This Bill criminalizes any act of, or promotion of, anything the Government interprets to be "radical" or "extremist." This may include Animal Rights, Environmentalism, Socialism, Labor Organizing, anything that may upset the status quo, hell anything that may upset a politician. And that's the scary thing here; it's entirely up to State interpretation.
Don't let this Bill pass the senate! Call your Congressperson, tell them you are NOT HAPPY with their vote. Call your Senators, tell them that if they wish to keep their jobs, they had better NOT SUPPORT this bill. Use every means available to you. Phone Calls, Letter Writings, Public Demonstration, Firebombings. Don't Let this Bill Pass. Talk to your friends, CoWorkers, talk to your Parents, your Professors, your Teachers. Talk to EVERYONE.
Educate. Organize. Mobilize. Make It Happen.
Read Up Y'all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
http://www.indybay.org/new
http://www.govtrack.us/con
To Whom It May Concern
It has come to my attention, that The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
This act defines homegrown terrorism as: "(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. "
This act also allows for a central organization to be created to monitor, detect, and report on suspicious "homegrown terrorist activity within the United States". The definition of such activity is vague, leaving room for the possibility of anyone seriously advocating social change, restoration of the constitution, and advocating the organization of protests to "coerce the United States government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof".
This Act is undermining, and threatening, the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to organize in dissent of the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, telecom immunity, social injustice, the War on Terror, or any other program that the citizenry feels is in violation of their inalienable rights as U.S. citizens.
We have had enough. Please report on this. The link to the Act, in full detail, is listed here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp
Please report on this. All U.S. citizens who are doing nothing but voicing their opinions against a government that has expanded their executive powers, bypassed our congressional check and balance, and has undermined our U.S. Judiciary System, are now at risk, by this new act, of being labeled and prosecuted as a terrorist.
Please help.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 15:15:43 UTC 4 years ago
Read the bill
Interestingly enough, the bill criminalizes nothing. It just creates some committees to do some paper shuffling.Anonymous
November 1 2007, 23:23:14 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Read the bill
You could argue the PATRIOT act doesn't criminalize anything as well, no?But it does make warantless searches a lot easier. Acts like these become a threat to our civil liberties.
Anonymous
4 years ago
3 years ago
November 1 2007, 15:15:57 UTC 4 years ago
This is truly alarming--ding, ding, ding!
Another example of the sick minds of the people who hold the power in this fucked-up nation...this goes WAAAY over the line!I'll be fighting against it every way I can until they come take me away to some Halliburton-built, Blackwater-guarded gulag-like camp in the desert.
Thanks for the alert, unseenkid...i friended you, if that's OK.
.
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 16:39:28 UTC 4 years ago
Sensationalist junk, please ignore this article
In concurrence with the above comment, this bill does not make anything illegal. What it DOES do is establish a committee which is to investigate measures that can be taken to protect against homegrown terrorism, and also to establish a center that will work with state and local law enforcement agencies to train them to recognize potential threats. The bill contains the following measures which specifically PROTECT our constitutional rights, and prohibit racial discrimination:`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c1
I suspect that the above link won't work, but you can find the text of the bill with a minute or two of searching.
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 23:00:29 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Sensationalist junk, please ignore this article
There's nothing in there to protect you. NOTHING.All they have to do is to accuse you that you were *planning* to committ a terrorist act for you to be labelled as a terrorist. And as a terrorist, you suddenly don't have a your rights of habeas corpus, and they can throw you in prison indefinatly.
They have no interest in targetting you on race or ethnicity or anything you claims protects us. This is a way to target EVERYONE.
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
3 years ago
Anonymous
November 10 2007, 20:39:11 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Sensationalist junk, please ignore this article
The problem with such bills, like the recently passed Hate Crimes Act for example, is that they can be abused by later governments. Sure, it has good intentions, but nobody looks to the future and how bills like this can be broadened in authority later on.If the people accept laws like this now, they will be abused in the future.
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 18:46:32 UTC 4 years ago
Help
I can't seem to find the part of the constituition that gives me the right to use force and violence to achieve my politcal and social objectives?Anonymous
November 1 2007, 19:08:46 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Help
might not be a constitutional issue, but sure does have an affect on this:"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Also an important document.
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 23:02:42 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Help
The constitution was written to restrict government, not people. Perhaps reading it again will clarify things?4 years ago
Anonymous
November 9 2007, 19:00:47 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Help
The constituition was forged in the fires of violence and the use of force.Anonymous
November 9 2007, 19:53:04 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Help
Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.Anonymous
November 10 2007, 20:45:10 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Help
Here's the problem. They do not define the word "force" and they use the word government in the language as a potential victim. You can "force" government to change by marching in the streets and shouting in anger, but is that "force?" It may not be today, but it very well could be tomorrow. If they had simply used the word "violence" alone, there would probably be no outcry over this at all. However, by adding that one word, they change the potential nature of the law and open it up for interpretation in the future.By using government as a potential victim of so-called threats, they are basically stating that somne forms of dissidence could be considered crimes, even if there is no violence involved as we define it today.
Wording is tricky in bills like this, and no clear definitions make for obfuscation.
4 years ago
July 16 2008, 07:03:54 UTC 3 years ago
Anonymous
November 1 2007, 21:14:46 UTC 4 years ago
Curious
"Homegrown terrorism" could include Pro-Life groups who burn down abortion clinics, seems to me.Anonymous
November 1 2007, 23:06:29 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Curious
It *IS* exactly what it does. This is an umbrella excuse for the government to treat pretty much anyone as a terrorist.4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
Anonymous
November 2 2007, 00:59:30 UTC 4 years ago
bill too narrow
This bill completely ignores the larger threat of homegrown terrorism aimed at foreign nationals and neighboring nations. We don't need protection against verbal threats on our own land. We do need to take anti national threats seriously.After all, apparently, all it takes is a small group of religious extremists to strike up and entire foreign national war.
Congress we can handle the small stuff at home and still allow free, though sometimes irresponsible, speech. Don't block out angry voices or you may never see the real threats coming. Anger only festers when it is kept bottled up.
Yes, it's a stupid measure. Fitting for the times. Who introduced this?
Anonymous
November 2 2007, 03:34:48 UTC 4 years ago
Vague term: use of force
I think that this is an overall harmless bill, it forms a Commission to report on "Homegrown Terror." So what, right? It seems harmless until you read the definitions. It does not only include physical violence, but "force." Force doesn't have to mean pushing, punching, or exploding. Force can mean (from http://www.webster.com/dictionary/force)SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
November 2 2007, 05:12:24 UTC 4 years ago
Re: bill too narrow
Jane Harman, Democrat from California. You can look her up on Wikipedia.Anonymous
November 2 2007, 03:59:51 UTC 4 years ago
some get it, some don't
"America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist."- Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, May 31, 2004
November 2 2007, 04:16:33 UTC 4 years ago
November 2 2007, 05:48:35 UTC 4 years ago
November 2 2007, 05:57:49 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
3 years ago
Anonymous
April 14 2008, 15:00:57 UTC 4 years ago
Non Lethal Self Defense
Hello,My name is David and I am the owner of Own Defense. I am involved with Non Lethal Self Defense. Like most people I am not an experts in karate or some type of fighting technique. You may not own a gun or simply don't like guns. So for the most part we would like to have a way to protect ourself and love ones from harm. That is where Non lethal defense products come into play, such as pepper spray with a UV dye that could be used in a police lineup. Stun gun that would make the attacker muscles go wild with no lasting effects. Do you travel a lot. The personal travel alarm are a very popular items that hang from the door know and sounds an alarm when the knob is being turn. If you would like to find out more about these items and much more check out my business and see the different ways of protecting yourself from harm.
July 27 2008, 08:09:04 UTC 3 years ago
All this bill states is that you can't PLAN, USE or THREATEN violence. If your organization, or any organization isn't PLANNING, USING, or THREATENING the use of violence how is it interfering with your right to dissent? It doesn't criminalize anything that's not already illegal; you can't walk up to me on the street and threaten me with violence, punch me in the face (use violence), or otherwise plan or conspire to do those things to me.
The only thing idiotic about this law is that it's completely redundant and doesn't seem serve a purpose. But it certainly isn't stripping anybody from their rights to peacefully assemble, or protest. I do agree that everyone should read it because it mentions nothing you claim.
While it appears you have the ability to read, it also appears you have issues with comprehending the material.
Anonymous
October 17 2008, 16:04:34 UTC 3 years ago
not just violence
This bill also states that you can't plan, use or threaten forc. Look up force and read the definitions. Force does not always mean violence, thus the writers of this bill made sure it was clearly seperated from violence (..."force or violence...") in the definition of a homegrown terrorist. This choice of wording also makes it subject to be interpretted as to the logical use of argument as well. This can definitely be used to impede freedom of speech and civil rights movements that are nonviolent in order to make social changes for the good possible. This is definitely a law that has the possiblities of taking away our civil liberties as outlined in the Constitution and fundamental ammendments. Remember, all laws in the U.S. are subject to interpretation by judges and the agencies behind them. That can be either good or bad and we must look at the fact that it can go either way. The idea behind the bill is not bad, but the way it is worded is another matter and should have had safeguards built into it to avoid infringing on constitutional rights by a judge or agency that had suppression in mind.