The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

[jimwill]

Don't even think about it!

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

`(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.

[rrr]

Alex,
I heard you on Rense last night, and you guys pointed to me to the issues of this unConstitutional HR1955 Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.  Potential danger for Genesis Communications Network, right??  And all other Internet sites/postings.  Not to mention the First Amendment and free speech.
Can you mention it again on your show (as opposed to Jeff Rense's)?  (and, sorry if you did mention it already and I just missed it, but, when I heard you on Jeff last night, it sounded like you were also hearing about its specific mention of the Internet, or at least the discussion of Internet streaming (i.e. radio) for the first time).  It's already passed the House, as I understand it, so now it only needs to pass the Senate.  For other viewers/listeners, here's a link to a summary, which also has a link to the actual bill contents. http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

Also, it can be found thru the Jeff Rense site (rense.com).  As of right now, it can be found there by searching for the phrase   "House Passes 'Thought Crime' Prevention Bill". (it was written by Lee rogers at www.roguegovernment.com).

Potential big danger to all who know man/woman has right to free speech and free thought.

For those who haven't seen it, here is a snippet from the Bill, which is actually legislation that is set to amend Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.).  So, part of the Bill amends the Act by including... (note subsection (3) in this...so we should all be wary of this now being the first (or, rather, next big) step in necking down Internet freedom)
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`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) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(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 and civil liberties of United States citizens and 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.

thanks for all you do, Alex.

[rrr]

Hey jimwill,
I just posted another post about this Thought Crime Bill.  Sorry, but I didn't see your post here first.  Maybe between the 2 of our separate postings, Alex will mention it.
....and I just heard him say something about it coming up, so looks like it'll get some talk, thank goodness, and hopefully some response/action/defeat-in-the-Senate.
-rrr

[theresearcher]

Does anyone get the impression that with the vague wording in H.R. 1955,  that they are getting ready to blow up something big and then "magically" find a link to it on a thread in a forum.  Then they can setup some patsy to take the fall and then use it as an excuse to go after every patriot or truther website, and talk radio?

This is getting pretty scary.  It just seems so obvious to me that this could happen.

[JTCoyoté]

I merged the two, now three threads guys... and will put any other threads that start on this subject together and then sticky it later today... We need to discuss this and work up methods for getting the word out... I'm crafting a letter to the editor here locally... They proudly display the 1st Amendment at the top of the editorial page of the Summit Daily...

THIS HR-1955 IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF TRASH THAT MUST BE DEFEATED... IN IT'S 1ST AMENDMENT KILLING RAMIFICATIONS IT IS AS ONEROUS AS IT'S TYRANNICAL COUSIN, HR-2460 "THE VETERANS DISARMAMENT BILL" IS FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT! THEY BOTH MUST BE THROWN INTO THE TRASH BIN OF HISTORY AS THE LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY THEY ARE, AND DESTROYED!!!!!

--Oldyoti

"Fear can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts." -- Thomas Jefferson
 

[Falcon57]

I wonder, if this bill passes and is signed into law, if Al Gore's book "Earth In The Balance", will be used to retroactively prosecute him for inspiring the "Unibomber" in committing all those murders?

[Swedish-rebel]

This bill is absolute horse crap . Stand up for your right guys , they have taken many of them already dont let them take this one to.

[Overcast]

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.


AKA - squash any dissent; peaceful or otherwise.

Maybe they should name the center the "The Ministry of Truth" instead? Or well - wait, I found an existing 'Center of Excellence'; wonder what their agenda might be? "The bill charges the Center and the Taskforce with the training of California’s 25,000 to 45,000 history and social science teachers and 20,000 to 40,000 language arts teachers on genocide, human rights and tolerance so that these topics can be covered more widely and more effectively in the classroom."

I really like this Jane Harmon.

She wants to tell you what light bulbs you can use too. (Forget they have mercury in them - she must have stock in a company making them!!)

And this one's interesting too - Section 2, Paragraph C - I guess once they decide you're not a threat - they can just shred all the proof that they ever looked... did I get that right?

(c) Minimization Procedures- The Attorney General shall establish minimization and destruction procedures to ensure that information obtained pursuant to a national security letter regarding persons that are no longer of interest in an authorized investigation is destroyed.

Here's another interesting one - Text of the Bill not posted yet... Wonder what that's all about - I can only guess.

Seems they are making such a complete cluster muck of laws that they can pretty much do whatever they want anyway.

They raid your house.. and OMG, you have an incandescent light bulb in your fridge!! Off to the Gulags with you!!

[Publius]

Time to invoke the 2nd Amendment, I'd say.

[bigron]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act !!

Posted November 26, 2007 | 10:06 AM (EST)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html?view=screen


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

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

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

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

As currently envisioned, the Commission will not operate in perpetuity. After the group has done its work, in eighteen months' time, a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism will be established to study the lessons learned. The center will operate either out of the Department of Homeland Security or out of an appropriate academic institution and will be tasked with continuing to monitor the homegrown terrorism problem and proposing legislation and other measures to counter it.

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism."

Read More: Alien Act, Alien And Sedition Act, Anti-American Professors, Anti-Muslim, Committee On Un-American Activities, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Department Of Homeland Security, Fascism, Frank Gaffney, Habeas Corpus, Homegrown Terrorists, Huac, Jane Harman, John Adams, Joseph Lieberman, Joseph McCarthy, Justice Department Seizure Of Property, Ku Klux Clan, Martin Dies, Military Commissions Act, Neoconservatives, Palestinian Americans, Patriot Act, Post 9/11, Sacco And Vanzetti, Samuel Dickstein, Sedition Act, Steve Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Breaking Politics News

         

[bigron]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 27, 2007
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1127-06.htm

 
National Lawyers Guild and Society of American Law Teachers Strongly Oppose Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
 
WASHINGTON - November 27 - On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6. The bill will be referred out of committee this week and will then go to the Senate floor. The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.


This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on "facts and causes" of "violent radicalism" and "extremist belief systems." It defines "violent radicalism" as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The term "extremist belief system" is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.

"Ideologically based violence" is defined in the bill as 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." Thus, "force" and "violence" are used interchangeably. If a group of people blocked the doorway of a corporation that manufactured weapons, or blocked a sidewalk during an anti-war demonstration, it might constitute the use of "force" to promote "political beliefs."

The bill charges that 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." This provision could be used to conduct more intrusive surveillance of our Internet communications without warrants.

This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which did not admit people of color, the National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

The Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) is a community of progressive law teachers working for justice, diversity and academic excellence. SALT is the largest membership organization of law faculty and legal education professionals in the United States. 

CONTACT: National Lawyers Guild / Society of American Law Teachers
Marjorie Cohn, NLG president, marjorie@tjsl.edu; 619-374-6923
Eileen Kaufman & Tayyab Mahmud, SALT co-presidents, eileenk@tourolaw.edu, (631)761-7125; Mahmud@seattleu.edu, (206) 398-4148

[stymo1]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

by Philip Giraldi
 
Global Research, December 1, 2007
Huffington Post 


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7509


There has been a long tradition of fear-mongering legislation in the United States directed against groups and individuals believed to threaten the established order. The first such measures were the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in 1798 during the administration of the second president of the United States John Adams. The Acts, consisting of four separate laws, made it more difficult to become a citizen, sought to control real or imagined foreign agents operating in the United States, and also gave the government broad powers to control "sedition." Sedition was defined as "resisting any law of the United States or any act of the President" punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. It also made illegal "false, scandalous or malicious writing" directed against either the government or government officials. The next President, Thomas Jefferson declared that three out of the four laws were unconstitutional and pardoned everyone who had been convicted under them.
Early in the last century, hysterical fear of anarchists resulted in the conviction and execution of Sacco and Vanzetti 1927 despite clear evidence that the two men were innocent. A few years later, in 1934, a Special Committee on Un-American Activities was set up by Congress to monitor the activities of fascists in the United States. Ironically, the two congressmen who were most instrumental in the establishment of the committee, Samuel Dickstein of New York and Martin Dies of Texas, both Democrats, were themselves tainted by activities that might reasonably be described as Un-American. Dickstein was himself a paid agent of the Soviet NKVD intelligence agency and Dies regularly spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. After the Second World War, the committee was renamed the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and focused almost exclusively on communists, continuing to do so until it was incorporated into the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Concurrent with HUAC on the Senate side, Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican, became the public face of anti-communism in the early 1950s, with his frequent claims that communists had infiltrated the US government at various levels. Few of the claims could be substantiated, however, and McCarthy eventually fell out of favor and was censured by the Senate.

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

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them.

Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

As currently envisioned, the Commission will not operate in perpetuity. After the group has done its work, in eighteen months' time, a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism will be established to study the lessons learned. The center will operate either out of the Department of Homeland Security or out of an appropriate academic institution and will be tasked with continuing to monitor the homegrown terrorism problem and proposing legislation and other measures to counter it.

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism"

 

[cueball7]

Your absolutely correct-its bill 1959-contact your congressmen asap to vote NO on this abomination!

[stymo1]

The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.[/b]

We have to find out when the senate is going to vote on it and let them know what we think...a whole lot of us.............hopefully, we can make the difference. I can already forsee what my senators will send me in the mail, I have sent them many letters in the past. But, ya gotta try.

[Dig]

Violent Radicalization-Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act headed for Senate Vote
http://whosemedia.com/spip.php?article179
Tuesday 27 November 2007, by 9/11 truthers

Fears that government could define "Internet radicalization" and criticism as terrorism mount, violent comments left on messageboards by trolls could be exploited to entrap peaceful 9/11 truthers. A new bill that recently passed the House and is headed for Senate approval has online activists worried that the vague definitions used for defining the Internet’s contribution to radicalization of potential terrorists could lead to a government crackdown on talk radio, free speech and the 9/11 truth movement. The bill is H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and passed Congress after a bipartisan vote on October 23rd. Ostensibly, the bill targets United States citizens because of its constant reference to basic Constitutional protections, but this has led some to fear that it is intended to shut down free speech on the Internet and stifle patriot and alternative talk radio networks. The bill defines "violent radicalization" 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."

It further defines "homegrown terrorism" as "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 "planned use" has caused concerns that "thinking about violence," ie thought crime, could be considered a terrorist act. But since to plan violence must involve some form of planning, whether that be drawing up bomb diagrams or making violent statements, the real threat seems to have been overlooked. A disturbing trend in recent months has been the proliferation of violent postings on messageboards of websites affiliated with peaceful 9/11 truth organizations. These messages are being posted by shameless trolls, COINTELPRO operatives and their stooges in a clear effort to discredit the 9/11 truth movement by making us all appear to be crazy nutcases who plan to commit terrorist acts. Establishment media hacks like Glenn Beck have then seized upon the idea to spew propaganda about how the next Timothy McVeigh will come from the truth movement, despite the fact that the leadership of the truth movement have practiced what they preach all along, by engaging in completely peaceful protests and other forms of non-violent educational activism.

The bill’s reference to how "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," is shocking. Remember, the bill is not aimed at "Al-Qaeda" websites or arabic forums that post alleged Bin Laden video tapes, it is aimed at American citizens using American based websites, like the very one you’re reading now. The opportunity for the state to seize upon violent posts left by trolls and use them to entrap peaceful 9/11 truthers under the guise that they "promoted violence" should be a major concern for us all. Our message is simply this - don’t even try it. We have preached a doctrine of absolute non-violence from the very beginning and we will continue to do so. Anyone who calls for violence in a messageboard post is either a Fed, a Mom’s basement dwelling troll who spends their entire day attempting to debunk the 9/11 truth movement, or a completely deluded moron who is unrepresentative of the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement. Those individuals who advocate violence should be sought out and investigated individually. Any plans to try and entrap prominent 9/11 truth movement figures using guilt by association should be abandoned immediately and we will ceaselessly emphasize this point until this current wave of propaganda subsides.

[stymo1]

S. 1959 Criminalizes Thoughts,
Blogs, Freedom Of Speech
12-2-7

"The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war onIraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com... read on:
 
http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html
 
Text of S.1959 bill here:
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml
 
Take action now, or lose your freedoms forever. If you live in the U.S., it is urgent that you call your Senators right now and voice your strong opposition against this extremely dangerous law.
 
Here are the phone numbers for the U.S. Senate switchboard:
 
1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530
 
How to do this:
 
1) Make sure you know the names of your Senators.
2) Call the U.S. Senate switchboard using one of the numbers above.
3) Ask to speak to the offices of your Senators.
4) Tell them you are strongly opposed to S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5) Ask for their fax number.
6) Follow up your phone call with a written, signed letter that you fax to your Senators.
 

[menace]

Finally got a message from one of my senators after sending over 600 messages..

Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic threats of terrorism in the United States. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I share your interest in protecting Americans from terrorism and other catastrophic events. The events of September 11, 2001, awakened Americans to the threat to our national security. It is imperative that Congress works together with the Department of Homeland Security and other intelligence-gathering agencies to protect our citizens from those who wish to cause us harm and disrupt our way of life.

As you may know, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959) on August 2, 2007. This legislation would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism. In addition, a grant program would be established to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

S. 1959 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. As I am not a member of this Committee, I look forward to reviewing the Committee's recommendations. I recognize that this, or any legislation affecting our civil liberties, should be considered carefully. Any initiative that seeks to protect Americans from terrorist threats must be appropriately balanced to safeguard our civil liberties. This balance is critical to an effective homeland security policy.

In the post-9/11 climate, we as a nation must remain vigilant and resolute in our determination to work together to make our nation safe. The United States must continue to meets its obligations at home and abroad to ensure that our citizens are adequately protected from further attacks. Please rest assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress in supporting legislation that protects the safety of all Idahoans and Americans from those who wish us harm.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, <a href="http://crapo.senate.gov/">http://crapo.senate.gov</a>.


Sincerely,
Mike Crapo
United States Senator

[wvoutlaw2002]

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Eisenberg_is_to_S_1959_as_Anthrax_was_to_Patriot_Act

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/bomb-wearing-homegrown-terrorist-and-s-1959-vs-anthrax-attacks-and-patriot-act/

Bomb Wearing “Homegrown Terrorist” is to S. 1959 as the Anthrax Attacks is to the Patriot Act

Posted by willyloman on November 30, 2007

by Scott Creighton

In the vein of the anthrax attacks that helped pass the Patriot Act, when they were being held up, now, the S 1959 “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″, is JUST BY CHANCE, getting the same kind of LUCKY support while it languishes in the Senate and while people like me and many others question it’s constitutionality!

That’s right, a “homegrown terrorist” has strapped what he said was a bomb to his chest and decided to go to a Hillary Campaign headquarters in Rochester, New Hampshire.

Apparently he took hostages, and let them 4 of them go. They are not sure if there is still a woman inside or not.

MSNBC reports “The source, who was not identified, told Williams the man went to a local hardware store earlier Friday, where he apparently bought some of the material he wore into the campaign office. The man apparently bought road flares, according to a local resident who spoke with a relative of the man.”

This is one of 16 Hillary campaign offices in the state, and Hillary was in DC to give a speech to the DNC.

So this guy, goes and buys “road flares” and duct tapes them to his body and walks into the Clinton Campaign Headquarters of some little 30,000 person town, and then lets everyone go? Why, you ask?

Well, as it just so happens, there is also a video of someone who knew the man, on MSNBC, here.

And during the video, this kid says he didn’t really know the man but he knew his kid. But he seemed ok to him, when he met him…”

Now get ready for the punchline… get ready!

The kids says ” He was ok when I met him… but I’ve been told stories around here…that he just had issues. Ah… just complained of “CONSPIRACY THEORIES” …and things of that nature.”

When he is asked if the guy lives in town he responds “Yes sir..” then he looks over his shoulder and says “… I believe so. I’m not sure.”

Didn’t he say he was friends with the man’s kid? Had met him and he seemed ok to him?

So, a week after Mark Weitzman proclaims before a congressional subcommittee that the HR 1955 bill would be needed to track and deal with “homegrown terrorists” and just two days after Campell Brown labels MoveOn.org “American Insurgents”, the first “real” terrorist related attack in this country since the anthrax took place.

And it is pulled off by a “homegrown terrorist” conspiracy theorist! Wow. Now that is timing huh?

anthrax timing ;

September 17 or September 18 2001: Attack #1 — Five anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed around this time (Trenton, New Jersey postmark dated September 18), targeting news media: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post,

October 6–October 9 2001: Attack #2 — Some time within this range, two more anthrax letters are mailed (Trenton, New Jersey postmark dated October 9), targeting Senators Daschle and Leahy.

Patriot Act Passed:

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. Its full name is an acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

[stymo1]

So, a week after Mark Weitzman proclaims before a congressional subcommittee that the HR 1955 bill would be needed to track and deal with “homegrown terrorists” and just two days after Campell Brown labels MoveOn.org “American Insurgents”, the first “real” terrorist related attack in this country since the anthrax took place.

And it is pulled off by a “homegrown terrorist” conspiracy theorist! Wow. Now that is timing huh?

BINGO!!

Now, can you see how it all fits together?

[stymo1]

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 by: Mike Adams


http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

The bill states:

‘...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...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.

If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")

If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")

If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")

The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.

Must-see video: Naomi Wolf's lecture on 10 steps to fascism
There's a video lecture you simply MUST watch. It's by Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America. She covers this topic with great elegance and a deep understanding of history. See her video on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc



In her lecture and book, Naomi reveals the ten steps to fascist, then reveals how the United States of America is pursuing all ten! This S.1959 legislation, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, represents one of the ten steps to achieve a fascist state!

It is designed to squash all opposition to the State's ongoing march towards blatant fascism, where secret police and secret prisons dominate the law enforcement landscape, stripping U.S. citizens of all civil liberties and Constitutional protections.

Thoughtcrimes are about to become a reality in the United States of America, and Congress is pushing this through as quickly as possible so that each individual member of Congress can claim that he or she is "against terrorism." But this bill doesn't merely target terrorism: It targets anyone who speaks or even thinks thoughts against the U.S. federal government.

With this bill, the U.S. government is officially labeling the People of the United States as criminals. It is drawing a line in the sand and stating that from now on, it's the Government vs. the People.

If we don't stop this bill from becoming law, we are lost as a nation.

There is no turning back from tyranny once the government turns its own citizens into criminals, enforcing only the thoughts, ideas, words and speeches that it approves or tolerates. Everything is at stake here!


Take action now, or lose your freedoms forever
If you live in the U.S., it is urgent that you call your senators right now and voice your strong opposition against this extremely dangerous law.

Here are the phone numbers for the U.S. Senate switchboard:

1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530

How to do this:

1) Make sure you know the names of your Senators.
2) Call the U.S. Senate switchboard using one of the numbers above.
3) Ask to speak to the offices of your Senators.
4) Tell them you are strongly opposed to S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5) Ask for their fax number.
6) Follow up your phone call with a written, signed letter that you fax to your Senators.

Stopping this bill from becoming law is the single most important thing all Americans can do right now. If this becomes law, all free speech about health freedom, the crimes of the FDA, the crimes of the Bush Administration, America's role in global warming and any other topics could all be criminalized. YOU could be labeled a terrorist, kidnapped by government thugs, taken from your home, thrown in a secret prison, denied access to legal representation, denied due process and essentially "disappeared" into a system of such corruption and evil that it now begins to blatantly mirror Nazi Germany.

Think it couldn't happen here? It's happening right now! This is exactly how it happened in Nazi Germany. First, burn the Reichstag and blame it on the "enemy." Pass new police state laws. Disarm the people. Spread fear. Erect secret prisons and secret police. Call anyone who disagrees with you a "traitor." Control the mainstream media. Sound familiar? This is all happening right now in the United States of Amerika, and if we don't work to stop it, this nation will rapidly devolve into a fascist police state where no one is truly free.

We are but a few small steps away from it right now. All it would take is one dirty bomb in a major U.S. city. Bush would declare Martial Law and take over the National Guard. Troops on the streets. Anyone who writes a blog against the government would be arrested. Authors of "alternative" books would be kidnapped and have their books burned on the street. It could all happen at the stroke of a pen. The infrastructure for tyranny is in place right now, just waiting to be invoked.


Our best weapons: Non-violent protest and speaking the truth
How can we fight back against this onslaught of tyranny? We must use what remaining free speech freedoms we have right now to alert our fellow citizens to what's happening. We must rise up and tell the truth while urging our representatives in Washington to resist the temptation to vote for more "anti-terrorism" legislation that only works to enslave the American people.

We must use our phones, faxes, emails and blogs to rally our friends, family members and anyone who will listen to oppose these police state laws, and we must organize mass (peaceful) protests against this government that is attempting to marginalize the rights and freedoms of our People.

We must not be lulled into a sense of false security by the purveyors of hatred and fear -- the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world. Instead, we must listen to the voices of freedom. In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.

That's why it's never good enough to say, "Well, we intend to only apply these laws to terrorists and not to U.S. citizens at home." That may be the intention right NOW, but virtually all such laws creep into areas of enforcement for which they were never intended. Just look at the application of RICO laws which were originally designed to fight organized crime operations but are now applied to virtually anyone (and yet they are never applied to Big Pharma, which operates almost exactly like organized crime!). All these anti-terrorism laws run the danger of expanding in enforcement to the point where they are applied against the People of this country. At first, it's only illegal for "terrorists" to think thought crimes, but before long, it's illegal for anyone to think those same thoughts. That when the domestic arrests of authors, journalists, bloggers and thought leaders will kick off, and the country will plunge itself into outright tyrannical fascism.
Again, we're on the track right now. This is happening, folks. You're LIVING through an amazing chapter of history right now. You're actually witnessing the downfall of a free nation and the rise of a superpower fascist state. You're actually part of it.

When it's all over, will you look back and realize you did nothing? Or will you now take a stand against tyranny and oppose these dangerous laws and lawmakers who threaten the Constitutional freedoms of you and your children?

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He's also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NewsTarget subscriptions. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening.

[stymo1]

Menace, I got a letter almost word for word the same as yours from Sen. Brownback..like, "it's going to pass,  SO EFF OFF!!!!"...they must all use the same chain letter. Sometimes it makes me want to scream.

[Dig]

Finally got a message from one of my senators after sending over 600 messages..

crapo is full of crap

[ED]

House of Reps votes 404-6 to pass the bill that legalizes COINTELPRO
http://www.sfbayview.com/News/Main/House_of_Reps_votes_404-6_to_pass_the_bill_that_legalizes_COINTELPRO.html

One month ago a bill passed almost unanimously in the House. This bill has received no mainstream news coverage. So it must not be that big of a deal, right? It's just a bill that will soon to go to Capitol Hill and since the Democrats are in control we are all safe from further infringements up on our civil rights, right?

Well, maybe that is not totally correct since this bill is a lot more than meets the eye. But indicator number one should be the title, and indicator number two should be how fast it is moving through Congress.

On Oct. 23, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed 404-6 in the House. This bill is proposing an expansion of Homeland Security with the objective of spying on citizens whose political or religious beliefs might lead them to commit violent acts.

And we are not referring to the attack on Megan Williams or the numerous police murders of non-threatening civilians. No, this is solely about spying on political dissidents whose politics were shaped through a critical analysis of U.S. foreign or domestic policies.

The stated purpose of this bill is to first assemble a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence. Secondly, they will create a university-based Center of Excellence to study radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Their definition of "radical" and "terrorism" are very vague, and can be manipulated to serve several purposes. In the bill itself, it says homegrown terrorism means "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence" by a native citizen of the United States. It is this definition that leaves so much of this bill's purpose open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the interpretation by the same ol' "powers that be" is the only one that really matters, because it is them who will have the use of this bill at their disposal.

It is far too easy to point the finger at an individual or a group of individuals and claim that they are "planning" or "threatening" the use of violence to achieve their objectives. For instance, if a group of PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, decides to protest a rodeo, could it be claimed that they are "threatening" the use of violence? Or if activists and concerned citizens congregate at a building to protest or demonstrate, could it be claimed that they are "planning" the use of violence or getting ready to riot?

Let's take it one step further. If there is an act of civil disobedience, in the form of blocking the entrance to that building (a non-federal building) during the political protest, and that blocking is done with the use of a minimal amount of force (people physically locking arms), will this new bill turn a simple misdemeanor trespassing into a felony punishable through the federal court system? And who has the discretion to make that determination?

"Planned" or "threatened" use of violence is a vague term, and we have seen it used before. How many times have you heard of a cop beating, shooting or killing an individual because in the officer's opinion they "posed a threat" or were "planning" harm towards the officer? This situation is no different, yet now it decriminalizes police actions at a time when we are experiencing more police killings of unarmed civilians.

What is feared by the activist community is a general crackdown on social justice activism and civil disobedience, or any dissent for that matter, because it now takes on a new and legal form. Being that it is so easy to point the finger, anybody willing to speak out will be in the scope of this proposed commission. Including many Hip Hop artists who have been the most critical of the government and its agencies.
In J. Edgar Hoover's time, this type of spying and repression was illegal and later became known as the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). Currently these and similar police practices are legal in regards to non-citizens under the heading of the "Patriot Act." Did you really think that the government was only after those who sneak into the country to commit acts of violence?

To its defense, it is claimed that this bill will not "violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." It is also claimed that this bill will be racial, ethnically and religiously neutral when carrying out its study.

With such claims, it is interesting that the criteria for members of this commission are individuals with expertise in "juvenile justice," "local law enforcement" and "Islam and other world religions." As if that knowledge and expertise will have any relevance to what makes "citizens" look toward other means of confronting social injustices.

I would think that sociologists, social workers, academics and social justice advocates have a better grasp on why individuals or organizations gave up on working "within" the system to seek other alternatives to achieve justice and equality?

Why is it that social critics are not the primary targets for this commission membership? Is it because these social critics are the primary targets of this commission?

This bill and its provisions look like ideological profiling of potential "trouble makers" nationally, and especially on the university campuses. This commission and its "studies" will be used to begin surveillance on suspected dissidents and those who might associate with them, but it will not end there. The commission's purpose is not to analyze criticism of government policies and suggest reforming the policies to avoid the development of "homegrown terrorists" but rather to identify and neutralize those critics.

For those who know their history, this bill should sound familiar. Back in the ‘50s, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, started the Counter Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO. This program was meant to, in Hoover's words, "neutralize political dissidents" and used thousands of illegal and covert operations to achieve its goals.

Though COINTELPRO claimed to watch the actions of all potentials threats, it seemed to focus all of its efforts on leftist and liberal political activists. They focused on everybody from John Lennon to Jane Fonda to keep tabs on dissidents.

The other stated purpose was to "prevent the rise of the black messiah." They kept their eyes on the likes of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Hampton and many others in order to quell the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements.

This new bill that is being fast tracked through Congress is nothing but a legalized COINTELPRO. And anybody that cherishes the right to speak out should keep an eye on this.

If violence is already against every law of every state in the union, why exactly does there need to be a group that will spy on citizens and then possibly take actions against those whose "threat of violence" have a political undertone? And who is to be the target?

Well, if history is any indicator, we know that the FBI did not use its resources to eliminate the KKK and other White Supremacy organizations, but they did do everything they could to eliminate, kill or jail the leadership of Black, Brown, Red, Yellow and White left organizations.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this bill is how fast it is moving through Congress. You would think such a monumental bill would be debated and discussed to no end, at least by the few progressives left in the House of Representatives.

But the actions of the House show anything but concern. (Where are you at, Barbara Lee?) We saw this happen right after the attack on the World Trade Center when Congress passed the "Patriot Act" but then later complained that if they had read the text of the bill they would have had more reservations because of the power it gives to the government and the rights it strips from the citizens. So I guess we can say that the House of Representatives has not learned from that past and is thus doomed to repeat it - and is repeating it.

When this bill came to House, it was given certain provisions specifically to reduce debate time. Such an important bill as this was given little serious debate time and was rushed to passage. And it did pass. It was passed with a 404 to 6 vote.

Of the notable votes, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich did vote against the bill, whereas presidential candidate Ron Paul was not present to vote on the issue. This bill was hardly debated, it was passed almost unanimously, and now it is on its way to the Senate and then the president.

There is no doubt that this bill will have the same results in the Senate and will be signed by the president. At the speed it is moving, this bill may be a law by February, just in time for the primaries.

And all of this is happening with almost nobody noticing. The news outlets are not mentioning it. It is slipping right in under our noses, like most laws of this nature do. And chances are, if you were not reading this, you would still think that you had the right to defend yourself against government oppression - as stated in the Declaration of Independence - or at least the right to demonstrate at the next Democratic and Republican national conventions.

As for those of us who are concerned about our individual civil liberties, what more can I do besides sit back and shake my head in disgust. Looks like protesting will lead to federal charges.

2008 is an election year, and every candidate promises change for the future and to correct the abuses of the current administration. Yet read their congressional voting records and you will see where some of these candidates actually stand. Most are for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep funding it with billions of our tax dollars.

And as is evident in this new bill, almost all of the House or Representatives are for the war against your civil and political rights. It kind of makes you wonder why, when these fear mongers and ideologues run around saying, "they hate us for our freedoms," what exactly are those freedoms that we are hated for?

Justin Ponkow is a writer for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, student paper, The Rebel Yell, and is a member of the National Hip Hop Political Convention. Troy Nkrumah is an attorney, writer and educator. He is also the chair of the National Hip Hop Political Convention. Thanks to Davey D (daveyd.com) for passing along this story.

[JTCoyoté]

Time to invoke the 2nd Amendment, I'd say.

A better tact at this time would be to call your Senator with the Facts... Read this "Truth News" article on HR-1955/1959, it will give you plenty of Ideas... Tell your friends to do the same call the buggers... This is A REPUBLIC...

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=995

HERE IS HOW TO GIVE YOUR SENATORS AN EAR FULL ABOUT THE "Web Culling, 1st Amendment Killing, Mind-Crimes Bill HR-1955!!!.... Remind them that Martial law will not change their oath and they better uphold the Constitution... WE MUST USE BRAINS NOW TO DEFEAT THIS... Also, keep your powder dry just in case...

Everyone call your Senators ASAP...Here is how...
Use this Senate email and phone/fax list... Makes it easy.

--Oldyoti

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives
in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world,
precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and
economic turmoil to our people." ~Ron Paul

[Buru Dragon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1263087820071212

U.S. says homegrown attack poses biggest risk

The United States faces a heightened threat of terrorist attack "for the foreseeable future" but any attack will likely be homegrown, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Wednesday.

Chertoff, who said over the summer that he had a "gut feeling" that the country faced a heightened risk of attack, said that assessment still stands.

"It's not something that's going to evaporate in a week or two. I think it's something that's going to be with us for a while," he told a small group of reporters in a phone call.

Chertoff, who is in charge of ensuring that the country does not face another attack like that of September 11, 2001, said the heightened risk was not based on any intelligence predicting a specific, imminent attack.

"I said we were beginning to enter into a period like this. And that didn't mean it was going to be a week, it meant it's for the foreseeable future," he said.

"There's probably a greater risk in terms of likelihood from a homegrown attack than from a massive international attack," he added.

Chertoff described that sort of "homegrown" attack as a single person or small group of people living in the United States who were "recruited" on the Internet and had pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

"I think the consequence of that kind of attack is likely to be less cataclysmic than the kind of attack that would be launched from outside like the London plot of 2006 against the airlines," he said, referring to a thwarted plot to bomb transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives.

[Thesonsofliberty]

It is scheduled for a vote this month sometime! Start calling your senators!

[thought_criminal]

I guess this one applies to me :| 

I've discussed hypothetical "resistance" on this very board... but only in a Red Dawn sense.
I certainly never have or would advocate anything violent, I was simply speaking to the fact that almost *anyone* would be
an "insurgent" if, say, Canadian tanks were rolling down the street.

  Free thought and free speech only become malice when you are guiding someone into something *very* wrong
 
  Faux news can claim free speech, and get away with it  (hehe

 But seriously...  inciting a riot, or screaming fire in a movie theater isn't protected free speech... because malice is shown.
  Discussing the defense of our country  -- from any enemy foreign or domestic -- is NOT malicious...

[rio]

Am examination of Mark Weitzman and others addressing Jane Harmon from October 2007 CSPAN's. I have come to the conclusion (as have others) that the The Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is nothing more than another attempt of pro-Zionist groups to stifle free speech.

The Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act To Target Critics Of Israel

[noname]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01042008.html

January 4, 2008
                                                       
Jane Harman and Liberty's Lost Light                   

Thinking for Yourself is Now a Crime                   
                                                       
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
                                                       
What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush's
"surge" in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US
dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of
2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.       
                                                       
The American people's attempt in November 2006 to rein 
in a rogue government, which has committed the US to   
costly military adventures while running roughshod over
the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with
Democrats in the House and Senate has made no           
difference.
                                                       
The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic   
Party is as determined as the assault by the
Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a   
bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman   
Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security         
subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally
guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and 
assembly.                                               
                                                       
The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the   
Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan
Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition. 
                                                       
Harman's bill is called the "Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."When HR 1955 becomes
law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying
extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will
hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and 
compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The
bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the   
United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will   
not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents
and fellow citizens.                                   

We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the 
detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton 
under government contract.                             

Who will be on the "extremist beliefs" list? The answer
is: civil libertarians, critics of Israel, 9/11
skeptics, critics of the administration's wars and     
foreign policies, critics of the administration's use of
kidnapping, rendition, torture and violation of the     
Geneva Conventions, and critics of the administration's
spying on Americans. Anyone in the way of a powerful   
interest group--such as environmentalists opposing
politically connected developers--is also a candidate   
for the list.
                                                       
The "Extremist Beliefs Commission" is the mechanism for
identifying Americans who pose "a threat to domestic   
security" and a threat of "homegrown terrorism" that
"cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal
intelligence or law enforcement efforts."
                                                       
This bill is a boon for nasty people. That SOB who stole
your girlfriend, that hussy who stole your boyfriend,   
the gun owner next door--just report them to Homeland
Security as holders of extreme beliefs. Homeland       
Security needs suspects, so they are not going to check.
Under the new regime, accusation is evidence. Moreover,
"our" elected representatives will never admit that they
voted for a bill and created an "Extremist Belief       
Commission" for which there is neither need nor
constitutional basis.                                   

That boss who harasses you for coming late to work--he's
a good candidate to be reported; so is that minority
employee that you can't fire for any normal reason. So 
is the husband of that good-looking woman you have been
unable to seduce. Every kind of quarrel and jealousy can
now be settled with a phone call to Homeland Security.
                                                       
Soon Halliburton will be building more detention
centers.                                               

Americans are so far removed from the roots of their   
liberty that they just don't get it. Most Americans
don't know what habeas corpus is or why it is important
to them. But they know what they want, and Jane Harman 
has given them a new way to settle scores and to advance
their own interests.
                                                       
Even educated liberals believe that the US Constitution
is a "living document" that can be changed to mean
whatever it needs to mean in order to accommodate some 
new important cause, such as abortion and legal
privileges for minorities and the handicapped. Today it
is the "war on terror" that the Constitution must
accommodate. Tomorrow it can be the war on whomever or 
whatever.
                                                       
Think about it. More than six years ago the World Trade
Center and Pentagon were attacked. The US government   
blamed it on al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report has
been subjected to criticism by a large number of       
qualified people--including the commission's chairman
and co-chairman.                                       

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the 
US. The FBI has tried to orchestrate a few, but the
"terrorist plots" never got beyond talk organized and   
led by FBI agents. There are no visible extremist groups
other than the neoconservatives that control the       
government in Washington. But somehow the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly sees a need to create a 
commission to take testimony and search out extremist
views (outside of Washington, of course).               

This search for extremist views comes after President   
Bush and the Justice (sic) Department declared that the
President can ignore habeas corpus, ignore the Geneva   
Conventions, seize people without evidence, hold them
indefinitely without presenting charges, torture them   
until they confess to some made up crime, and take over
the government by declaring an emergency. Of course,   
none of these "patriotic" views are extremist.         
                                                       
The search for extremist views follows also the granting
of contracts to Halliburton to build detention centers 
in the US. No member of Congress or the executive branch
ever explained the need for the detention centers or who
the detainees would be. Of course, there is nothing
extremist about building detention centers in the US for
undisclosed inmates.
                                                       
Clearly the detention centers are not meant to just
stand there empty. Thanks to 2007's greatest           
failure--the Democratic Congress--there is to be an
"Extremist Beliefs Commission" to secure inmates for   
Bush's detention centers.
                                                       
President Bush promises us that the wars he has launched
will cause the "untamed fire of freedom" to "reach the 
darkest corners of our world." Meanwhile in America the
fire of freedom has not only been tamed but also is     
being extinguished.
                                                       
The light of liberty has gone out in the United States.
                                                       
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the       
Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate
Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and   
Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor
of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

[chris jones]

Very calculated, then I know where I stand.

Guess its ok to commit genocide, but against the law to think.

Why don't we all join the armed forces, every man and woman of age, whats the difference, being contolled here or over there.
A slave is a slave. We don't kill them here do we, we simply supply the money & bombs to blow them up. Whats the fooken difference.

[rio]

Related articles

Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act - Meet The Traitors Of America

Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act



In October of 2007, several special interest groups and non-governmental bodies addressed Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and the House Committee Homeland Security in a briefing entitled "Use of the Internet by Terrorists." The round table discussion was to gain congressional support for S. 1959: The Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

On the surface, the CSPAN broadcast of the briefing appeared to be an innocuous update on extremist groups and their ability to exploit the internet to their advantage. However, a quick look at the cast and characters, as well as the bill itself, reveal the thinly veiled "other purposes" that are mentioned within it. It can be argued that the Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could very well make any criticism of Zionism, or Israel and their crimes against Palestine, their connections 9/11 and the wars of aggression in the Middle East, illegal.

Mark Weitzman's ill prepared Powerpoint presentation was clear about one thing only: groups with internet sites that present a different view of the official 9/11 Commission's account of the 9/11 conspiracy, and more importantly, those who blame the Jews are the radical homegrown terrorists to which the bill refers. And just who is this Mark Weitzman, and what makes him an authority radical homegrown terrorism?

Mark Weitzman is the Director of the Hate & Terrorism Task Force of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which focuses on confronting antisemitism, Holocaust denial, teaching the holocaust to future generation and most importantly, standing with Israel.

According to The Wiesenthal Center's bio, it features an all-day program called Tools for Tolerance, which has trained over 100,000 professionals, including educators and, in partnership with the State of California, individuals in law enforcement in exploring issues of diversity and tolerance, as well as cooperation in the workplace and in the community.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, for it's seemingly good intentions, is not without it's critics. The Institute For Historical Review (IHR) maintains that the Wiesnthal Center makes "a false pretense of concern for humanity" while "supporting Israel's policies of oppression, occupation, dispossession, and institutionalized discrimination against non-Jews." The IHR also claims that The Wiesethal Center rakes in about $10 million of its 27 million in revenue through taxpayer funds.

We Are Change, a nationwide 9/11 political activist group, attempted to reach out to Mark Weitzman to promote an open dialog in hopes to come to some sort of understanding. Richard Gage AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, whose organization's website was promoted alongside Jihadist websites, responded to Weitzman and called for an apology from the Wiesnthal Center. To this date, the Weisenthal Center has failed to responded to either group's gestures of good
Counter-terrorism specialist and SITE Institute co-founder Rita Katz has a particularly interesting background. Katz was born to wealthy Jewish parents in Iraq, but fled to Israel after her father was executed for allegedly spying for Israel. The SITE Institute provides "numerous daily translations of terrorist propaganda and multimedia from primary source terrorist website" and is an Israeli-connected intelligence operations that sometimes receives government contracts. SITE Institute is most known for providing the audio translation of the infamous 'fake beard' Osama bin Laden video of September 2007. Katz is regularly criticized throughout the blogosphere for over-hyping terror threats to the three-letter fear mongering media outlets.

Bruce Hoffman currently holds a chair in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency with the global thinktank, the RAND Corporation. The RAND Corporation is one of the many non-governmental bodies of the Military Industrial Complex who profit from government contracts to "study" terrorism, and the war on terror. Journalists Jessica Lee of Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights maintain that the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was more than likely co-penned by RAND.

Bruce Hoffman is also known for his statements on the 2001 anthrax attacks. After the FBI trailed the weaponized grade anthrax directly back to the US military base Ft. Dietrick, MD, the case suddenly went cold. Hoffman says, "The investigation ran into a brick wall. In retrospect, it looks like a perfect crime."

While the case officially remains unsolved, a slew of independent investigators, journalists, bloggers and conspiracy theorists maintain that for all practical purposes, the case is either solved or being covered up. The History Channel recently aired a broadcast where an interviewee said the anthrax attacks led to inside involvement and were an definitely an 'inside job.'

Finally, there's Jane Harmon, who introduced HR. 1955/S.1955 along with Subcommittee Ranking Member Dave Reichert (R-WA). In 2006 Harmon, along with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department for possibly violating the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Harmon holds deep ties not only with AIPAC, but with the RAND Corporation as well.

The The Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act can only mean one thing: restricting Americans First Amendment rights selectively, or at the very least, creating a climate of fear when it comes to criticizing Israel and the government's support of the Zionist regime.

Essential listening of related topics:

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

Interview with Ryan Dawson on Zionism, 9/11

Interview with Mark Webber on the Pro-Israel Lobby

Further reading:

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

[menace]

Senate Moves Forward on Orwellian "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"

In the wake of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins' (R-ME) alarmist report, "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat," the Senate may be moving towards passage of the Orwellian "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (S. 1959).

A companion piece of legislative flotsam to the House bill, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1955), the Democrat-controlled Congress seems ready to jettison Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. The bill passed the House by a 404-6 vote in October. Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.

Under cover of studying "violent radicalization," both bills would broaden the already-fluid definition of "terrorism" to encompass political activity and protest by dissident groups, effectively criminalizing civil disobedience and non-violent direct action by developing policies for "prevention, disruption and mitigation."

Call it COINTELPRO 2.0.

Crafted by former House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Jane Harman (D-CA), the legislation would create a domestic commission, a university-based "Center of Excellence" that would study and then, target domestic "radicalization" as a "threat" to the "homeland."

David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin's University who studies state surveillance and the harassment of dissident scholars, told Jessica Lee of New York's Indypendent newspaper last year that Harman's 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."

Evoking disquieting memories of political witchhunters ensconced in the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, the anti-radicalization commission would be empowered to "hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties."




With the power to subpoena and compel testimony from anyone, the commission would create the (intended) impression that a person forced to publicly testify before a congressionally mandated star chamber must be involved in "subversive" or illegal activities.

According to Naomi Spencer,

The commission would be composed of appointees, one chosen each respectively by Bush, Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, the Senate and House majority and minority leaders, and by the ranking majority and minority members of the two congressional homeland security committees. Such a selection process would certainly result in an extremely right-wing panel. ("US House passes Democrat-crafted 'homegrown terrorism prevention' legislation," World Socialist Web Site, 1 December 2007)

When one considers that elite consensus favoring "muscular" strategies for fighting "terror"--homegrown or otherwise--emerge during a period when the Bush regime has illegally wiretapped phone calls, sifted e-mails, spied on political and religious organizations, and conducted extensive data mining of financial and other personal records, it becomes clear that the corporate police state is shifting into high-gear in a desperate move to criminalize ideological "thought crimes."

The intent of the proposed legislation, however, goes far beyond an academic exercise. According to Jessica Lee, Harman stated that "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."

In the context of the post-Constitutional "New Normal" paradigm, Harman and her acolytes evoke images of Philip K. Dick's Department of Precrime in his dystopian novella, The Minority Report. Only here, in the bizarro world of outsourced "homeland security," mutant precogs are replaced by high-end--and taxpayer funded--data-miners, psychological profilers and social network analysts in the employ of dodgy security firms linked to America's military-intelligence complex.

The legislation specifically singles out the Internet as a "weapon" for domestic radicalization. When she introduced her bill to the Senate last November, Harman remarked, "There can be no doubt: the Internet is increasingly being used as a tool to reach and radicalize Americans and legal residents."

Equating America's web-surfacing habits with the threat of ideological infection by Islamist pod-people, Harman avers that the Internet allows Americans "to become indoctrinated by extremists and to learn how to kill their neighbors ... from the comfort of their own living rooms."

(Britney, Paris, better move over... there's a new truck-bombing instructional posted over on YouTube! OMG!)

Harman's ludicrous pronouncement is considerably ramped-up by the Lieberman and Collins report, based on--what else-- "expert testimony" during hearings held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Lieberman and Collins claim that,

...the report assesses the federal government's response to the spread of the violent Islamist message on the Internet and concludes that there is no cohesive and comprehensive outreach and communications strategy in place to confront this threat. The report does not discuss relevant classified tools and tactics employed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities, but does recognize that there is no plan to harness all possible resources including adopting new laws, encouraging and supporting law enforcement and the intelligence community at the local, state, and federal levels, and more aggressively implementing an outreach and counter-messaging campaign on the Internet and elsewhere.




In other words, "independent" Democrat Lieberman and "maverick Republican" Collins are proposing new "tools" for regulating the Internet through a counter-propaganda campaign that would create "message force multipliers" that "support law enforcement" initiatives to crush the radical "threat."

By targeting the Internet, House and Senate thought police claim that "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."

But as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote last week,

Experience has demonstrated that in the event of a terrorist attack, the results of this report will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling. This will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of extremist violence. As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this report or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one’s personal beliefs.

The ACLU is concerned that identifying the Internet as a tool for terrorists will lead to censorship and regulated speech -- especially since the Internet has become an essential communications and research tool for everyone. Indeed, some policy makers have advocated shutting down objectionable websites in violation of the First Amendment. It is an unworkable solution. (American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Skeptical of Senate Report on "Homegrown" Terrorism," Press Release, May 8, 2008)

Precisely. But wait, there's more! Citing the New York City Police Department (NYPD) as "experts" in the area of "homegrown radicalism," the report avers:

After more than two years of research into homegrown terrorism cases in the United States and around the world, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) developed a model to explain how this core enlistment message, and the "jihadi-Salafi" ideology that provides the foundation for that message, drive the domestic radicalization process -- transforming "unremarkable people" into terrorists.

Perhaps Lieberman and Collins should have consulted the family of Sean Bell as to the NYPD's "expertise" on analogous crime "modeling." Murdered by trigger-happy cops after a bachelor party the morning of his wedding, Bell's life was snuffed-out after he and his friends were shot some 50 times. The cops--surprise!--were recently found "not guilty" on all counts by a New York judge.

We can dismiss senatorial allusions to NYPD's acumen in the area of "counterterrorist analysis" with the contempt it deserves. But let's be clear on one thing: the sole purpose of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" is to target the American people's constitutionally-protected right to say No.

If the U.S. House and Senate care to examine the "root causes" of terrorism today, they need look no further than the on-going U.S. slaughter in Iraq--a "preemptive" war of choice to which they infamously gave their consent with eyes wide open.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8978

[menace]

the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as a terribly drafted and badly misnamed bill that is a dangerous assault on both free speech and thought. The Senate should reject the measure.

Among the many problems with this legislation are the definitions, such as these below, which could be applied to criminalize the speech of not only, for example, violent jihadists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who advocate suicide bombing, but also to jail and/or silence American patriots who write or speak out forcefully against a host of issues abortion, gun control, police-state surveillance, illegal immigration, or the Iraq War:

(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.

In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "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."

The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights."

Use the alert below to contact your Senators and urge them to reject the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.


http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10596231

[birgit]

Thanks for posting this.

 noticed something that is perplexing to me..but then I am new to all of this
Here are so far 0 response to this post on a serious threat on liberty & life..
Of the other 'side'  we have  dozens of replies to someone's  plea
to get approval for stealing...doublethink in full bloom?

[ELIJAH STAPP]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8978

Senate Moves Forward on Orwellian "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"


by Tom Burghardt
 
 
Global Research, May 14, 2008
Antifascist Calling... 


In the wake of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins' (R-ME) alarmist report, "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat," the Senate may be moving towards passage of the Orwellian "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (S. 1959).

A companion piece of legislative flotsam to the House bill, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1955), the Democrat-controlled Congress seems ready to jettison Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. The bill passed the House by a 404-6 vote in October. Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.

Under cover of studying "violent radicalization," both bills would broaden the already-fluid definition of "terrorism" to encompass political activity and protest by dissident groups, effectively criminalizing civil disobedience and non-violent direct action by developing policies for "prevention, disruption and mitigation."

Call it COINTELPRO 2.0.

Crafted by former House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Jane Harman (D-CA), the legislation would create a domestic commission, a university-based "Center of Excellence" that would study and then, target domestic "radicalization" as a "threat" to the "homeland."

David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin's University who studies state surveillance and the harassment of dissident scholars, told Jessica Lee of New York's Indypendent newspaper last year that Harman's 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."

Evoking disquieting memories of political witchhunters ensconced in the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, the anti-radicalization commission would be empowered to "hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties."



With the power to subpoena and compel testimony from anyone, the commission would create the (intended) impression that a person forced to publicly testify before a congressionally mandated star chamber must be involved in "subversive" or illegal activities.

According to Naomi Spencer,

The commission would be composed of appointees, one chosen each respectively by Bush, Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, the Senate and House majority and minority leaders, and by the ranking majority and minority members of the two congressional homeland security committees. Such a selection process would certainly result in an extremely right-wing panel. ("US House passes Democrat-crafted 'homegrown terrorism prevention' legislation," World Socialist Web Site, 1 December 2007)

When one considers that elite consensus favoring "muscular" strategies for fighting "terror"--homegrown or otherwise--emerge during a period when the Bush regime has illegally wiretapped phone calls, sifted e-mails, spied on political and religious organizations, and conducted extensive data mining of financial and other personal records, it becomes clear that the corporate police state is shifting into high-gear in a desperate move to criminalize ideological "thought crimes."

The intent of the proposed legislation, however, goes far beyond an academic exercise. According to Jessica Lee, Harman stated that "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."

In the context of the post-Constitutional "New Normal" paradigm, Harman and her acolytes evoke images of Philip K. Dick's Department of Precrime in his dystopian novella, The Minority Report. Only here, in the bizarro world of outsourced "homeland security," mutant precogs are replaced by high-end--and taxpayer funded--data-miners, psychological profilers and social network analysts in the employ of dodgy security firms linked to America's military-intelligence complex.

The legislation specifically singles out the Internet as a "weapon" for domestic radicalization. When she introduced her bill to the Senate last November, Harman remarked, "There can be no doubt: the Internet is increasingly being used as a tool to reach and radicalize Americans and legal residents."

Equating America's web-surfacing habits with the threat of ideological infection by Islamist pod-people, Harman avers that the Internet allows Americans "to become indoctrinated by extremists and to learn how to kill their neighbors ... from the comfort of their own living rooms."

(Britney, Paris, better move over... there's a new truck-bombing instructional posted over on YouTube! OMG!)

Harman's ludicrous pronouncement is considerably ramped-up by the Lieberman and Collins report, based on--what else-- "expert testimony" during hearings held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Lieberman and Collins claim that,

...the report assesses the federal government's response to the spread of the violent Islamist message on the Internet and concludes that there is no cohesive and comprehensive outreach and communications strategy in place to confront this threat. The report does not discuss relevant classified tools and tactics employed by the law enforcement and intelligence communities, but does recognize that there is no plan to harness all possible resources including adopting new laws, encouraging and supporting law enforcement and the intelligence community at the local, state, and federal levels, and more aggressively implementing an outreach and counter-messaging campaign on the Internet and elsewhere.


In other words, "independent" Democrat Lieberman and "maverick Republican" Collins are proposing new "tools" for regulating the Internet through a counter-propaganda campaign that would create "message force multipliers" that "support law enforcement" initiatives to crush the radical "threat."

By targeting the Internet, House and Senate thought police claim that "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."

But as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote last week,

Experience has demonstrated that in the event of a terrorist attack, the results of this report will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling. This will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of extremist violence. As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this report or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one’s personal beliefs.

The ACLU is concerned that identifying the Internet as a tool for terrorists will lead to censorship and regulated speech -- especially since the Internet has become an essential communications and research tool for everyone. Indeed, some policy makers have advocated shutting down objectionable websites in violation of the First Amendment. It is an unworkable solution. (American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Skeptical of Senate Report on "Homegrown" Terrorism," Press Release, May 8, 2008)

Precisely. But wait, there's more! Citing the New York City Police Department (NYPD) as "experts" in the area of "homegrown radicalism," the report avers:

After more than two years of research into homegrown terrorism cases in the United States and around the world, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) developed a model to explain how this core enlistment message, and the "jihadi-Salafi" ideology that provides the foundation for that message, drive the domestic radicalization process -- transforming "unremarkable people" into terrorists.

Perhaps Lieberman and Collins should have consulted the family of Sean Bell as to the NYPD's "expertise" on analogous crime "modeling." Murdered by trigger-happy cops after a bachelor party the morning of his wedding, Bell's life was snuffed-out after he and his friends were shot some 50 times. The cops--surprise!--were recently found "not guilty" on all counts by a New York judge.

We can dismiss senatorial allusions to NYPD's acumen in the area of "counterterrorist analysis" with the contempt it deserves. But let's be clear on one thing: the sole purpose of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" is to target the American people's constitutionally-protected right to say No.

If the U.S. House and Senate care to examine the "root causes" of terrorism today, they need look no further than the on-going U.S. slaughter in Iraq--a "preemptive" war of choice to which they infamously gave their consent with eyes wide open.
 

[renegade357]

Good thing this law only applies to 14th amendment citizen slaves. In the District of Criminals and the federal zone. Get the f**k out of that zone and be SOVEREIGN!

[zafada]

After January 2009 we need passports to go to Mexico or Canada.

So if I'm making gunpowder for model rocket engines, does this make me a homegrown terrorist?

Yeah, I like blowing sheizer up but it's only going to be my own hands...not another human or living thing.  Maybe some microbacteria.

Supposedly there's going to be a ban on model rockets soon too.  What the hell can I actually make now that won't make me a terrorist?  Building things is my high, and if I have to give up this addiction I'll go into a depression and start drooling on myself...

Sigh..

[jack_2002]

Legal definition of violent radicalism
as "disenfranchisement" as defined by the government.

Crucial facts: Why HR 1955 is the
most insidious & deadly piece of totalitarian police crap these
criminals could possibly try to foist on us:
I've been doing lots of reading on this topic and seems to me
the central & most important talking point is the basic "legal"
definition of what would constitute "violent radicalization" under
this pig law; that's the repeated reference to the concept of
what they term "disenfranchisement" with agencies of authority,
i.e., government-military-police-prison-corporate-industrial
complex.
The way the totalitarians define disenfranchisement is fundamentally
different from our common-sense definition of this word.
According to them, any action no matter how peaceable, protest,
demonstration, speech, writings, even if the writings wernt published
in any media but merely copied by hand and passed between persons
in private, also private conversations between individuals which,
at their discretion & whim, they deem might have the potential to
cause any unspecified & unidentified persons anywhere to possibly
become "disenfranchised" i.e to not trust in or to dislike authority.
They way it's worded that's all that's required to complete the offense.
Basically, that's the only legal test, there's no requirement whatsoever
to show any probable cause for for counselling or incitement to illegal
acts.

If the bastards succeed in their agenda the bill of rights and the
constitution are all gone.
All right to dissent, lawful protest and assembly are gone.
All resemblance of lawful government and rule of law are gone and
replaced by state terrorism and the rule of the violent sexual psychopath
with the gun, club, steel whip, taser and torture chair.

You will have a choice between 2 options:
Pussy out, throw in the towel, shut up and line up with all the other
sheep OR go underground and prepare & equip yourselves grimmest
of all civil wars & resolve to give the foul hated enemy no quarter and
no mercy.

When in history have so many heroic freedom fighters been locked
in a life & death struggle for our very survival and right to exist
against so many hard core rapists, criminals and terrorists in
positions of power who are so perverted, wicked & evil.

CANADIANS LISTEN UP AND PAY ATTENTION: THIS MEANS YOU TOO!
What the hell do you think our corrupt little butt-puppet officials were
doing at Montebello which was all SO secret: Selling out Canada's
sovereignty to the military commissions tribunal and turning over
control of military & intelligence assets to the NAU under the secret
SPP agreements under which Canada was ordered to harmonize all
laws under the SPP with the dictates of "homeland security".

Important point of law:

Naturally, I did not get into the issues of stripping
citizenship and habeas corpus because it's quite
obvious everyone is already aware of the issues there.

Now the police state has assumed the right to deem anyone
they choose to target not only stripped of citizenship but also
arbitrarily stripped of their humanity and no longer a "person"
by law and therefore a piece of state property so it's all perfectly
legal to dispose of the victim at their pleasure the same way
livestock owners could dispose of their produce & animals.

Perusals  of the voluminous literature relating to people being
framed, rendited, disappeared, etc. are full of references to utterings
by corrupt judges and government pigs et. al. that the said detainees
are specifically "pieces of government property" and as such they
are legally non-persons, sub-human and not entitled to any kind
of human rights protection.

Reference to Naomi Wolf "10 Steps" speech:
Naturally I support her views 100% but the only criticism I have of what
she said in the "10 steps" speech was her statement that her response
to the criminalization of 1st amendment rights would be self censorship
and silence because of her fear of being framed and hauled off,
disappeared and tortured and murdered.

Now I can understand and sympathize with a woman's fear of ending up on
the receiving end of the "tender mercies" of a bunch of savage sexual
psychopaths behind the walls of some secret prison somewhere in
pig-state-hell but I still make bold to say we should all stand up in a lump
and yell out loud & clear that when the dirtbags pull this off the war is on
plain and simple.

[sociostudent]

Legal definition of violent radicalism
as "disenfranchisement" as defined by the government.

Crucial facts: Why HR 1955 is the
most insidious & deadly piece of totalitarian police crap these
criminals could possibly try to foist on us:
I've been doing lots of reading on this topic and seems to me
the central & most important talking point is the basic "legal"
definition of what would constitute "violent radicalization" under
this pig law; that's the repeated reference to the concept of
what they term "disenfranchisement" with agencies of authority,
i.e., government-military-police-prison-corporate-industrial
complex.
The way the totalitarians define disenfranchisement is fundamentally
different from our common-sense definition of this word.
According to them, any action no matter how peaceable, protest,
demonstration, speech, writings, even if the writings wernt published
in any media but merely copied by hand and passed between persons
in private, also private conversations between individuals which,
at their discretion & whim, they deem might have the potential to
cause any unspecified & unidentified persons anywhere to possibly
become "disenfranchised" i.e to not trust in or to dislike authority.
They way it's worded that's all that's required to complete the offense.
Basically, that's the only legal test, there's no requirement whatsoever
to show any probable cause for for counselling or incitement to illegal
acts.

If the bastards succeed in their agenda the bill of rights and the
constitution are all gone.
All right to dissent, lawful protest and assembly are gone.
All resemblance of lawful government and rule of law are gone and
replaced by state terrorism and the rule of the violent sexual psychopath
with the gun, club, steel whip, taser and torture chair.

You will have a choice between 2 options:
Pussy out, throw in the towel, shut up and line up with all the other
sheep OR go underground and prepare & equip yourselves grimmest
of all civil wars & resolve to give the foul hated enemy no quarter and
no mercy.

When in history have so many heroic freedom fighters been locked
in a life & death struggle for our very survival and right to exist
against so many hard core rapists, criminals and terrorists in
positions of power who are so perverted, wicked & evil.

CANADIANS LISTEN UP AND PAY ATTENTION: THIS MEANS YOU TOO!
What the hell do you think our corrupt little butt-puppet officials were
doing at Montebello which was all SO secret: Selling out Canada's
sovereignty to the military commissions tribunal and turning over
control of military & intelligence assets to the NAU under the secret
SPP agreements under which Canada was ordered to harmonize all
laws under the SPP with the dictates of "homeland security".

Important point of law:

Naturally, I did not get into the issues of stripping
citizenship and habeas corpus because it's quite
obvious everyone is already aware of the issues there.

Now the police state has assumed the right to deem anyone
they choose to target not only stripped of citizenship but also
arbitrarily stripped of their humanity and no longer a "person"
by law and therefore a piece of state property so it's all perfectly
legal to dispose of the victim at their pleasure the same way
livestock owners could dispose of their produce & animals.

Perusals  of the voluminous literature relating to people being
framed, rendited, disappeared, etc. are full of references to utterings
by corrupt judges and government pigs et. al. that the said detainees
are specifically "pieces of government property" and as such they
are legally non-persons, sub-human and not entitled to any kind
of human rights protection.

Reference to Naomi Wolf "10 Steps" speech:
Naturally I support her views 100% but the only criticism I have of what
she said in the "10 steps" speech was her statement that her response
to the criminalization of 1st amendment rights would be self censorship
and silence because of her fear of being framed and hauled off,
disappeared and tortured and murdered.

Now I can understand and sympathize with a woman's fear of ending up on
the receiving end of the "tender mercies" of a bunch of savage sexual
psychopaths behind the walls of some secret prison somewhere in
pig-state-hell but I still make bold to say we should all stand up in a lump
and yell out loud & clear that when the dirtbags pull this off the war is on
plain and simple.

My main problem is it's lack of a defining boundary between violence and force, and basically it is a bill against thought crime because they define "force" as basically using your intellect to bring forward a logical argument against a policy or policies against the state. It's horsesh*t.

[DireWolf]

I have been campaigning against HR 1955 since it was introduced last fall. With such an overwhelming approval in the House of Reps I highly doubt the Senate will vote otherwise.

You must understand passing legislation into law does not make it Constitutionally valid, only fear or intimidation makes it a viably feasible option for those who sit in the drivers seat.

Those who think they are in the know are the majority, whereas those who know the truth are definitely the minority. It is this situation which has allowed and continues to foster the atmosphere where tyrants veiled as servants are able to continue their evil deeds. The adage  "Ignorance is bliss"  has never been more true than in the situation we see before us today.

This is a complex issue we are dealing with and it wont be solved without sacrifice.

More "laws"  have been passed within the last 20 years that are aimed at surpressing our Constitutional Rights, disarming, and enslaving us than were passed in the entirety of previous U.S. history. It is no coincidence that this has and is continuing to occurr at this juncture in history. We have before us but a short window of oppurnity to turn this situation around and forstall but for a short time the inevitable, as God`s WORD depicts.