New Bill Could Make You a "Terrorist" Posted: 12 months ago by tvirus
"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."
This blog summarizes the bill and links to the full text.
Comments: 27 Score: [-] 287 [+].
< 1 2 >
Posted: 12 months ago by dollyllama:
This is absolutely terrifying. We are far too complacent about the trust we put in the people running this country and far too lazy about doing something about it. I urge everyone to protest against this to your Senators. Do not let this pass. It is far too vague and way too dangerous to let pass.
I'm currently watching the Naomi Wolfe video on this link. It's long but the first 3 minutes draw you in.
Score: [-] 133 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by DoggySpew:
This could only been avoided if the bill had the word "armed" in it.
‘...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...
Should be: "‘...ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of ARMED force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...
However, such laws are already in place for AGES here in Europe, yet there is no facism here.
Score: [-] 74 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by dollyllama:
« DoggySpew : This could only been avoided if the bill had the word "armed" in it.
Should be: "‘...ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of ARMED force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...
However, such laws are already in place for AGES here in Europe, yet there is no facism here. *blink*
There's NO fascism in Europe? Are you certain??
Score: [-] 30 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by DoggySpew:
« dollyllama : *blink*
There's NO fascism in Europe? Are you certain?? Not very noticable at least. Maybe in the East, where they only just came out of the Communist era.
Score: [-] 54 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by larknet:
I didn't read it fully but I can say that for the title it is a very short bill. I agree with Dolly, this leads to something vague and kinda scary. Aren't there laws that cover this already?
Score: [-] 77 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by dollyllama:
« DoggySpew : Not very noticable at least. Maybe in the East, where they only just came out of the Communist era. If you watch the video by Naomi Johnson she states quite clearly that the steps to fascism are not overt and in your face, they are not "all of a sudden" it's not a steady rapid decline, it's goes in spurts, little things eroding away at your freedoms, then leveling off, then a little more, then leveling off. Then, when there's only a few freedoms left, it speeds up. It's frightening because it is exactly as she describes.
Score: [-] 58 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by DoggySpew:
« dollyllama : If you watch the video by Naomi Johnson she states quite clearly that the steps to fascism are not overt and in your face, they are not "all of a sudden" it's not a steady rapid decline, it's goes in spurts, little things eroding away at your freedoms, then leveling off, then a little more, then leveling off. Then, when there's only a few freedoms left, it speeds up. It's frightening because it is exactly as she describes. Maybe so, but the US has in that respect been facist for quite a while BEFORE 9-11, yet I see that that actually declined until after 9-11.
Just look at history: Decline in racial seperation, rise in sexual equality, a more "open" US (You think that the US is egocentric today, you should see how egocentric the US WAS in the past). And these days, with the internet, it is VERY hard to keep a facist regime running. Take China for instance; They are desperately trying to keep tabs on the personal freedom, yet that has been very hard with the internet.
I just do not see everything so gloomy. Today's propaganda is just too hard to convince then in the old days without the internet.
Score: [-] 33 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by dollyllama:
« DoggySpew : Maybe so, but the US has in that respect been facist for quite a while BEFORE 9-11, yet I see that that actually declined until after 9-11.
Just look at history: Decline in racial seperation, rise in sexual equality, a more "open" US (You think that the US is egocentric today, you should see how egocentric the US WAS in the past). And these days, with the internet, it is VERY hard to keep a facist regime running. Take China for instance; They are desperately trying to keep tabs on the personal freedom, yet that has been very hard with the internet.
I just do not see everything so gloomy. Today's propaganda is just too hard to convince then in the old days without the internet. The internet has little to do with the decline of China's regime, that's been declining for some time now, it might help accelerate it a bit but I think global trade has more to do with it. As more Chinese can actually leave the country and see how others live.
All governments face collapse, including republics and democracies. Any swing too far in any direction will start the decline. But the pendulum always swings back. But, that is because when a regime first starts, no one sees the signs. They are either naive or they believe that "it's not all that gloomy" and then before they know it there are radicals trying to push it in the other direction. These swings to the extreme last for years including a good amount of time somewhere in the middle, which most of us would deem as "the perfect" society. The issue is that when it's apparent that the pendulum is swinging too much away from center, not enough people realize it, care, or believe it. So by the time it's obvious to everyone the only way to bring it back is to force it in the complete opposite direction (an equal force). If enough people notice these situations while it's still relatively centric, it's not just easier to change, it's easier to keep it from swinging in the opposite direction.
(Oh and I do know how egocentric the US was, but there was a time we had enough to back us up on that egocentricity, I do not believe we still have that and I think most people agree which is why that's toned down some).
Score: [-] 26 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by madhatteraggie:
The US government has always spouted how they are a democracy, for the people by the people, equal for all, yada yada. We all know this is not true and this Bill just makes it even more so.
Right now everyone who replies to this post, according to the article, is considered a terrorist by the United States government, therefore all of us will be incarcerated and never heard from again.
People tell me I should be proud to be an America, how we have freedoms that no one else has. In part I do agree with it, but in all honest truth we're just like any other Facist-run country. We may not realize it fully, but just take one good look around you. Go ahead. Are we really that free?
I say no.
I say if the governement wants to come knocking on my doorstep, take me away, and stick me in a hole the go right ahead! I am a REAL American. I believe in what our foudning fathers fought for and that was FREEDOM to express, FREEDOM to communicate, FREEEDOM to do as I pleased without being judged by the color of my skin, my religion, or my choice of sexual partners.
If you want to come and take that away from me then GO AHEAD!!!! I'll be right here waiting for you and I'm not going down without a fight. I'll show you TRUE American spirit and trust me I will make it hurt.
Score: [-] 84 [+].
Posted: 12 months ago by tvirus:
The thing that really scares me about this bill is the fact that it seems completely unneccesary. How much real "homegrown terrorism" have we actually had lately? The only concievable reason I can see for making this a law is to abuse it, which is even more likely considering how the government has exploited other anti-terrorism laws.
Score: [-] 51 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by Jerry520:
Oh My God....the end is near. Mark my words, this is the beginning of a New World Order. "Supreme Chancellor Bush" is up next.
Score: [-] 49 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by Moe:
Here is the entire text of S.1955. The linked article refers to S.1959, but these 2 bills have the same name. 1959 has not yet even made it to the House. 1955 is what he SHOULD be referring to...that is what passed 405 to 6 with 22 no votes.
SO if you are going to call your Senators, please be sure to refer to BOTH BILL NUMBERS 1959 AND 1955. Otherwise, they'll say "OK, no go for 1959. But you did not say anything about 1955"
Score: [-] 99 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by germz:
Theres going to be alot of people in jail if this ever passes, which I doubt will.
« Jerry520 : Oh My God....the end is near. Mark my words, this is the beginning of a New World Order. "Supreme Chancellor Bush" is up next. didn't he say he wanted to make US into a dictator ship, aslong as he was the dictator?
Score: [-] 33 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by tragluk:
I have faith in our checks and balances. If the executive and legislative branch pass this law, the judicial branch will overturn it and declare it unconstitutional.
There is no way that this will stand the test of the judical branch and the ACLU will sue and have this declare unconstitutional in no-time.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by steelshooter:
Funny, I read the bill and saw no place where it authorizes the arrest or incarceration of anyone. It establishes a committee to compile a report. They do not have the authority to do anything but collect information and make recommendations.
They are to deliver a report in 18 months giving recommendations for legislation that could be used to fight terrorism. Since Bush will be out of office long before then, I hardly think this could be an attempt to incarcerate his detractors, even if the bill allowed such a thing.
This bill was passed by a predominately Anti-Bush congress. How again is it an attempt by the administration to silence Bush critics?
Anything they recommend would have to be compiled into a bill and passed by both houses, then signed by the President before an action is taken. In 18 months we will have a different President and many new Congressmen (in both houses).
The term this article quotes is one of the areas they are supposed to look into, and this articles interpretation of that wording is as flawed and biased as the description of the bill itself.
That being said, I will say I like the idea behind this bill (find ways to fight terrorism), but I will watch very carefully what recommendations they make. It is what Congress does with those recommendations that need to be feared.
I can only hope that the recommendations live up to the mandate in this bill: "“(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."
This bill just lets Congressmen looking to get reelected to go home and say: "See, I did my part to fight terrorism."
Score: [-] 44 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by tvirus:
« steelshooter : Funny, I read the bill and saw no place where it authorizes the arrest or incarceration of anyone. It establishes a committee to compile a report. They do not have the authority to do anything but collect information and make recommendations. The fear is that once labeled as a "terrorist" by this committee, the existing laws will allow the U.S. to deny the constitutional rights of the individual, including U.S. citizens. I do agree that the bill itself is harmless enough, but coupled with a corrupt government and pre-existing laws, it could easily be used to justify a number of unlawful arrests.
And while you are right that Bush will be gone by the time any of this happens, I wouldn't be so sure that the country will be any better.
Score: [-] 49 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by 1thirteen3:
Just so you're all aware...
One of two members that voted against this is running for President.
Google Ron Paul
Score: [-] -5 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by dollyllama:
« steelshooter : Funny, I read the bill and saw no place where it authorizes the arrest or incarceration of anyone. It establishes a committee to compile a report. They do not have the authority to do anything but collect information and make recommendations.
They are to deliver a report in 18 months giving recommendations for legislation that could be used to fight terrorism. Since Bush will be out of office long before then, I hardly think this could be an attempt to incarcerate his detractors, even if the bill allowed such a thing.
This bill was passed by a predominately Anti-Bush congress. How again is it an attempt by the administration to silence Bush critics?
Anything they recommend would have to be compiled into a bill and passed by both houses, then signed by the President before an action is taken. In 18 months we will have a different President and many new Congressmen (in both houses).
The term this article quotes is one of the areas they are supposed to look into, and this articles interpretation of that wording is as flawed and biased as the description of the bill itself.
That being said, I will say I like the idea behind this bill (find ways to fight terrorism), but I will watch very carefully what recommendations they make. It is what Congress does with those recommendations that need to be feared.
I can only hope that the recommendations live up to the mandate in this bill: "“(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."This bill just lets Congressmen looking to get reelected to go home and say: "See, I did my part to fight terrorism."
Um, no. The commission is the tip of the iceberg and in response to the statement that they shouldn't impede on the civil rights or civil liberties of citizens, who is to decide that? Well, they are:
`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.
A commission can't police itself, that's always proven to be a bad move.
This is bad news and should not be passed.
Score: [-] 36 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by steelshooter:
« tvirus : The fear is that once labeled as a "terrorist" by this committee, the existing laws will allow the U.S. to deny the constitutional rights of the individual, including U.S. citizens. I do agree that the bill itself is harmless enough, but coupled with a corrupt government and pre-existing laws, it could easily be used to justify a number of unlawful arrests.
And while you are right that Bush will be gone by the time any of this happens, I wouldn't be so sure that the country will be any better. What part of this legislation instructs them to label anyone "Terrorist"?
This bill is an attempt by congressmen to tell their constituency "See I did something. Reelect me."
Score: [-] 37 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by steelshooter:
« dollyllama : Um, no. The commission is the tip of the iceberg and in response to the statement that they shouldn't impede on the civil rights or civil liberties of citizens, who is to decide that? Well, they are:
A commission can't police itself, that's always proven to be a bad move.
This is bad news and should not be passed. What part of "I can only hope that the recommendations live up to the mandate in this bill:" looked like I thought they really would.
I did say that the results of this commission need to be scrutinized and that it is what they do with those that need to be feared.
Killing this will not stop the recommendations, it will only make them less visible. There was really no reason to be this elaborate to set up the study except, as I have said, to give the impression that they are making a difference.
Score: [-] 32 [+].
< 1 2 >