making crime illegal
Written at: 02:40 24 Mar, 2003
You know what I love? Thought crime legislation.
According to the Oregonian, a ranking senator in the Oregon Legislature has "introduced a bill to 'create the crime of terrorism' and apply it to people who intentionally cause injury while disrupting commerce or traffic."
Correct me if I'm off my rocker, but isn't causing injury already illegal? And hey, maybe disrupting traffic, too.
So why the need for a new law? Because they're protesting the war, those freakin' commies!
Definitely worth life in prison, that.
Comments on "making crime illegal"
6 comments so far.
I would agree with the question you had on the article. Why is there a need for the new law?
I say we don't need one we need to enforce the ones we have.
A great example of this is hate crime laws. There are already laws the make murder, and other forms of physical harm illegal so why a need to have the hate crime laws?
If I murder you then there is no question that you are dead and also no question that that it was a violent act. Can someone please tell me if it matters the race of the people envolved. If the race is so important then why not just charge all mixed race crimes as hate crimes.
Just some thoughts from a conservative.
Written by: tODD
Written at: 17:01 25 Mar, 2003
I know. I agree with you. If the only difference between crime A and new crime B is what the person was apparently thinking, then crime B is a thought crime law, and I think it's stupid.
White people shouldn't get treated differently based on whether they murder white or black people, and so on.
And now, maybe, you know what it means for me to be a sometime-liberal. :)
Written by: Julia
Written at: 21:40 25 Mar, 2003
Although I can't find a link online, I heard on OPB (Oregon's NPR station) that this bill came up for public hearing either yesterday or today and that there was no one there to defend it, while some 80 people had registered to speak against it.
Evidently, the rest of the state legislature also thinks it's stupid, most likely for the reason that a few people in a crowd of thousands doing something stupid would allow everyone in the crowd to be charged with "terrorism."
Also reported on OPB was a statement from John Minnis, the bill's sponsor, saying that the bill in its current form was a very rough draft, written under a time crunch and that he didn't intend for it to have the implications that it clearly does.
So it's all still okay Todd. Yay.
Written by: Chip
Written at: 08:03 28 Mar, 2003
Todd,
Not to sound insulting but I would refer to that more as mosttime-logical rather then sometime-lideral.
Saw a great T-Shirt just the other day that read "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything" then another guy was wearing one that read "Saddam Only Kills His Own People - IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!"
I'm not positive if the second was for or against operation Iraqi Freedom.
Since it is no secret I'm in the
Just some thoughts from a conservative.
Chip
Written by: Pagan Priest
Written at: 13:36 28 Mar, 2003
If I may put the numbers aside for a moment, let's assume Saddam and his offspring remain in power for decades to come. At best, the people of Iraq can expect destitution and disease. At worst, rape, murder, and torture. Does anyone dispute this?
Written by: tODD
Written at: 23:28 01 Apr, 2003
Pagan Priest - is there a good reason why you posted this here? Admittedly, the comments on Cock-a-hoop lately have been a bit pell mell, but still.
And, to respond to your question belatedly (although I have no idea what your eventual point will be), if Saddam et al. were allowed to remain in power without any intervention whatsoever from the outside world, you are likely correct that some to most of the Iraqi people would have only bad things to look forward to.
But to jump from that admittedly qualified statement to, say, a blank check for war would take quite a bit more argument.
Written by: chip
Written at: 14:38 25 Mar, 2003