thoughts are being punished all over the coutry. Attempted murder? There is no violent act there more often of not.

"Attempted murder" is an ACTION, not a thought. I can only presume you're referring to 6 young men kicking an unconscious person in the head.

Kicking an unconscious person in the head is an action that can be defined/interpretted as "attempted murder" without figuring out what was going on in the heads of 6 youths kicking an unconscious youth in the head.

This hate crime BS is purely the criminalization of thought....but THIS:

The law requires only that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person's ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.

...is just insane. Criminals targetting a particular group isn't a hate crime...it's efficient crime. These guys targetted this homosexual, not because they were necessarily anti-homosexual...rather...because they could get this guy alone in a secluded spot because he was a homosexual....they wanted the easy target.

How about criminals that target little old ladies that're all alone?

Is THAT a hate crime? Not at all...they don't hate little old ladies...they like easy targets.

Criminalizing thought is the first step. Second step is controlling the media....

Sarge,

And what do you call people hanging nooses from trees and putting them in people's bags? Just your average joe blow enjoying a knot tying lesson?

April,

Not sure what fantasy world you live in, but I suggest you come up for air in the real world.

April,

I was trying to remember who you remind me of, and if finally hit me. You're like one of the jurors I had to put up with during ironically an attempted murder trial. That juror, despite all the evidence that the defendant had gone through all the motions of his intent to kill an officer (leveling a gun an officer...even though the gun wouldn't have been able to fire and kill the officer), this juror instead believed all the BS of the defendant just wanting to get home, and would have gladdy "invited the guy into her home for milk and cookies and discuss his problems", even though he'd tried to barge his way into two houses before coming into contact with the cop.

Moral of this particular story, if you level a gun at someone (working or not), even if you haven't actually hurt them yet, you're either intending to kill them, or your pretty stupid, because you just gave them every justifications in the world to kill you.

Also a perfectly justifiable example of how you can commit attempted murder without actually inflicting any real harm.

And what do you call people hanging nooses from trees and putting them in people's bags? Just your average joe blow enjoying a knot tying lesson?

I call it "people hanging nooses from trees." Putting a noose in someone's bag can be called "making a direct threat against someone's life"...that's probably against the law somewhere....but it shouldn't be a separate crime because of your negative thoughts. Had the noose hanger walked around off-campus after school carrying a noose on a stick, that's protected by the Constitution no matter how nasty that speech is. Private property...hang all the nooses you want in all the trees you want so long as it's YOUR property.

Wanna walk around downtown with a big "I hate niggers!!" sign (that's right, I opened that can of worms) and I will defend your right to be an ass. Paint swastikas and "I hate jews" on your barn....I'll defend your right to do so...protected speech and all. March around in white robes, spewing hate at the unpure races.....I will defend your right to do so. Walk around with a "hanged" effigy of the President and I'll take a second look at you to ensure you're not seriously threatening the POTUS...then will defend your right to spew your hatred. 1A rights are a bitch, ya know...some of us actually care about Constitutional rights instead of paying lip-service when it suits you.

Or shall we just criminalize everything you don't agree with...everything taseless...everything negative, racist, hateful and mean? Gonna have your fascistii round everyone up that has what you deem a bad thought, Mein Furher?

Sarge,

I guess in your mind the holocaust wasn't a hate crime either ah? There is a reason for adding extra punch to a hate crime, no matter how insignificant hanging something like noose from a tree appears in itself. Its to provide an incentive to organized haters like the KKK, that any return to organized hate of particular groups will not be tolerated in the slightest.

Things like the holocaust occurred, because a level of hatred both physical and symbolic was allowed to percolate into the German mindset, until it became part of their culture...and hate crime legislation is there to remind us, such things are not tolerated...no matter how insignificant one crime may be, or appear.

Hi Kerry,

If a crime or a series of crimes is committed with the intention not only the criminal having gained an advantage (money in the case of theft, the death of an individual in the case of murder etc), but also with the intention of terrorising the community that that is I would say an additional offense over and above the initial crime.

The act of violence serves two purposes one the immediate gain and two the impact on the community targeted. The additional tariff or offense is not covered by punishing just for the act it is for the fear engendered specifically against a given group or community.

If a little old lady is mugged and her valuables taken and she is roughed up while she is of course often terrorised individually it is not (at least normally) with the intention of terrorising all little old ladies. I agree that this is a by product and the elderly are often overly scared of of crime, but this was not the specific intention.

If gay people (or of course any other group) are specifically targeted to cause fear and/or intimidation possible with the motive of getting that group to modify their behaviour then the crime not only is against that individual but against all individuals within that community.

I find it interesting Kerry, that you wrote this piece at the within a short time of writing this piece.

I'd also suggest a fairly obvious one would be flying planes into the twin towers. The crime was clearly more than the murder of thousands of people and the destruction of some prime real estate (heinous though this in itself), but with the express intention of spreading fear amongst Americans and their allies.

Kerry when you say

We have had many discussions of "hate crimes" legislation before. Those advocating it always claim that it is worse to kill someone because you "hate" them (using "hate" as some kind of behavior, subject to punishment.)

You misrepresent the argument against you. I do not think the act in itself is worse depending on the motivation, I believe that the additional and deliberate fear within the community is the secondary crime.

As for the specific case I don't know the motivation and yes it's very difficult in some cases to divine the motivation. We tend to have to go on other information from the defendants, it would have been handy if these men had been shouting kill the faggot etc, but criminals often don't behaviour as we'd like them to. Just because a crime is difficult doesn't mean we should not pursue it - date rape is notoriously difficult to prove yet no-one would suggest this were a reason to drop it from the statute books.

Under New York law, they said, defendants can be convicted of a hate crime even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim.

And it is allegedly explained by this:

The law requires only that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person's ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.

I agree with you, this is an extension beyond where I would go. But that doesn't mean that "hate crimes" are wrong just that this extention to them is wrong. Otherwise the rich would be a vulnerable group, criminals rather like the rich they have to do work less for more money by targeting them. Yet they don't (again at least normally) target them to cause fear amongst the rich they target them because they make more money by targeting them.

Hi ahmanrah,

Things like the holocaust occurred, because a level of hatred both physical and symbolic was allowed to percolate into the German mindset, until it became part of their culture...and hate crime legislation is there to remind us, such things are not tolerated...no matter how insignificant one crime may be, or appear.

I disagree with you. Laws are not reminders and nor should they be. If their only purpose was to be a reminder I'd want them removed, there should be a reason for a law to exist and so we don't forget a historical event no matter how worthy is not a good enough reason.

WB,

Deterant would probably be a better word to have used.

err....deterrent.

"If a crime or a series of crimes is committed with the intention not only the criminal having gained an advantage (money in the case of theft, the death of an individual in the case of murder etc), but also with the intention of terrorising the community that that is I would say an additional offense over and above the initial crime."

But that's already a crime. It's called "terrorism." And, as much as you'd like to claim so, the law we're discussing here doesn't mention "I find it interesting Kerry, that you wrote this piece at the within a short time of writing this piece.

"Belief" is not an action. It is a thought.

Also, the holocaust involves another crime-If a crime or a series of crimes is committed with the intention not only the criminal having gained an advantage (money in the case of theft, the death of an individual in the case of murder etc), but also with the intention of terrorising the community that that is I would say an additional offense over and above the initial crime.-it's called "genocide," not "hate crime." And it also requires more than a mere belief or stereotyp

I would say an additional offense over and above the initial crime.-it's called "genocide," not "hate crime." And it also requires more than a mere belief or stereotyp

LOL, your almost approaching Clinton's infamous splitting of hairs over the definition of "is". Genocide is a form of hate crime, admit it and get over it....

If genocide is "a form of hate crime" and is ALREADY a crime, and all the other "hate crimes" are covered ALREADY, why do we need legislation criminalizing opinion and belief?

Kerry,

If genocide is "a form of hate crime" and is ALREADY a crime, and all the other "hate crimes" are covered ALREADY

I don't quite follow you, because not all hate crimes are genocide.

Hmm, why do we need to criminalize opinion and belief? Hmm we don't, just like we don't criminalize someone contemplating murdering someone. Its the moment someone acts on their opinions and beliefs in a violent or socially oppressive way that it becomes a crime.

Whether you tie a noose to a tree, or drag a man to his death because of his race, religion or creed, both are hate crimes intended to either terrorize, or violently victimize a particular group of people in a pre-meditated fashion. We can argue that little old ladies and rich people are groups to, but we all know deep down, that there is a fundamental difference between a group of people who decide to target some randomly vulnerable group of people, and those who decide one night, they are going hunting for some Jews, gays, mexicans or blacks to beat up or kill.

I guess in your mind the holocaust wasn't a hate crime either ah?

You're such a dumbass I don't know where to begin with this fascist BS. No, the Holocaust wasn't a "hate crime"....as in a bunch of millions of murders with hatred as a motivation....so asses like you could criminalize thought. It's called GENOCIDE...an entirely different crime from "murder"...it's called "crimes against humanity", fascist. That's the "extra punch in the law" you call for that doesn't need the criminalization of thought, you fascist ass.

Its to provide an incentive to organized haters like the KKK, that any return to organized hate of particular groups will not be tolerated in the slightest.

Gee you fascist ass, the KKK is still organized, probably even more so now with the internet....and they still, get this.....hate people and groups and "unpure genes" despite your fascist attempts to criminalize thought. Maybe you should ask Senator Byrd how the Klan is doing....

...and it's their right to organize and be as hateful as they want until fascist assholes like you trample on the Constitution and criminalize their thoughts. That's why they can freely rally in Boston and deserve police protection. !A rights are extended to even that which you despise, fascist.

It's the ACTIONS that should be illegal, not thoughts.....fascist. Put a burning cross on a person's yard......illegal. Burn a cross on your own yard....legal. Gonna send your mind-police after me asshole....criminalize my hatreds of fascist assholes like you? That's why I exercise my 2A rights....to protect me from fascist assholes like you in the gubmint.

Genocide is a form of hate crime, admit it and get over it....

Fascist. Genocide is the wiping out of an entire race of people.

You gonna charge Hitler with "genocide" or a "hate crime"? Is there genocide without hate?

Is there criminalization of thought without fascism?

I don't quite follow you, because not all hate crimes are genocide.

That's because you cannot comprehend simple english while you're trying to criminalize thought like the good little fascist you are....this is a very simple A=B does not mean B=A logical fallacy. She very clearly in very simple english said: "If genocide is "a form of hate crime" and is ALREADY a crime, and all the other "hate crimes" are covered ALREADY"

In no way does that mean "all hate crimes are genocide." Rather, all your "hate crimes" are already "crimes". Genocide is already a crime...and I'd like to hear about love-based genocide. You don't need to charge with "hatred" too. "Gee Adolph...we're gonna charge you with 6 million murders....and for hating them horrible joos." Same with all other crimes fascists like you wanna criminalize the thought of. They're already crimes, fascist. If I kill someone....it's called murder. If I kill someone because they'r eblack, white, hispanic, homosexual, left-handed Inuit....it's called...murder.

...until fascist asses like you criminalize thought.

Sarge,

Your calling me a fascist for pointing out that the holocaust committed by a real fascist was indeed a hate crime? You crack me up.

Planting a burn cross on someone's lawn is not a thought crime, it involves actions based on one's thoughts, just like murder begins with one's thoughts. Actions are what make it a crime. And actions done purely to victimize a distinct segment of society is indeed hate.

You guys avoid the term "hate crime" like its the flavor of the month, but openly embrace genocide, because genocide isn't the word at issue. But if it suddenly became politically meaningful to avoid this term you probably would try doing so at all costs.

I wonder what the definition of is, is...hmm. A classic Clinton dodge going on here.

Sigh.

Clearly, this is too difficult with the example of a multi-perp scenario. Let's make it absolutely easy. A 3-year old could get this.

Let's just take one person. Me, for instance.

If you kill me because you hate me because I am female, that is a hate crime, right?

If you kill me because you hate me because I am Pentecostal, that is a hate crime, right?

BUT if you kill me because you hate me because I am a Republican, or a conservative, or just too bloody annoying to put up with anymore--THOSE aren't hate crimes?

I am just as dead. They could all be committed the exact same way. They are all committed because of hate. But only TWO of them would garner extra time for that hate.

How is that fair? How is that justice?

Here's some more help.

"Hate crimes" used to require involvement in "hate groups," which were collective attempts to terrorize or persuade a group of people by attacking its individual members, or the group as a whole. This is dangerous behavior in society, and the state has an interest in preventing it. Thus, it has the right to outlaw groups whose purpose of existence is to plot crimes.

HOWEVER, since an individual cannot definitionally constitute a conspiracy, and therefore cannot menace society in the same way, we punish INDIVIDUALS for their INDIVIDUAL acts. The state acts in the place of the people to punish ONE person, not a representative of many.

What hate crimes legislation does is apply the criminal nature of a "hate group" to an individual that independently "hates." It makes no sense. If person A kills person B because person B is of another ethnicity, the law punishes person A for the act of murder--not the desire to murder, or the enmity between person A and person B. In fact, it COULD not do so, because if we were to take motivation into account, it would have to be done on both sides. In other words, whether person B hated person A would have to be a mitigating factor. We cannot afford to do that.

The law is clear. Overt acts are punished. Assumptions about intent can be used as evidence, or to paint the character of the defendant, but the law can only punish people for what they DO, not for what they ARE.

Ironically, (yes, I'm going there) the Germans DID punish people for what they WERE (Jews), and used the instruments of government to create laws designed to make it impossible for them to avoid punishment.

We don't do that. It's not illegal to hate someone; it's just stupid. Murder, theft, defamation, destruction of property, incitement to riot, libel--all these ARE punishable. But the stupid ideas behind them cannot be criminalized. If free expression is virtually unlimited, how can we justify punishing people for thinking the thoughts that lead to the expression they have a First Amendment right to express?

"You guys avoid the term "hate crime" like its the flavor of the month.."

I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that you just don't know any better (like "America's Most Smartest Model").

That term doesn't mean what you think it does. The "flavor of the month" isn't something you "avoid." It's something you wildly and enthusiastically embrace for a short period of time, then drop to move on to something newer and more exciting.

You're welcome. But don't let it happen again.

BUT if you kill me because you hate me because I am a Republican, or a conservative, or just too bloody annoying to put up with anymore--THOSE aren't hate crimes?

Kerry,

Unfortunately you are leaving no room for personal judgment here. Every crime is evaluated based on its severity, pre-meditation, etc. Defining what is actually a hate crime, should fall under this same scrutiny. We all damn well know that hunting down gay, because he is gay, beating the living shit out of him, and tying him on a fence post to die, is hate crime. Admit it! It goes above and beyond the norm, just like the average person judges beheadings are more heinous than simply capping someone in the head. All of these laws are an attempt to determine what a hate crime is, and I suspect they will go through revisions over time to get them right. But we shouldn't treat hate crimes as if they aren't distinct, just because a few people think they are going to get plugged by the statute. Its funny as I think of it, how strongly you feel about this, given what little concern you give for the average supposed criminal, even before he is convicted. Since when did you care whether a criminal got 10 years or 20? There is a political motivation here, and that's what's got you guys all hot to trot. No other explanation.

Damn I didn't have to wait even a day to prove my comment to Sarge. Thank you Mr. Bush.

You guys avoid the term "hate crime" like its the flavor of the month, but openly embrace genocide, because genocide isn't the word at issue. But if it suddenly became politically meaningful to avoid this term you probably would try doing so at all costs.

Suddenly its become politically expedient to avoid the term genocide, when it comes to the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians around the turn of the century. This was genocide people....Bush should admit, and the Turks should be forced to face the facts, just like we were forced to come to terms with slavery. Nobody should ever turn a blind eye to genocide, just because in the political present its inconvenient. Shame on you Bush for even suggesting it.

White House: Genocide resolution would hurt relations with key ally

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html

Maybe Bush should consider the "hurt" the armenians suffered, and how he is basically asking us to ignore the deeds of former "terrorists", to facilitate their continued assistance with our current terrorist fight.

ahmanrah,

why all of a sudden are members of the Foreign Affairs Committee concerned with ordering the president to talk about genocide in April? (That's what the bill demands, by the way).

Could it be that they don't WANT Turkey to deepen its coalition commitments in Iraq, and bringing this up is a good way to drive a wedge between the US and Turkey?

Don't tell me that it's suddenly in America's vital interest to use a word now loaded with international legal implications when discussing an event that happened in 1915, under--not just a different Turkish administration--but a different EMPIRE?!?!?

WHY DOESN'T THE CONGRESS PASS APPROPRIATIONS BILLS INSTEAD OF MORAL CONDEMNATIONS EVERY TWENTY MINUTES?

Here are just a few of the idiotic "Sense of Congress" or "Sense of the Senate" Resolutions that our elected leaders have bothered with this term:

* On October 4, Zoe Lofgren introduced a resolution to express the Congress's "sense" that "secondary schools should consider starting school after 9:00 in the morning."

* January 4, a resolution that "schools in the United States should honor the contributions of individuals from the territories of the United States by including such contributions in the teaching of United States history."

* January 31, a resolution that "the National Museum of Wildlife Art, located in Jackson, Wyoming, should be designated as the `National Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States'."

and, this waste of time and taxpayers' money:

" Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress --

(1) that there should be established an annual National Pet Week; and

(2) the goals and ideals expressed during National Pet Week should be guides for the people of the United States to observe in the care of pets."

This Congress is a disaster. They have accomplished absolutely nothing. They have the lowest approval rating of any Congress since the numbers have been kept track of.

That's what happens when you put a woman in charge of the House of Representatives.

Don't make one president.

And, Ahmanrah, why is it important to slap our ally Turkey in the face RIGHT NOW by bringing up something that happened A HUNDRED YEARS AGO?

WHY DOESN'T THE CONGRESS PASS APPROPRIATIONS BILLS INSTEAD OF MORAL CONDEMNATIONS EVERY TWENTY MINUTES?

Maybe they are making up for lost time? Since the Republicans were hardly doing their job. The Armenians have been fighting to get some recognition of this for a long time, and like murder I don't think we should impose a statue of limitations on accepting a genocide for what it is. And this is hardly a last minute thing. The US screwed up not recognizing the last few genocides that occurred. I think its simply an evolutionary process where we are finally bringing ourselves to make up for past mistakes.

It should also be pointed out that the Turks have in many ways treated another minority in their country the Kurds very heavy handedly, and in another era (when the world wasn't watching as closely) I suspect they would have wiped them off the map too. What's my point? They need to be taught a lesson that you can't treat minorities like crap. Sure there Kurds doing nasty things to the turks, but they are simply a natural extremist offshoot of what happens when people fight back against decades of oppression. Kind of like the Palestinians.

something that happened A HUNDRED YEARS AGO?

So if something happened a hundred years ago, and has never been recognized, we should just forget about it, no matter how heinous? Maybe in another 40 years, we can all be like the Iranian president, and say...the holocaust, what holocaust. It didn't happen...and even if it did...ahh, who cares that was a hundred years ago.

ahmanrah,

I can't believe you are this politically naive.

This is the Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee trying to make sure we get screwed in Iraq. If they can make Turkey mad, Turkey will rescind their promise to help us in Iraq. How can they do this? Rev up the Muslim Turks by giving them the impression that Americans see them as genocidal maniacs.

Why should Muslim Turks get more involved in a fight against fellow Muslims, if the US (perceived around the world as a "Christian nation") is going to attack THEM on behalf of Armenian Christians? Better to fight for their own Muslim brothers, right?

The Foreign Affairs dems are just trying to use the "Arab street" to their own political advantage. It's totally disgusting. The Armenian genocide has NOTHING to do with the current inhabitants of Turkey, and they should not be humiliated before the world by 27 nitwits in Congress.

I like my Turkey with stuffing and gravy ;-) How about you amhemenahanna?

Also, my take on the hate crime thing - kinda silly, in my opinion. I mean, if I'm killing someone, I obviously hate them. I most-likely hate them becuae of an idea or belief they hold. There would be at least a few other people who hold the same belief or idea, which then makes them a "group" (love that good ole Marxist group-think). That would make every murder a hate crime.

Example: Husband regularly degrades wife. Sometimes beats her up a little. Wife gets sick of it, but is scared and doesn't know how to leave... you all know the story. Wife kills husband because husband thinks it's ok to treat wife in such a way. Other husbands obviously hold the same idea - a sort of wife-beaters club if you will. That means this woman hates all of these men, because they believe this idea. That makes it a hate crime by this flimsy definition.

One could say, well, it only counts for people who can't help the group they belong to. Well, then we'd either have to rule out homosexuality, or we could say that wife-beating mentality is genetic, just like homosexuality.

I should be a lawyer ;)

The Armenian genocide has NOTHING to do with the current inhabitants of Turkey

Bullpucky it doesn't. Those who don't know their past are doomed to repeat it. You wouldn't want the German's to forget what their grandparent did would you, or even worse start to believe it wasn't that bad.

Oh and neither Bush or Turkey have anything to worry about if the genocide bill is so partisan it can't pass. But with 226 co-sponsors, its pretty clear this isn't a Democrats only efort...try again.

Hi Kerry,

well I'm no expert on your laws and if indeed terrorism is one of the laws used to prosecute people in the way I outlined then I agree you don't a hate crime law. But from my limited knowledge I hadn't heard this to be the case. Are people putting up burning crosses in a black persons front garden are liable to a terrorism charge as well as trespass. How about the very deliberately public killing of gay people that sometimes occurs? I suspect these aren't cases where terrorism is used as a charge. A "hate crime" is a kind of terrorism lite if you will. As I say if the terrorism charge is being leveled fine if it's not then "hate crime legilation has its place.

Hi Tek-Support,

I mean, if I'm killing someone, I obviously hate them.

Really? So you think the mugger who ends up shooting their victim hates them? Someone who is killed because they have knowledge that would put the killer behind bars is hated? A drunk driver hates the people he drives into? Random drive by shootings they're motivated by hate? Even a betrayed lover angry or jealousy OK, but is hate the right word? You seem to have a very simplistic view of killing people and "hates" involvement in that.

There would be at least a few other people who hold the same belief or idea, which then makes them a "group" (love that good ole Marxist group-think).

So on this marshland of your definition of "hate" you start to build. I won't both pointing out any more than that this statement has no logical basis and that mere ascertion and rambling thought aren't going to convince anyone.

By the way, if any reference to groups within society has to have a hat tip to Marxism, do you not want to throw in a few more - Durkhiem, Weber, ideas around the social contract or should we just scrap the study of these people and rename sociology - Marxism 101. It's all about big brush strokes eh.

"Example: Husband regularly degrades wife. Sometimes beats her up a little. Wife gets sick of it, but is scared and doesn't know how to leave... you all know the story. Wife kills husband because husband thinks it's ok to treat wife in such a way."

So you think responding to domestic violence is an ideological position? Wife kills husband because of her philosphical stance against bad treatment in marriage and not because of the specific bad treatment of her.

"Other husbands obviously hold the same idea - a sort of wife-beaters club if you will."

Is there such a club? Are these men trying to coerse women (and I mean women as a group here) to behave in a given way OR are they just trying to get a speific person to behave in a given way

Other husbands obviously hold the same idea - a sort of wife-beaters club if you will. That means this woman hates all of these men, because they believe this idea. That makes it a hate crime by this flimsy definition.

"That means this woman hates all of these men, because they believe this idea."

Does it? Or does it mean she "hates" the specific person who is treating her in a certain way. Are there vigilante groups of women in domestic violence refugues going out and beating the crap out of the partners each of them have left because of their ex partners ideolgical stance on women? Well maybe there are, you tell me, I'm sure it's on the news all the time over there.

"That makes it a hate crime by this flimsy definition."

I'm not even convinced you've worked out where your own straw man is, let alone taken a swipe and knocked him over.

"One could say, well, it only counts for people who can't help the group they belong to."

Well I suppose you could say that, I haven't really noticed that this side have been saying that. I'm perfectly happy to agree that hate crimes can be used to defend various religious beliefs and I would say people definately can help being in a group that believes x or y about God and the nature of his desires, so I don't know why you want to ask my side of the debate to adopt this position.

"Well, then we'd either have to rule out homosexuality, or we could say that wife-beating mentality is genetic, just like homosexuality."

Oh that's why you want to give my side this view, you want to parade an opinion you hold on gays and why people are gay as an axiom in your fantasy that you've put together some kind of arguement. Are you trying to deliberately weaken your position? Let me tell you there really is no need. You have no reasoned position, but those who have bothered to read your thoughts are at least enlightened as to your opinions on the subject. Well I suppose you might as well chuck in your opinion as to why gay people are gay too - after all it's not going damage your arguement is it.

"I should be a lawyer ;)"

Are there a deficiet of profoundly stupid lawyers in the US? Or is this a final pat on the back for yourself at being so clever as to tell us you baseless views. I think with reasoning skills such as yours you should perhaps consider a career in pool cleaning and then my advice would be to work with someone so that they could tell you which end of the pole goes in the pool.

OFF TOPIC

Haven't you had an incident of a policeman killing 6 and a kid killing 4 at school in the past few days in the US. What a strange place the US is that this is so routine these don't even get a mention here abouts. Are these still number 1 on the news or has the caravan moved on already. I'm sure this was exactly what your founding fathers had in mind with the right to bear arms.

"Haven't you had an incident of a policeman killing 6 and a kid killing 4 at school in the past few days in the US."

No, not exactly.

The first case is a 19-year old deputy sheriff in Wisconsin who went to a party to talk to his girlfriend and shot up the place. He wasn't on duty. It wasn't a police-related killing; it was personal. What we all want to know is whether it's smart to have 19-year old deputy sheriffs. And it was a small town in Wisconsin, where it's tough to get good help with your security (everybody's out hunting in the Fall. Wisconsin is weird, because it's a politically "progressive" state [part of the "socialist/populist Midwest"] but very beer-and gun-intensive. And just loaded with remote locations and dark corners--Ed Gein, the serial killer on whom Texas Chainsaw Massacre is based, came from there, and his pursuits were in no way deterred by the environment.)

The second case you have wrong, though it is a very interesting event. Only the shooter died in this event. Asa Coon, a 14-year old atheist, showed up at the school from which he was suspended at the time and attempted to shoot his classmates and teachers. He succeeded only in sending them to the hospital, and he shot himself.

Asa Coon is a very interesting case, because the school was a public magnet school, which should be very difficult to get into, and he had an arrest record AND a history of mental illness, which should have kept him OUT of such a school.

He told people at school he was going to shoot them, he showed them guns he had brought, and the reason he was suspended is also very intriguing.

He got in an argument in class with a fellow student, concerning the existence of God. The other student was a Christian, and was arguing with him. He then said, "I don't worship Jesus Christ, I worship Marilyn Manson," and proceeded to curse God in class. The teacher ended the discussion, but the two kids apparently met after school and got into a fight for which they were both suspended.

I thought about writing something on this, but I thought"God Runs Out of Patience, Atheist Goes to Hell" would be a bit insensitive.

All kidding aside, though, it is fascinating that on Wednesday, the House held hearings on child abuse in residential treatment centers (which appear to be very bad places.) So, while I'm listening in one medium to outraged people wanting to know why Asa Coon wasn't in a mental institution or a program (he was ordered into treatment, which he refused, and put on medication, which he wouldn't take), in another medium, I'm watching weeping parents warning that you should never put your child IN a treatment facility. So now what?

(Rather like this week's Law and Order, SVU, if anyone knows what I'm talking about.)

Now, had Asa Coon lived, would I want him prosecuted for a "hate crime" against Christians?

No, I would want him prosecuted for attempted murder, criminal confinement, terrorizing, and violation of gun laws. And I would want him charged as an adult. Had he been successful in his attempt to kill, I would have charged him with murder one, aggravating circumstances of lying in wait, multiple victims, and killing a witness. Wisconsin hasn't had the death penalty since 1853 (though they attempted to bring one in via referendum in 2006), so life without possibility is the best you could do.

"Hate" is an emotion. Emotions, thoughts, and beliefs aren't CRIMES.

"Bullpucky it doesn't. Those who don't know their past are doomed to repeat it. You wouldn't want the German's to forget what their grandparent did would you, or even worse start to believe it wasn't that bad."

Since when is it our duty to tell other nations how to feel about their own history? Especially when we NEED that other nation to do some heavy lifting for us in the coalition, AND when the government of that other nation is in a very precarious position to side with the Christian US against a Muslim terrorist organization in the first place?

Since it concerns a speech the President is making IN APRIL, couldn't this have waited? No? Why not? BECAUSE BY THEN THE TURKS WOULD HAVE HELPED US ALREADY, AND THE DEMS COULDN'T HAVE MADE POINTS WITH THE LUNATIC FRINGE THEY NEED TO GET HILLARY NOMINATED!!!!!

Hate crime: is it somehow worse to be killed by someone who "hates" you, or someone who "loves" you (like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith?)

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the correction I guess listening to the radio whilst waking up is not perhaps the best way to gather accurate information from the news.

Now, had Asa Coon lived, would I want him prosecuted for a "hate crime" against Christians?

Well I don't think I would either. His problem wasn't with Christians in general it was with a particular Christian. He wasn't on any level trying punish, scary or deter Christians as a group he was if you like motivated by a "don't piss me off" kind of thought process. Had he gone from the fight and placed a bomb under a church I'd be much more inclined to consider if a hate crime charge was appropriate.

"Hate" is an emotion. Emotions, thoughts, and beliefs aren't CRIMES.

And if people were being prosecuted for just having the emotion I'd be with you arguing against hate crimes. But that's not the case. The act that hate crime refers to is the act of doing a crime (or a series of crimes) with the intension of impacting a group or community in a negative way. It is an act, not simply a belief.

Hate crime: is it somehow worse to be killed by someone who "hates" you, or someone who "loves" you

Like I said in my first post the crime against the individual is equally bad regardless of the motivation. The additional crime, the additional hurt is felt by the wider community that the individual was from this is where the hate crime comes in.

You aren't going to change my mind unless you acknowledge and address what I believe and am arguing for. By continuing to say this is what supporters of hate crime think and misrepresenting our views you won't change our views (should that be your intension) and if you're just trying reinforce your own views about us you do yourselves no good service either. If you're unsure at least I hope I've clarified why I at least support hate crime law as I understand it. Let me say it once again for the record - if you find someone who hates and loathes a certain group, but commits no criminal offense I would not wish to see that person prosecuted, indeed I would defend that person from prosecution even if I were amoungst the group they loathed and detested.

Brit - I understand what you're saying, and would agree, if it weren't a slippery slope. Let's say some guy is in a dark alley where I'm walking and tries to rob me. A struggle ensues. I get the upper hand and beat his brains in, maybe he falls and hits his his and dies.

Then, it turns out later that the guy was gay. Maybe someone once heard me say that I think gay people are disgusting (purely hypothetical here). I am taken to trial because this man died at my hand, there is no proof to say that he was actually attacking me first. Now, it looks like I attacked him simply because he was gay. Now it's a hate crime and I get additional punishment. Not to mention, because of this, the fact that I don't particularly care for gay people has been brought up, which makes my defense that he attacked me first less plausible.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-hate-crime-defense,0,7053160,print.story

Here is a perfect example.

Though what these guys did was absolutely wrong and though they deserved to be punished. There is nothing here to suggest they killed this guy because he was gay and they hate gays. They targeted him because they thought it would be easy to pick up a gay guy in a chat room:

"Prosecutors said Fortunato and three other young men hatched a hate-inspired robbery scheme after they ran out of drugs and money on a weekend night. The group needed an easy victim, and Fortunato suggested they look for one in an Internet chat room frequented by gay men looking for sex partners, authorities alleged."

One could easily make the argument here that someone could be charged with a hate crime for targeting a "fat, hare-lipped women looking for love" chat room, promising one of these women a date to lure them as an easy target.

Please explain to me how this interpretation suggests that this man was targeted simply because he was gay, because the perpetrators wanted to terrorize the gay community?

It seems, just as I said, that if you kill a gay man, even if it was because of some other reason than that he was gay, you'll get charged with a hate crime.

Also, if this particular instance was a hate crime, child molesters should also be charged with such, as they frequently prowl the internet for easy targets.

Since when is it our duty to tell other nations how to feel about their own history?

The day we lose 400k men because of their tyranny...that's when.

Kerry,

And lest you forget, Germany and the Turks (during WWI) were part of a group of thugs that led to two that killed more than 100 million people. So don't even begin to tell me we don't have a right to criticize, and in particular to remind these people what their ancestors were capable of and did. Its only reminders to all of us, like these that will prevent such acts in the future.

"The day we lose 400k men because of their tyranny...that's when."

Who's "we?"

"in particular to remind these people what their ancestors were capable of and did. Its only reminders to all of us, like these that will prevent such acts in the future."

Unless you are African-American, Hispanic, or Native American, I don't think this is a place you, as an American, really want to go.

Just curious. Does anyone here recognize the name "Serder Argic?"

By the way, the price your vaunted moral outrage may well be American lives lost by making the war in Iraq even more difficult. The Turks were planning a greater presence with us there, and now they may well reverse that decision.

Thanks, Tom Lantos. This blood's on you.

Kerry,

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic

Unless you are African-American, Hispanic, or Native American, I don't think this is a place you, as an American, really want to go.

Why not, its not like the US government hasn't officially recognized on numerous occasions what was done to Indians and African Americans in the past. So what's your point. The Turks haven't even gotten to this point.

By the way, the price your vaunted moral outrage may well be American lives lost by making the war in Iraq even more difficult.

So I should just turn a blind eye to evil? This the same copout that people who witness violent crimes use not to tell the police what they have seen, for fear it will come back and affect them. That we all know is one of the reasons that crime persists in some places....people don't stand up and the criminals win.

The Turks were planning a greater presence with us there

The Turks have ulterior motives that have little to do with us. They want to be able to go after the Kurds, another minority group they have persecuted for years. I just as soon keep them out of Iraq unless they are commanded by the UN, or other non-turkish authority.

Kerry,

I also find it kind of sickeningly ironic that you brush off the Armenian genocide so quickly...because its ancient history. But I bet you were one of the first to condemn Ahmanijedad as a nut for suggesting the Holocaust didn't happen.

Wonder what make you treat the Armenian genocide (who are your Christian brothers and sisters after all), with so much less importance than the Holocaust. That's how it appears to me anyway.