Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If you oppose all forms of governing institutions and are threatening or acting in way in violation of the law or endangering human life it seems reasonable to tag you as an extremist
They even in part 5 add a free speech exemption.
What in particular do you disagree with?
|
I don't understand the need to add ideological agendas at all. It's a political move to classify these movements as inherently violent and terrorist in nature. The acts in and of themselves should be enough to constitute a domestic terrorist label, should they not?
That doesn't even just apply to the anarchists. It applies to the entire ideological spectrum they're identifying here. It's good for society to understand the ideologies behind terrorist attacks, but it shouldn't on its own be the difference between designating an act as terrorist or not.
Whether someone kidnaps their Governor is black or because their kid's school didn't get enough funding is really irrelevant. The act itself is terrorism.
I also wonder if adding these specific ideologies limits the scope of the designation to acts committed in the name of those ideologies, but I'll leave that for the lawyers to argue.