The whole stated purpose of the bill is to seek ways to head off violence and intimidation by the threat of violence. For the first few paragraphs, I was thinking that there was nothing here for any decent, honest person to fear. But as I read on:
1. How do you define or identify "Individuals prone to violent radicalization"?
2. Such "individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion". That "solely", which is supposed to sound like some kind of assurance of fairness, is potentially LOADED .
3. "shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents"; that either assumes that lawful, temporary residents have never had any rights, that their rights are not inviolate, or both.
And true, the bill does not give anyone the power to arrest anyone; it only gives them the framework to recommend giving someone the power to do whatever they deem necessary to "prevent violent radicalization" by targeting "individuals prone to violent radicalization". Show me a complete definition of that last quoted phrase that doesn't put any outspoken radical on at least the fringe of danger, and I will breath easier.