It’s hard to overstate how much different NSPM-7 is from the over 200 executive orders Trump has frantically signed since coming back into office.

NSPM-7 directs a new national strategy to “disrupt” any individual or groups “that foment political violence,” including “before they result in violent political acts.”

In other words, they’re targeting pre-crime, to reference Minority Report.

The Trump administration isn’t only targeting organizations or groups but even individuals and “entities” whom NSPM-7 says can be identified by any of the following “indica” (indicators) of violence:

  • anti-Americanism,
  • anti-capitalism,
  • anti-Christianity,
  • support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
  • extremism on migration,
  • extremism on race,
  • extremism on gender
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Suggesting a separation of church and state potentially violates 3 of those.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What are traditional views on morality? Like how the death penalty has been used on innocent people? How it's OK for Trump to weasel out of his legal responsibilities? What morality are you even talking about?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    But the Trump administration are the ones constantly and repeatedly violating all those ‘indica’. That’s kinda weird.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    “Extremism” and “hostility” are complete wiggle words, along with “traditional American.”

    A traditional American view on race is a person of color is 3/5ths of a person. We’ve evolved past that, at least most of us with a brain & conscious have.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Is raping children on this list?

  • source
  • [–] [S] 14 points 1 year ago
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    I would say that Trump and the republicans violated most of these. Violations of the separation of church and state are anti-American, violating the constitution is anti-American and a violation of traditional values, kidnapping people and violating habius corpus is anti-American and a violation of traditional values….I could go on and on but I think you all get the picture

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Are these directives revokable?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yes, by another president. If we get one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I was wondering if courts may be a recourse...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

    Theoretically, but in practice the supreme court would probably hand wave any accusations of the orders being unconstitutional. In actuality a new president would be the remedy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not an executive order, as the article details the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Apologies, found the one for presidential directives: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_directive

    However, two thirds of congress in the house and especially the senate is equally unlikely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago)