So yes, there are absurdities here. It does smack of the “thought police” and it’s a scary step down that path, but you’re painting it in a somewhat extreme light.

I don’t think the problem is that it makes certain action illegal. The problem is that it makes ‘preemptive’ action against its own citizens by the government perfectly acceptable as long as it’s in the vein of trying to prevent this homegrown terrorism (i.e. making domestic spying perfectly acceptable, in a utilitarian sense).

And it would not be treasonous for anyone in today’s United States to rebel against a government that was already committing treason itself by violating the Constitution. The Crown had no such document limiting its powers or restraining its reach over the people, and that made any action against them treasonous. Sure there are peaceful means of rebellion, but those are also disappearing at an alarming rate.

On the “treason” front, while I agree in principle that defense of the Constitution is the ultimate act of patriotism, the civil rights situation in this country would have to erode pretty badly from its present state before you’d get the kind of consensus that was required for sanctioned representatives of the States to concur that violent rebellion was in order. That was the standard set by the Revolution. A couple of guys in a camp in Idaho feeling put-upon by The Gubment cannot unilaterally conclude that they’re going to rebel and have that be OK. Their proper course of action is within the court system. If and when the courts become a complete puppet arm of the executive such that the Constitution is being ignored, THEN you might see the kind of broad consensus that the Constitution needed defending that would justify armed resistance. And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all if it comes to that.

This bill now erases that line (even though it was already being ignored). It will no longer matter if the calls are within the United States, so long as law enforcement says, unilaterally, that it is trying to prevent homegrown terrorism.

Or take the example that I used in the post. If I assert my 4th amendment rights and resist, with force, an unreasonable search of my home, then I am no longer merely “obstructing justice” (or whatever they would choose to call it). I am now a terrorist, because I have used force to coerce the government in furtherance of a political, albeit lawful, objective. And what is “force”? In a time when a 30 year old man can be forced to register as a sex offender for grabbing a younger girl by the arm in a non-sexual and non-threatening way, I don’t think I’m out of line in warning that the definition of force in this situation will be as broad as they want it to be. If I push my door closed and catch their hand in the process, is that force? If we are as afraid of homegrown terrorists as we are of sex offenders, then the answer is undoubtedly ‘yes’.

I agree on the treason front. If it helps, consider this an attempt to avoid stepping any further down that slippery slope.

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but like I said, they grew me.