Hr 1955

[sealybobo]

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism.

Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh Look the Liberal Democrats voted for it. Using YOUR logic it MUST be a good bill.

 

[sealybobo]

Ohh Look the Liberal Democrats voted for it. Using YOUR logic it MUST be a good bill.

Not true. I strongly disapprove. What do you think?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not true. I strongly disapprove. What do you think?

Ron Paul is a loon, his take on something won't convince me of anything.

 

[sealybobo]

Ron Paul is a loon, his take on something won't convince me of anything.

But what do you think about this bill? Approve or disapprove? Forget Ron Paul. He is one man.

Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you what you think before you can reply with any amount of information. Or one of your buddies on here to come running to your aid. You don't have an opinion? That's perfect. You just follow orders. Typical military fashion.

 

[jillian]

But what do you think about this bill? Approve or disapprove? Forget Ron Paul. He is one man.

Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you what you think before you can reply with any amount of information. Or one of your buddies on here to come running to your aid. You don't have an opinion? That's perfect. You just follow orders. Typical military fashion.

Provide a link to your quote in the OP, please. I think you've been asked to do this before, yes?

 

[jillian]

Ohh Look the Liberal Democrats voted for it. Using YOUR logic it MUST be a good bill.

That's absurd... everyone voted for it. It Passed 404-6, 22 not voting

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

To me, the actual statute sounds like they're putting together a think tank to study root causes of terrorism. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing. The objection to the bill seems to be that it is vague as to what constitutes a terroristic organization. And it sounds a little too HUAC for my taste.

These are the Bill's definitions (it's not law b/c it hasn't gone through the Senate yet)

(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 `ideologicallybased 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.

GovTrack: H.R. 1955: Text of Legislation

What I will say is that every member of the New York Delegation voted for it, including Gerry Nadler, Charlie Rangel and Anthony Weiner. That leads me to believe that I'm right about the think tank nature of it.

Thoughts?

 

[editec]

That's absurd... everyone voted for it. It Passed 404-6, 22 not voting

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

To me, the actual statute sounds like they're putting together a think tank to study root causes of terrorism. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing.

Yeah, that's how it reads, doesn't it?

What does any of us want to bet the "university-based" university has already been selected?

The objection to the bill seems to be that it is vague as to what constitutes a terroristic organization. And it sounds a little too HUAC for my taste.

Agreed.

These are the Bill's definitions (it's not law b/c it hasn't gone through the Senate yet)



GovTrack: H.R. 1955: Text of Legislation

What I will say is that every member of the New York Delegation voted for it, including Gerry Nadler, Charlie Rangel and Anthony Weiner. That leads me to believe that I'm right about the think tank nature of it.

Thoughts?

It passed by such a huge margin, and before the media ever brought it to our attention?

Sounds like a fix of some kind is in, to me.

This is either a pork farm bill, or its something well thought out. What? How can any of us possibly know?

The wording of the bill is entirely too vague to suit my somewhat paranoic sensibilites.

The inclusion of the term "lone wolf", for example?

Hell, that means that anyone, absolutely anyone can be sucked into this catagory of potential threat if it suits somebody's purposes to target them.

No evidence of any kind of conspiracy is needed to put any individual under the microscope.

Creepy.

 

[jillian]

Yeah, that's how it reads, doesn't it?

What does any of us want to bet the "university-based" university has already been selected?

I'm sure it has. The interesting question is which university? Harvard? Columbia? Stanford? Yale?

Agreed.

Yeah, kind of creeped me out a little, actually.

It passed by such a huge margin, and before the media ever brought it to our attention?

Sounds like a fix of some kind is in, to me.

This is either a pork farm bill, or its something well thought out. What? How can any of us possibly know?

I would have liked there to have been some type of public hearing on it. I didn't like that it was virtually unanimous. But then I look at the few people who voted against it: Dennis Kucinish (D), Dana Rohrabacher (R), and a few others, and there's no pattern.

The wording of the bill is entirely too vague to suit my somewhat paranoic sensibilites.

The inclusion of the term "lone wolf", for example?

I think they're talking about Timothy McVeigh types.

Hell, that means that anyone, absolutely anyone can be sucked into this catagory of potential threat if it suits somebody's purposes to target them.

No evidence of any kind of conspiracy is needed to put any individual under the microscope.

Creepy.

Depends on what they're doing with it. Studying root causes? Or taking subsequent action.

I really don't feel I have enough information on this.

 

[sealybobo]

Provide a link to your quote in the OP, please. I think you've been asked to do this before, yes?

Sorry about that.

 

[jillian]

Sorry about that.

No problem. Thanks for adding it.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, that's how it reads, doesn't it?

What does any of us want to bet the "university-based" university has already been selected?



Agreed.



It passed by such a huge margin, and before the media ever brought it to our attention?

Sounds like a fix of some kind is in, to me.

This is either a pork farm bill, or its something well thought out. What? How can any of us possibly know?

The wording of the bill is entirely too vague to suit my somewhat paranoic sensibilites.

The inclusion of the term "lone wolf", for example?

Hell, that means that anyone, absolutely anyone can be sucked into this catagory of potential threat if it suits somebody's purposes to target them.

No evidence of any kind of conspiracy is needed to put any individual under the microscope.

Creepy.

I don't like what they did to Jose Padilla. I may not like the man himself, but if they can take away his Habius Corpus, they can take away mine.

Remember this story?

Man Sues Secret Service Agent Over Arrest After Approaching Cheney and Denouncing War

Steven Howards, an environmental consultant who lives in Golden, Colo., says he stepped up to the vice president to speak his mind in a public place and found himself in handcuffs — in violation, the suit says, of the Constitution’s language about free speech and illegal search and seizure.

Mr. Howards, 54, said at a news conference here that he was taking his 8-year-old son to a piano lesson on June 16 at the Beaver Creek Resort about two hours west of Denver when he saw Mr. Cheney at an outdoor mall. Mr. Howards said he approached within two feet of Mr. Cheney and said in a calm voice, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or as the lawsuit itself describes the encounter, “words to that effect.”

Mr. Howards said he then went on his way. About 10 minutes later, he said, he was walking back through the area when Agent Reichle handcuffed him and said he would be charged with assaulting the vice president. Local police officers, acting on information from the Secret Service, according to the suit, ultimately filed misdemeanor harassment charges that could have resulted in up to a year in jail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04cheney.html

 

[editec]

I'm sure it has. The interesting question is which university? Harvard? Columbia? Stanford? Yale?

I'll take two stabs at it...University of Chicago or University of Maryland.

My first choice, Chicago, because it's neo-con-centric. My second UM, because I am (unfairly, probably) prejudiced against it.

Yeah, kind of creeped me out a little, actually.

You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the winds blow.

I would have liked there to have been some type of public hearing on it. I didn't like that it was virtually unanimous. But then I look at the few people who voted against it: Dennis Kucinish (D), Dana Rohrabacher (R), and a few others, and there's no pattern.

They both tend to vote their minds, parties be damned.

I think they're talking about Timothy McVeigh types.

Of course.

But he wasn't really a lone wolf, having been involved with radical rightest groups, and having conspired to carry out his insane murder of thousands.

I mean I understand why they fear lone wolves, but this also leaves the dorr open for terrible abuse, too, doesn't it?

Of course that same complaint could easily be made of any law giving any government power, but still...

Depends on what they're doing with it. Studying root causes? Or taking subsequent action.

I suspect you know in your heart what they're doing as well as I do.

I really don't feel I have enough information on this.

that is a bit of an understatement.

We have NO infomration on it.

The wording of the bill reminds me of the wording (also purposefully vague) that chartered the CIA.

 

[jillian]

I'll take two stabs at it...University of Chicago or University of Maryland.

My first choice, Chicago, because it's neo-con-centric. My second UM, because I am (unfairly, probably) prejudiced against it.

You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the winds blow.

Interesting... I'd have leaned toward Harvard.

They both tend to vote their minds, parties be damned.

I also think Kucinich hates anything that smacks of law enforcement. Just my own opinion.

Of course.

But he wasn't really a lone wolf, having been involved with radical rightest groups, and having conspired to carry out his insane murder of thousands.

I mean I understand why they fear lone wolves, but this also leaves the dorr open for terrible abuse, too, doesn't it?

Of course that same complaint could easily be made of any law giving any government power, but still...

But they still like to view McVeigh as a loner... (other than Terry Nichols... I think that was his name)...

I think there's just a discomfort level with anything that lets government do unfettered information gathering, regardless of purpose.

I suspect you know in your heart what they're doing as well as I do.

Yeah, but I know a lot of our congress people and I can't imagine them knowingly voting for it if it's that nefarious. Not that I think they're pillars of righteousness, but they aren't law and order types at all. I mean, look at the names of the people who voted for it. This was practically done by fiat.

that is a bit of an understatement.

We have NO infomration on it.

The wording of the bill reminds me of the wording (also purposefully vague) that chartered the CIA.

Hmmm... might be. I had never read the CIA's enabling legislation. Just finished looking it up.

It seemed pretty well-meaning, too.

http://www.milnet.com/1947-act.htm

And might be that it's giving me a gut feeling for a reason....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But what do you think about this bill? Approve or disapprove? Forget Ron Paul. He is one man.

Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you what you think before you can reply with any amount of information. Or one of your buddies on here to come running to your aid. You don't have an opinion? That's perfect. You just follow orders. Typical military fashion.

Well except you have not provided any information on the bill at all. No link, nothing JUST opinion, as usual. How do I gain an opinion void of any facts? I am not a blind ignorant liberal bot that just nods my head when ever told to by my political bosses.

As for Rush, don't listen to him at all. The only radio I listen to is usually John Boy and Bill in the morning. Does making shit up like that ever help your argument?

Post some links and some facts retard.

 

[jillian]

Well except you have not provided any information on the bill at all. No link, nothing JUST opinion, as usual. How do I gain an opinion void of any facts? I am not a blind ignorant liberal bot that just nods my head when ever told to by my political bosses.

As for Rush, don't listen to him at all. The only radio I listen to is usually John Boy and Bill in the morning. Does making shit up like that ever help your argument?

Post some links and some facts retard.

I linked to the bill... and the vote.... not too difficult to google HR 1955

 

[sealybobo]

Well except you have not provided any information on the bill at all. No link, nothing JUST opinion, as usual. How do I gain an opinion void of any facts? I am not a blind ignorant liberal bot that just nods my head when ever told to by my political bosses.

As for Rush, don't listen to him at all. The only radio I listen to is usually John Boy and Bill in the morning. Does making shit up like that ever help your argument?

Post some links and some facts retard.

You neo cons. Always looking for handouts.

Oct 23, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.
View Votes (House of Representatives roll no. 993)

Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA] - GovTrack.us

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the bill that was delivered to the Senate, now please provide the missing section that gives this commission any arrest or detainment powers.

The bill establishes a committee to research, to conduct hearings and study a specific vague field.

NO WHERE in said bill do I find a single passage to gives ANY authority to arrest, detain, investigate or harrass any person or group.

I assume they could call to their committee persons to testify.

That would be the extent of THIS bill.

Now prove me wrong, find for me the section that authorizes arrest or detention or trial of any kind. That authorizes a new type of crime for prosecution on the legal Federal Books.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your a lawyer Jillian, how exactly did you miss the obvious part where no new power is granted to arrest, detain, prosecute or charge anyone with any new type of crime?

 

[jillian]

Your a lawyer Jillian, how exactly did you miss the obvious part where no new power is granted to arrest, detain, prosecute or charge anyone with any new type of crime?

If you read my posts, you'd know that it didn't escape my notice. The question then is what do you do with the information that's gathered?