H.R. 1955

[cryztalwing]

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

 

 

 

[hide]First letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

 

 

 

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

 

 

 

`(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.

 

 

 

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

 

 

 

`(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.

 

 

 

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community.

 

 

 

The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.

 

 

 

`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.

 

 

 

Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commissionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the billÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization.

 

 

 

(B) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:

 

 

 

`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

 

 

 

`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--

 

 

 

`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

 

 

 

`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

 

 

 

`© foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

 

 

 

Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals.

 

 

 

Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.

 

 

 

Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says.

 

 

 

`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

`(B) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

 

 

 

`© Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

 

 

 

(B) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(B) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

 

 

 

It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism. [/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide]According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it."

 

 

 

Critics of the measure allege that it is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bill's vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.

 

 

 

The legislation, for instance, 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." The bill makes no attempt to define what an "extremist belief system" might be. Nor does it define the action of "facilitating ideologically based violence."

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

Bill Status:

 

H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10528846[/hide]

[Kiriyama]

Hows your freedom now?

 

 

 

Honestly though they should just do what we do in the UK, lock terror suspects up for 28 days without charge.

 

 

 

(And they're thinking abount increasing that)

[Defender2516]

Wow.. it passed...

 

 

 

Its not perm yet, and for those who say "it may not go through" is dead wrong. Look at the votes on that sucker.. 400+ over 6.

 

 

 

They have NO Evidence of anyone "thinking" violent acts.

 

 

 

What a better way to get rid of your enemy is by using the internet and saying so-in-so blog was a hate crime = jail time.

 

 

 

Wow, if this really goes through, rip the consitution up, it won't exist and the government will be free to do ANYTHING they want and if someone jumps in and says "hey, stop that!" = thought hate crime.

 

 

 

Someone buy me a plane ticket to somewhere else

[Bubsa]

So, what's everyone's favourite copy+pasta? I like the little tube ones the best. I can't remember their Italian name though :(

[baron8000]

Congratulations your wall of text has successfully made my eyes bleed.

 

 

 

OT - I reallllllllllly couldn't care less.

[Defender2516]

Congratulations your wall of text has successfully made my eyes bleed.

 

 

 

OT - I reallllllllllly couldn't care less.

 

 

 

I don't know if you live in America or not, but even if you did not, this EFFECTS you in one way or another.

[tryto]

Hah!

 

Canada is now a "draconian police state".

 

America could learn much from us. #-o

[Mercifull]

You got your emigration papers sorted yet or are the government forcing you to stay in the country by pointing a gun at your head?

[Defender2516]

You got your emigration papers sorted yet or are the government forcing you to stay in the country by pointing a gun at your head?

 

 

 

I believe "money" would be the problem. You know.. the stuff that makes people go to work?

 

 

 

Anyways.. I hope this doesn't pass with the Senate. Its a shame people care more about their own world than whats going on around them.

 

 

 

They sit and think and say "I don't care as long as it doesn't effect me" which is stupid because it DOES effect you.

[baron8000]

Congratulations your wall of text has successfully made my eyes bleed.

 

 

 

OT - I reallllllllllly couldn't care less.

 

 

 

I don't know if you live in America or not, but even if you did not, this EFFECTS you in one way or another.

 

 

 

I don't live in america, how does this affect me?

 

 

 

EDIT - ok, I'm bored and I thought I might pull some of this apart for fun

 

 

 

First of all I'm going to go and assume you have an independent judiciary, you do have that right?

 

 

 

Right then, here we go

 

 

 

they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. '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.

 

 

 

Wrong, key word = extremist - supporting a political opponent who is working through the required means and methods set down will never EVER be defined as "extremist". Violence is another key word there - only if that is a part of their campaign will these laws become applicable under any sensible court system.

 

 

 

petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. (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.

 

 

 

Since when did petty crime further "political or social objectives"? Or indeed since when has it tried to coerce the US government in any way shape or form? Once again, whoever wrote this needs to learn to read legislation.

 

 

 

The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.

 

 

 

You fail to understand how legislation works, by putting this section in, the courts CANNOT interpret the legislation in an unconstitutional way - a similar convention exists with UK legislation and the European convention on Human Rights - any part of UK legislation that is incompatible with the ECHR acts is automatically dis-applied by the courts without a seconds thought. The fact the definitions could potentially be twisted unconstitutionally is therefore irrelevant

 

 

 

 

 

seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.

 

 

 

AHAHAHA, I'm sorry there really was nothing to do there but laugh. Here's a definition of draconian for you:

 

 

 

1. Designating a law or code of extreme severity. 2. Harsh, rigorous.

 

 

 

I don't know if you have ever been to the UK, let alone experienced our police system but from my experience it is relatively fair, forgiving to a degree (too forgiving some may say) and is anything but "extremely severe" or "harsh". What I quoted above was nonsense, pure and simple.

 

 

 

Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist

 

 

 

Guess what, everyone is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ what do you want them to say? Only foreigners can be terrorists? Only muslims? This part truly was the stupidity icing on the idiot cake

 

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

[Bubsa]

You got your emigration papers sorted yet or are the government forcing you to stay in the country by pointing a gun at your head?

 

 

 

I believe "money" would be the problem. You know.. the stuff that makes people go to work?

 

 

 

Anyways.. I hope this doesn't pass with the Senate. Its a shame people care more about their own world than whats going on around them.

 

 

 

They sit and think and say "I don't care as long as it doesn't effect me" which is stupid because it DOES effect you.

 

 

 

THE RED COATS ARE COMING!

[Lenin64]

So, what's everyone's favourite copy+pasta? I like the little tube ones the best. I can't remember their Italian name though :(

 

I like the bowtie style with ragu sauce =P~. Delicious.

 

 

 

Congratulations your wall of text has successfully made my eyes bleed.

 

 

 

OT - I reallllllllllly couldn't care less.

 

 

 

I don't know if you live in America or not, but even if you did not, this EFFECTS you in one way or another.

 

Actually, I believe it Affects him. It has effects.

 

 

 

But this is an interesting development....So America, where is your Constitution now? :twisted:

[Giordano]

"You know, our president George W. Bush says the Consitution is a good thing. A good thing to wipe your [wagon] after you used the crapper."

 

 

 

Had to type that, :P and yeah. We're becoming subjects of the Royal House. Wanna call V?

[Nom]

That entire post was a copypasta, including the intro paragraph :| .