The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by SoulManX, Nov 29, 2007.

  1. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    There has been a long tradition of fear-mongering legislation in the United States directed against groups and individuals believed to threaten the established order. The first such measures were the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in 1798 during the administration of the second president of the United States John Adams. The Acts, consisting of four separate laws, made it more difficult to become a citizen, sought to control real or imagined foreign agents operating in the United States, and also gave the government broad powers to control "sedition." Sedition was defined as "resisting any law of the United States or any act of the President" punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. It also made illegal "false, scandalous or malicious writing" directed against either the government or government officials. The next President, Thomas Jefferson declared that three out of the four laws were unconstitutional and pardoned everyone who had been convicted under them.

    Early in the last century, hysterical fear of anarchists resulted in the conviction and execution of Sacco and Vanzetti 1927 despite clear evidence that the two men were innocent. A few years later, in 1934, a Special Committee on Un-American Activities was set up by Congress to monitor the activities of fascists in the United States. Ironically, the two congressmen who were most instrumental in the establishment of the committee, Samuel *****tein of New York and Martin Dies of Texas, both Democrats, were themselves tainted by activities that might reasonably be described as Un-American. *****tein was himself a paid agent of the Soviet NKVD intelligence agency and Dies regularly spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. After the Second World War, the committee was renamed the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and focused almost exclusively on communists, continuing to do so until it was incorporated into the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Concurrent with HUAC on the Senate side, Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican, became the public face of anti-communism in the early 1950s, with his frequent claims that communists had infiltrated the US government at various levels. Few of the claims could be substantiated, however, and McCarthy eventually fell out of favor and was censured by the Senate.

    More recently, there has been the post 9/11 creation of a virtual avalanche of legislation and commissions designed to protect the country at the expense of the Bill of Rights. The two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 and the Military Commission Act or 2006 have collectively limited constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been disregarded in the rush to make it easier to investigate people, put them in jail, and torture them if necessary. A recent executive order of July 17th, 2007 goes even farther, authorizing the President to seize the property of anyone who "Threatens Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes "threatening stabilization efforts" and the order does not permit a challenge to the information that the seizure is based on.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html?view=screen
     
  2. PemLam Let the butthurt flow!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    :dry: You point being what?
     
  3. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    That the Patriot Act is a full of ***** document which totally goes against the Constitution and is scaring you into giving up your God given freedom.
     
  4. PemLam Let the butthurt flow!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    God given freedom of what?
     
  5. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    :up:
     
  6. Docker2.0 Watchin' you!

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    25,910
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Agreed! Bush's entire re-election was based off of 911, and now is using it to push his new world order that his father has dreamed of. Dude is looking more and more like the antichrist.............but he's to dumb to be him. :huh:
     
  7. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

    Introduced:Apr 19, 2007Sponsor:Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]Status:passed House (Bipartisan support.)
    Go to Bill Status Page

    Use the View which version? panel on the left to view the different versions of this bill available on its way to becoming law. You are viewing the following version of this bill:
    Referred in Senate: This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees.




    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
     
  8. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude, are you serious?
     
  9. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    Co-sponsors


    Including Rep. Harman, the bill has 15 co-sponsors as of October 24, 2007:[2]
    1. Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA)
    2. Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
    3. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
    4. Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA)
    5. Rep. Norman ***** (D-WA)
    6. Rep. Al Green (D-TX)
    7. Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
    8. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
    9. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
    10. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA)
    11. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
    12. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
    13. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)
    14. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
    Current status

    This bill has been passed in the House, with a vote of 404 to 6.[4] Twenty-two representatives missed the vote. The only six representative who voted against the bill were:
    The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.[2]
     
  10. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    The bill has been criticized for its use of broad language to describe "homegrown terrorism."[4]
    One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill.[4] In an interview aired on Democracy Now, he said:
    "HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilize the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."[4]
    Representative Harman chaired a November 6, 2007 hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on “Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.” During a later Democracy Now! program, Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens.” And he warned that local officials can seek federal funding by targeting local dissident groups. "Once again, no basis for terrorism, but 'they’ve been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we don't like those'.”[6]


    LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA. He mentions that it defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." He further criticizes it for defining "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" as thought crimes. He also claims that since the bill does not specifically define what an "extremist" belief system is, that it will be up to the government at any specific time to determine what is and is not an "extremist" belief system. [7]
     
  11. PemLam Let the butthurt flow!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just stirring the pot. What I find humorous is people automatically bashing Bush for this when the bill has bipartisan support. Where are all these self-righteous liberals at that are so "fired up" about all the freedoms we're losing?

    [​IMG]
     
  12. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what he's saying basically is our founding father and the revolutionary war were wrong and we should still be under the rule of Britain. What a moron!! If our founding fathers followed this, we wouldn't be the "land of the free" we are today. The founding Fathers are rolling over in thier graves!
     
  13. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lol, you got me. This is true about the liberals.
     
  14. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pretty much...easier way to stop a revolution don't you think:o
     
  15. Wilhelm-Scream Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    46,300
    Likes Received:
    0
    The term "God Given Freedom" is so silly.
    If God is omnipotent, how can a puny human take away something God gave you?
     
  16. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry forgot about seperation of church and state and all that crap. I should have said Constitutional given freedom.
     
  17. PemLam Let the butthurt flow!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    God gave me a penis...albeit a less than monster sized one, and my wife has pretty much taken control of it away from me. :csad:
     
  18. Wilhelm-Scream Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    46,300
    Likes Received:
    0
    But she hasn't taken IT away. She still lets you take it out and play with it sometimes, if you're good.

    Right?

    Well I don't think God "granted" you a dick.
    He created adult situations and an environment conducive to you growing your own dick.
     
  19. AllThingsComic I'm ya Huckleberry!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    last 2 posts were hilarious, thanks guys.
     
  20. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    State Terror: H.R. 1955 a Weapon of Mass Destruction of Civil Liberties

    Concerning the graduated repression of the Nazi regime, the Reverend Martin Niemoller, in 1945, stated, to the effect:

    First they came for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Communist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Jew.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me,
    and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

    Though this quote has taken on many forms and endured several disputes, the ultimate interpretation stands. That silence about liberty infractions equals civil death.

    Further, on the notion of leading the public headstrong into oblivion, the Nazis said it best:

    “Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering, 1946

    Thus describes in many ways America today. From 9/11 to the non-sequitor of Iraq we've witnessed the success of establishment deceit, from violations of international law to constitutional abrogation. Not just in foreign affairs, but in domestic terms.

    Consider the Ramifications of H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, Americans ought take note.

    This is a controversial issue, but, it’s a very important one that threads past to present. The following is a civic exercise and rough draft of thoughts to come...updates soon on the horizon. Until then...

    Recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1955, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, by a staggering vote of 404 to 6. In hearings for the bill, testimony focused on political and peace activist groups in the U.S. and linked them with extremist groups abroad and claimed the two were the same in terms of a threat to Americans. This is the same tactic used dating back to the 19th century in America, so it is nothing new. But is it commensurate with American values ensconced in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence?

    Enter the thought police.

    The use of propaganda to disinform the public and instill fear in the American population, especially to lead to war has been well established (Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII,Viet Nam and the Gulf of Tonkin, and most recently 9/11, WMD’s and Iraq to name a few). It was also commonplace for Congress to pass laws restricting the rights of citizens in the name of freedom and security. Remember the Espionage and Sedition Acts from WWI used to suppress criticism of government? The A. Mitchell Palmer Raids and the Red Scare after WWI? The internment camps in WWII for the Japanese? Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1950’s and his Communist witch hunts based on false figures and conjecture? COINTELPRO during the Cold War and Viet Nam, all used to clamp down on free speech and assembly rights while the F.B.I. infiltrated peace groups as agent provocateurs and tried to force violence to discredit the antiwar movement and civil rights leaders? All this in the land of the free and home of the brave.

    After 9/11 we had the USA PATRIOT Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, indefinite detentions, extraordinary rendition, flouting of international law, torture, and enemy combatants with no legal counsel held in off shore military prisons. Now, continuing the trend of rolling back founding principles and stifling debate and dissent, the Congress strikes again. This is a bipartisan measure, so it is not merely a one party issue. The outcry to this recent bill, while just beginning, is also very diverse consisting of veterans, NRA folks on the right as well as many civil libertarians and other veterans on the left. In fact, many groups opposing the USA PATRIOT Act have chimed in already. Read on...

    Chief among the claims of those testifying to Congress about the “need” for this bill, which included groups with close ties to government and military industrial complex over the years like the Rand Corporation, was that anyone that questions the official government line on 9/11 is akin to a terrorist or material supporter to terrorism. One speaker, Mark Weitzman of the Wiesenthal Center (ironically founded by Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal to educate the public about war crimes), claimed that architects, engineers, and scientists that questions the official 9/11 narrative are the same as alleged violent Jihadist groups. This is the latest round of official conflation between terrorists and activists in the U.S. recently examined through the USA PATRIOT Act by Nancy Chang in her work “Silencing Political Dissent” at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Is there a link between these aforementioned groups? No, there is not. But that didn’t stop these folks from simply saying so on the public record while providing no evidence. And Jane Harmon, co-sponsor of the bill, a Democrat from southern CA., didn’t ask for any. Just like McCarthy. See the C-Span Video Footage for more details and context.

    Given the government's own admission in several separate studies that they have not concluded how the WTC and towers Building 7 were destroyed, that the official commission report was widely censored by Bush loyalists, and that the F.B.I. dropped it's quest for Bin Laden due to lack of evidence (and the CIA disbanded the unit in charge of looking for him), over a third of Americans when polled still question what happened that day and who was responsible. Even NIST officials conducting the most thorough official investigation into Building 7 in New York claimed their work was flawed and hampered by significant restrictions.

    While this in no way implicates any particular parties for the events of 9/11, it does lead reasonable people that have researched the facts to conclude a new investigation is needed and many questions have not been answered. The families of the victims of 9/11 submitted hundreds of questions to the commission, 3/4 of them went ignored or unanswered. We as Americans deserve better. Now these people are being potentially criminalized for their questions and nonviolent actions. Also, more personally, I teach a critical thinking course on 9/11. According to the language in the bill, I could be sent to prison for asking people to think for themselves based on factual evidence. In America, do you think this is appropriate action by government?

    Regardless if one believes the counter arguments about 9/11 in America’s recent past, should these people be criminalized for questioning the government and asking for another inquiry into that fateful day? Review materials below, then opine supported by evidence as to what you think about this current situation. This is a civic exercise. Do we really live in a republic, a society based on principles of liberty? If so, we need to examine all of this.

    http://mythinfo.blogspot.com/2007/11/state-terror-hr-1955-weapon-of-mass.html
     
  21. PemLam Let the butthurt flow!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not so much taking it away as it is a constant "denial of service" attack. :csad:
     
  22. Zoken Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    7,056
    Likes Received:
    1
    It actually suprises me that the support for this bill, so far, seems to be predominantly democratic, while opposition is evenly split.

    It's sad when we don't learn from the mistakes of our pasts. Then again, the people who repeat these mistakes are never those who suffered because of the mistakes in the past.
     
  23. SoulManX The Inspector!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    11,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    :up:
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"