H.R. 1955 Discuss and Decide- and vote for the CNN question!
Posted January 28th, 2008 by aVoiceof Reason.
output
This thread is meant to discuss the H.R. 1955 bill (the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act).
Status: passed House, October 23, 2007
Here is a link to the bill:
There is a question concerning the bill for the CNN Politico debate... it's currently #10 and going up on the list of most popular questions.
Here is the summary of the bill:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.
Here is the common take/expressed concern on the bill:
Many have worried that this bill is yet another attack on personal liberties. Critics have accused the bill's loose wording of 'force' to mean that he bill essentially declares that forms of persuasion or force including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, political action, and mental and moral action can be considered forms of terrorism. This fits in well with the belief held by some that the war on terror is an attempt for a power grab by government.
Whether any of that is true is irrelevant. Please read and study the bill, formulate your opinion, and discuss.
Meanwhile, there is a question for the CNN Politico debate concerning this bill. It is currently/roughly number 10 on the list of most popular questions. This would be an excellent question for Dr. Paul to talk about liberty and to come forth appearing as a leader. It also would help educate the people who know virtually nothing about the bill.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
it's up to number 10 now!
it's up to number 10 now! keep voting!
Congressman Henry Waxman
Vote RON PAUL 2008
___________
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
it's now number 12 on the
it's now number 12 on the list of most popular.
Troubling
The most troubling part of this is that the bill separates "force" from "violence." This means that they are speaking about actions really aside from those which endanger human life. It leaves "force" completely separate from what most would consider force, and this leaves the term open to wide ranges of interpretation.
I've never owned a gun in my life, but it really makes me wonder if it's not time to make a purchase.
Eric Hoffer
Your point regarding the separate use of
violence and force is exactly where other commentaries against this neo-con monstrosity, including my own, have focused. I can tell you that my representative and both U.S. Senators (all alleged conservative republicans) have told me that they intend to support this bill. It's already passed the House with only 6 "no" votes and currently sits in the Senate. RP was not present for voting but did rise, at a later time, to give a speech against it. Kucinich was one representative who did vote against it.
I can't find it....
....was it removed?
The Question
Click on the "Most Popular" Tab. It's #14 now as of 10:30
As of 01/28 9:45 #15 Most Popular
Let's move it up.
http://dyn.politico.com/d...
"retroactive telecom immunity"
Let's not forget to write and call our Senators and remind each of them of their oath to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and OPPOSE "retroactive telecom immunity" today.
"Retroactive telecom immunity" is a clear violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution --no ex post facto law shall be passed. The Senate is voting on "retroactive telecom immunity" today. Email and call your Senator today!
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy
H.R BILL 1955 IS NOW #21!
That's a GREAT Ron Paul question! I LOVE watching these debates, and no matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated by everyone, he was ALWAYS a gentleman; he's WON EVERY SINGLE Post Debate Poll, that I know of, no matter how little publicity he does get from MSM, he has the THE MOST AWESOME SUPPORTERS and his message is speadng every day!!
I just watched his update on his campaign; he is DEFINATLY MY NEXT PRESIDENT! And he's FINALLY getting professional campaign people and it has made a big difference already!
THIS IS AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION! RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY from the GLOBALISTS!
I'm looking forward to Guiliani dropping out after FL, PLEASE, he needs to be put out of his and our misery soon!
keep voting!
We're up to number 15 on the list of most popular!
please also vote for the
please also vote for the H.R. 1955 question, currently number 24 on the list of most popular.
bump and vote please
This is for the "conspiracy theorists"
Because they've backed NIST into a corner where they had to admit that they can't explain things. The Japanese are also starting to take it seriously, which further threatens our economy (because we rely on their financing of our wars) and brings us further to a boiling point.
Seriously. They had a senate hearing on Homegrown Terrorism and the Internet. The conclusion was made that the Internet is full of Terrorist Propaganda that is radicalizing (violently, of course) the youth of America at an alarming rate.
They had violent Jihadi Islamic extremist websites displayed along side non-violent 911 truth websites. According to them, the conspiracy theory sites are setup to aid the terrorists by indoctrinating Americans and somehow introducing them to violent extremism.
The Pentagon has officialy labeled "the Internet" as an "Enemy Weapons System" because they don't have the control over it that they have over the TV.
I kid you not.
Please vote for the question!
Please vote for the CNN Politico question concerning this bill! It'd be a great question for Dr. Paul... would distinguish/show his effort to protect liberty and show his leadership capabilities while also educating the public on this most dangerous bill.
Here is the question:
H.R. 1955 (Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007) was passed recently by the House. The bill essentially declares that forms of persuasion or force including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, political action, and mental and moral action can be considered forms of terrorism. Isn't this a direct attack on our liberties and freedoms and what will you do about it?
It's currently number 25 on the list of most popular...
http://dyn.politico.com/d...
Here's what President Paul had to say about it...
December 5th, 2007
Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” — a claim for which there is no evidence — there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
Well, If Dr. Paul thinks
Well, If Dr. Paul thinks it's bad, I trust his judgement.
Now, everyone go vote for the question... number 25 on the list of most popular!
youtube analysis
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
granted, it is youtube... and it has that crazy CU professor... so ya... questionable.
GB, Australia
Isn;t this the bill that at one point points out that we could do much to follow the example of GB and the Aussies?
Hmm, all I can think of with that is gettig rid guns!!
YIKES!
ya, it mentions that.
ya, it mentions that.
well, after reading the full
well, after reading the full text I have to say, while there is room for suspicion and the possibility of danger, what with "force" not being defined this could be widely debated...
although, there are numerous places where it is stated that Constitutional rights of the citizen will not be violated... let's hope they're not.
scary
I've got to say, as I read the full text of the bill there are some definite alarming things...
"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."
"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."
"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."
What is "force" and what are the dangers implied by including U.S. citizens making effort to bring political change?
"`(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." (an attempt to regulate the internet?)
However this seems to protect the rights and liberties:
`(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.