Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hate Crimes! \o/
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
Pages: 1, 2
Sargun
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hat...ref=mpstoryview

QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
President Obama has said the country must make significant changes to ensure equal rights.

The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."

"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."

This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.


With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).
MiasmaCircle
That is awesome. It's about damned time.

Hate Crime legislation has no reason to be so controversial.
Aloop
Personally, I've never understood why people who demand to be treated equally also demand special laws and protection. If they wanted to be treated equally, then this is obviously a step in the wrong direction.
KaiserMelech Mikhail
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 23 2009, 03:42 AM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).

1. People don't like talking about race, or they're simply unnecissary because they people would be arrested on assualt or murder charges anyways.
2. No, but they would have anyways. It's how things work in Washington. If you want a bill to pass, attach it to a bill that can't fail.
3. An executive order is a decree that the President makes and it doesn't have to go through congress. Obama cannot use one to repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell because that was ratified by Congress, and Executive orders can't go against acts done by congress.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hat...ref=mpstoryview



With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).

1. Because they are seen as unnecessary because crimes are crimes anyways.

2. So they pass

3. Executive Orders are more less Presidential decrees that have legal force. But they can be eliminated as soon as another President comes to office, so if Obama made one banning Don't Ask Don't Tell it would simply be dismissed as soon as a Republican President came along. There is SUPPOSED to be legislation being worked on to solve and make the change more permanent
JEB90
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 10:42 PM) *
With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).


1) Because they punish thought instead of action and that's been problematically viewed in this country.
2) Because it's too controversial to pass on its own merits.
3) You might be thinking of Truman desegregating the military. But it doesn't work because while there is a debate on whether or not Obama has the authority to get rid of don't ask, don't tell, Obama believes that it's a congressional issue.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 10:42 PM) *
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hat...ref=mpstoryview



With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).


1) Some people think the decision should be left up to individual states. That in my opinion doesn't work though, because many states have a horrible track record on human rights and will not protect their own minorities, leaving it to the federal government to either enforce justice or let criminals get away with slaps on the wrist. People also worry that hate crimes legislation will infringe upon freedom of expression, which is a legitimate concern. This particular law will not do that though.

2) Attaching one bill to another is usually a political trick to make it more likely for legislation to get passed. If someone votes against the defense bill because of the hate crimes supplemental, they can be accused of not caring about the men and women in the military.

3) The Supreme Court ruled in the 50s that executive orders cannot be used to make laws, but only to clarify or further existing laws. While Obama could theoretically issue an executive order to legalize homosexuality in the military, without Congressional approval the decree would not last long. And if he had Congressional approval, he wouldn't need one in the first place.
Arcturus Jefferson
nvm.
Lamuella
QUOTE (JEB90 @ Oct 22 2009, 10:57 PM) *
1) Because they punish thought instead of action and that's been problematically viewed in this country.


huge swathes of law punish thought instead of action. Treating murder and manslaughter differently is punishing thought instead of action.
Charles VI
QUOTE (Aloop @ Oct 22 2009, 10:47 PM) *
Personally, I've never understood why people who demand to be treated equally also demand special laws and protection. If they wanted to be treated equally, then this is obviously a step in the wrong direction.


The protection is the same. Codifying hate crime against homosexuals simply aggravates the crime and sentence of the perpetrator, IIRC.
Lord GVChamp
Apparently I am wrong on #3 from the majority of the people here.


Last time I ever trust CNN on anything sad.gif
Prince Imrahil
Great news.

While I'm sure that at least some people object to "thought" crimes like these for legitimate reasons, many do because they think the people who would be protected don't deserve said protection for whatever reason (i.e. racists, homophobes, and so on). There was a congresswoman from North Carolina (Virginia Foxx I think) who objected to it on the floor (with Matthew Shephard's mother there, the guy after whom the legislation was named) in part because she thinks, like a lot of idiots, that being gay is a choice.

Now if we could just get rid of the DADT/(so called) DoMA...
Mack Truck
All the supportive opinions in the article are ridiculous. People are already protected from crimes - even if it's not crash hot - and violators are already punished for them. Slapping on a few more years won't change people's opinions so "the hate" isn't going to end because of this.

Also, somewhat unrelated, attaching names to bills is manipulative and/or bait for an emotional attack.
Aeternos Astramora
I'm still undecided on whether or not I think hate crimes laws are good or even helpful.
-Wolverine-
I foresee people being arrested for silly things.

I foresee people developing persecution complexes.

Just about a month ago a tenant decided she was going to file hate crime charges against her friends son for singing along to a song that contained the N word. The funny and sickening part of it is, she was doing to it for no other reason other than to "set an example" even if it did mean destroying a friendship. Before that she and a few others kicked the !@#$ out of several people for using the N word, when the three persons decided to file assault charges, she countered with "hate crime" charges. l o frikkin l, they both dropped the charges.

Giving people yet another reason to sue each other and claim victimization is such an asinine idea.
Lord GVChamp
There may be stupid examples of "hate crimes," but I think the laws in general serve a good purpose. The type of people that persecute groups of people for superficial traits are people that really do demand a higher degree of attention from the criminal justice system.
-Wolverine-
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 23 2009, 05:05 AM) *
There may be stupid examples of "hate crimes," but I think the laws in general serve a good purpose. The type of people that persecute groups of people for superficial traits are people that really do demand a higher degree of attention from the criminal justice system.

True, however I would think other laws would cover their actions.

Not sure though.
Mack Truck
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 23 2009, 02:05 PM) *
There may be stupid examples of "hate crimes," but I think the laws in general serve a good purpose. The type of people that persecute groups of people for superficial traits are people that really do demand a higher degree of attention from the criminal justice system.


Why?
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (-Wolverine- @ Oct 22 2009, 11:09 PM) *
True, however I would think other laws would cover their actions.

Not sure though.

They cover them, but the race-based hate or gender-based hate or the sexuality-based hate should be an aggravating factor in these types of cases that should earn you an extra special sentence in prison. We have serious problems with that kind of discrimination and I'd rather the perps spend extra years behind bars
King Diamond
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.
edikroma
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial? <---- Because since they're only applied in cases where whites commit crimes against racial or in this case sexual minorities, it comes off as very one sided.

2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill? <---- Because the defense bill is likely to go through. Besides, Republicans would have to vote against the defense bill to vote against the hate crime law.

3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough). <--- As someone else mentioned, I don't think the President can issue decrees overruling something Congress passes... not sure though..

Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (King Diamond @ Oct 22 2009, 11:14 PM) *
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

Yeah, but I don't see a path to hell from this kind of legislation.
edikroma
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.


QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
<---- Because since they're only applied in cases where whites commit crimes against racial or in this case sexual minorities, it comes off as very one sided.

QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
<---- Because the defense bill is likely to go through. Besides, Republicans would have to vote against the defense bill to vote against the hate crime law.

QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).
<--- As someone else mentioned, I don't think the President can issue decrees overruling something Congress passes... not sure though..


King Diamond
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 09:15 PM) *
Yeah, but I don't see a path to hell from this kind of legislation.


Right, but even then I really don't see the point in hate crime legislation. Unless you're insane isn't murder always done out of hate?
shoe the fifth
now this brings up an interesting question: could it now be argued that sexual orientation is a protected status under the 14th amendment (I think it's the 14th) or at least be used as precedent to include sexual orientation as a protected status?
Vinzent Zeppelin
I find it patently ridiculous that the singular act assaulting or killing a person can merit different punishments based on suspected motivations.
edikroma
QUOTE (King Diamond @ Oct 22 2009, 11:20 PM) *
Right, but even then I really don't see the point in hate crime legislation. Unless you're insane isn't murder always done out of hate?


This is an argument against hate-crime laws that I don't really like (the "aren't all murders technically hate-crimes?! lol!1)

Hate-crime legislation was put in place to separate murders like this... where people were strung up simply because of the color of their skin.
Lynching

However, we've gotten to a point where anytime a person of a minority population is the victim of a crime perpetrated by (usually) white males, it becomes a hate crime. At the same time, if a white male is the victim of a crime perpetrated by a member or members of a minority population...it is almost never classified as a hate-crime. Hell, a group of black people could beat a white man to death while yelling racial slurs, and it might still not end up as a hate-crime.

Of course, you could argue that crimes like this against whites are a lot less and might not warrant the same special attention, but then you would also have to agree that incidents of white people forming mobs and stringing up minorities from the local hangin tree have also declined significantly...making these one-way hate crime laws somewhat obsolete.
King Diamond
Because only whites are hateful....

edit: white straight men.
America
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 23 2009, 02:42 AM) *
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hat...ref=mpstoryview



With that in your heads, I ask you these questions.

1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).

1) Because they seem silly. A crime is a crime, but I do support most of them. It gets ridiculous when only minorities are protected, as I find many racist minorities around, but otherwise they are fair.

2)To get it past Republicans.

Chrono
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 23 2009, 03:42 AM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?


Because its archaic, idiotic crap. Why is it a worse crime, as a white guy, to murder a black guy, than to murder another white guy?

If a skinhead kills a black guy, give him the chair for murder. This "hate crime" nonsense is irrelevant, and only serves to add charges to a crime that wasn't necessarily racist to begin with.

QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 23 2009, 03:42 AM) *
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?


Its a dirty !@#$@#$ politician trick, wherein if you vote against this, its "you're voting against our DEFENSE? LOLZ, gl in the next election!"

QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 23 2009, 03:42 AM) *
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).


Desegregation was ordered by the Supreme Court. Perhaps what you're thinking is the Little Rock Nine incident, in which President Eisenhower sent the Army into Little Rock Arkansas, along with Federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, to counter Governor Faubus' move of using the National Guard to keep 9 black students from entering a previously all-white school.
Renolds
Isn't assaulting someone already criminal? this law makes it sound like it was ok to assault people before.
JEB90
QUOTE (Lamuella @ Oct 22 2009, 11:12 PM) *
huge swathes of law punish thought instead of action. Treating murder and manslaughter differently is punishing thought instead of action.


Well, two things in response.

1) The distinction between murder and manslaughter is one of gradation. Hate crimes is about adding an additional (usually federal) crime for your thoughts, in addition to a local crime for your actions.

2) The real distinction between murder and manslaughter is intent. Indeed, the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is premeditated intent. The question in all of these is: did you intend to kill him? when did you decided to kill him? did you know you were going to kill him? and so forth (and when the answer to all of them is no, you get involuntary manslaughter, because you can't go around killing people). But, prior to sentencing, no one really cares why you did it. What I mean is, the investigation into the thoughts of the accused has to do with knowledge and purpose of the action. Hate crimes criminalized the thoughts behind the action (which are bad thoughts, but freedoms are protected at the margins).
Rebel Virginia
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 10:42 PM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?

Because you're criminalizing the motive. I ain't against punishing the actual crime, but the motive? That's getting dangerous close outlawing some beliefs, as despicable as I may find those beliefs to be.
The Observer
QUOTE (Rebel Virginia @ Oct 23 2009, 01:46 PM) *
Because you're criminalizing the motive. I ain't against punishing the actual crime, but the motive? That's getting dangerous close outlawing some beliefs, as despicable as I may find those beliefs to be.

Agreed. Why is it worse for a White supremacist to murder a Black guy, then for a White guy to murder someone for sleeping with his wife?
Prince Imrahil
QUOTE (Renolds @ Oct 23 2009, 05:24 AM) *
Isn't assaulting someone already criminal? this law makes it sound like it was ok to assault people before.

Let's put it this way. If Person A beats/kills Person B based solely (or mainly) because of Person B's race/sexuality/whatever, it is more likely Person A they will repeat that offense or something like it. Thus, the extra time tacked on for the hate crimes enhancement keeps them off the streets that much longer and keeps whatever minority group(s) Person B is a part of that much safer.

On the other hand, if Person A beats/kills Person B just for revenge, it may be (somewhat) less likely to repeat said offense.

At least this is the theory.
Rebel Virginia
QUOTE (The Observer @ Oct 23 2009, 08:49 AM) *
Agreed. Why is it worse for a White supremacist to murder a Black guy, then for a White guy to murder someone for sleeping with his wife?

Because it is racism and racists beliefs must not be tolerated whenever possible. Well, that's the line of thought going on at least. People are still feeling guilty over the past. Now it is good to want to prevent that, but taking steps towards outlawing thoughts is a bit too far. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me, but we have lawyers all over who are pushing for this just to keep people convinced that they're needed.

Now for all you liberals out there, let me just tell you this. I ain't never held any slaves and I ain't never discriminated against anyone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. So you ain't got a leg to stand on. I'm arguably one of the most tolerant people to have ever lived, hence my opinion is worth something.


QUOTE (Prince Imrahil @ Oct 23 2009, 08:52 AM) *
Let's put it this way. If Person A beats/kills Person B based solely (or mainly) because of Person B's race/sexuality/whatever, it is more likely Person A they will repeat that offense or something like it. Thus, the extra time tacked on for the hate crimes enhancement keeps them off the streets that much longer and keeps whatever minority group(s) Person B is a part of that much safer.

On the other hand, if Person A beats/kills Person B just for revenge, it may be (somewhat) less likely to repeat said offense.

At least this is the theory.

So, they should be given extra punishment because they might commit another crime in the future? Isn't a guy with virtually no education, who needs money for drugs or whatever, most likely going to rob again after he gets out of prison? Come to think of it, isn't it possible that all criminals might commit another crime in the future? Why don't we legislate some new charges to put against them so we can lock them up even longer? I don't see anything unreasonable about that.
WernerHoffmann
QUOTE (The Observer @ Oct 23 2009, 08:49 AM) *
Agreed. Why is it worse for a White supremacist to murder a Black guy, then for a White guy to murder someone for sleeping with his wife?


Well that depends, is the adulterer disabled or a minority? If so, then it seems they'll get punished evenly. If not, oh well, that's "not as bad" in their eyes. lol1.gif
The Observer
QUOTE (Rebel Virginia @ Oct 23 2009, 12:53 PM) *
Because it is racism and racists beliefs must not be tolerated whenever possible. Well, that's the line of thought going on at least. People are still feeling guilty over the past. Now it is good to want to prevent that, but taking steps towards outlawing thoughts is a bit too far. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me, but we have lawyers all over who are pushing for this just to keep people convinced that they're needed.

Now for all you liberals out there, let me just tell you this. I ain't never held any slaves and I ain't never discriminated against anyone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. So you ain't got a leg to stand on. I'm arguably one of the most tolerant people to have ever lived, hence my opinion is worth something.



So, they should be given extra punishment because they might commit another crime in the future? Isn't a guy with virtually no education, who needs money for drugs or whatever, most likely going to rob again after he gets out of prison? Come to think of it, isn't it possible that all criminals might commit another crime in the future? Why don't we legislate some new charges to put against them so we can lock them up even longer? I don't see anything unreasonable about that.


I'm as liberal as they come, and I find Hate-Crime laws to be completely nonsensical. I don't care if you are racist, if you act on it, you get punished the same as anyone else. No more, no less. We already have systems to deal with recidivism.
deja
QUOTE
President Obama has said the country must make significant changes to ensure equal rights.

LOL

Everybody already had the right to not be "assaulted". Equally so.

Saying "well because you're black we're gonna make the punishment worse for hitting you" is not "equal" anything.
edikroma
QUOTE (Rebel Virginia @ Oct 23 2009, 07:53 AM) *
Now for all you liberals out there, let me just tell you this. I ain't never held any slaves and I ain't never discriminated against anyone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. So you ain't got a leg to stand on. I'm arguably one of the most tolerant people to have ever lived, hence my opinion is worth something.[/color]


So you have held slaves and you have discriminated against people because of their skin color or sexual orientation? Gotcha... tongue.gif

No, but seriously... you're right about the entire punishing people for their beliefs, since what current hate crime laws currently basically say that it is illegal for white, heterosexual males to hate others...and if they do anything that could be construed as a hate crime, they will face extra prosecution.

There is a fine line between preventing racially motivated murders and preventing freedom of thought (no matter how stupid those thoughts maybe).
Prince Imrahil
QUOTE
...and if they do anything that could be construed as a hate crime, they will face extra prosecution.

They wouldn't so much get extra prosecution as they would get extra jail time if convicted (slight difference between the two, but I get what you're saying).
Alarik Martens
I wonder if the 15 year old white kid who was lit on fire over here in Miami by black and spanish kids will be deemed a victim of these hate crimes....
capitalC
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - A frequent misquote of Voltaire

That is my opinion of homophobic attacks and the hate speech laws made to try and stop them.
Gustave5436
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 07:42 PM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?


Because lots of people hate gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans-gender individuals (or black people; depends on the specifics)

QUOTE
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?


Because government is stupid, corrupt, inefficient, and nonsensical

QUOTE
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military? I thought a past President (it's a little late here, names aren't popping up) signed an executive order ordering the desegregation of schools or summat (I should remind you that my high-school and below education came from South Louisiana, it wasn't exactly thorough).


Desegregation was ordered by the Supreme Court afaik due to their ruling in Brown v Board of Education. The President just used his authority as commander in chief of the armed forces to help enforce the ruling.

As to why Obama can't sign an executive order ending don't ask/don't tell, you'd have to ask him.
Prince Imrahil
QUOTE
As to why Obama can't sign an executive order ending don't ask/don't tell, you'd have to ask him.

He can't because DADT is a law passed by Congress. The best he could do is pass an executive order that stops (at least to a large degree) enforcement of it, but it would still be on the books and could be withdrawn by the next administration in 2012/2016. This is why Congress has to repeal it for the change to stick.

Off topic much?
Lord Boris
QUOTE (Sargun @ Oct 22 2009, 09:42 PM) *
1) Why are hate crimes laws so controversial?
2) Why do they need to attach a hate crimes bill to a $680billion defense bill?
3) What exactly is an executive order, and why can't the President sign one allowing homosexuals to come out in the military?



1. Because they are simply unneeded. If you kill someone, considerations into the victim's background and the killer's opinions on them are, in my opinion, in the category of 'wholesale irrelevance'. The only major consideration aside from the crime itself is whether or not the crime was pre-meditated. Anything else is just added crud piled onto a charge to bog down the legal system when they could just make the penalties for heinous crime more severe in the first place.

2. Because Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democratic leadership are incapable of passing anything for what it actually is.

3. It's not that he can't sign something to allow it. It's that he is not completely willing to do so. Now, why would that be, you ask? Simple. It's one of the few things he's listening to the majority of field commanders on. Throughout history, especially in the last hundred or so years, field commanders found that homosexuality within the ranks tended to create friction between members of military units, generated morale concerns, and even raises questions about logistics in barracks and facilities construction (particularly on the subject of barracks showering facilities). Ultimately the question comes down to a matter of utility, and if the military brass doesn't see enough utility in removal of the policy, then they'll likely encourage the President and the Secretary of Defense to maintain the current status quo. While Obama may eventually yield to the political pressure, it's not likely to come without cost of backlash amongst the military commanders he's already aggravating with his dismissive attitude towards the needs of his generals in the field.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (edikroma @ Oct 23 2009, 12:29 AM) *
This is an argument against hate-crime laws that I don't really like (the "aren't all murders technically hate-crimes?! lol!1)

Hate-crime legislation was put in place to separate murders like this... where people were strung up simply because of the color of their skin.
Lynching

However, we've gotten to a point where anytime a person of a minority population is the victim of a crime perpetrated by (usually) white males, it becomes a hate crime. At the same time, if a white male is the victim of a crime perpetrated by a member or members of a minority population...it is almost never classified as a hate-crime. Hell, a group of black people could beat a white man to death while yelling racial slurs, and it might still not end up as a hate-crime.

Of course, you could argue that crimes like this against whites are a lot less and might not warrant the same special attention, but then you would also have to agree that incidents of white people forming mobs and stringing up minorities from the local hangin tree have also declined significantly...making these one-way hate crime laws somewhat obsolete.


According to Department of Justice statistics, 37% of all reported hate crimes convictions were for crimes committed by minorities. So the existing data doesn't really support your assertion. I will admit that many states have not been very cooperative with the DOJ when it comes to reporting hate crimes data though.
King Diamond
There are less people in minorities to commit "hate" crimes though.
Alarik Martens
QUOTE (King Diamond @ Oct 23 2009, 05:41 PM) *
There are less people in minorities to commit "hate" crimes though.
There are also less minorities to commit "hate" crimes on as well.
penguino
wow, when did assault categorize a federal crime?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.