The part I don't like, of what you've highlighted, is this phrase:

“the President determines that-”

The rest gives guidelines, only.

I have a 5GW post brewing which I think you'll like, and it concerns the notion of proprietary information. Not quite there yet.

My sense is that although this bill might

1) help to 'mop up' any 'exposed' 5GW and
2) in some ways make perturbations a more complex and perhaps difficult method of operation a 5GW campaign,

it may also make the 5GW campaign a little easier, either by

1) getting rid of too much chaos from internal 4GW operations at variance with the 5GW plan, which means that the 5GW organization could utilize this 'enabling' of the President, or
2) stoking 4GW responses to Federal action, by heightening perceptions of an increasing tyranny.

Y'know, the Federal gov. is not too efficient and often makes mistakes. Mistakes involving utilization of this bill — only 1 mistake might do it — could help a 5GW organization quite a bit.

The centralization, by allowing the President to determine the existence of an exposed 5GW force, is worrying. Ultimately, this bill shields the Executive from subsequent prosecution by political enemies. It's doesn't allow the Executive to do anything that was impossible beforehand.

Considering the reaction against the Patriot Act which was supported by 99 Senators, even a successful destruction of a 5GW foe is no guarantee of a President's (or the federal union's) long-term popularity or control. Which ultimately is a good thing. We want a kick-back to prevent the emergence of a Centralized State.

I agree that this bill may make achieving a pertubation more risky. And that's a good thing. We want to alter the system to move forces away from using violence, and decreasing the probability of success is part of that. 5GW relies on thinking-ahead and understanding the rules of the system. The more complicated and dynamic the system, the lesser the likelihood of a 5GW success, and thus the lesser the liklihood of a 5GW attack.

These last two points tie together… even a “failed” anti-5GW response by the government under this does not help the 5GW organization. Instead, it creates new actors (the local 4GWers you describe) with their own goals. For an analogy, consider any Baathist conspirators under the old Iraqi government. Now consider them. A “failed” outside intervention has generated local 4GW groups whose members are harder to control than before.

Jayson,

Indeed, and it's too bad. The general trend on internet discussion sites has been from skepticism of authority to inane-Leftism. Not that many of the commentators would know the difference, I think. The “Democratic Undergroundization” of the web.

I like your comparison to the Baathists, and it seems reasonable. On the other hand, for keeping the Federal government focused away from the 5GW force, having some 4GW forces as pawns (and oh-so-obvious adversaries for the government's attention) would not necessarily be a bad thing. (Heh, I don't think the Baathists were or are 5GW!)

Something else: Do you think the bill actually is an anti-5GW bill, or is it really an anti-4GW bill?

“Do you think the bill actually is an anti-5GW bill, or is it really an anti-4GW bill?”

It's an anti-insurrection bill, and at our point in history the only likely insurrections are from 5GW or 4GW forces. 0GW-3GW really isn't an issue at the moment, and who even knows what 6GW is!

The more I think about it, the more “GW” seems like a logarithmic scale of kinetic intensity.