HR 1955 — "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

[nadinbrzezinski]

So listening to the podcast on this bill... which is more than just insane

And in the middle of readying the Shock doctrine, plus have read Naomi Wolf... and the realization just came to me

Our elites are getting ready to pound on the people

WE ARE THE ENEMY

Get it through your heads. It does not matter if they are "democrats" or "republicans" for both we are the enemy. They are getting ready to bring all the elements they have enacted abroad

Soon people will disappear in this country

Soon people will loose all their rights

Sooner than you think you will have to decide... do I stand up or do I shut up?

George Orwell... you were so prescient. How soon until the telescreens are fully implemented?

Connect them damn dots people. We are running out of time, and FAST!

[mod mom]

1. They definitely don't like the populist movement, do they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. No, not the populist movement, YOU, ME, THE PEOPLE

It is that simple... they hate the people

[Whisp]

89. maybe not hate, they need us to be like they are used to.

conform, eat the lies, etc.
unfortunately, most are conformist eatiers of the lies from both camps.
whatever happened to individualism - and all this freedom shit america is supposedly to represent. what a Crock.

Ghost Dance Lyrics
Artist(Band):The Band
Review The Song (0)
Print the Lyrics
Send polyphonic ringtone to your cell phone
Crow has brought the message
to the children of the sun
for the return of the buffalo
and for a better day to come

You can kill my body
You can damn my soul
for not believing in your god
and some world down below

You don't stand a chance
against my prayers
You don't stand a chance
against my love
They outlawed the Ghost Dance
but we shall live again,
we shall live again

My sister above
She has red paint
She died at Wounded Knee
like a later day saint

You got the big drum in the distance
blackbird in the sky
That's the sound that you hear
when the buffalo cry

You don't stand a chance
against my prayers
You don't stand a chance
against my love
They outlawed the Ghost Dance
but we shall live again,
we shall live again

Crazy Horse was a mystic
He knew the secret of the trance
And Sitting Bull the great apostle
of the Ghost Dance

Come on Comanche
Come on Blackfoot
Come on Shoshone
Come on Cheyenne

We shall live again

Come on Arapaho
Come on Cherokee
Come on Paiute
Come on Sioux

We shall live again

[EVDebs]

2. How is the President supposed to disclose illegal domestic spying

while simultaneously notifying Congress on these illegal acts ?

Hughes-Ryan Acto of 1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes-Ryan_Act

"The Act required the President of the United States to report all covert operations of the Central Intelligence Agency to one or more Congressional committees within a set time limit.

This amendment addressed the question of CIA and Defense Department covert actions, and prohibited the use of appropriated funds for their conduct unless and until the President issues an official "Finding" that EACH such operation is important to the national security and submits these Findings to the appropriate Congressional committees — a total of six committees, at the time, growing to eight committees after the House and Senate "select committees" on intelligence were established.

The legislation was meant to ensure that the intelligence oversight committees within Congress were told of CIA actions within a reasonable time limit.<1> Senator Hughes, in introducing the legislation in 1973, also saw it as a means of limiting major covert operations by military, intelligence, and national security agents conducted without the full knowledge of the president."

The trivial aside of whether my thought patterns not coinciding with the neocon vulcan agenda, a specific finding MUST be reported to Congress regarding my activities and apparent anti-Bush sentiments result in a national security threat. The insanity of declaring my negative vibes, which are directly a result of the negative karma exuded by the GOP itself, should result in a Mexican standoff of epic proportions.

As Monte Python's movies once put it, I fart in the general direction of * and Jane Harman for putting this kind of Alien and Sedition Act Redux back into public discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. What constitution and law?

[EVDebs]

10. Stop right there. They haven't destroyed those laws, they just want you to believe they have.

The Hughes Ryan Act requires certain findings and funds to be in place before this kind of idiocy takes place.

I take comfort in knowing that these fools will be exposed for who they are. They are not preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States. They are worshippers of Mammon and the Almighty Dollar first and foremost.

[Greyhound]

14. LOL!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You're so cute...

[Whisp]

91. cute and comforted...

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Read the bill I just posted

and then come back to me

Here are the two amendments that are mostly gone

First Amendment

Fought Amendment

And then there are those signing statements... but I am sure you know of them

[EVDebs]

137. George Orwell Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted,

all else follows.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159426.html

My audacity in pointing out that what * is saying is two plus two make five seems to upset many, but the truth will always win out.

How does HR 1955/HR 1959 comply with the Hughes-Ryan Act ? It doesn't, and besides that Congress doesn't get to see the findings nor provide oversight both legally and financially (budget-wise).

[EVDebs]

179. The bill targets NON-VIOLENT DISSENT

NON-VIOLENT dissent is a target of this bill:

"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’ It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence.

Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence.

It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."


Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679

[The Doctor.]

182. Ummm... That makes it WORSE.

Criticizing the Administration is nonviolent dissent.

That would be everyone on DU.

See you at the camp.

[EVDebs]

206. They'll probably start out with IRS harassment coupled with 'no-fly'

As they've already done with the Green Party.

Published on Friday, September 27, 2002 in the San Francisco Chronicle,

No-Fly Blacklist Snares Political Activists
by Alan Gathright
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-01.htm

and no disclosure of who and what was the object of Bush's surveillance eavesdropping, the appropriate oversight agencies still don't know,

"There has been no disclosure by the administration of any kind -- not to Congress, nor to courts, nor to anyone else -- of information revealing who was subjected to the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, a program which (by its terms and by design) was conducted in complete secrecy. To this day, that remains the overarching unresolved question -- what was the administration doing when it eavesdropped on Americans in secret, on whom did they eavesdrop, how were the targets chosen, what was done with the information? That is precisely the information which nobody -- including even the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Jay Rockefeller -- has been able to discover."

June 27, 2007
How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/27/nsa_eavesdropping/index.html

More clear violations of the Hughes-Ryan Act.

[marmar]

3. And that bill had overwhelming House support......

..... We really are on our own. :scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I have stated for over three years that we are on our own

that voting does not matter, and that they hate us... now it is clear as water that it is BOTH parties.

[tom_paine]

34. Yep. We are animals to them, to be caged, controlled, and monitored constantly

And yes, it is clear as water now.

[Whisp]

92. voting does not matter

I must agree.
how can it when the corps own the machines that count in secrecy for the machinery that wants more war?

when you find what's worth keeping
with a breath of kindness
blow the rest away.



Robbie Robertson
I think I'm going back to Shenandoah
she said that she'd meet me by the fork in the road
I jump start my old Ford
I'm heading for the pow-wow
follow red path that leads to you.
I gave my love a golden feather
I gave my love a heart of stone
and when you find a golden feather
it means you'll never lose your way back home.
Should I paint my face
should I pierce my skin
does this make me a pagan
sweating out my sins
we ate the sacred mushroom
and waded in the water
howling like coyotes
at the naked moon.
I gave my love a golden feather
I gave my love a heart of stone
and when you find a golden feather
it means you'll never lose your way back home.
In the autumn night
when there's no wind blowin'
I could hear the stars falling in the dark
when you find what's worth keeping
with a breath of kindness
blow the rest away.
I gave my love a golden feather
I gave my love a heart of stone
and when you find a golden feather
it means you'll never lose your way back home

[Joanne98]

17. Because nobody read it!

[AX10]

18. Kucinich and Rohrabacher said the same thing.

Our congressmorAns are overpaid and underworked.

[Patchuli]

196. I complained to my Congress Critter

and got a rather harsh response that it was necessary to "protect us" from Timothy McVeigh types. He's pure DLC. :puke:

[AX10]

4. K/R

Democrats are just as guilty as the GOP. Listen to Randi and Naomi.

I don't begrudge college kids and first time voters who are flocking to Ron Paul. I know how they must feel.

[blues90]

8. this HR1955 should be shreaded quick

Not the constitution , pull that back out quick . It is an attack on the people and the attack has no color or party preference .

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. As well as the Patriot Act, you know how many voted for it?

sickening

[earthside]

9. A New McCarthyism?

Read this:

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act | Philip Giraldi/Huffington Post

and this:

Here Come the Thought Police - Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson/Baltimore Sun/CommonDreams.org

Very sadly I must agree "our elites' or the 'governing class' -- regardless of party -- seems intent upon playing the fear card.

Here is the U.S. House roll call vote on this legislation:
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=993

Only three Democrats and three Republicans had the sense to vote 'no' (Kucinich was one of them).

[EVDebs]

12. Sooo, DU is under house arrest ? At least we'll all be listed under DU's web log. Quick,

De gauss the site !

"Only three Democrats and three Republicans had the sense to vote 'no' (Kucinich was one of them)."

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. It goes beyond fear

I have seen this playbook before... can you say disappearing in the middle of the night and torture?

What about death?

I knew you could

[Bolo Boffin]

27. What about this bill puts anyone in jeopardy of being "disappeared"?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Please bring back the specific quote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. It goes legal

you engage in thinking they think is radical

They can arrest you... no need to call the ACLU.

You see that First Amendment is gone

And if you do not KNOW the history of these patterns, either you are in denial, or your history teachers didn't do their job... probably both

Just as the Patriot Act this IS a very dangerous piece of legislation

But it is not specific...

SO? PATTERN.... PATTERN... PATTERN... PATTERN

We call it the closing of a formerly open society

And this is yet one more STEP

[Bolo Boffin]

43. "They can arrest you" -- Prove it. Quote the SPECIFIC PART that justifies this. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Once again, here is the Enabling Act

don't use history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

[Bolo Boffin]

61. See Post #59. n/t

[EVDebs]

139. I think he/she refers to the outsourcing via contracting powers and detailing of other federal

agencies as mentioned in the act. Without the oversight of the Hughes-Ryan Act provisions, this Homegrown Terrorism act actually subverts the Constitutional rights of citizens that it claims it will secure.

Also, Bush's signing statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29

define whatever they want to do. Legal or not.

[D23MIURG23]

152. Nothing I could find in the bill seems to allude to police state tactics.

To be honest it looks a lot like a fluf bill with an important sounding name. Mostly it just establishes some groups for the study of "homegrown terrorism" and its prevention.

This did raise my eyebrows though:

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations. (emphasis mine)

Given the rhetoric that blows around these days about "enablers" and "America haters", and the tactics being used, I think that that is a significant statement. Of course finding 8) should also be noted.

[Bolo Boffin]

163. That's the thing.

The Internet is a tool, for good or for ill. A Taser can be an instrument of torture and terror, as can a hammer or a battery and a set of jumper cable.

However, there are people out there who would use the Internet to harm us. As many times as that is invoked for stupid partisan gain, it does remain true. If there is a way to frustrate their aims and still preserve our civil liberties and constitutional rights, then we should know about it and employ it. And we won't know about a possible way to do this unless someone does a study. And that's what this bill does.

If a win-win is possible, we should look into it.

[D23MIURG23]

193. Its true.

I just don't feel I can trust anything about our government anymore, as sad as that is.

[RainDog]

153. here ya go

H.R. 1955

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

so, in the definitions of this document, it is possible for the govt to justify torture and disappearance to protect the govt. (not democracy or the constitution, of course.) Ideologies here include social beliefs. what if you believe it is immoral to deny health care to poor people, and you want to protest in front of the white house. as chicago-school shock-doctrinaires, this administration could declare you a threat to national security b/c you promote "cuban-style" - or "islamic-charity-style" provisions for poor people.

The wording is so vague that this act could be used in a number of ways. And what has happened in the recent past to people the govt has decided, without trial, are threats to the U.S. and have been disappeared? Jose Padilla. The Canadian family-man tortured for a year. Journalists accused of helping the enemy when they report the news (check out Reuters' translators, photogs, etc. in Iraq_)

To think this administration does not have vile motives is the height of stupidity, to me. What greater evidence do you need than Bush's hundreds of signing statements putting him above the law, cheney claiming he has no accountability to anyone as vp, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, denial of counsel to people in gitmo, etc. They "interpreted" the geneva conventions in a way that no other western democracy would ... so that torture is legal in their eyes. They have used psychological abuse to terrorized Americans so that they think they are threatened from all sides. They are asking firefighters to act as spies in peoples' homes. They are tasering people at alarming rates for inconsequential reasons. They have their propagandists, such as Coulter, Limbaugh and Savage making it okay to label fellow citizens treasonous because they disagree.

They will have committees that will go to Universities, etc. and decide who, among the profs, etc. are "domestic terrorists" if they oppose the American/Israeli actions in the M.E. Horowitz has already geared up for this. Can you imagine if he's put in charge of this committee? This is stated as part of the way to enact this bill. As Naomi Wolf noted, they only have to make a few examples to scare people into silence.

This bill, with its specific notions of "dangerous teachings" is totalitarian by any terms, under any ideology, left or right. It is, again, the typical actions of totalitarians to go after intellectuals who dissent. The educated were murdered en masse in Cambodia, first harrassed then murdered in Germany if they stayed around, in Russia, in South American regimes, in Iran...

are you really so naive that you cannot see what is happening? Do you really think the govt is going to go out in a big yellow schoolbus and say, Hey, everybody, this bill is meant to deny you rights to freedom of speech! So shut the fuck up. - No, they will use this bill in the same way McCarthy used the witch hunt, only now we have crossed the threshold as torturers and murders.

[Bolo Boffin]

157. "so, in the definitions of this document, it is possible for the govt to justify torture"

Does DU have a "pass out from sheer amazement" smiley? Nope.

A definition is a definition. The term is then used throughout the bill, and how the term is used determines what the bill does.

The bill does not justify the arrest of anyone for any reason. The bill sets up a commission to study violent radicalization. It also sets up a Center of Excellence in a university to keep studying violent radicalization. That's what it does. Your over-the-top rhetoric will never change what this bill does.

Thank you for that litany of the Bush Administration's crimes, all beside the point.

The term "dangerous teaching" is not in this bill. This bill doesn't enable the detainment of a single person, not one, for any reason whatsoever. There ARE problems with the bill, and it deserves an appropriate measure of attention. But Chicken Little ain't it.

[RainDog]

171. are you really so thick?

that "litany" is an explanation of the ways in which such laws are used by this governing authority. if you cannot understand that these do not serve as precedents then you have very little understanding of history. They are NOT beside the point, they are the demonstration of the point. They are a demonstration of how bills are then "translated" into practice.

Do you think the fascists are going to have a bill that says... we are going to use this to torture or illegally detain, etc.? Did they write... and people like Jose Padilla will be tortured into insanity so that he cannot stand trial but that's okay because we didn't have a case against him anyway, but we'll say it's soooo secret and such state secrets secrets that we won't bring charges. Was that the language of the patriot act?

A definition is a definition. "enemy combatant" became a new category that did not fit into existing U.S. law and has been used in ways that are horrific. To label someone a "homegrown terrorist" or someone who engages in "homegrown terrorism" most certainly is a prelude to torture because that description is what began the descent into state-sanctioned torture in the first place. (and that term..homegrown terrorism, is right there in the definition of the bill's purpose.

If you think my "rhetoric" is over the top, let me tell you that having a "committee" come to Universities to study if any profs are promoting "violent radicalization" is not considered a reasonable proposition in a situation meant to promote independent thinking, often by playing devil's advocate.. not that you agree with one position or another, but can students defend their positions based upon something other than belief. I can defend my position by noting precedents in this and other societies.

You cannot justify your position. However, history, which you again ignore, justifies such concerns over and over and over again.

But... whatever. Your arguments do not have merit because they are not based upon anything other than a total acceptance of authority to do "the right thing" with bills that are not necessary if laws are applied with regard to constitutional freedoms. And then you resort to denigrating those who are concerned.

fwiw- over the last seven years, I have heard from many, many retirees who have told me that this nation is carrying on just like the fascists in WWII... and these are guys who fought in that war. They lived it. You simply seem to refuse to accept that your govt. may now be so corrupt that it will fall to fascists, but there is every indication that we are and have been headed in that direction for the last 7 years.

but no matter. these posts are for people who want to plan ahead and think about their family future if they also happen to think Bush and Cheney are war criminals. What benefit do you derive from denying the undergirding for totalitarianism that is at the heart of this bill?

[RainDog]

181. more on "definitions"

here's a story that was pretty amazing to me... but not. this happens to come from a libertarian, but that's sop for computer geekdom.

homegrown terrorists


The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, Ariz., distributed a brochure .. to local law enforcement agencies a few years ago which defines terrorism as individuals or groups within the U.S. who engage in criminal activity to promote political or social changes. This is correct, as far as it goes, but the brochure then gives a listing of “suspicious” activities, telling law enforcement officers: “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

Some of the things for which you should be reported as a suspected terrorist include the usual things, like weapons of mass destruction, and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, but also includes people who “Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’”

In addition, “People whose political motivation is usually Marxist/Leninist philosophy,” “‘defenders’ of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN,” computer hackers, and “Lone Individuals” should also be reported.

and Alabama, via Asso. Press, gave us this lovely insight into U.S. law enforcement

The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has taken down a Web site it operated that included gay rights and anti-war organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.

The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents.

And this guy, who has spent his working years studying such things:

David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin's University who studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars, says the bill "is a shot over the bow of environmental activists, animal-rights activists, anti-globalization activists and scholars who are working in the Middle East who have views that go against the administration." Price says some right-wing outfits such as gun clubs are also threatened because " would be looked at with suspicion under the bill."

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), which has been organizing against post-Sept. 11 legislative attacks on First Amendment rights, is critical of the bill. "When you first look at this bill, it might seem harmless because it is about the development of a commission to do a study," explained Hope Marston, a regional organizer with BORDC.

"However, when you realize the focus of the study is 'homegrown terrorism,' it raises red flags," Marston said. "When you consider that the government has wiretapped our phone calls and emails, spied on religious and political groups and has done extensive data mining of our daily records, it is worrisome of what might be done with the study. I am concerned that there appears to be an inclination to study religious and political groups to ultimately try to find subversion. This would violate our First Amendment rights to free speech and freedoms of religion and association."

and

Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center, asks, "What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. ... It is criminalizing thought and ideology."

and

Hope Marston (from the bill of rights defense committee: "This sounds like part of the same continuum we've experienced in the last seven years, which is the effort to deputize local law enforcement to work with the FBI and national agencies without local accountability, as we have seen with the establishment of joint-terrorism task forces across the country," Marston said. "On 9/11, there were only a few joint-terrorism task forces, now there are more than 100 in existence. ... When you talk about working with local law enforcement to possibly spy on groups and individuals to try to find the so-called 'needle in the haystack,' this definitely poses a threat to local autonomy."

---and I have to wonder if the feds putting the fear of god into local law enforcement hasn't been one factor in all the taser use lately. The call for "zero tolerance" or cops too scared to make sensible decisions.

anyway, just to again note that there are reputable people out in this great big country who also think that this bill is worrisome and more.

[RainDog]

158. p.s.

this govt apparently doesn't employ grammar police because the correct usage should be "ideologically-based violence." The hyphen is used when two descriptors are used for a noun when the descriptors come first.

I'm obviously into this discussion late, but I am frankly astonished that there are people here who are so willing to accept any authority the govt wants to put into its hands. Usually authoritarian types who dismiss threats to freedoms by the govt are conservatives in this nation... unless, of course, it's the freedom to deny human rights to fellow citizens.

[Bolo Boffin]

164. Unfortunately

I'm quite used to people who allude to me being an "authoritarian type" because my understanding of an issue doesn't sync with theirs. Why you feel the need to place me on the opposite side of the political spectrum just because I disagree with you is something that you should examine within yourself. I've acknowledged that there are real problems with this bill and even encouraged people to contribute to the ACLU because of them in this very thread.

So curb your astonishment.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Come on down! You're the next contestant on "What's Wrong With This Bill?"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

There's the text of the bill, nadin. Please bring back the exact quote that criminalizes anything -- crime, conviction standards, and penalty.

I warn you, many have tried and no one yet has succeeded. This is because the bill criminalizes nothing. It sets up a commission that will deliver a report on the causes of radicalization and recommendations on what the government might be able to do about it. It also sets up a Center of Excellence in a university to study the causes of radicalization.

AND THAT'S ALL. No Star Chamber, no jackboots in the streets, no "pounding" of the people.

Off you go. Bring back the offending passage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. What part of this is just a step are you purposely missing?

I am amazed at times.

Read the histories of these events in OTHER countries and buy a clue

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Strike one.

Try again. If you need to breathe into a paper bag for a minute before you pore over the bill, I can wait.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

I mean, you have read the actual bill, haven't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yes I have and it fits in a damn pattern

a pattern followed in Argentina, Chile, Germany, Italy and Spain, just for starters

It sounds innocuous enough

I am talking of HISTORY here, something they don't teach no more

It is part of a PATTERN... do you want me to explain to you how this PATTERN works, EVERY DAMN TIME?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Strike two!

What SPECIFIC part of H.R. 1955 do you think fits into this pattern?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Go ahead say strike three

I am sure you would have said the same about the enabling act in 1932 and are saying the same thing about the Patriot Act

Oh and let me add this from Santayana

Those who refuse to learn from history, are condemned to repeat it

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

39. By the time it happens, it would have been too late.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Yes, and no one could produce a quote worthy of multiple threads on this shit topic

Perhaps you would like to be the next contestant on "What's Wrong With This Bill?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Tell me, give me a quote from the Enabling Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

There, do the exercise

[Bolo Boffin]

50. ...

I'm going to blow this first strike just because I'm stunned here. You are actually saying that the Enabling Act of 1933 and H.R. 1955 are similar in any fashion whatsoever?

Are you kidding me?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yes... they are part of the same pattern

the Enabling Act was very reasonable on the surface, why many people were not that stunned by it.

In fact the enabling act shares elements with the US Patriot Act, but I am sure you knew that.

By the way... people have already DISAPPEARED in this country... I am sure that even in your stupor you have heard of Mr Padilla and Mr. Hamdi.

By the way this is not a fucking baseball game, but a very serious matter

[Occulus]

48. Why, if all you read is the text, nothing is wrong with it.

That's your problem- you're reading the text, and hoping they mean what it says.

Most of us here are far, far too cynical to believe that this law won't be MISused if passed. That's the thing I don't see those who think there's nothing wrong with the bill coming to grips with- the potential ways one could abuse this law.

One thing I have learned: always assume the people in power over you have nothing toward you but bad intentions, and you will by default remain forever vigilant against their excesses. You and Fredda both are far too credulous to be anything but dangerous.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. See Post #59.

The Enabling Act sounds reasonable on the surface??????

:wow:

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Quote the SPECIFIC PART of the bill that can be misused. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. you have to be shitting me

anything that has to do with creating radical thought... define radical thought. (Using the bill)

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Ah yes the words clear as mud come to mind

So I could be defined to have radical thinking, just because I like labor rights (and to Neocons and Chicago School that is radical).. and don't get me started on HUMAN RIGHTS

[Bolo Boffin]

62. The phrase "radical thought" does not occur in the bill.

Perhaps you should try quoting from the actual bill when you produce a SPECIFIC PART of the bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. My god what do you think violent radicalization is about?

oh never mind...

[Bolo Boffin]

67. "Violent Radicalization" IS in the act and is defined

the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change

Violent radicalization has a specific purpose - ideologically based violence. If you are not trying to facilitate violence, you cannot fulfill this definition.

Are you trying to defend people who facilitate violence?

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Again, this is nebolous enough that it can be used

to declare quakers violent and radical

Sorry, seen this game played throughout recent history....

Labor leaders, the quakers, religious leaders... those are the violent radicals that these laws nab

By the way you ARE AWARE these three groups have been infiltrated already

You tell me why

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Having lost the main prize, are you vying for Miss Confusedality?

How in bloody hell do you get Quakers caught in this "nebulous language"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. In a rational world you wouldn't

but that is not how these bills are applied throughout history... Guatemala comes to mind, as well as El Salvador.

After all those nuns were as peaceful as can be... they are dead.

Learn some history... I am trying to teach it to you. This bill is part of a PATTERN... and it is the PATTERN that should scare you.

[EVDebs]

143. The pattern Naomi Klein shows in Shock Doctrine

And we're all headed for another shock of sorts since the New Pearl Harbor hasn't worked too well for these neocon nutjobs.

[HamdenRice]

115. You are demonstrating appalling ignorance of legal and political process

The danger of the bill is that it gives the commission the power to define what is and is not "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and "ideologically based violence." You seem not to comprehend that the bill would become part of the U.S. Code. No one has to point out what in this bill gives the government the power to arrest dissenters after they have been designated "homegrown terrorists." That power would be scattered across the Code -- from Clinton's crime bill to the Patriot Act. Once a group or movement is labeled violent radicals or terrorists, other legislation would give other agencies all the powers to commit the abuses we've seen abused under the Bush regime.

So the Commission would have the ability to go around the country labeling people, groups and movements as homegrown terrorists. Because the Commission would have a DHS designee and is tasked with working with other federal agencies, that information or labeling would be widely shared. In fact the bill instructs the Commission to use non-traditional means of law enforcement to prevent the "rise of self-radicalized unaffiliated terrorists":

"Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts."

<end quote>

Also you seem incapable of grasping fundamental, basic concepts of administrative theory and legislative history. In other words, the intent and wording of the legislation are intentionally vague, which means that the institutions created under the bill would be likely to expand their own competencies (as all such agencies are wont to do).

As numerous blogs have pointed out, the precise intention behind the legislation was crafted by the Rand corporation, which already has decided that these "terrorists" actually are the environmentalists and anti-globalization movement. When vague legislation like this is crafted, the people who write it and implement it "know" what it is supposed to do even if that purpose is opaque to the public. (Bob Dole was famous for being able to write legislation like this, and during his presidential run there was an article I think in Harpers that showed how he could use vague innocuous language to confer a specific amount of tax benefit on a particular bank in a particular city.) Here, the "understanding" of what the bill is designed to fight has already been decided.

As for your inane repetition that only violent organizations are targeted is as usual beside the point. An anti-globalization group that decides to block a street in a sit down demonstration would be threatening the use of force and could be labeled a homegrown terrorist organization.

Once labeled a homegrown terrorist, do you think an ecologist or anti-globalization activists would be able to get on a plane, or attend a conference in Canada?

Once again you are parading ignorance as what you wrongly believe to be insight. Try to read something, a book perhaps, on administrative theory and then get back to us. Or perhaps you could share with us your background and expertise in this area?

[Bolo Boffin]

123. If you ever respond to me in a post that's not dripping with your contempt for me

maybe then I'll respond back. Until then, Hamden, go away.

[HamdenRice]

125. So you admit, you have no clue what you are talking about?

Can't respond to the substance because my post is, in your imagination, "dripping with contempt" because it corrects your numerous misconceptions?

Par for the course. Anyone who disagrees with bolo and points out the errors of his ways is attacking or contemptuous or some such other thing that prevents you from actually addressing the issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

126. I do no such thing.

Your obsession with me should find a different outlet. Is it kite weather where you live?

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

200. I didn't read any contempt at all in that post

You're so amusing I'll leave you off ignore as an example to potential future DUers of the reason why we have that feature.

[EVDebs]

159. WTF, bolo, HamdenRice just blew your arguments away. No ad hominem attack to be upset with nt

[Bolo Boffin]

166. That is not true. Anyone reading that can see the ad hominem Hamden's post is soaking in. n/t

[Occulus]

201. Once again, you're just about 100% wrong

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Hamden gave examples of exactly how this bill could be misused, and quite correctly pointed out your own apparent ignorance of administrative law and how specific sections of law cna be misused. Hamden also even cited one actual example of a legislator- Bob Dole.

There was nearly nothing ad hominem about Hamden's post, and the small bit that there was was well deserved. You, however, have shown that you are unable to respond to legitimate criticism of your position with anything but a personal attack. Hamden: 1. Bolo: 0.

[EVDebs]

141. The Quaker's website showing the Permanent Bases in Iraq is why NSA went after them

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

This despite Bush saying when Iraqis stand up we'll stand down. The bases, and troops, stay put. Also ask why the old Nixon plans,


Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

required at least a ten year occupation of the area, whatever it was:

"The British warned in their assessment that any occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi might have to last as long as 10 years. The use of force would also anger and alienate Arab countries and irritate the Soviet Union, although a military confrontation with the country would be unlikely, the document stipulated."

Maybe this gets me qualified as some kind of raving radical, I don't know, but mention this and re-investigating 9-11 and the neocon loons come outta the woodwork.

[ideagarden]

128. bolofin whatever your name stands for

Your plain and simply worthless in this discussion. Seriously, since your so smart and have read it maybe you'll realize that it is a racist bill and singles out Islam extremist. There are many vague definition about terrorism or extremism. Lets not forget that the bill opens another new Department of government w/ new appointments from congress. That right there should send bells and whistles. Isn't HLS already supposed to be doing their job? Maybe you'll be the first product of the bill.

[Bolo Boffin]

130. Bolo Boffin of the Whitfurrows.

I plugged my actual name, Joseph Nobles, into a Hobbit Name Generator before the release of Fellowship of the Ring. That's what came out, and the next week I used that to sign up at the Smirking Chimp, and history was made. That's what my name "means." I can't imagine why it strikes such fear in the hearts of people, but there it is.

The bill is not a racist bill. Islam is mentioned once, in the qualifications of people who are to be appointed to the commission ("Islam and other world religions"). Having a trusted Islamic authority on the panel will go a long way toward fulfilling the directive of protecting an American Muslim's constitutional right to freedom of religion.

There are some vague definitions, but they all focus on violence as the means of promoting the beliefs of any organization that might be targeted.

There is no new Department being opened up. The bill sets up a commission and a center of excellence. The appointments to the commission have to come from somewhere. This bill is meant to help the DHS do its job better, focusing it on real problems while underscoring a commitment to civil and constitutional rights.

[ideagarden]

134. Islam is singled out

The quote you point to is for staff of the commission, but it is singled out. Sort of like Islamofascism week (horrible week). For that reason, I think the bill will focus on these groups more, in a unjust fashion.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. As a qualification for someone on the panel.

It's definitely important to have a trusted authority on Islam on this commission to make sure American Muslim civil liberties and constitutional rights are safeguarded.

[EVDebs]

140. Also, those who don't believe the 9-11 Commission Report's BS

If you want a new 9-11 Commission Report with a REAL investigation of facts and information instead of the cover-up we've been subjected to, then you're on their shit list.

[EVDebs]

142. The bill's outsourcing powers and 'detailing' of other agencies (FBI, NSA, DIA, etc etc)

Is where people, rightly so, become fearful. Where is the oversight of these outsourced private companies, groups ? There isn't any.

[Bolo Boffin]

147. Why rightly so?

The bill allows the commission to outsource and have employees of other agencies detailed to it in order to discharge its duties, i.e., produce a report on the causes of violent radicalization and suggest legislative solutions to the problems that don't conflict with civil liberties or constitutional rights. The oversight would be in the Commission itself, I imagine. They are the ones outsourcing any work.

[EVDebs]

149. To emblazon whom they will with those Scarlett Letters, dear bolo. Elementary.

I for example wish to see a new 9-11 Report/Investigation due to the failure (errors and omissions etc) in the first one. In the process of preparing said report these agents of the new commission would be remiss if they failed to report and act on their suspicions of suspect activity (merely the thought patterns of many targets).

Comply with Hughes-Ryan Act requirements, not end-run them. Trouble is, they cannot.

[Bolo Boffin]

150. The term "Scarlett Letters" is not present in the bill.

Although I don't know what Mrs. Butler would have to do with the situation anyway.

I also don't know why you're trying to divert this into a discussion on 9/11.

[EVDebs]

151. Neither is criminalizing dissent, but the intent is to test the limits to how much they can

"In other words, they are establishing a network of supposed experts to tell them how far they can make inroads on the First Amendment, amongst other legal protections more than likely.

Another way of putting it; they want to know how much criminalizing of dissent they can get away with under the guise of Bush’s war on terrorism, presumably to mitigate the prospective challenges by civil liberties advocates."

HR 1955: Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism bill
Saturday, November 03 2007 @ 12:00 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679

Following Harry Frankfurt's theory on bullshit, HR 1955 simply wants to redefine what a terrorist is,

"In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications. In particular, Frankfurt contrasts bullshitting and lying; where the liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. Rather, bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. Whereas the liar needs to know the truth the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. By virtue of this, Frankfurt claims, "bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

On Bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

and is thus bullshitting us. They aren't interested in catching, preventing, apprehending violent terrorists. They want to label and harass legitimate dissenters during 'wartime'. Even that is suspect. Iraq is a situation of 'occupation'. The War Powers Resolution has thus already been abridged.

[Bolo Boffin]

155. See, I would put the bullshitting label on people who can't quote specifics

and don't stick to the specifics when they do. That's a preeminent example of being "uninterested in the truth."

[EVDebs]

161. See, I would put the bullshitting on people who aren't interested in the truth !

Like you couldn't respond to HamdenRice's post #115 so you revert to the 'victim' act and claim he somehow slandered you.

[Bolo Boffin]

165. Hamden and I have history, as do you and I.

I'm not terribly concerned with anything he has to say, nor you.

[EVDebs]

168. Even if what I say is the truth ? Thanks, bolo, for admitting that.

[Bolo Boffin]

169. More stupid games. n/t

[EVDebs]

172. Exactly what the MI complex dreams up with HR 1955 etc. More stupid games

All the while guys in caves are apparently playing us to a 'mexican standoff' all our technology is being turned on US rather than preserving protecting and defending the Constitution.

We lose and real violent terrorist gain an upper hand.

Spychips and RFIDs then inconvenience everyone else in the name of "security".

[TheWatcher]

113. And When They Come For You

Even If there Is Anyone Left To Speak For You, Hopefully.....

THEY WON'T.

[Whisp]

93. he's shitting his pants scared and won't deal. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Excuse me. Did you mean to hit the PM button and hit Reply instead?

There is no fear here. My grandfather was an organizer for the IBEW in Alabama. He bucked the Ku Klux Klan in town as well.

There is no fear here.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Boomp boomp ba-doom (bwaaaa....)

I'm sorry, you failed to produce a single quote from the actual bill that justifies all this hysteria.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Once again produce a quote that would justify the same histeria

from the Enabling Act of 1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

go for it

Oh and no using what we KNOW HAPPENED after it was enacted, JUST USE THE ACT

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Just use the Act. Gotcha. Can do.

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

This gives the government of the Reich (the executive branch) the full powers of the legislature, including expressly the power of the budget and over borrowing.

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

This exempts any laws passed by the executive branch from being overturned for constitutional reasons.

Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

This gives Adolf Hitler (the Chancellor) the power of creating a law by simply printing it in the Reich Gazzette. There are no further restrictions on this power of lawmaking (as were found in Articles 68 to 77).

Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

This gives the executive branch the sole power of treaty making and enforcement.

This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

This ensures that only this particular executive branch will enjoy these powers.


That is the entire bill (except for the introduction). In it, the executive branch is granted the complete power of making laws, all control over the budget, all control over federal borrowing, and all treaty making power. No one is allowed to challenge their authority for any reason, laws can be issued by fiat and come into effect the next day, and the sole limitation on the power (a deadline) could easily be null and void by a simple proclamation from the Chancellor's office.

H.R. 1955 sets up a commission to produce a study on the causes of violent radicalization.

Would you like to produce a better example?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Wrong sonny, what that act does is exactly what

the Presidential Orders and Findings have done, as well as the Patriot act

This radicalization is part of that pattern... to close societies

You will not get it until one of several things happen

1.- Your family is personally affected, as in a relative of yours, preferably a close one, ends up missing

2.- You see tanks (the absolute last step in closing down a society)

3.- You are arrested because that radical thinking is considered to be subversive... what that radical thinking is, well it ain't clear in the act, is it? No it is not.

You choose to believe that all is honky dory... I have to think that either you are ignorant of history, you are in denial or... you think you have something to win from the new order. News for you... most people who believe they have something to win, they never do.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. The Enabling Act? Maybe instead of ranting, you could point out how my analysis of the Enabling Act

is wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Not ranting but if you cannot see the parallels I cannot help you

just as I cannot help Freda or the few others who think that things are honky dory.

As I said, you are the type that either has something IN THE GAME, or will not get it until it is way too late.

you are the one who thinks all is honky dory and we are not slipping into fascism...

Hold it, technically we already are... by Mussolini's definition

[Bolo Boffin]

69. I can be persuaded. But, yes, you are ranting.

I did as you asked. I quoted the actual Enabling Bill, and I explained what it said and what it empowered any governmental agency to actually do. The power shift is utterly stunning, and I cannot believe that you have described it as "perfectly reasonable on the surface." It's a naked power grab that gives all legislative power to the executive and emasculates the judiciary from ever reviewing the executive. If that's your definition of "reasonable on the surface," we disagree about more than H.R. 1955.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I'm not ranting, sorry kid

but as I keep telling you, have seen this game played before.

You think there is nothing wrong with this... Constitutional Lawyers and HISTORIANS can tell you (as I have) what is wrong with this bill

[Bolo Boffin]

72. My name is boloboffin, not "kid."

Call me "kid" or "sonny" one more time and you can talk to the moderators about your goddamn patronizing way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. So you are going to report me? Re-read your posts

and how patronizing you have been with baseball analogies. You use analogies to a game, when this is NOT a game... I will patronize you, the same way I patronize my nephews.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Save it for your unfortunate nephews.

I for one am sick to death of people spamming this board about this same stupid piece of pork legislation. It doesn't do what you say it does, and the proof is that YOU can't bring back a single quote that does anything like what you say it does.

All you do is echo-chamber bullshit. If you had anything, you would have brought back a quote by now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. As I said, when the hammer comes down

go cry me a river, or rather don't

I don't want to hear it

History is clear on the patterns...

And if you think HISTORY is bullshit, then I guess my fifty relatives are treblinka are still alive somewhere in Europe and nothing like the Holocaust ever happened

Or for that matter, the hundreds of thousands who went missing in Chile and Argentina, the Desaparecidos, are still walking around

It was people like you, who kept laughing that enabled that.

Or perhaps those fifteen American Nuns... they are still alive, aren't they?

LEARN SOME HISTORY

This bill is NOT a good thing... not in the current continuum of bills and presidential orders, starting with the US Patriot Act.

By the way, explain to me why CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS are worried about it? Or are they also FULL OF IT?

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Have I ever said there was nothing wrong with the bill whatsoever? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. You implied it

Heavily implied it

You said there was nothing in the bill to worry about and that nothing specifically would do what CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS worry about THIS bill (See Jonathan Turley, for example)

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Please produce the EXACT quote of mine.

You are proving quite unreliable in actually quoting someone and simply saying what you ascribe to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. My, my, my

ok you do not know the meaning of the word IMPLY?

I am done with you and your stupid game of one upmanship

Have a good day, and welcome to my ignore list

I knew it was coming

You cannot have a rational discussion with a well propagandized individual

[Bolo Boffin]

88. "You cannot have a rational discussion with a well propagandized individual"

No, because they will not go into SPECIFICS. They will rant, they will bob, they will dodge and weave, but they will never get down to specifics, because when you actually deal with specifics, they will lose every time.

For the record, I have read some critiques of this bill from the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and I share their concerns. It is this huge Chicken Little production that I object to, because it is rooted in "no difference in Democrat or Republican" bullshit. It is calculated to split the grassroots of the Democratic Party, and Nadinbrzezinkski has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. I point him to the actual bill and he cannot find anything objectionable enough in it to justify all of this hysteria.

And now I'm on ignore.

All of this hysteria is about spinning your wheels in political cynicism, fellow DUers. If you can't get down to specifics, all the nebulous handwringing in the world won't do you a lick of good.

[D23MIURG23]

195. Constitutional lawyers are worried because of all the other straws.

The Patriot Act, The Military Commission act, the "unitary executive" theory, have all been significant steps that have brought our nation closer to the throes of fascism. This particular piece of legislation establishes groups to study violent extremism on the internet. No new powers or laws are contained within this bill. It is possible that the findings of the commissions set up by this bill will be disturbing, but they are a separate issue from the bill itself.

I've been beside myself with worry about our direction as a nation over that past 7 years, but I really can't understand what is particularly disturbing to you about this bill.

If something in our legislation is parallel to the enabling act, it is definitely the patriot act. I don't think they really need this act to target us.

[Occulus]

203. Looking down this thread

I see a lot of other people trying to discuss why this bill is disturbing, and I see YOU responding to nearly every single post with the same condescension you've exhibited from the very start. Echo chamber? The only echo chamber on this thread is you, saying the same thing over and over and over- and I mean that as literally as possible.

If you can't understand why this bill is, in general, disturbing and dangerous, I can't help you. Recall, please, that peace groups, including Quakers, were being personally monitored under the Patriot act.

Also recall who gets to define "violent radicalization". Is interfering with a corporation's pursuit of profit "violence"? You might not think so, I might not think so, but the people who define these things very well MAY think so. Is a sit-in protest at the entrance to a factory "violent radicalization"? You might not think so, I might not think so, but the people who want this bill to become law very well may have other ideas.

THAT is the part you're not getting- how this bill could be misused. If you can't figure that out on your own, again, I can't help you, but others on this thread have tried to do so, and you replied to them with the same condescending one-liners you've used throughout this thread.

Nobody can quote the section of the bill that does what we're saying it may do because it hasn't yet been used in that way. We're anxious about the possibilities in this bill related to the twisting of words. You, on the other hand, sound a great deal like Humpty Dumpty.

Let me bold this, so you have a chance to get the point:

There is no single quote. There is no single line. There is no single statement. There IS a general sense of malign intent, given the history of the people who will be establishing the commission, in particular with enforcement of the Patriot Act. This bill is meant to be a dark background, not a central subject.

Get it?

[TheWatcher]

114. OK Kid. I mean Sonny.

I mean Good German.

I mean Mistress Hall Monitor.

Report away. I'm sure I'll lose as much sleep as I possibly can over it.

[ConfidentialStatus]

178. Relax and Please calm down

I'm sorry you don't have the capability to connect the dots. However, I wish you love and peace.

Peace.

[EVDebs]

144. Poor guy, it's all between the lines. nt

[Name removed]

82. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mme. Defarge]

138. After skimming the bill

I asked this question yesterday and go no response. Randi R. was worked up in a lather over it Friday so I thought I'd better check it out. While I am very alarmed by the Patriot Act, presidential signing statements, the Democrats in congress who will not hold the villains who are currently occupying the Executive Branch, etc., I just didn't see anything in this bill that ratcheted up my current level of fear.

Thanks for challenging what appears to be fear-mongering here.

[EVDebs]

145. So, who will get the Scarlett Letters from this commission and its outsourced minions ?

And how much will it all cost ? Will it comply with the Hughes-Ryan Act ? Probably not. Begging the question, why a bill in the first place ? Just a jones to spend $ for Rand and the M/I complex's lucky few ?

[Greyhound]

13. K & R

Congratulations and welcome and I'm sorry.

"It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes"

Once you learn what is going to happen it can become really depressing. Still, you can begin to make preparations, which will put you way ahead of most everyone else.
:kick: & R

[Joanne98]

15. That's right! That's EXACTLY what there going to do!!!!!!!!

The books by the two Naomi's is critical emergency reading!!!!

[Tom Joad]

16. Ironically, one of the most violent extremists in the house, Jane Harman, is the

mover of this bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I have never checked her vitae

but is she a graduate of the Chicago School of Economics per chance?

Anybody knows?

[AX10]

35. She is closely allied with the defense industry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Here is from wiki

I knew the name sounded familiar

However, in October 2006 reports surfaced that Harman was under investigation by the FBI for "allegedly (with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC) enlisting wealthy donors to lobby then-House Minority Leader (and current House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi to retain her position as the head Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee." Speaker of the House Pelosi then chose Silvestre Reyes to be the Chair of the Intelligence Committee in the 110th Congress.

Oh and she attended Harvard, not Chicago

But now it does not surprise me one bit that she pushed this bill...

And her husband is the PResident of a company that went private in 2006

[Joanne98]

116. Oh is that the problem!

[Richard Steele]

23. It's the "Merkin Enabling Act". If you have the means, get out while you still can.

Get out, get the HELL out! Do it NOW!

They called my Sweetie's great-grandpa an overreactive, paranoid FOOL
when he fled Germany in the 30's...

He was "an important man", they said...
He was "too valuable to the Fatherland" to ever need worry, they said...
but they didn't say it for long, because "they" mostly died in the camps.


Are YOU an "important person"?
Are YOU considered to be "irreplaceably valuable to the Homeland"?
I didn't think so.


Get out. Get the fuck out NOW, before it's too late.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Lets get things straight the enabling act is the bill establishing DHS

this is just another step... but you are right

[Richard Steele]

28. You are entirely correct, of course. This is just the "late bell".

Perhaps it's the "TOO late" bell.

No one really knows how many of us have been "disappeared" already.
Or how many of us will be DENIED "permission to exit" when we finally decide to "travel abroad".

We've already seen the reports of a retired US GENERAL who was
denied permission to cross the border into CANADA because of
her political opinions.

What more of a "wake-up call" does this nation need?
This isn't the USA anymore, and it won't ever be again!

Get a clue, get a plan, and get while the gettin is good!

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Colonel, not General

but I know the point you are trying to make

On edit, in fact making

Now read upthread... and notice the ... ostriches.

As to people disapearing inside the US Borders? Jose Padilla and that was as early as 2002 isn't it?

And we have thousands who went missing after 9.11

[Richard Steele]

52. Colonel-right you are. (As if that's any less FRIGHTENING.)

THOUSANDS gone missing since 9/11..........
many more THOUSANDS still missing after Katrina...

There were a lot of eyewitness accounts of how the
New Orleans residents were widely-dispersed into
ready-and-waiting CAMPS after Hurricane Katrina...

We KNOW they haven't returned to NO, and there don't seem
to be any stories about them ever being RELEASED and turning
up anywhere else "en masse", now do there?

Anyone ever heard about even a HUNDRED Nawlins Katrina refugees in their city?
Anybody? Bueller?

A hundred thousand US Citizens have disappeared "down the
memory hole", right in front of our eyes.



That was a TEST RUN- a successful one. Ask yourself what they DON'T
think they can get away with now.

And then BE AFRAID.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Trust me I know

that said, for accuracy sake, we had over 100 people in San diego

[Richard Steele]

57. 100 down, 99 thousand and 900 human beings to go. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Trust me, knowing how things WORK in disasters

I know how easily you can disappear bodies

In my view the casualty rate was far higher, and I have not only posted the mechanism here, but also shared it with my Senator.

Lets just say that families that were completely lost, nobody claiming a body... never existed.

So that alone can account for over 10K people dead.

The camps, you don't need them... because they needed to disperse the population and they did it effectively.

But the official casualty rate... I don't buy it, for the same reason I don't buy the official numbers in Mexico City during the San Juanico Disaster. Seen the game played... many times

[Double T]

36. Halliburton has most likely already completed construction of........

the DU internment and waterboarding facilities. Remember, no matter how much THEY torture US, we'll never pledge allegiance to bushco.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Knowing how torture works

you will break by hour 36.. 72 best case scenario

Most of us will

[L0oniX]

77. V

[Rex]

78. So will the DHS now arrest the PNAC crowd?

How do you enforce a law that you break daily? Violent Radicalization indeed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. You know better

as to who this is directed at

And given the amount of DEMS who voted for this piece of crap... the illusion is over

[Desertrose]

81. Thanks for this one nadin...

We are but frogs in pot of rapidly heating water.....

DR

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Not all of us, but a good number, definitely

[Union Thug]

87. Spot on. This is just another nail in the coffin.

The point is...and this is the one that is always overlooked, in spite of the kneejerk claptrap out of every conservative's mouth when anyone points their finger at the wealthy, is that it's ALWAYS been about class war and continues to be about class war.

The coup of the elite (the election of RayGun) accelerated it. Now we are close to being smashed into obscurity and most of us don't even know we've been at war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. You know who this will be used against then

clear as day... can we say Unions?

Or whatever remains of them

[magellan]

95. Hey, Nadin, have you seen this?

It's in the London Times today. I haven't seen it mentioned in GD yet. Goes to what you're saying, big time:

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
David Leppard

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

So, do the naysayers think American citizens are somehow special and therefore excluded from being arrested according to crimes Washington defines as loosely as those contained in HR 1955? Dream on. If they're willing to tell the British Court of Appeal that British citizens can be "kidnapped" instead of legally extradited for offences against the US, people should be wondering what the hell the US government WON'T do, not defending it.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. What crimes are contained in H.R. 1955?

I keep asking people to point them out. No one will.

It's not like I'm asking people to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity. Right?

[magellan]

101. It's a good question

The offences are so loosely defined it's difficult to know what will be a crime when it passes.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Nothing will be.

The bill sets up a commission to study the causes of violent radicalization. That's all it does. There are no crimes there. The Center for Constitutional Rights has already said the real problem (if any) will come from the commission's recommendations. And the ACLU, the CCR, and other organizations are on top of it.

Until then, this bill is nothing but pork.

[immoderate]

118. It sets up a means of defining of "radical thought..."

which in someone's opinion could lead to use of force. Then the Patriot Act and other secret laws of the administration kick in, and people are disappeared, tortured, and executed, without due process. What about this act forbids this? (Don't say the Constitution, because it doesn't sayany thing about signing statements or free speech zones, yet they exist.)

Isn't it scary enough that this this act condemns any kind of thought? If in the course of mulling a political problem, I come across a solution that is radical, and might lead to some use of force, should I turn myself in? What's the definition of radical anyway? (It's not defined in the bill.) How would this law deal with Martin Luther King, or Rosa Parks, or Susan B. Anthony, or Frederick Douglass? Didn't they engage in "radical thought" which led to use of force?

--IMM

[Bolo Boffin]

122. I don't see how it does when the phrase "radical thought" doesn't appear in the bill.

Nor are there instructions to the commission to define "radical thought." The commission is empowered to produce a study on the causes of violent radicalization and make recommendations on how best to deal with that. The bill explicitly states:

The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

So maybe Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass would be safe.

"Isn't it scary enough that this act condemns any kind of thought?" Well, it doesn't do that. It simply does not.

[immoderate]

127. All the elements are there.

Surely the term radicalization appears in the title of the bill. How is it defined? So then it substitutes "extremist beliefs." What does that mean? It sounds like HUAC with all its attending abuses.

Note that it does not deal with violence, it deals with thoughts that may lead to violence. The so-called protections are not implemented by due process. Once you are branded by one of these committees as a radical or extremist, what are your protections, or remedies? Can you sue them?

People who have opposed the war have been called terrorists. People have been arrested for wearing a t-shirt or displaying a bumper sticker. What does this law do to expand our rights?

--IMM

[Bolo Boffin]

135. The term "violent radicalization" appears in the title.

There are only two places where any form of the word "radical" appears in the document not directly connected to the word "violent".

Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically...

To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

"Violent radicalization" is the only other way that this comes up. It makes me think that the second example is a simple mistake that needs to be corrected in the Senate version of the bill, and thus corrected in the final form of the bill. Sounds like a job for Obama!

It deal with "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." Three prongs here -- Adopting or promoting an extremist belief system, facilitating ideologically based violence, advancing change. If you don't have all three, you don't have "violent radicalization." This is about people who give themselves permission to blow up abortion clinics. This is about people who work themselves up into loading up and killing people in their school or workplace. This is about people who justify grabbing airplanes and crashing them into notable US landmarks. Is there a way to stop these people before they go this far without damaging anyone's constitutional rights? What are the appropriate ways to deal with these people before they get to these points?

There are a wide arrangement of options here, and hyping a "worst case scenario" for everyone from Martin Luther King to Al Gore just doesn't do justice to the real problem being addressed.

"One of these committees"? There is only one commission, and it's not going to be branding anyone anything. It's going to produce a report.

[EVDebs]

156. Please define Violent Radicalization , Violent Ideology

Homegrown terrorism for that matter. I'd have to put Grover Norquist's comments on drowning government in a bathtub as the first to go.

But somehow I think he'll go scott free.

[Bolo Boffin]

167. "Violent Radicalization" was defined in the post you responded to.

Why are you playing silly games, EVDebs?

[EVDebs]

174. Sticks and stones will break my bones but silly words 'violent radicalization' will never hurt me

HR 1955/1959 plays the silly games.

The law is unnecessary and doesn't comply with the Hughes-Ryan Act. Besides, the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 and the Sept 2001 War on Terror resolution should be elastic enough for Bushbots to enable them in their domestic crusade against freedom domestically.

[ideagarden]

132. constitutional law...

Lets see so they can detain the commissions findings w/o Habeas Corpus, torture them, and detain indefinitely. Thats about were are constitution is right now. Sure it sounds like a study, but to me it sounds like an electronic ghetto. Also note that any "illegal" does not have those rights. Thats ~25 million people in America right now.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EVDebs]

154. The crimes they are charged to define

The commission will make up the definitions as they go along.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Part of the pattern and a huge violation of international law

Yes detaining is one thing, as long as you Mirandize the person, and INFORM their government. (Yes there are specific forms you need to fill up)

Yep, we are now going up that sheet creek

And these patterns usually start with them foreigners... in the case of the US... white

No, this does not surprise me at all

[magellan]

103. That was my thinking on reading it

I keep thinking nothing can surprise me anymore, and then I read something like that article. We have extradition laws with the UK last I looked. There should be no reason for skirting those laws. And yet a lawyer for the US government has told their legal system we can and will do just that.

Heads are in the sand here. I very strongly expect that one day in the future we will hear from many that they just didn't see it until it was too late.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

97. No fascist regime in recorded human history...

...ever tolerated internal political dissent -- the Korporate RepubliK of AmeriKa will be no exception.

Anyone who, after reading HR 1955, STILL doesn't see what's about to happen -- well, good luck.

The concentration camps are staffed and in place, the legalized criminalization of dissent is all but complete, what remains are the roundups which will probably coincide with the next false flag operation on U.S. soil -- probably not too far off.

Think about what's at stake here, people, the President's approval ratings are below 30% and aren't coming back, domestic dissent continues to grow, many more people are now calling for impeachment and even war crimes trials -- do you really think these fascist thugs are going to take a chance on letting anything like that happen?

Dissent is going to be crushed -- period.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. :eyes:

Could you give us your best guess on when all of this is going to start happening?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

105. See post #107, could you?

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Post #107 doesn't have your best guess on when all this concentration camp stuff is going to start.

It just contains an attack on me. Please stop attacking me and get back to the subject.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

108. Hey, you didn't answer my question Boloboffin. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. I asked mine first, by twenty minutes.

And your question is stupid.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

111. I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you...

:patriot:

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. You don't need concentration camps

this is a police state about to come out that follows up its own patterns...

This version will be different from the Germany of the 1940s, which did not spring fully formed from the Enabling Act

It will also be different from the one-way helicopter rides of Chile...

But it will be terrifying nonetheless

And we have people still denying that this can happen HERE and NOW

Well it IS happening

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[walldude]

121. Let me help you out here...

http://wcbstv.com/seenon/firefighters.homeland.security.2.594870.html

Uh, using the Fire Dept to spy on Americans under the pretense of doing "fire safety inspections"? How um.. Fahrenheit 451..

What amuses me is in your OP you mention that reading Shock Doctrine and this bill and a few other things and connecting the dots brought you to the conclusion that we are steps away from police state. However your "opponent" in this debate singles out the bill and ignores all the other stuff. Most of us can see it coming, and understand this is not your grandpa's police state. Hell we are already subject to having our phone calls listened to, our e-mails, read, our library records read, being tased for not submitting to the will of a traffic cop, etc, etc. We are already in a semi-police state. Just because there aren't soldiers on the streets...

[EVDebs]

173. Francis Ford Coppolla is remaking The Conversation

in order to update Harry Caul's story. The new technology, as in Enemy Of The State with Will Smith, is just wayyyy beyond the original '70s movie.

When OBL's group appears to be stalemating us in Afganistan and Iraq is simply a quagmire disguised as a fiasco, and here at home they plan on more domestic spying with RFIDs and 'spychips', you have to wonder about who's to benefit from all this. It isn't the people but the M/I complex's insiders. Note the bills contractors and detailing. They can outsource the loot. The taxpayers will pay.

[kineneb]

109. right on!

when will it start- it already has... this is another piece of the "puzzle"...

...it is not what the bill says, but what it implies... and the vagueness of the crimes... and since when has BushCo been reliable about following laws?

...next comes economic collapse or at least a nasty recession- Nourial Roubini guesses sometime in the first half of 2008.


Hey, nadin (or anyone else)- ever read stuff here?

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/
-interesting econ commentary, which crosses over into the political aspects (as money always does)... her essays are long, but worth the read.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

117. I believe that this regime is going to use 2008

to kick our ass....and I mean physically. And elections? 'We don't need no fucking elections.' says the neocons.

Time will tell....I also see a hell of a lot of UNemployment in 2008...which could actually wake up a few million people to what has been going on....now that they'll have time to 'think.'

[libodem]

119. Time to go out and git yersef a gun

and go down blazin'. (not really, I hate guns, I'm scared of them, and I couldn't kill anybody, but it seemed like a good thing to say at the time) I'm thinkin', Canada? I just heard, my Congressman, Bill Salli, R say we need to dump a bunch more money into twice as many border enforcement agents, more agents to hunt down gang-members, and drug runners. He wants more money for busting the employers and Mexicans at the work place. How much is spent now on border patrol? How much is being spent on Homeland Security, National Security, the FBI? How much are we sending to Israel and Pakistan, every year? How much to a day on Iraq? How much in Afghanistan? How much on the yearly Pentagon budget? Don't those assess over their have their own budget? Their own budget that is over half of the annual National budget? I'm fuckin' sick of this shit. Somebody do the math. I have a headache.

[LWolf]

120. No problem. I stand up.

Where do we start?

[Bolo Boffin]

124. Contribute to the ACLU.

They are working with the legislators to write a better bill.

[divinecommands]

148. That's a good idea..!

And keep up the good fight, boloboffin. I've enjoyed reading through your attempts to wrestle sense into people in this thread. Especially the part when someone admitted that the Enabling Act sounded reasonable on the surface :-).

[LWolf]

162. That's a place to start.

Thank you for a productive suggestion.

:hi:

[dailykoff]

129. They're going after the internet, that much is clear.

Pretty soon we'll have to go to Venezuela to find out what the hell is actually going on, or maybe Cuba.

[Bolo Boffin]

131. :eyes:

http://www.expedia.com

[reprehensor]

133. Call your Senators...

And tell them to kill H.R. 1955 and S. 1959

More coverage;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2384756&mesg_id=2384756

And more;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2362435&mesg_id=2362435

Kucinich voted NO on the bill because he actually READ IT;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7drqooKfgM

"...it was H.R. 1955? It probably should have been H.R. 1984. Because what they were doing... is they were trying to criminalize thought... Most members don't read this legislation... people don't read these Bills. You get, everday, a dozen Bills floating your way... some are a few pages, some are hundreds of pages, you have staff read 'em... and this came from a Democrat. This is a Democrat's Bill... and so, it comes from "your side", right? You don't read it... the Republicans are ready to pass anything like that... and so, people didn't read the Bill... and you look at the title, "Oh, yeah... we're against 'Homegrown Terrorism'..." people don't look at it, "Yeah, we're Patriots, we're for it..."

This is what we're faced with... so, when they come before you, to have to account for it {your vote} you see sometimes gymnastics, or balletics that are Olympian in their movement! But pathetic in their implications. And dangerous.

You haven't heard the last of this.

I had one of the most conservative Republicans in the House, Dana Rohrbacher, who voted against it, came up to me and he said, "You know, only a few of us voted against this." And I told him, well, I read, it looked pretty crazy, "Yeah!" he said, and he's starting to hear from people all over the country...

Isn't it interesting how the internet becomes a basis for information that comes to us and how often it is at odds with what we're hearing from official Washington.

And so the breakdown of trust is so powerful right now... the climate for impeachment is so rife for impeachment around the country, except in Washington."

[FREEWILL56]

146. Reactions of 2 Pa senators to the bill.

Casey-Dem Excerpt:
"H.R. 1955 was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 19, 2007 and was agreed to on October 23, 2007. The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this bill come before the full Senate, I will have your views in mind."

Specter-Rep Entirety:
"Thank you for contacting my office regarding Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 .



I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As a United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts on maintaining free speech in mind when the Senate considers this or related issues during the 110 th Congress.



The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing.





Sincerely,





Arlen Specter"
note: 'Free speech' was a catagory I had to pick from.

[Deja Q]

170. Four things.

1. It's "lose", not "loose".
2. Well, if Elvis, Amelia Earhart, and Glen Miller could disappear, then anything is possible!
3. Here's what "connect the dots" does:


Misread one of the dots and you end up with a different picture. The same thing happens if you have a preconceived notion to help make up some extra dots along the way.

4. All those telescreens would waste energy and make Baby Jesus cry.

[sistagoldilocks42]

175. MAN THE BARRICADES: TAKE THE COUNTRY BACKFROM THIS CRIMINAL RICO CABAL

This is a treasonous Bill. I will be monitoring it but nothing surprises me anymore. This is why I left so I can adjust to poverty ala Cuba and Zimbabwe style before it shocks the USA. I grew up in this crap in Guyana. Not pretty people. Look at the Sahara today to figure out what the USA will look like in 5-10 years. Get the young out and be prepared to rock it more hard than the ancestors did.

IMAGINE GLOBAL PEACE

HOUR OF DECISION

WE ARE ALL REASONED OUT

OUR CHILDREN AND ANCESTORS DEMAND BETTER OF US

MAN THE BARRICADES

LOVE AND "LIGHT"

[ConfidentialStatus]

176. Someone who gets it

K&R

[EVDebs]

177. Related post on 9-11's Phillip Zelikow you need to see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x73360

They want to lock up anyone who questions the official version of 9-11. Catastrophic Terrorism--1998.

Besides that, NON-VIOLENT dissent is a target of this bill:

"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’ It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence.

Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence.

It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679

[sistagoldilocks42]

184. IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN

My daughter's brother-in law who is Jewish, and sports a beard, was pulled over last week in Rochester, NY for driving while ARAB...He was let go after the saw his license...LOL...He just spoke with me about his built in prejudices of buying the war on TERRA EARTH. HE SAID THE WAR ON TERRA IS TO PROTECT THE JEWS AND EUROPEANS. I told him it is a war of piracy of natural resources and wealth that leads to global slavery. He said he now knows how the Africans and Arabs feel, but does/can he???. He was very angry about that "Sleeping generation aka baby-boomers", yes they are our parents. They dropped the ball big time in the 50-60's hence this mess.


IMAGINE GLOBAL PEACE

ALL REASONED OUT

HOUR OF DECISION

OUR CHILDREN AND ANCESTORS DEMAND BETTER FROM US

MAN THE BARRICADES

RESTORE AND REWRITE THAT "PIECE OF PAPER" CONSTITUTION

LOVE AND "LIGHT"

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justanothercoverup]

180. There's a Grassroot Movement to Stop It's Passage in Senate

There in now a Grassroots movement that is gaining momentum to help stop this Bills passage in the Senate, and everyday more sites are joining-in to spread the word so people will know how to participate. The subject was running on my site and the Smirking Chimp, among others, and the Chimp and Justanothercoverup were both hacked - suspicious since we now have word that people have already been participating, and it appears that Washington is taking note.

The article is at Op-Ed News at these links:

How To Make A Grassroots Movement Successful
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_william__071202_how_to_make_a_grassr.htm

Freedom Is Not Free, The Momentum Is Building!
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5042

This is probably the only chance to defeat this unbelievable attack against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, probably the most audacious in our nations history, and if it keeps gaining momentum, it actually has a chance of being successful.

Thanks,

William Cormier

[Bolo Boffin]

183. The Chimp's hacking had nothing to do with this. n/t

[BeHereNow]

186. Welcome to DU Justanothercoverup- and thanks for the information and links.

And please, ignore the rudeness of some individuals here.
We suspect they are no more than 12 years old,
so just ignore them the way the rest of us DU.

BHN:hi:

[EVDebs]

207. Keith Olbermann needs to examine this HR 1955 along with Jonathan Turley

Turley represented Area 51 worker's damaged health lawsuit (he lost due to Pres Clinton's intervention) but as a Constitutional lawyer he is the best around.

Something needs to be done and MSNBC's KO show can help

1. [e-mail]
2. [e-mail]
3. [e-mail]
4. [e-mail]
5. [e-mail] (Dan Abrams is now MSNBC's general manager)

[JustAnotherGen]

185. sistagoldilocks

I lived in Rochester for 30 years (a tiny village outside of it). . . . He must have been in the suburb of Brighton - it's always been called "Being Black in Brighton" . . . it does NOT warm my heart to know that it's been expanded to others. Hmph. Not that Central NJ is much better - but I've let Redroe County NY and never looked back. Whew!

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MindPilot]

189. For those of you who think this is just to set up a "center" to study....

Why is there a bill to do it? Especially a bill with this much vague verbiage?

Terrorism and the "violent radicalization" that feeds it is no doubt already being studied at universities and think tanks all over the world. Probably already funded with millions of US dollars.

There is already a huge grant infrastructure in place to fund research, so why the bill?

I fear "Center for Excellence" may turn out be a polite euphemism for detention facilities where "studies" are done on "homegrown radical extremists".

[BeHereNow]

190. Correction, make "those who think" to the "One" who clearly doesn't think

as witnessed by the repeated spamming on this thread.
Tiresome, that one.

BHN

[Bolo Boffin]

191. Why is there a bill to do it?

Because if there wasn't a bill to do it, the government couldn't do it.

A Center of Excellence is just a university program funded through a collaboration of various entities for study of a particular problem. Corporations can do it, private individuals can do it, but if the government does it, it has to be set up by law. Why? Because it's spending the taxpayer's money, and Congress has ultimate authority to decide where the money goes.

The Department of Homeland Security has several COEs, of which this would be one.

http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm

The Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), led by the University of Southern California, evaluates the risks, costs, and consequences of terrorism, and guides economically viable investments in countermeasures that will make our Nation safer and more secure.

The National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD), led by the University of Minnesota, defends the safety of the food system from pre-farm inputs through consumption by establishing best practices, developing new tools, and attracting new researchers to prevent, manage, and respond to food contamination events.

The National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense (FAZD), led by Texas A&M University, protects against the introduction of high-consequence foreign animal and zoonotic diseases into the United States, with an emphasis on prevention, surveillance, intervention, and recovery.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), led by the University of Maryland, informs decisions on how to disrupt terrorists and terrorist groups, while strengthening the resilience of U.S. citizens to terrorist attacks.

The National Center for the Study of Preparedness and Catastrophic Event Response (PACER), led by Johns Hopkins University, optimizes our Nation's preparedness in the event of a high-consequence natural or man-made disaster, as well as develops guidelines to best alleviate the effects of such an event.

The Center for Advancing Microbial Risk Assessment (CAMRA), led by Michigan State University and established jointly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fills critical gaps in risk assessments for decontaminating microbiological threats — such as plague and anthrax — answering the question, "How Clean is Safe?"

The University Affiliate Centers to the Institute for Discrete Sciences (IDS-UACs) are led by Rutgers University, the University of Southern California, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Pittsburgh. They collaborate with IDS, based at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to conduct research on advanced methods for information analysis and the development of computational technologies to protect the Nation.

The Regional Visualization and Analytics Centers (RVACs) are led by Penn State University, Purdue University, Stanford University, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and the University of Washington. They collaborate with the National Visualization and Analytics Center, based at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to conduct research on visually-based analytic techniques that help people gain insight from complex, conflicting, and changing information.

So unless you consider dorm life a detension facility (and there's evidence for that), maybe we can leave the pearl-clutching rhetoric behind.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unca Jim]

192. Yup...

Another patented DU "sky is falling" classic. This bill has terribly-worded sections, and it's great we're talking about those sections, but all the "connect the dots" paranoia is eerily like the Right Wing's response to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990.

As we know, everything is now a Hate Crime and white people and conservatives are unfairly targeted for prosecution. Hate Crime Law has become an excuse to infringe on people's rights! :sarcasm:


The discussed bill is much more like the Hate Crime Statistics Act than anything else it has so far been compared to.

*I agree* that the commission's findings could be used to infringe on peoples' rights, but it could also produce valuable thinking on how to counter-argue the recruiting strategies of violent groups. This bill is flawed as written, but it could be made acceptable.

It is not the end of the Constitution, nor a harbinger of doom. Thanks to those who have continued to point this out in the face of all the understandable despair over the Constitution being under attack getting in the way of clear thinking.

[Occulus]

204. Whenever I hear someone say this bill only applies to "violence"

I think of the peace groups and Quakers that were/are being monitored under the Patriot Act.

If they're worried for some reason about those groups, then the definition of "violence" has become so subjective that "violent radicalization" should easily apply to most/all online political discussion. I'm not concerned about going overboard in my revulsion to this bill- I'd rather be wrong than right on this one, actually. What I'm concerned about is the people on the commission and what it could find.

Why wasn't this commission established by the President? Doesn't this fall under his purview as the head of the Executive branch? I'm dead certain I've heard of sitting Presidents establishing commissions of this or that sort in the past. Why the need for a long-winded, vaguely worded bill to do the same thing?

[Mark D.]

194. This Fits Here Too

A possibility. Perhaps not even likely, but as I say at the end, you can't put anything above the right wing. Copied from another post I made on another 'future police state' subject. This seems so relevant to this topic as well...

I've an idea that this 'new straw' breaking this camel's back all over again awoke me to. Borderline police state, very high profile new ways for big bother to fuck us all over. Then suddenly, it's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's Ron Paul. Gulianni has perfectly timed 'issues' pop up about now that doom his front runner status. Romney just can't get the support he needs being a Mormon. Fred Thompson turned out to be boring to them (and he's such a good actor). Mike Huckabee is loved by the far right meaning he hasn't a shot in the general election given he'll never appear centrist. Right seeing McCain as 'pro-Amnesty'. There's nobody else worth mentioning on that side with a shot to win.

Kucinich represents all the good things we could like about Ron Paul, anti-war, pro-America, pro-civil liberties & Constitution. One caveat. He's good in the other ways. IE. for equal rights, women's rights, single-payer health insurance, etc. But he hasn't the groundswell Ron has going for him, surges of money and popularity in debates & straw polls to independents that Dennis lacks. But just think about this. Given the eye we all have on the 1984 type fascist effort in play by Cheney & his spokesmonkey Bush, so well documented, even by the otherwise complacent media. It's like they want us to notice, to loathe it and love the hero. There's far more coverage of Ron Paul than Kucinich by them.

The hero being, not the real answer, Dennis, but Ron Paul. What gets me is so many anti-globalist, anti-bankers/money-changers, 9/11 truthers and all, as much as they act as if they have some enlightenment, they miss something. The debt/war machine may work for them. But who works for corporations? The government mostly. 100% of the GOP and 80% of the Democrats (Kucinich, Biden, Feinstein and a few other exceptions.) The obvious dark side to Ron Paul or any Libertarian is corporate liberalism. No regulations for clean water or air. No workers rights. No union protections. Instead of single-payer coverage, we loose Medicare/Medicaid throwing millions into the for-profit system.

You can see where this is going. It's anarchy in a good way for corporations under a Ron Paul 'solution' to all this invasiveness & Constitutional crisis. There is nothing that is in the Constitution saying we have a right to health care. It's in the Afghanistan/Iraq constitutions when we set up their governments, but not ours. Amazing. There is nothing that says corporations have to allow unions, and give workers rights. Strange how "Mr Constitution" Paul wants to get rid of Roe V. Wade (in the constitution). There has never been a better example of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Is it possible we're missing something? A corporate power grab disguised as a 'power to the people' Ron Paul scheme?

Great if he gets us out of Iraq, no Iran. Great if he brings back Constitutional protections. A sapped FDA will let God knows what get into our food supply, more pollution and no limits on what kind of pesticides they can kill us with. Fascism is Corporatism. We know this. "Big Brother" with potential for a police state to rally the 'troops' to support the creation of a Fascist/Corporatist state, divided into a few big brothers, Monsanto, WalMart, Exxon Mobile, etc. Fucking great. Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss. I'm not saying this is what's happening for sure, none of us can be sure. But then you can not put anything above the right wing plotters and schemers, now can you?

[DianaForRussFeingold]

198. Anyone have a video of this speech?--Senator Feingold on opposing the Patriot Act.. October 12, 2001

Senator Feingold :patriot:
"There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War. We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue."


-" wartime has sometimes brought us the greatest tests of our Bill of Rights.



Snip "there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."


SNIP--The proposed bill contained vast new powers for law enforcement, some seemingly drafted in haste and others that came from the FBI’s wish list that Congress has rejected in the past. "



snip-- "Justice Brandeis foresaw some of the future in a 1928 dissent, when he wrote:

“The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. . . . Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?”

We must grant law enforcement the tools that it needs to stop this terrible threat. But we must give them only those extraordinary tools that they need and that relate specifically to the task at hand.

In the play, “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More questions the bounder Roper whether he would level the forest of English laws to punish the Devil. “What would you do?” More asks, “Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” Roper affirms, “I’d cut down every law in England to do that.” To which More replies:

“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast . . . and if you cut them down . . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake. ”

--- "We must maintain our vigilance to preserve our laws and our basic rights.

You and I have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us. This is what I have tried to do with the so-called anti-terrorism bill.

Protecting the safety of the American people is a solemn duty of the Congress; we must work tirelessly to prevent more tragedies like the devastating attacks of September 11th. We must prevent more children from losing their mothers, more wives from losing their husbands, and more firefighters from losing their brave and heroic colleagues. But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America."


Oct.12,2001


http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm :hug: nadinbrzezinski, I believe this speech pretty much sums it up! :scared:






:kick:

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

199. I should be allowed to glue my poster. I should be allowed to think.

I saw the best minds of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think

They Might Be Giants

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/they-might-be-giants/i-should-be-allowed-to-think.html

[dailykoff]

202. "Violent Radicalization" means "figuring out our crimes."

There's really no other way to read this, and I'm not even going to bother mentioning again the crime that has them shitting in their pants, but let's just say Osama didn't do it.

[Elspeth]

205. We're serfs to them.

Kick

[EVDebs]

208. Progressive Democrats of America's online protest form for HR1955

Which is now S.1959 in the senate

Click onto 'Stop the Police State Bill'

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/