It's an insult to suggest that veterans are bias-crime victims
By David Neiwert Tuesday Apr 28, 2009 11:45am
I guess veterans are the right wing's new favorite sacred cow. Having discovered, via the phony DHS domestic-terrorism controversy, that they can gleefully club liberals over the head with anything even remotely resembling a slight to the sacred honor of American veterans -- such slights, evidently, including insufficiently abject prostration -- Republicans are now wielding said club at every available opportunity.
Let's face it: the Right really hates that the folks in the military in fact love President Obama. And so propagating the notion that Democrats are "anti-military" is a big deal right now.
Last week, for instance, as the new federal hate-crimes bill was passing out of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida tried to include veterans in the list of protections.
This was a classic right-wing twofer: Work to undermine the hate-crimes bill, and smear Democrats at the same time! Pretty, clever, eh?
Sure enough, after Glenn Beck coughed this one up Friday night, there was Sean Hannity last night, regurgitating Beck's stale hairball:
Hannity: Now, Congresswoman, including our soldiers in this bill would not belittle anybody. And I think you and Janet Napolitano need to revisit your opinion of our veterans.
Actually, Feeney's proposal would render the legislation moot and unconstitutional, because it would then be predicated on the idea of creating "protected classes." And, as has been already explained many times, hate-crimes bills aren't about creating "protected categories" -- they are strictly written to encompass the motives of the perpetrator:
Hate-crime statutes are neither written to protect specific classes of persons from assault nor to enhance the charges simply when a person from a "protected class" is the victim of a crime. We don't have laws that create stiffer time if you simply assault a black or a Jew or a gay person. The laws don't even specify races or religions. Such laws would be in clear violation of basic constitutional principles, including the equal-protection clause.
In fact, the actual class status of a victim is almost secondary to the decision whether or to file a hate-crimes charge or not. The primary concern is the motivation of the perpetrator. All of these laws are written to punish people more severely for committing a crime committed with a bias motivation.
Not everyone ever joins an armed service. Veteranhood is a not a universal trait. But the categories of bias motivation -- race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and sexual preference -- are universal human traits:
[Bias crime laws] are intended to protect everyone equally from these kinds of crimes. Everyone, after all, has religious beliefs of one kind or another; we all have a race, a gender, an ethnicity, a sexual orientation. A quick look at the FBI's annual bias-crime statistics bears this out; anti-white bias crimes are the second-largest category of racial crimes, and anti-Christian crimes constitute the second-largest in the religion category. If the laws were written as [Rooney] suggests, they couldn't possibly pass the Constitution's equal-protection muster; yet these laws have.
Finally, bias-crime laws have always been about addressing real, identifiable social pathologies that have a toxic effect on larger society. Bias crimes against veterans -- who for the most part are fairly capable of defending themselves anyway; indeed, it strikes me as insulting to cast them in the role of victims -- are not, as far as anyone can demonstrate, an identifiable problem at this time. However, racially, religiously, ethnically, and sexually motivated bias crimes are indeed very real phenomena.
It is indeed an insult to the victims of those crimes to try to trivialize their suffering with cheap tactics like this. And it's downright obscene to claim that saying so is "anti-military" or "bashing the soldiers."
Login or Register to post comments.
Shouldn't that be bull?
Didn't another right wing radical kill more cops this last weekend? Correct me if i'm wrong, but this would be a good time to point that out if it happened. anyone know?
Several threads down.
Funny thing though. Whenever Democrats try to raise the funds to finance veterans's medical coverage, VA hospital safety, maybe a new GI Bill, if repugs oppose them, can we accuse them of commiting a Hate-Crime against our troops?
under Bush, they we're fighting for benefits, healthcare, and the active duty were not getting their armor.
funding and have for decades...the point is that it does not serve the conservatives to point this out and the MSM has no interest/haven't the will to do the research...Fair and Balanced is a lie! The repubs will be down to under 35 after 2010...the radical conservative wingnuts have highjacked the repub party and the chickens have let them!
Too bad for the country because it leaves the Congress in the thrall of the wingnuts on the left!
"Actually, Feeney's proposal would render the legislation moot and unconstitutional, because it would then be predicated on the idea of creating "protected classes." And, as has been already explained many times, hate-crimes bills aren't about creating "protected categories" -- they are strictly written to encompass the motives of the perpetrator"
I know that. You know that. Everyone here knows that. Everyone who bothers to inform himself from primary sources and not talking heads knows that. I'm fairly sure that the talking heads know that but they're lying sacks of filth who will say anything and convince their followers of any falsehood in order to make their dirty millions.
Fuck Hannnity, Beck, and every one of these wastes of oxygen.
he plays "war" with Glen Beck every day at lunch hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJBNUGoYp08
Then he tries to tell a joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQavdaBfn9w&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNTQvXSsfA
that is classified as a "stupid crime"...
there aren't any gays in the military that could be attacked by a bigoted gay hater>
House Committee on Un-American Activities, Red Scare Days, Hollywood blacklist stuff in the 50's.
If I am not mistaken it is already a federal offense to attack a member of the armed forces if they are in uniform. I think this came about around the time of Vietnam.
I wrote then gov Dubya Dumbass a letter when he refused to enact a hate-crimes law here. I pointed out that it wasn't, as he said, punishing people for what they thought, it was punishing people for ACTING on said thoughts. Needless to say, the letter was ignored as it required thinking in order to process it. Same song, different verse with these goobs.
In fact, I'm sure we can think of a few others with bad motives. Those who "hate": the handicapped; the elderly; our right to eat meat and wear fur; Humvee drivers; the flag; motherhood; our children.
We just have to be sure we don't include everyone. Because that would defeat the purpose.
What was that purpose again?
...who would love to meet up with Hannity or any of his chums in a dark alley. You know, just to demonstrate what I think of his presumption to speak as if he represented my interests. His parents committed a hate crime by conceiving his ignorant ass.
Why is it that the crowd that finds Jack Bauer and the "ticking time bomb" scenario plausible, can't accept the "possibility" that someone returning from their 3rd/4th deployment who has lost some combination of their house/spouse/job/health might be disenfranchised enough to act out alone or as a member of a group?
I don't expect intellectual honesty from Hannity or Beck, but that doesn't make their attempts to frame this as a witch hunt any less ludicrous.
they recruited guys with criminal and gang backgrouds
True! I had forgotten about that. I would imagine during the rush to get more soldiers, some were even recruited who already had some mental problems. If they didn't when they went over there, a whole lot did when they came home. Look at the number of men who are killing their families now due to financial hardships among other things, now just imagine a vet coming home with the baggage of being in war and also faced with these same hardships.
I took the original warning thing to mean that vets might be the target of crazy right wing groups' recruitment. Vets and families should be on guard for groups like that preying on guys who have come home with mental problems and using those vets for their own criminal purposes.
Maybe I understand it too liberally.
then charge bush with hate crimes for sending so many to their deaths in an illegal and immoral war
The warning also reflected the reality that such recruitment has been an ongoing thing for several years now.
..when the only thing we'll hear from FAUX is crickets. I can dream can't I?
This rant of Mr."Waterboard-me-4-charity" 's is just stupid as are most of his stupid rants. There are people out there that know he's a shill for ole' Rupe and the GOP; some of them actually listen to him blather and believe it to be gospel, which it ain't. Like this rant; it took how many minutes for a "Poster" on a Blog to rebuke him with an accurate description of what the purpose of hate-crime legislation is all about. And with the current spate of violence in this country, as well as the possibility you don't have to be "Right-wing" to become a "terrorist" or that "nice family man who must've had issues when he shot up the church full of seniors and children"-kind of guy, those dopes on FAUX aren't too blind to see, they are just stupid, disingenuous, mealy-mouthed fomenters of turmoil.
I hope that made some sense-I don't want to have to repeat it.
FOX has to go, or we will continue to live in an alternate universe to the one we belong in.
Bush-era endangered species rule revoked
Federal agencies will again have to consult wildlife experts on impacts
This from MSNBC.com.
Slowly, the shit stain of the Bush Administration is being washed out of the underwear of America.
That is sweet music to my ears in so many ways!
...a minute and a half long. A lonely, angry fuck trying to reconstitute the mythical Arms Forces vs Progressives bullshit. A coward and professional instigator.
What you and Ornicus fail to account for is that the "Crime" in "Hate Crime" goes beyond ass-whuppings.
It extends to employment law and civil suits as well.
Which - at some extrapolative point - encompasses the value judgments of the "perpetrator." Using your own logic, you're opening the door to thought crimes. Your "That hateful a-hole deserves to ROT!" is somebody else's principled stance of values. And vice verse.
No, if you hold it up to the light and flex it at just the right angle, then maybe it's not really supposed to create protected classes of people, as you assert. But it is not an unreasonable assumption to conclude that is exactly what will happen.
Nor is it unreasonable to assume that it creates a "more-equal" class of citizen. Let's face it. A black gay guy in San Francisco has every civil right that my pasty white straight Podunk ass has... plus about four I don't.
And then when you consider your "intent" argument... Wowsers. That's probably the most illogical thing I've seen on this site, and that's saying something. How do you prove intent? You don't. You see the handicap/race/sexual-orientation and you work your way backwards toward intent.
Your classification for this post is "bigotry." See? There's nothing bigoted about balking at making a minority group "more equal than thou." There's nothing bigoted about pointing out the potential for abuse in hate crimes legislation.
But... dammit there was someone who disagreed with you somewhere, so they must be a bigot, right?
Case in point.
Orincus successfully refutes exactly zero of the editorialist's points. He merely shoots up his own rhetorical fireworks to fog the crispness of the debate.
You do the same thing.
Copernicus, you simply cannot legislate away hate and prejudice. It will atrophy over time of it's own accord. Attempts to legislate away hate and prejudice generally slow the natural atrophy by fueling backlash.
Those Orcinus links are pieces written by David. Read betterer.
.
Hannity can get his panties a wad all he wants. The report of the DHS was on to something because there has been at leats two right wing, fringe, gun toting, Sean listing, haters have killed because they are mad that we have a black president and some wingnut on radio or television lied to them and told that someone was going to take their guns away. Sean is one of he lowest human beings on earth, a flunk out, construction worker turned hate monger.
Sean isn't always wrong because he's a flunk-out former construction worker. Sean is always wrong because he's a logic-impaired hate-monger who doesn't care about right or wrong, but only about regurgitating his daily doses of talking-points and hyperbole.
is the unholy spawn of Limbaugh.
He was mentored by Limbaugh and owes his allegiance...naaay...his entire livelihood to Limbaugh.
Has he agreed when he is to be water boarded yet?? OR, is he still a coward ??
a misprint? I sure hate to think he is still around
are conservatives unwilling to allow veterans in need to sleep under bridges or die in gutters while they wave their flags and thump their Bibles to show their support for the veterans they usually are not, whenever the cameras roll.
If there is evidence to show that someone's veteran's status- either having been a veteran or NOT having been a veteran- frequently subjects people to harmful treatment, then why not include that status? But there should be evidence and the protection would be extended to all. Just throwing in emotional hooks in order to derail protecting some other group is not good enough, there should be serious, compelling reasons.
I do not buy it
n/t
"Not everyone ever joins an armed service. Veteranhood is a not a universal trait. But the categories of bias motivation -- race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and sexual preference -- are universal human traits."
Don't think anyone is genetically disposed to believing in a magical sky fairy. That is a CHOSEN aspect. Unlike, as you so incorrectly put it: "sexual preference".
Yet we still bend over backward to protect against religious bias.
Why is that?
Atheists are protected equally under the "religion" clause of bias-crime laws.
But you should ask any Jew about why we might need such a clause.
Plenty of Jews that do not practice the faith.
I'm not saying abolish it.....but it still IS a choice not matter what.
Still not hearing the apology for that "preference" remark though.
would derail it but hey Niewert what do you have against the military. You sure write a lot of negative stuff about it.
I haven't written a single negative thing about the military. I come from a semi-military family (Dad was in the USAF when I was young) and have nothing but respect for veterans.
What I write pretty constantly about is right-wing extremists. And the simple, irrefutable facts are that: 1) far-right culture has become increasingly militarized in the past two decades; 2) recruitment within the military, and within the veterans' demographic generally, has intensified on the far right in the past eight years; 3) the presence of actual military experience is a straight path to a leadership position within far-right organizations; 4) the presence of real military and armament training, and particularly combat experience, have the potential to alter previously impotent far-right extremist groups into very potent entities indeed.
Talking about this is not an attack on the military or on veterans generally. It's talking about a very real phenomena that occurs within the confines of right-wing extremist belief systems, but is a clear example of how they attempt to establish various beachheads within the mainstream.
"Two more officers killed by a right-wing extremist with a military background. But don't insult our veterans!"
Inflammatory...yes.
"In the meantime, what do you know: Yet another shooting of police officers by an angry and paranoid man with a military background. And just like the last one, this one believed Obama was going to come get his guns"
Broad strokes create false labels Dave. Be careful not to create fertile ground for the vet haters to feel safe to come out and play.
... when doing right by them would cost money (e.g., good medical care, etc.)—billions for useless defense programs, not one cent for defenders—or require upsetting the status quo in the military (e.g., allowing folks to retire, calling them out of retirement, etc.). Then the GOPers want those "whiny" vets to STFU! Makes you wonder why the GOP is still the favored party of servicemen.
bothers me that the likes of Hannity are using our veterans as a way of distracting from the very real hate crimes that are happening in this country. Hannity behaves as though there are a rash of hate crimes being committed against veterans at this time, meanwhile, Angie Zapata, a transgendered teenage girl who was brutally murdered finally got some justice and the fuckhead who killed her is going to jail for a long time, but there was barely a peep about it in the MSM.
It's the cisexual priviledge in us, including myself, that allows us to not always be aware of the suffering that the transgendered go through.
On a related note, I've been reading Mr. Neiwert's latest book, and it's convincing me that I need to pick up where I left off with donating to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and find other ways to help...
... converts and "enhances" crimes directed at animal enterprises' profits into terrorist charges.
Don't believe for a moment that these penalty enhancements on motivation can't be abused.
The criminal justice system is a blunt weapon and a poor instrument for social change. What constitute "good" or "bad" motivations should not be left up to the vote of a legislature far more capable of addressing actions than reading minds.
We really don't have much of a problem with lenient sentences in this country -- quite the opposite. Special protections or special circumstances can easily be addressed in our current sentencing structure.
Shouldn't they be apologizing for lying about saying they don't live under bridges?
hell ain't hot enough....
As a Marine Corps combat I take no offense at the idea that combat veterans may be one group to keep an eye on. makes every bit of sense. i do take offense at chickenhawk pussies like Hannity and Beck who would not join the military in a million years act as if the military is being insulted. They certainly don't really care about the military or the troops except as cannon fodder a they have proven over and over again.
they are truly disgusting creatures. Semper Fi.
They never mention this study was done under the Bush administration...
This kind of post always brings to mind Charles Joseph Whitman, the ex-Eagle Scout ex-Marine who climbed a tower at Texas U. and started sniping at anyone who came within his sights. Kinky Friedman wrote a song about him.
Ballad of Charles Whitman, lyrics.
I just don't see why anyone should be surprised when someone who has been trained to kill actually does kill.
its just that when we do we are way better at killing people than civilians.
Its not a question of defect but a question of efficacy. Crazy is as crazy does...vets just do crazy more effectively. Like a nurse who chooses to OD people or a firefighter that lights fires...those crazies are just better at it than your average ODr or arsonist.
Anything Hannity is for, I'm against. It saves me watching these videos. :-)
I can just tell by the twist of his head and his raised index finger.
monopoly and we wouldn't have to give these idiots a second thought if liberals and dems and environmentalists and labor unions and finally figured out that dimwits like hannity depend completely on their giant talk radio soapbox to do their groundwork for them.
talk radio must be demonopolized- when that happens hannity and limbaugh will no longer be able to compete- their lies and sack-of-hammers wisdom will be challenged and the GOP will become a third party.
people threw rocks at my car in 1971 as part of a "peace" demonstration, and when these same people shot at the windows in base housing, they weren't acting on a bias? When Good American Christians shot a 60-year old lady simply because she was an employee (an adoption counselor, as it happens) at a birth control clinic, that wasn't the same as beating someone up for walking out of a gay bar?
The leader of the group committing the latter crime, and claiming credit, has a well-paid speaking tour to various churches and "patriotic" groups.
OK, when a university administrator takes a step backward when she finds out I am retired Air Force, and then brushes it off with "Oh well, as long as you haven't bombed anybody recently, I guess you're OK," it's not a hate crime, just bad manners. But when the Peace and Justice group at the same university puts forward a serious proposal that that vets not be considered for financial aid because of their "inability to comply with the moral standards of this institution" that would seem to be illegal, but it's not. Classifying harmful actions taken on the basis of negative stereotypes as hate crimes might take some of the wind out of any number of self-righteous types.
We already have the First Amendment to protect the speech of protesters, whether their cause be peace or protection of the environment, against violence. SO why not protect the people who are harmed when their assembly to protest grievances stops being peaceable? From a purely personal note, I'd kind of like something to label what they do as hate crimes.
Login or Register to post comments.