Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More on Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, S.B. 1959

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:54 AM
Original message
More on Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, S.B. 1959
Received via email.

Note to mods: Posted in full with author's permission.


As a follow up to my speech delivered Friday, I 'd like to further discuss my interpretation of the Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, S.B. 1959, currently in the Senate.

The act itself doesn't state any provision to arrest anyone, but it creates the framework that will not only allow such behavior, it will facilitate it. From that viewpoint, the dangers are many. First of all, it is unacceptably ambiguous and adds unchecked power to the government. Secondly, it is targeted toward groups and individuals who are simply, "prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence", not necessarily those who have such a history. Thirdly, it is the same tactic the Nazis used to exploit the rule of law against the people of Germany.

The bill is exceptionally vague in scope aside from its establishment of a "Commission" and a "Center" of intellectual experts of sorts. The Commission is to be composed of members (political appointees) appointed by various government officials who will serve for the life of the Commission. Life membership means permanent power which promotes abuses, unlike temporary power which usually incorporates some measure of accountability and fosters balance in political ideology. The bill includes no means of checking the power of the commission or grounds for any punitive actions against any member(s) of the commission. Essentially, the Commission is solely responsible for the work of the Commission and it answers to no one--the Commission is above the law.

Additionally, there is no specification or definition of violence. Does it refer to individual acts of violence, such as assault, or social acts of violence such as a subway bombing, or an institutional form of violence such as an after-hours facility bombing at an arms manufacturing plant. Therefore, anyone who is accosted by a policeman during a civil disobedience who tries to shield his face from baton blows could be considered to be a potentially violent, radical person. Or, another example, anyone who attempts to forcibly cross a police line, as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and other protesters did in D.C. on September 15, would be considered a radicalized person or a homegrown terrorist.

This bill shows an obvious misunderstanding of the true nature of terrorism. Terrorism is more a reaction to exploitation or oppression and less a foundational agenda as we've been led to believe. Terrorism is the last act of those wishing to influence governments, or undo oppression or suffering imposed by any particular government, governmental agency, or by any private agency in the knowledge of a government that refuses to resolve the grievances of the people. Therefore, by establishing a government agency to "prevent" domestic terrorism that focuses its attention on the population instead of the government itself, they are opening the door to domestic tyranny and outlawing any resistance thereto. Simply put, anyone who believes in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the true intent of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights would be considered by this Commission as violent radicals--potential terrorists or those, "prone to ideologically based violence." Under this legislation, it would be a valid argument that based on the history of the United States Revolution, any person who favorably regards the ideal of freedom won by the hands, and blood, of the people can potentially be considered a threat to the government--a terrorist. Any peaceful organization that subscribes to the same political agenda, without subscribing to the same tactics, as a violent organization would be put in the same category and considered as a terrorist organization.

Creating new laws that add power to government and target the population, establish forms of justice/government outside the realm of the traditional legal system, and promote action to "prevent" crimes or acts of violence is an act of tyranny as all these are tactics of oppression that facilitate the transition from a Republic to a Fascist Dictatorship. Any action taken against an individual or organization to prevent a potential crime is a violation of civil liberties and is against the Constitution. According to the rule of law established by the Constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty of actually committing a crime. Until a crime is committed, there is no justification for legal action. This bill reverses that completely--allowing someone to be considered a criminal or terrorist without any such crime or act of terror actually being committed.

The Nazis used the legal system to subjugate the German population. Every new legislation was worded in such a way that it would be accepted by the people. Then, once put into affect, the end result was not as the people had expected or understood it would be. Still, there was no particular law that created the oppression--it was the comprehensive series of laws, passed in progression, that ultimately gave Hitler total power. The same tactic is being used here. This is exactly what Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison warned us about. It is exactly what numerous great minds throughout history have warned us about.

"What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. The crises and reforms (real reforms too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted'. Believe me this is true. Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we did nothing) . . . You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair." ~From "They Thought They Were Free: The German People from 1935-1945" by Milton Mayer.


Doublespeak and self-subjugation is the name of the game. In order to feel safe, the people ask or allow the government to limit their liberty--to put them in shackles. Germany did not become a Dictatorship overnight. It was a long and gradual transition. The Bush administration has been working on this transition for seven years now. The groundwork had already been laid long before that. Remember, the egalitarians in the United States supported Hitler. They wanted FDR to follow suit here. They later asked the then Secretary of Defense, former Marine Corps General Smedley Butler to lead a military coup against FDR. Is there any wonder why Ike warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex?? The Neo-Conservatives are nothing new, they're simply old-school feudalists seeking to reestablish the old power structure of the few ruling the masses in perpetuity.

This bill puts all the focus on people, on the population. Anyone who would attempt to suggest to the Commission that the acts of government are responsible for radicalizing anyone into an act of terror would surely be seen as a radical himself, for the sake of protecting the power of the commission. Government cannot effectively oversee government anymore, especially when all politicians are bought and paid for by private corporations who profit from war and oppression. This bill creates the framework for additional steps towards total tyranny. Just remember, most people are inherently peaceful until they are fucked with. Then they will eventually defend themselves. Under this bill, no one has the right to defend themselves! That is the definition of oppression and tyranny.

That is my critical analysis of this bill and why, as a patriot, sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, I am profoundly against this bill. Please contact your Senator and voice your own opposition to this bill. Thanks for reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who's the author?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. An Afghanistan vet. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Who is the author?
"Afghanistan vet" is not enough. This person has obviously taken a public stand. He talks about a speech he has given. This email is follow-up to that speech.

Why are you hiding the identity of this person? Could it be that this "patriot sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" is actually a rightwinger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. You do know that Prescott Bush has now been revealed as being part of the 1934 coup attempt
The final piece of the puzzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Have often proffered on this board that junior must hate America , else why would he
systematically dismantle our Constitution by unconstitutional means, albeit with the aid of the despicably supine Congress, the Supremes, the MSM including the countless talking-heads who ecstatically and shrilly shill his every unconstitutional action? That Prescott must have hated America too would seem obvious. I'm not as concerned with junior as with all those complicit with these high crimes, for he could have been stopped in his tracks had those complicit acted with even a modicum of civic duty/patriotism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. a final kick to get off page 4
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. More boiling frogs.
On another thread, there were actually some DUers who saw no harm in this bill. It's House companion (HR 1955) has already passed with only six "no" votes. It sounds like the "if you have nothing to hide..." crowd, dealing away our civil liberties.

This post is excellent in pointing out the actual dangers, and where it is taking us.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. As with the other piles of laws we already have...
We don't need additional laws, we need the ones already on the books to be enforced. Gun laws are a prime example, though not the only one. I suppose it's easier to pass new laws than to reform the existing legal maze - how else to ensure continued income for the bloated and ever expanding legal establishment?

The Constitution and laws against plotting or carrying out acts of (actual) terrorism are already on the books. The ONLY justification for these new statutes is the criminalization of thought, further erosion of the Constitution and greater control over the populace.

These people are not acting in our best interest. We do not need or desire a permanent ruling class in America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Absolutely -- good point!
If there is a crime, get them.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. The ACLU has a statement out on the House version of the bill:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.html

Washington, D.C. – The ACLU continues to have serious concerns regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU said, "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."

The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.

The ACLU has raised multiple concerns with H.R. 1955 at different points during the last 13 months. We appreciate the steps that have been made to improve the legislation, but we still have reservations. As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one’s personal beliefs. Fredrickson explained that during hearings on the legislation called, "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism," the focus on the internet was problematic. "If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then the ACLU will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment activities. Why go down that road?"

The ACLU is working with senators to improve First Amendment and civil liberties protections in the Senate version of the legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Everyone in Congress should be forced to watch the 1985 movie "Brazil"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. is it H.R. 1955, S.B. 1959 or both?
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

has a length of 51 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which has a length of 25 characters:

http://tinyurl.com/2vfpwc


Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vfpwc



Friday :: Nov 30, 2007

We're About To Lose Our Freedom Of Speech

by Jeff Dinelli

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Senate Bill 1959, is set to be voted on. The cleverly worded law would allow the government to arrest and imprison anyone who speaks out against the Bush administration, the Iraq occupation, the Department of Homeland Security or any other government agency, including the FDA. The law passed the House on October 23rd by a traitorous vote of 405-6 (one of the 6 was our hero, Dennis Kucinich). It is the latest in a long line of fear-mongering legislation that stretches back to the birth of our nation, as pointed out in a fine post by Phillip Giraldi at HuffPo.

~snip~
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011425.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Both. HR 1955 has passed the House. S 1959 is pending.
AFAIK, they are the same bill.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
13. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC