothing to do with the truth.

The LLEHCPA provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. The LLEHCPA also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes.

The LLEHCPA gives local law enforcement the tools to combat violent bias-motivated crime.The importance of the LLEHCPA is that it provides a backstop to state and local law enforcement by allowing a federal prosecution if — and only if — it is necessary to achieve an effective, just result, and to permit federal authorities to assist in investigations. Federal support, in the form of grants for training or through direct assistance, will ensure all bias-motivated violence is adequately investigated and prosecuted, while at the same time ensuring state and local authorities are not overburdened.

Under this law federal law enforcement can not intervene in a criminal situation unless a crime or federally protected rights - such as the right to vote, or peacably assemble - have been violated. Bigoted or even hateful statements can not be used agaisnt a defendant unless they directly relate to the crime in question.

This is not a damper on free speach, unless you're idea of free speach is "Kill All Fags Dead" and then you decide to put action to your words.

You wouldn't do that wouldja?

Vyan

[MrPrax]

10. How about mine?

1) the state is not an arbitrator of speech; if it's violence your worried about. Let's face it, this is just done to gain leverage and add to charges that the system has problems already dealing with...violent criminals. Adding new categories doesn't help that problem...

2) Germany has the most draconian hates on the books -- still doesn't stop these animals from organzing whole parties; in fact it gives them rules to make their speech more pleasing by forcing them into non-hate issues like immigration, vigilantisms, ultra-nationalism, etc...whatever it takes. Hilter started out in a party called the German Workers Party because they appropriated 'populist' symbols to fool people. This law ain't stopping that.

3) many laws start out with the best intentions and end up being used against those people that they supposedly are intended to help (partial abortions?); especially if the 'good' guys aren't doing

4)since the application of law is unequal and unjust currently due to largely financial constrains, this law will only be applied to the idiots that screech 'race war' every time they see a non-white citizen on a FOX commericial. They will still talk. But they will be underground and convinced even more of conspiracy.

5) reluctance of Prosecutors to even use it because it is stigmatizing and we 'rational liberals' tend to think that people can reformed. If we don't believe that and simply pass draconian laws auguring peoples' minds, then there is NO point in bothering with education about 'hate'

6) 'hate'? Legal term? Too ambiguous a term in a country that 50,000 opinions about what a 'well-armed militia' means and pursuing the 'wrong' collection of 'opinions' rammed through a maelstrom of political opportunism and power that get kids at universities shot for no better reason than they were there.

etc etc etc...oh why not a couple more...

7) the legal debate when the charges are used will be bashed around the high learning centers of the good media as they game the issue for political traction...for god knows what. Because they are seen as political charges, good prosecutors simply wanting to protect the public, will get crucified by those who regularly gain politically exposure with 'hate'

8) It ain't broken, so don't fix

tired...add more later as the issue gathers frothy outrage from all sides....(last time I heard, you guys had a war going on somewhere, right? ;-)

[Vyan]

13. Point by Point

1) the state is not an arbitrator of speech;

Really? Someone definately needs to send the FCC that memo.

if it's violence your worried about. Let's face it, this is just done to gain leverage and add to charges that the system has problems already dealing with...violent criminals. Adding new categories doesn't help that problem...

It doesn't hurt either. But the fact is that it's not just violence, most Hate Crimes are acts of intimidation. As one responder to this thread on Dkos pointed out - a Cross Burning on your lawn isn't just an act of arson - it's an act of terror. A swastika on your wall isn't just vandalism - it's a threat. The assault of a gay person, simply for daring to be gay, isn't just a issue of violence - it's an attack on everyone's freedom to be who they are or else risk sufferring the consequences.

It's not just one crime - IT's TWO CRIMES..

2) Germany has the most draconian hates on the books -- still doesn't stop these animals from organzing whole parties; in fact it gives them rules to make their speech more pleasing by forcing them into non-hate issues like immigration, vigilantisms, ultra-nationalism, etc...whatever it takes. Hilter started out in a party called the German Workers Party because they appropriated 'populist' symbols to fool people. This law ain't stopping that.

There are always those who will attempt to buck the system and be anti-social whatever that system may be, the goal here isn't suppression of someone's free expression that they just don't like them gays... it's simply affording a measure of control and deterence for those who happen to turn some of those words into harmful actions.

3) many laws start out with the best intentions and end up being used against those people that they supposedly are intended to help (partial abortions?); especially if the 'good' guys aren't doing

So you would propose we have no laws at all?

4)since the application of law is unequal and unjust currently due to largely financial constrains, this law will only be applied to the idiots that screech 'race war' every time they see a non-white citizen on a FOX commericial. They will still talk. But they will be underground and convinced even more of conspiracy.

I don't disagree that there is a danger that Civil Rights legislation tends to drive haters underground, I've discussed this at length - just recently in regards to the I-Mess. That argument however doesn't outweight the fact that there has been an overall net gain as a result of anti-bias legislation on the whole.

5) reluctance of Prosecutors to even use it because it is stigmatizing and we 'rational liberals' tend to think that people can reformed. If we don't believe that and simply pass draconian laws auguring peoples' minds, then there is NO point in bothering with education about 'hate'

Look, if you simply read the Federal Murder Statues under USC Title 18 Sec 1111 - the state of the "perpetrator's mind" is always at play. It makes a difference if the act was premeditated, if they were "lying in wait", if they were also in the midst of a "burglary, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse". It makes a difference if the victim is a child. It makes a difference if the victim was a foreign national or law enforcement officer or if the perpetrator is in federal custody.

We even have a law on the books called - get this - Conspiracy to Commit Murder, which is simply that act of thinking and talking about an act that is intended for someone, somewhere to eventually commit. It doesn't even have to actually occur.

If may be a cute academic arguement to say that either we don't or we shouldn't pay attention to what someone is thinking and intending when they commit a violent act - but since clearly WE DO, it has no basis in reality.

6) 'hate'? Legal term? Too ambiguous a term in a country that 50,000 opinions about what a 'well-armed militia' means and pursuing the 'wrong' collection of 'opinions' rammed through a maelstrom of political opportunism and power that get kids at universities shot for no better reason than they were there.

Ur what? So plain english doesn't mean plain english simply because english can be mis-used?

etc etc etc...oh why not a couple more...

Yeah, sure why not...

7) the legal debate when the charges are used will be bashed around the high learning centers of the good media as they game the issue for political traction...for god knows what. Because they are seen as political charges, good prosecutors simply wanting to protect the public, will get crucified by those who regularly gain politically exposure with 'hate'

And that doesn't happen with Murder Charges, or assault charges or rape charges (hello DUKE!) already? All Prosecutors are Political Animals to one degree or another. We can agree that they shouldn't be, but to argue that we shouldn't have a law because we can't trust them to enforce the law doesn't just cut against this case - it cuts against having any laws what so ever. (See above, rinse and repeat)

8) It ain't broken, so don't fix

It's IS Broken, that's the point. Didn't you even read your own collection of arguements? Everything claim you made says "The system is broken"! Also see again the Uniform Crime Reports I linked too in the orignal post.

Vyan

[MrPrax]

19. ...and your a lawyer?

I sure hope not...you not only have used the same rhetorical tricks ('if someone breaks a law, then we shouldn't pass said laws'), but really haven't done the heavy lifting on this subject.

I'll be honest. I read your rather superficial treatment of this important subject. I thought there was a thoughtful reply being made and then you decided to barrage on through with a rather meaningless reply. Well if your looking for talking points I says -- here are a bunch. The thing is -- I wrote those down off the top of my head in literally 13 minutes.

How? Because I live in Canada and we have had these laws on the books for years. Haven't done anything -- in fact many legal opinions figure they are patently unconstitutional, but because they are charges placed at the discretion of government, these terribly important charges seem to fall away after the media crime blitz, as the state isn't really interested in putting them in front of a final court for their approval.

You took god knows how long to reply back and then most of the replies to the points were mostly the same tactic like this:
"So you would propose we have no laws at all?"???????????

What am I suppose to reply? Why...yes I am an anarchist!! You caught me!!

or should I reply:

I think you misunderstood, I was simply echoing some of the concerns of past jurists in your country about laws being locks there to keep honest folks on the straight and narrow, but do little to stop people intent on burglary. It's not like the impressive set of long held executive 'checks and balances' makes any difference to the current 'elected' official sitting in the White House.

I think it was Learned Hand that said: "“What seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition”


Look at your last point trying to refute mine:

It's IS Broken, that's the point.
Well I still don't think it's broken and that was my point...but if you insist ...

OK -- but do we have to buy a NEW car that might develop new problems, or can't we fix the one where we already have an idea of which parts needs to be fixed or replaced.

In other words, you still HAVE to come up with an answer to the question as to why new laws are needed and why the problem (if there is one) can't be handled through fine tuning existing statutes.

Like I said, I hope your not a lawyer....

[outlookin_in]

11. in response...Vyan

I do understand that laws are "MEANT" to be enforced
where a crime has been actually committed and that point
should be a stop-gap for the misuse of powers.  However the
persistant insistance of the current President that
"public opinion" is irrelevant compared to his
agenda sets a precedence that is dangerous.

Such a man as this; has and will continue with increase to do
what ever he desires without respect for the obvious and
intended checks and balances of the law.  This President has
already done a long list of actions that are illegal from
misdameanor to treason, with no regard for the laws and
without reprisal.  In fact the Congress that has the legal
obligation to enforce the laws of this land against a
President is in fact currently refusing to do so!  The
president knows this and will continue lawlessness until they
tell him no.

So I appreciate that you think there is no truth in what I
say, but a agree to disagree.  There has come into play a
great dichotomy between the written letter of the law and the
actual execution of the law, in regards to many federal
issues.  I believe this could worsten. This law could allow
this administratiion to decide that gays who lash out at the
Christ or Christian are haters and must be silenced under hate
crimes.  
 
I just finished reading on another sight how a man who is a
well respected participant in his community wrote an editorial
piece on homelessness in his city.  His piece focused upon the
fact that most evictions to the streets there were against
African Americans and that though warranted very few whites
are homeless.  Now the author went too far, by his own
admission, and called the mayor and the sherriff names.  The
man was born in another state other than the one he lives in. 
The author's father happens to be a State Trooper in the
author's birth state and called his son to inform him that the
state police where the author lives had called the birth
state's police asking for background on the author.  They
specifically wanted to know if they could expect the man to be
violant and should be picked up on the basis that his
"political opinion" was a danger to the area.

The author's father informed him that he had been forced to
arrest several such persons in his community.  All of them had
written letters and editorials that objected to local state
and/or federal activities or policies.  The author's father
informed him that under new laws, federal ones, even a
person's opinions can be cause for prosecution.  The father
informed his son, the author, to keep his opinions to himself.



I believe that in a time when there is an administration of
integrity who will impose justice under the checks and
balances you so accurately detailed a law like HR1592 is a
good thing.  However, under this current very corrupt
administration: it is just one more thing they can twist
because the powers that could have a self imposed impotence
that won't stop them, from twisting things to what ever
advantage they want.

[Vyan]

12. Ok...

This law could allow
this administratiion to decide that gays who lash out at the
Christ or Christian are haters and must be silenced under
hate crimes.

No, they can do that now since there are already laws on the book for crimes of anti-religious bias.

The author's father informed him that he had been forced to arrest several such persons in his community. All of them had written letters and editorials that objected to local state and/or federal activities or policies. The author's father informed him that under new laws, federal ones, even a person's opinions can be cause for prosecution. The father informed his son, the author, to keep his opinions to himself.

That I think is a different issue, this law doesn't address that kind of situation and trying to create a conflation where non-exists doesn't make me more convinced of your arguement. Yet.

Vyan

[outlookin_in]

14. Vryan3...

here's the thing: why hand this warped administration more
avenues to secure their agenda?  

Laws like these at this time are placing an expectation of a
fair, just, truthful interpretation of such laws upon an
administration that has used a lie (WMD in Iraq) to invade and
destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  Furthermore
the expectation that the present administration would
administrate such a law: with ethics and moral fairness is
placed upon an administration that deposed a dictator by
claiming him to be a member of a terrorist organization after
initially clearly stating that there was no connection between
Saddam and the attacks of 911.  These people don't play fair
or care about any justice but their own.  So why give them
more opportunities?  This President has already proven that
his interpretation of the law, and what constitutes violation
of the law are subject to no one but his self.

The problem is not the law, necessarily, but who is or will be
interpreting the laws and the actions of those accused of
breaking them.

Once upon a past I was born and raised in the right wing
religious world.  I remember years ago, like 20, listening to
the proposal for things like Patriot Act 1 & 2 and a hate
crimes bill.  There was an agenda to them and it was not a
good one.  It must be understood these people are terrified
already, that their Jesus is coming back and any one who does
not live right and oppose the evil doers of this world,
especially politically, will be left behind in the hands of
Satan himself.  So this is serious business to them.  They
have a biblical mandate to clean up America.

Laws like Patriot I & II and many others were written and
passed by the "Christian Right Wing Republican"
base; whose intentions were to il legalize Abortions and have
the power to stop the protest of that.  Others of their
intentions were to il legalize things like homosexuality,
evolution teachings, and every other "sin of
society."    

Since the early 1960's the listening satellites have been
keyed to pick up certain words on a list and allow listeners
at NSA to tune into our conversations to make sure that words
like "bomb" are not being used to actually plot some
thing.  This information was revealed over 15 years ago on 60
Minutes, via an interview subject who had worked as an NSA
listener for 27 years.  The events of 911 and the Patriot Acts
did not start the listening, they merely justified and
legalized it.  Patriot Acts I & II give the President the
sole legal right to use any surveillance methods needed to
protect the country from attacks both foreign and domestic. 
It was assumed that legal justification would be documented
and clearly presented before the use of such surveillance, as
we have seen the President justifies the surveillance without
due process.

All I am trying to say is that laws like the current Hate
Crimes bill are persistently misused by this administration
for their own ends.  The Bush people can no longer be trusted
to act with justice and prudence in the interpretation of laws
and on that basis alone I hate to see us give them more
avenues to misinterpret. 

I do wish I had the hope and faith that you have, Vryan, in
the justice system.  Thank you for the debate... 

[radfringe]

7. first the "decider"

then "commander-guy"

and now what? the "vetoist"?

[Divine Discontent]

15. you know bush

he gets an idea in his head and it rolls around in there for quite some time!

anyhow, this comment has me in stitches - Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.”

NUTJOB... just insane and talking, clearly, out of his ass.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[IWantAChange]

9. Is it possible the 'base' is from another planet???

[Prophet 451]

16. This isn't a surprise

According to the late Molly Ivins, Bush vetoed a similar bill down in Texas and for largely the same reasons: That it included protection for gay/lesbian people.

While it's a little akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" and while I could kind of see what he was driving at when he said "all crimes are hate crimes", the overwhelming conclusion is that Bush thinks the wholesome family game of "smear the queer" should be pretected by law.

[smalll]

17. I have issues with this kind of law also -

Here's my thinking. If someone stabs somebody on the street, it could be for many reasons: I want to rob you, and I stab you to do that. You look small and weak, so I choose you to stab. You remind me of someone I don't like, I stab you. I stab you to increase my violent "street cred"- just because. I stab you because you "dissed" me at the bar last weekend. Or I stab you because I hate fat people. Or people who walk too slow. Or I stab you because I hate gay people, or black people, or women.

I don't CARE about the reasons for the stabbing. It's the violence itself, the stabbing, that should be punished. There's no "better" or "worse" reasons to stab somebody! It's all bad!

This is also why I don't like these "victim impact statements" that family members do before sentencing. What that leads to is the law valuing victims more who have large and/or attractive families, the married over the single, the successful providers over the unemployed, etc.

"Hate crimes" and victim impact statements seem to me to get away from what should be and used to be, at least theoretically, the majestic equality of law. When you hurt someone, you should face the same penalty no matter who you hurt or who you are.

[Pushed To The Left]

18. This tells you all you need to know about the religious right and why they need to be defeated

It's funny how the right wing is against personal freedom when it comes to speech, sex, and drug laws, but they will stand up for violent criminals who commit their crimes on the basis of bigotry! What a sick ideology hardcore conservatism has become!