# ARE YOU? an American? A terrorist? Or a Sheep?



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi all
Well I got an update for everyone that might have looked into the HR 1959 bill, what I found was very strange and very very scary. First off it's not HR 1959 that seams to be a MASSIVE miss print!!! And I have to say that I find it very strange that so many people would overlook it. I can only imagine all of the people that have already writing to there senator asking them to vote NO on HR 1959, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit interest on federally guaranteed water, wastewater, and essential community facilities loans to be tax exempt.
Wow talk about an amazing dup!!! All of those people saying no to the wrong bill, and what do you know, since none of our senators hear from us they are free and clear to pass the most treasons bill in American history. 
THE BILL IS CALLED H.R. 1955!!!!!!!!!!
H.R.1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
I have read the bill in full, it looks every bit as bad as they are making it out to be. The one piece of info that the bill fails to explain, is once the government names you a terrorist you lose all constitution rights as a American citizen!!! In the bill they reference US citizens and their rights will not be harmed, but guess what! That only applies to those people that the government does not call terrorists. 
For simply writing this post my government could call me a terrorist!!
And here I thought I was just practicing my first amendment 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_1955
The bill has been criticized for its use of broad language to describe "homegrown terrorism."[4]
One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill.[4] In an interview aired on Democracy Now, he said:
"HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilize the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."[4]
Representative Harman chaired a November 6, 2007 hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism." During a later Democracy Now! program, Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens." And he warned that local officials can seek federal funding by targeting local dissident groups. "Once again, no basis for terrorism, but 'they've been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we don't like those'."[6]
LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA. He mentions that it defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." He further criticizes it for defining "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" as thought crimes. He also claims that since the bill does not specifically define what an "extremist" belief system is, that it will be up to the government at any specific time to determine what is and is not an "extremist" belief system. [7]

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.p ... 3120044679

HR 1955: Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism bill 
Saturday, November 03 2007 @ 12:00 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous
Views: 3,708 
Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism: A bi-partisan attack on civil liberties.
As California burns to the ground, and S-CHIP goes on the defensive, the United States House of Representatives slipped one by us. The House passed a bill with dangerously vague language and eerie implications, not to mention it being a fundamental challenge to the First Amendment, supported by a majority of Democrats, and introduced by a Democrat. You remember that Party we elected to at least try to replenish our civil liberties and get the troops home, so at least to partly reverse the surly fatal course upon which the administration of George W. Bush has set the United States of America?

One of their "Blue Dogs," Jane Harman of California, introduced H.R. 1955 with 14 co-sponsors, including only four Republicans. The bill raced through two committees in the House and was brought to a vote on Tuesday, October 23, passing 404 to six. Three Republicans and three Democrats, including Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, are the only Congresspersons to vote "nay."

Why is this alarming? Well the bill, otherwise known as the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," includes some vague definitions that could be interpreted to define people, who are currently protected by the First Amendment, essentially as thought criminals so that they would no longer be protected by quite possibly the most popular of all Constitutional Amendments. The Act does not make certain forms of thought a crime itself, however, it does mean that a commission would be established, as well as a broad network of academics and researchers, specifically for the purpose of identifying ideologies that somehow can be considered to be a cause of terrorism, a premise accepted as fact by the language of the bill. This is "pre-crime" and "thoughtcrime" all packed into a predetermination set by this bill to bias any research done for and accepted by the commission created by the bill, which could logically lead to changes in interpretations of legalese and possibly more legislation that would directly criminalize ideologies that can be considered by whoever ends up doing the research as terrorism prone. It is a small but dangerous step toward a terrifying Orwellian scenario becoming reality.

The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title VIII (6 U.S.A 361 et seq.) by adding "Subtitle J." This would create a "National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" under section 899C, and a "Center of Excellence" under section 899D, which is anticipated to be based in universities around the U.S., utilizing the social sciences found on any university as well as other researchers to make data and research findings available to the commission, who will file a "Final Report" 18 months after the commission is created to the President and Congress. The report will provide "recommendations," rooting whatever decisions are made to prevent this vaguely defined dissent in scientific research, in order that the President and Congress may have a clearer understanding of what "measures&#8230;can be taken to prevent" these forms of dissent. In other words, they are establishing a network of supposed experts to tell them how far they can make inroads on the First Amendment, amongst other legal protections more than likely. Another way of putting it; they want to know how much criminalizing of dissent they can get away with under the guise of Bush's war on terrorism, presumably to mitigate the prospective challenges by civil liberties advocates.

The stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' is "to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of" these vaguely defined forms of dissent, "and methods that can be utilized by" all levels, including "tribal," of "homeland security officials to mitigate" these forms of dissent. The 'Center's' duties will include contributing "to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating" these forms of dissent. So, to be clear, this 'Center' is not to be established in order to identify and properly define these forms of dissent, rather these definitions have already been made in the minds of those supporting this legislation, and this 'Center' is to base these definitions in science, giving them a solid concrete position in public opinion, the science industry, the legal profession, etc., so that authorities can have the perceived full support of society when they attack domestic political dissidents. This is essentially the creation of a vast mystical supply of argumentative material for prosecutors who open cases against dissidents, simply for being dissidents. This is the type of phenomenon that will likely change American cultural norms regarding liberty to the extent that people can be politically persecuted without a hint of opposition. It would allow the government to cut a portion out of the population we think of as "us," so they can create a "them" for 'us' to fear so much that we will instinctively condone their persecution. Deeply rooting such concepts in what appears to be science and law can add a great deal of credibility to them in the minds of many people.

You may think I'm overreacting, like many of the other critics of this bill with their "New World Order" conspiracy theories and exaggerations, and you may be thinking that I'm off the mark because the bill clearly protects civil liberties in section 899F. Well, why don't you read section 899F and see if you can identify the flaw? Ok, I can only assume you've read it now, so let's talk about the flaw. The protections of civil liberties included in this bill are extremely weak, and they don't even take all those currently protected by the Constitution into consideration. Furthermore, the guarantee of protection is an "Auditing Mechanism" that is to be created and implemented by a Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) official, which is only required to provide audits annually (in 18 months it may end up being only once). So, we are supposed to trust an internal auditor that is not independent by definition to keep that person's own employer in check in the name of civil liberties. As far as whose civil liberties would be protected by the language of this bill, and Immigrants' Rights groups ought to be in a fury over this, only two categories of people are included in the bill's language; "citizens" and "lawful permanent residents." Those who know little about the United States immigration system may think those two categories cover everyone, but they don't. These are both specifically defined legal categories, and they are only two of many categories defining people's legal status in the United States. So, with those two groups being identified as the only ones protected, those who will be denied protection includes everyone but those two groups, such as people living in the U.S.A. on either work or student visas, certain indigenous groups, temporary workers, and logically all other "non-immigrants" (people living in, or visiting, the United States who are not "permanent residents," which are green card holders, or "citizens").

Keeping in mind whose civil liberties are not protected by this bill, now consider the real danger of the bill, which is not that it directly creates a definition of 'thoughtcrime' (as defined by George Orwell, in his famous book "1984," in the first chapter), but that it lays the groundwork for such to be created more elaborately in the future. The bill sets up a commission and a network of academic researchers to define certain ideologies as 'thoughtcrime' essentially, and it encompasses the concept of 'pre-crime' (remember the movie "Minority Report?") in that the point of the bill is to identify 'thoughtcrime' in order to take preemptive action against those the State deems criminal due to their ideology. The scientific research will provide the basis for certain ideologies to be considered criminal. So it should be clear that this bill does not make it a crime to believe in this or that ideology, however, it creates a research effort nationwide to provide the pretext for criminalizing ideologies. The social sciences already do research on the subjects of terrorism and political violence, and there are still debates over how to properly define terms like violence, terrorism, genocide, force, coercion, radical etc., and one can be sure they haven't hammered out those definitions to the extent that we already have scientific proof that "Violent Radicalization" and "Homegrown Terrorism" are existing and identifiable phenomena. The bill thus biases any research done by the 'Center of Excellence' intellectuals by the stated task of providing material useful in fighting the overall phenomenon of terrorism, and by the accepted definitions of phenomena that social sciences have yet to acutely define.

Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the 'vaguely defined forms of dissent.' At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill's title are defined. 'Violent Radicalization' is defined 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." This 'process' is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don't believe in the 'ideologically based violence' your 'belief system' dictates then you can't be said to have that as your motive to adopt the 'belief system.' You haven't adopted the 'belief system' that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for 'adopting' the 'belief system,' it isn't logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase 'for the purpose of.' It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence. Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines 'ideologically based violence.' This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but whatever else they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes "planned use" and "threatened use, of force or violence." This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of 'violence' to include non-violent forms of civil disobedience or direct action because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn't say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as 'ideologically based violence,' rather it uses the conjunction "or," leaving open the possibility of defining either 'force' or actual 'violence' as 'ideologically based violence,' and "Homegrown Terrorism" if it is done by "a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States," including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, "to intimidate or coerce," according to the similarly vague definition of 'homegrown terrorism' on the same page.

Civil disobedience methods utilized by certain environmentalists, including "tree-sitting," could be considered terrorism because of their minimally coercive essence. In fact, believing in an ideology or religion seen as too different, and too opposed to the one to which leaders of the U.S.A. adhere, could be defined as terrorism. Any belief system can be defined as an 'extremist belief system.' Don't be alarmed, it is not as though your right to be a communist or a libertarian with radical leanings, or a devoutly religious Muslim, will be illegal as soon as Bush or the next President signs this bill into law, so don't find this a reason to pack up guns, ammo and canned food, and start heading for the hills to hide out, but this should be alarming enough to motivate people to contact their Senators and voice their opposition to this fundamental attack on political freedom. The bill, as I have reiterated, is to establish a scientifically backed framework for creating further legislation that will amount to criminalizing thought. It is possible that intellectuals will ignore the stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' and actually conduct valid research, but not if their funding is tied to the biased goal of trying to identify certain ideologies as criminal. They would have to be able to change the definitions in the bill in order that they match the scientific definitions of those concepts. Clearly any scientist would recognize the semantic ploy in the language of the bill, and would be aware that research based on the premise set by the bill would be inherently biased. So, it is a matter of finding science researchers with poor ethics perhaps, however, that is no reason to assume the likelihood of the bill's success is nil. Scientists can be greedy and egocentric like anyone else, however, there is still hope in the Senate and the Courts.

This bill may have been ignored by the mainstream corporate press, but those of us who use the Internet to contribute to what's left of the independent media to inform the public of issues such as this one need to be more and more motivated by the explicit threat to our freedom of speech included in the bill under section 899B, and this is an even more alarming aspect of this legislation. Amongst the elements of the premise that I argue will bias any research at any 'Center of Excellence' is the "Findings" section. This section is where the broadly defined forms of dissent are accepted as identified existing phenomena, and it specifically blames the Internet for their existence. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process&#8230;by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens," says the third 'finding' in section 899B. This is a threat to freedom online in a nutshell, perhaps the most immediately threatened aspect of our freedom in this supposedly "free country" (these quotation marks are only for context and do not denote a specific remark) posed by this legislation. This means they will probably be looking for academic and intellectual research-based support for censoring the Internet without the elite-perceived roadblock of civil liberties getting in their way, first and foremost. At least that is the impression I get after reading this bill.

One may be wondering by now, after all of these long words you've just toiled through, how can they accept these definitions and these findings without some research on which to base it all. Well, this is true, but consider here the low standards of evidence held by most politicians when it comes to scientific and/or academic research. In order for a theory to be accepted as a fact by the science community, and this is also the case for social scientists, the theory must be not only replicable to some extent but it must also be accepted on consensus as such. If there is not a consensus on whether 'violent radicalization' exists then it is not fact, and thus should definitely not be included in legislative language and/or legalese. So where do they get these terms? Jane Harman, the conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrat that introduced the bill, cites the National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) report released in July of 2007 as that which requires that they find links between various forms of thought and terrorism. The N.I.E. merely reinforces the notion of a threat from Al Qaeda, which is not a domestic terrorism threat per se, however, it is the ideology of that group (if that is what they are) that concerns our Representatives. They clearly fear that the supposed ideology of those who carried out the attacks in London, who were all English but their religion and ideology were seen as foreign by authorities, and that of those who almost carried out a similar attack in Toronto, may come popping up in the United States. That is why they are using the term 'homegrown terrorism,' which is a term taken from an issue government officials began discussing directly in response to those attacks according to the Boston Globe article; "Home-grown terrorism," published in 2006.

Apparently Jane Harman, not a social scientist, doesn't need a consensus to conclude that such phenomena exist in reality. All she needed was a government stamp of approval in the form of an N.I.E. report. This legislation clearly stems from the debate over radical Islamic beliefs immediately following the attacks described above, and this conclusion I make comes from the fact that the terms used in the bill are the same as those introduced to the public dialogue following those attacks (see "Getting to the root of 'homegrown terrorism'" by Munira Mirza). Harman and friends may also be basing this rhetoric on what they see as scientifically valid, though I strongly beg to differ, in the 2007 report on the subject by an explicitly biased and definitively non-scientific institution, the New York City Police Department (see "New York City Police Report Explores Homegrown Terrorism" by Al Baker, NYTimes). Also it is possible they are basing this legislation on a similar Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) report from 2006. Okay, so the rhetoric is not adequately backed by science, and thus should not be accepted as such by scientists at the proposed 'Center of Excellence,' however, these origins of such rhetoric are useful to us information consumers in that they are revealing not of the evidence to back up Harman's semantic references, but of who her type has in mind when they are referring to 'homegrown terrorism' and 'violent radicalization.' There is evidence of the root of this rhetoric being Europe (see "Commission programme for the prevention of and response to violent radicalisation"), and they speak of certain groups in Europe and the United States that may fall under these vague definitions. As for the United States these definitions could include anyone the status quo doesn't appear to accept. A USA Today article from 2004 lumps every perceived dissident into one group they call "domestic terrorists."

Though past news publications can provide some insight on who may be the targets of this legislation, the identity of the obvious targets is implicit in the bills language on the requisite qualifications for gaining a position on the commission. Amongst the many fields of study mentioned as desired qualifications is "professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in&#8230;Islam and other world religions." Why is the right-wing fringe making such a fuss about this bill, they are clearly not the targets, right? Well, who really knows? The language is so vague that it could include right-wing Christians as well, however, that word is not included in the language of the bill, and is merely implied by the phrase '&#8230;and other world religions.' The lack of civil liberties protection and the naming of one religion only, "Islam," makes it rather obvious who the initial targets are to be, however, the language is still ambiguous to the extent that it could be stretched to include blatant terrorist threats like Tim McVeigh, as well as those whose apparently violent acts could be construed as terrorism, such as the Earth Liberation Front's vandalism of corporate property.

Perhaps the far right is alarmed because the bill was introduced by a Democrat, their old foe from the 1990s (Waco), but those who are confirmable extremists on the right-wing have enjoyed a disparity in treatment by mostly Republicans in power for many years. Even when Oklahoma City endured the terror of the bombing of a federal building Republicans immediately speculated and accused Osama bin Laden of being responsible, though it turned out to be a white male Christian. The only name of any religion included in the bill's text is 'Islam.' According to a report from Radio Free Europe the United States still tends to ignore domestic terror threats like McVeigh to focus on foreign threats like bin Laden (see "U.S.: Ten Years After Oklahoma Bombing, Is Homegrown Terrorism Ignored?" by Andrew Tully). Thus this legislation could threaten the far right, far left, or really anyone at odds with the current regime, however, it is obvious who the first targets will be. They will be 'non-immigrant' Muslim youths on the Internet, possibly including those with a similar profile who sit in prison, which the bill and the F.B.I. report imply is some sort of terrorism breeding ground.

The likelihood that they will target young Muslims is an assumption based on logic, so I'll willfully stand corrected if they target someone else first. Regardless of who is targeted, the bill intends to fundamentally undermine the principle of free association. My intention is not frighten people with creepy tales of a future absolutist America, however, I definitely seek a basic reaction of shock at not only the fact that so many Representatives voted for this bill but that a slim majority of them were Democrats. This type of legislation would be no surprise coming from Republicans, but from Democrats it is not only a surprise to those freedom-enduring social liberals who lay faith in the Democratic Party every election, specifically under the premise of a desire to protect these very liberties from being attacked by Republicans, but should come as a shock to any supporter of civil liberties that the bill received overwhelming bi-partisan support. This will someday, probably near the election, become another one of the Democratic Party's dirty little secrets exposed too late. 219 Democrats voted for this bill in the House, and the only Democrats who voted "nay" were; Neil Abercrombie of the 1st District of Hawaii, Jerry Costello of the 12th District of Illinois, and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of the 10th District of Ohio. 22 Representatives skipped the vote, including Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul of the 14th District of Texas, whose supporters have been making the most noise about this issue in the blogosphere. Thus far the only Presidential Candidate to vote against this bill is Kucinich. The bill flew through the House, only passing through two subcommittees, neither of which were the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties or the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, both of which would have been more than relevant, and the bill was streamlined by Bennie Thompson's (2nd District of Mississippi) motion to "suspend the rules" to cut the debate short.

As I am a registered Democrat, though hardly a Party loyal, in the State of Colorado I find it necessary to reveal that which ought to be a provocation of outrage on the part of Colorado voters, which is the fact that all of our Democrats voted for this bill. Ed Perlmutter of the 7th District not only supported the bill, he was also one of the 14 co-sponsors. Not only did Perlmutter support it, so did John Salazar (no surprise), and most alarmingly Diana DeGette of District One, and Mark Udall of District Two. Udall and DeGette, the two most prominent liberals! Every single Colorado Representative on both sides of the isle supported this legislation. Democrats, one might think, would hesitate to attack civil liberties in such a way in Colorado especially, given that Denver is the location chosen for the next Democratic National Convention. I'm not surprised because I have never had any real faith in the Democratic Party, however, there are those who share my sentiments in favor of civil liberties who do put their faith in this Party every election, and it is about time pro-Dem voters start paying attention to the Party's disgraceful hypocrisy. If anything this is an opportunity for people to see this side of their praised Representatives. This bill's bi-partisan support is a pretty clear depiction of this hypocrisy, which proves in my opinion that the Democrats are no solution to the Republicans. They are not a lesser evil than the Republican Party, as was the argument in previous elections.

What can we average folks do? Well, the bill may have passed the House but it has yet to pass the Senate, and has yet to land on the President's desk. There is clearly no hope in the President, who will likely sign the bill into law without hesitation, however, there are several Democratic Presidential Candidates in the Senate, including the two latest superstars of the electoral spectacle: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The bill entered the Senate, was read a couple of times, and was sent to committee. It now sits in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Chaired by Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman. Obama is also a member of this committee. The bill is now S. 1959 according to the website "govtrack.us," though I haven't been able to find it in the Library of Congress website to confirm this. We do still have time to sway the Senate with letters and phone calls, if that ever works, and there is the chance that the Supreme Court will strike the bill down as unconstitutional. So don't worry so much, but don't ignore the issue. We need to tell our Senators to vote the bill down, and we have our work cut out for us there, but it is a chance that we should not pass up. So far critics of the bill include the more radical pundits and intellectuals, such as Alex Jones and Ward Churchill, but that alone is not enough to discredit legitimate concerns the population should logically have over any such legislation compromising such a fundamental freedom in any democracy. That means we all need to speak up on this issue, not only so as not to leave the only dissenting views as those anyone would expect to criticize such legislation, but to show the widespread opposition to this type of bill among the population of constituents in society. In a phrase: Spread the word as far and fast as you can. Senators are no more responsive to the will of voters than Representatives, in fact they are usually less so, thus we have to hound them as much as possible. The Parties have shown that they won't protect us when they our free from our attention, so what we need to do is make them know that they will suffer in future elections if they don't protect us now.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I hesitate to add such a long post to one that is already here but I think reading of the bill is in order. So far I see nothing in this bill that would lead to you being arrested as a terrorist for your post as you claim. I've only read the bill once and will read it again carefully to see if I spot any hidden meanings that would raise alarm. At the moment though I don't see that.

I would also point out that in section 899F.(a) it reads "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, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." *Shall Not* are strong words which are a command, a law if you wish that is far from being vague. It also specifically says "United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." which rules out illegals in this country and that is just fine with me.

With all due respect, a Colorado Democrat that quotes Ward Churchill gives me a lot of pause.

If this post is considered to long by moderators then here is a link to the bill and the lengthy post can be removed. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-1955

AN ACT

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`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.

`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) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

`(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.

`(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.

`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.

`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

`(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

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

`(c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--

`(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;

`(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;

`(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;

`(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;

`(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

`(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;

`(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;

`(8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;

`(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

`(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

`(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.

`(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.

`(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.

`(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.

`(h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.

`(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, 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.

`(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

`(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

`(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.

`(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies-

`(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.

`(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

`(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

`(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.

`(m) Public Meetings-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate.

`(2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).

` Staff of Commission-

`(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.

`(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).

`(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.

`(B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

`(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

`(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

`(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.

`(o) Commission Personnel Matters-

`(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

`(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.

`(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.

`(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.

`(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.

`(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.

`(q) Reports-

`(1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.

`(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress--

`(A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on--

`(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and

`(ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and

`(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.

`(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.

`(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.

`(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.

`(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.

`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall--

`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

`SEC. 899E. PREVENTING VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.

`(a) International Effort- The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.

`(b) Implementation- To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Reports to Congress- The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that provides--

`(1) a brief description of the foreign partners participating in the survey; and

 `(2) a description of lessons learned from the results of the survey and recommendations implemented through this international outreach.

`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, or civil liberties of United States citizens or 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.

`(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.'.

(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:

`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`Sec. 899A. Definitions.

`Sec. 899B. Findings.

`Sec. 899C. National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.

`Sec. 899D. Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.

`Sec. 899E. Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.

`Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.'.

Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi all

I think it's safe to say that we have documented sufficient historical Data to prove that human beings can not be trusted with excessive power. Our forefathers new this to be fact, and because of it they made every effort to maintain balance in government with our system of checks and balance's. All of which should be governed by our constitution.

If you have taken the time to read this whole post from top to bottom, I can only assume that something in it has struck a cord in your being that makes you wonder if our government would be so sinister to abuse there powers to the fulfillment of my first post.

So I have a simple question for you all

Do you believe that government, by nature, is corrupt?
Yes?
No?

This next little segment is from my Fiancé on one of her forums

For those posters who believe these detainees "deserve" to be held without trial, I am reminded of what Thomas Paine wrote in his book The Rights of Man. He said, "He that would secure his own liberty must guard from oppression even his own enemies for if he violates that duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." What presents the greater danger? That terrorists will "follow us home?" Or that fascism is taking up residence?

Now read the following and please try and remember two things
*PRECEDENT
AMERICAN CITIZEN*

September 22, 2004
U.S. Agrees to Release American Caught With Taliban
By DAVID STOUT

ASHINGTON, Sept. 22 - The Justice Department has reached agreement with Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan nearly three years ago and held as an enemy combatant, that will allow him to go free without facing charges.

The accord, which was announced this afternoon, marks an end to one of the longest and most important legal struggles to arise from the Bush administration's approach to battling terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The United States and enemy combatant Yaser Esam Hamdi and his counsel have signed an agreement that allows Hamdi to be released from United States custody and transferred to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he is a citizen," Mark Corallo, the Justice Department's chief spokesman, said in a statement. "The agreement requires Hamdi, once he arrives in Saudi Arabia, to renounce any claim he has to U.S. citizenship and to abide by strict travel restrictions."

Mr. Corallo added that "the United States has no interest in detaining enemy combatants beyond the point that they pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies."

Mr. Hamdi, who was born in Louisiana and raised in Saudi Arabia, was captured on the battlefield in November 2001. He was never charged with a crime, instead being labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, which contended he was fighting alongside the Taliban and against American forces trying to root out Al Qaeda terrorists.

Mr. Hamdi's American citizenship was verified after he was transferred to the American military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He was eventually moved to a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., where he was held in near-solitary confinement and with practically no access to a lawyer for two years.

Although President Bush and his top aides had long insisted that its treatment of Mr. Hamdi was justified - indeed, essential - in the name of national security, civil libertarians had expressed deep concerns. They noted that, even though he had not been charged with a crime, he had fewer rights and was exposed to harsher treatment than he would have had if he were a criminal suspect.

Mr. Hamdi's lawyer, the federal public defender Frank Dunham Jr., said he was "gratified at the prospect that Mr. Hamdi's return to Saudi Arabia and his family is only days away," according to a statement reported by The Associated Press.

In June, the Supreme Court sharply rebuked the administration, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president," and that Mr. Hamdi and others like him were entitled to at least challenge their detentions.

Mr. Hamdi gained further support in late August, when a federal judge in Virginia ordered the government to explain why Mr. Hamdi was being held in solitary confinement. The judge said the prisoner's treatment seemed to be cruel and unusual, as well as in violation of due process.

Regardless of his beliefs
Regardless of your personal opinion

OUR government declared him an enemy combatant

*He was an American citizen
He was imprisoned for 3 years without being charged of a crime
He was held in near-solitary confinement and with practically no access to a lawyer for two years.
He was forced to renounce his U.S. citizenship.*

That is what they call a precedent

Now if you answered YES to my question above, but believe that your government would not use HR1955 to do the same to you or others. I will ask you. At what point does corruption draw its own line?
And for those of you that said NO, well...um me and you disagree, but don't worry about it, its not like I'm going to kick you out of the country 

It was our forefathers charge to us that we uphold our own rights, and the rights of every other person in this country.

We as a nation failed to provide due process to Yaser Esam Hamdi, and in doing so have allowed for that precedent to harm us all.

Well thats all i got for now
happy hunting

Ps. sorry Plansman, I really did try and keep it short, but I guess it got away form me again


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Our forefathers new this to be fact, and because of it they made every effort to maintain balance in government with our system of checks and balance's. All of which should be governed by our constitution.


We have to work on cwoparson on that one. Over in the form on high fence hunts he thinks Wyoming has it right because they can not have a referendum. He doesn't want citizens messing with what politicians do.

Cwoparson, did you catch the above quote? If we were truly governing under a form of republic today we would be able to have a national referendum. Then we could do something if Hillary passes another "assault weapons" ban. You know, any firearm that is black.

Some people like referendums when the corrupt politicians vote their way, but I bet they change their tune when the corrupt politicians vote the other way. We always need the people to have a voice other than their elected corruptible representation.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Cwoparson, did you catch the above quote?


Yes I did but apparently you didn't. Did you not understand "All of which should be governed by our constitution." Governed by the constitution, not the whim of a majority of the citizens. You really want to live in a country where minorities have only the rights given by the majority? Personally I like it where every one has equal rights. Keep in mind we as hunters are a minority group and with what you would call a national referendum Al Gore would have been elected President.

Now on the topic. As far as I am concerned if someone picks up a rifle and turns it on our military in the battle then that person has lost their right to citizenship. This notion or more rightfully crap that enemy combatants captured on the battle field deserve to have the same rights as a US citizen is pure stupidity and I don't care where they were born. As a matter of fact I'll go so far to say if that enemy combatant is a US born citizen they should be executed on the spot.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Keep in mind we as hunters are a minority group and with what you would call a national referendum Al Gore would have been elected President.


An election is nearly the same as a referendum. Your simply voting for a person rather than an action. Why would Gore have been president. Didn't Bush get the electoral and the popular vote. I don't remember.

I don't understand someone who has more faith in politicians than citizens.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Nope, Gore actually won the popular vote by .51% but lost the electoral vote by 5.

I don't have more faith in politicians than citizens but I have enough faith in citizens to elect the right politicians. If the citizens can't get off their dead *** and work hard enough to elect the right representative then I guess they can always take the easy way out and depend on referendums and majority/democracy rule to get what some want but not all will be able to share.

A little tidbit from history for you. From its first actual use in Oregon in 1904 until 2001, approximately 2,000 initiatives have appeared on state ballots, and voters approved about 40 percent of them. Initiative use is something of a regional phenomenon, as six states alone account for nearly two-thirds of its use-Oregon, California, Colorado, North Dakota, Arizona, and Washington, in that order.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson, thanks for those facts. I had forgotten about how the popular vote went. The states using referendums was very interesting. Thanks.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi Cwoparson
Um.. you wrote?
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, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." Shall Not are strong words which are a command, a law if you wish that is far from being vague

I think my post on Yaser Esam Hamdi has proven that your SHALL NOT is a bit weak and vague when compared to the popular(and wrong) opinion of the majority of people in this country. After all we didn't consider him a US citizen, and we did not protect his constitutional rights. Why would you assume that we would protect the rights of those citizens that our government decides to call homegrown terrorists? I very much doubt that you took the time to read my entire first post. From the looks of things I would guess you read the first few paragraphs, thought to yourself, "this is total crap" hunted up the HR 1955 bill scanned down it until you got to section 899F. said to yourself something like "oh here is the proof the government cant do what wiskodie said is possible", posted the bill up for everyone to read and walked away from your keyboard feeling all smug.

Without due process we will never know what Yaser Esam Hamdi did or did not do. All we will ever know is that the majority decided that if the bush administration said he was an enemy combatant, then to hell with the constitution, that's good enough for us, we violated all of our own rights to the point of forfeit, this is a precedent that will more than likely come back to haunt us. Our forefathers work is being trashed by Americans that fail to see that our constitution was granted to us by men, and should we fail to defend it, men will take it away. Our charge is to protect ALL citizens with their constitutional rights, even those we despise i.e. rapist, murderers, kidnapers, child molesters, US citizens accused of being enemy combatants, and yes even homegrown terrorists. If you are willing to turn your head and look the other way as our government walks all over other citizens constitutional rights, you can expect in the future the same fate.

You also wrote
I've only read the bill once and will read it again carefully to see if I spot any hidden meanings that would raise alarm. At the moment though I don't see that.

This is my favorite part of all your posts  not because I believe that you read the whole thing, but because of the wonderful wording you chose to use. Like the dig on Hidden Meanings  LOL that's great. I laughed my a$$ off when I read it. It sure does a good job at making anyone that would question this bill look a bit like a kook. Which from all of your posts, and your stance on never question the government. would do an excellent job of persuading everyone not to bother with this topic any more, there by sending all the sheep back to grazing. And of course your assurance to do a more thorough job of viewing the bill again later is a wonderful way to write the subject off.

I find it strange that you didn't note `SEC. 899B`(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.
Do you not see the writing on the wall? I think it clearly states censorship of the internet. Do you think this is a good thing? Are you going to argue the fact that it has worked well for china? North Korea? Saudi Arabia?
Or are you thinking to yourself so what if the government wants to censor the internet and get rid of all the crap I don't agree with. If that's the case, You already pointed out, us hunters are turning into a minority around here. Maybe the government would decide that a bunch of gun owners on the internet chatting about any crazy thing they want was a bad idea? What would you say then?

you wrote this later?
All of which should be Governed by the constitution, not the whim of a majority of the citizens. You really want to live in a country where minorities have only the rights given by the majority? Personally I like it where every one has equal rights
Now on the topic. As far as I am concerned if someone picks up a rifle and turns it on our military in the battle then that person has lost their right to citizenship. This notion or more rightfully crap that enemy combatants captured on the battle field deserve to have the same rights as a US citizen is pure stupidity and I don't care where they were born. As a matter of fact I'll go so far to say if that enemy combatant is a US born citizen they should be executed on the spot.

"*all of which should be governed by the constitution*"

If you believed these words then you would know, understand, and demand that there are no exceptions. Our forefathers did not write in any exceptions to the constitution, they knew that if so much as one exception existed, in time more would grow from it.

"*Personally I like it where everyone has equal rights"*

I'm guess this statement was for all the people that are reading this post. And not something you believe in, Your attempt at showing us that you are a man of the people, but you must have failed to notice that your further statements, were going to make you look like someone inline with the beliefs of Nazi Germany and their Gestapo then with what our forefathers put down in the constitution.

*"as a matter of fact I'll go so far to say if that enemy combatant is a US born citizen they should be executed on the spot"*

oh I see everyone but this guy(exception) gets your equal rights, oh wait&#8230; you meant everyone but this guy and other US citizens that are accused of being enemy combatants, oh wait&#8230; you meant this guy, the US enemy combatants and our new hoarer the homegrown terrorist guys? Did we miss anyone? Come on I'm sure there are a few other people you don't like that we can put on the list? What about all those guys on the internet that point out that you are talking in circles and make you look dumb? Should we put those guys on the list too? Hey wait that would mean I'm on the list? Well that doesn't make since, I'm one of the good guys, hell I even served in the military, I'm a vet?
Are you saying you think vets should be able to be put on the list too?
This is crazy!!! I think it would be best if you just told us once and for all which US citizens are going to be on the list and which ERERYONES get your equal rights.

I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have to spend my time explaining to you and others that, by defending the rights of the worst people, you ensure your own.
I don't enjoy having to defend the scum of the earth, its just what has to be done to protect my own rights.

LOL my grandma always use to say "if wishes were horses beggars would ride" looks like this is going to be a long walk for me.

Last but not least
I don't have more faith in politicians than citizens but I have enough faith in citizens to elect the right politicians
What the hell does that mean? Looks like you are talking in circles again, why don't you just come out and say you don't trust citizens and believe in supporting the government all the way to the bitter end?

Well Cwoparson, you have a great day, I'm sure we will talk again soon

Best Regards
Matt


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Now you are showing your true colors. Your taking the words "shall not" from a proposed bill that is not even law yet and trying to apply it to a case that has already been adjudicated. I'm not the least bit concerned about some low life SOB traitor terrorist like Yaser Esam Hamdi who was trying to kill our troops on the battle field. The rest of your utter nonsense post is nothing more than the typical American hating socialist BS rants I've come to expect from your posts. When you first started posting about Ron Paul I like others was fooled into thinking you were simply passionate about a presidential candidate. However your taking several subjects and posts out of context and trying to dazzle everyone with you defense of scum like Yaser Esam Hamid shines a different light on things. You're wrong, we won't be talking soon or again as I have no desire to continue talking with a terrorist sympathizer such as yourself in any shape or form.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

LOL
I rest my case

thank you 
Cwoparson


----------

