Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech in America

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
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. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated.
http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The bill ...
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

Castro, Chavez haters come one, come all.
 
Obama Supports Homegrown "Terrorism" Bill

Obama Supports Homegrown Terrorism Bill
December 10, 2007
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/10/obama-supports-homegrown-terrorism-bill/

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama says that he will support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959). According to the automatic email responses constituents are receiving from his office, Obama appears to be straddling the fence between preserving civil liberties and being tough on terrorism.

"The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe. They also insist that our responses to threats respect the constitution and do not violate the basic tenets of our democracy", Obama's email said. Several people who have written to Obama have posted his response on various blogs, including Justin who's personal blog was picked up on diggs.com.

"I wrote Senator Obama (my senator from Illinois) about this act, which is now in a committee of his (the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs). I asked that he read the bill (not to insult his intelligence, but after the Patriot Act it appears this is a necessary request for most senators), and that he recognize the dire consequences that could result from its vague language," Justin wrote Dec. 6 below the post of Obama's email. He's quite eloquent, you've got to give him that. This act ‘includes provisions prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security's efforts from violating civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens.

Didn't we used to have something like that? What was it called? Oh right, The Constitution.

The House version of the bill, H.R. 1955, passed Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6 under the "suspension of the rules," a provision that is available to quickly pass bills considered "non-controversial."

Obama is on the 17-member Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) Aug. 2. "I will keep your important comments in mind as I work with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I will work to ensure that this legislation helps to achieve our domestic security objectives while protecting civil liberties and constitutional rights," Obama stated in his email to Justin.

Many scholars, historians and civil liberties experts say they fear that the proposed bill will set the stage for future criminal legislation that be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations.

"This bill fits the pattern we are seeing coming out of Congress, both Republican and Democratic, of a continued campaign of fear, which gets into heads of Americans that we now need to start criminalizing ideology," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. He said he is very concerned about the bill’s vague definitions of “violent radicalization, "homegrown terrorism," and the terms within the definitions including "extremist belief system," "violence" and "force."

"What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this?" Queral questioned. "Planes flying into the World Trade Center is an extremist belief, but are anti-abortion activists extremists? Are individuals who liberate mink extremists? These are broad definitions that encompass so much, which need to rather be very narrowly tailored. It is criminalizing thought and ideology, rather than criminal activity."

OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE VIEWS ON THE BILL

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that he believes the proposed bill is unconstitutional.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in New York City Nov. 29, Kucinich took several questions from the audience, including my question asking why he voted against the bill. Kucinich was one of only six representatives to oppose the bill on Oct. 23.

"If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest," Kucinich said. "This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment."

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was one of the 22 House members not present for the vote.
*****

Under this bill, Martin Luther King would be considered a terrorist.

Good job Obama
 
This isn't happening. I'm dreaming and I'm reading stuff on my computer that makes me feel sick. I'll wake up in a minute and it will all be gone.
 
McCarthy would have loved SB 1959
Oh yeah, this slipped under the traditional media radar too:

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, a.k.a. Senate Bill 1959. This masterpiece sailed through Congress in October (only six nays — three R, three D, Kucinich among them) and is currently in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The bill would establish a commission similar to Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee and could potentially make any sort of political dissent or controversial religious display illegal. Even thinking about such things could get you in trouble.

In short, this outrageous Act is a yet another attempt to generate fear in the minds of the American people, another disgrace to the Constitution, and you can thank Rep. Jane Harman of California for sponsoring it.

Hyperbole? Well, you decide. Here's a chunk:
(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.

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.
And if you really want to stir the bile, here's the whole thing.

Go ahead, read it. Then drive a truck through the loopholes and use your Disney-like imagination to interpret the strategically vague parts. It'll be quite a trip.

And after you read it, congratulate yourself, because you've probably done more for your civil rights than your congressperson.

"Force or violence." That phrase should stand out for anyone with any street smarts. See, they can interpret that however they see fit. They don't specifically say "bodily harm" or even "personal property damage". And "force" doesn't have to be physical, either.

Enforcement? They can contract that out. Big surprise. It's paragraph after paragraph of Orwell's greatest fears plopped in front of hundreds of millions of people looking the other way. Orwell even made up a word for it: Thoughtcrime.

It is still possible for the Senate to kill this craziness, but the lopsided results in the House don't exactly engender optimism. But it can be filibustered if enough sane people in D.C. are paying attention.

See Philip Giraldi's excellent analysis and commentary for more background on this disaster in the making.

Meanwhile, you can make a difference by contacting your legislators and kindly requesting they yank their heads out of their Deep South. Be polite, of course. But do contact them and urge them to read the text. S1959 must be stopped.

By the way, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee?

Joe Lieberman...
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2007/11/mccarthy-would-have-loved-sb-1959.html

gotta take a break .. I need some air
 
I can't believe it, I really can't believe it.

When I first visited the US in 1984 (I was there for two months and made great use of an internal American Airlines flight pass thing and an Oldsmobile Cutlass I rented at O'Hare and drove into Canada and down the east coast and back to Chicago via Va and Wa, Ky, Ind etc) I had the time of my life, I really did.

I enjoyed it so much I went back several times to explore different regions of the US, usually renting a car and just wandering around for six weeks at a time (that's my annual leave allocation).

I used to joke with my friends back here in Australia that every time I got off at LAX my civil rights went into plus mode and when I got back to Aus they went minus again (we don't have a Bill of Rights). But last time I was in the States I stopped overnight at San Francisco (stayed at Brisbane not far from the airport and got a plane to O'Hare next day and on to Toronto) it felt different (that was two years ago) and not just at the airport. Folks at the hotel were impeccably courteous and helpful as always but something felt different. On my way back from Toronto (at Pearson you go through US Customs so you don't have to do it at O'Hare) the ICE bloke I spoke to asked me if he could emigrate (he checked my documents and knew what I do for a living). He wasn't joking, he was pissed off.

I've been to Canada since that visit and avoided using US airports. Going again shortly to Toronto this time with Air Canada. You know what? They're trumpeting in their advertising that we can go from Sydney to Vancouver without going through a US airport (apparently they did the Honolulu stopover but with the Boeing 777-300ER they go straight from Sydney to Vancouver). It's a selling point, no US airport stopover.

I am having a bloody nightmare, I must be.
 
Here is what Paul says on it.

Before the House of Representatives, December 5, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization" – a claim for which there is no evidence – there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization." Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, anti-war, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
 
Diuretic said:
I can't believe it, I really can't believe it.

When I first visited the US in 1984 (I was there for two months and made great use of an internal American Airlines flight pass thing and an Oldsmobile Cutlass I rented at O'Hare and drove into Canada and down the east coast and back to Chicago via Va and Wa, Ky, Ind etc) I had the time of my life, I really did.

I enjoyed it so much I went back several times to explore different regions of the US, usually renting a car and just wandering around for six weeks at a time (that's my annual leave allocation).

I used to joke with my friends back here in Australia that every time I got off at LAX my civil rights went into plus mode and when I got back to Aus they went minus again (we don't have a Bill of Rights). But last time I was in the States I stopped overnight at San Francisco (stayed at Brisbane not far from the airport and got a plane to O'Hare next day and on to Toronto) it felt different (that was two years ago) and not just at the airport. Folks at the hotel were impeccably courteous and helpful as always but something felt different. On my way back from Toronto (at Pearson you go through US Customs so you don't have to do it at O'Hare) the ICE bloke I spoke to asked me if he could emigrate (he checked my documents and knew what I do for a living). He wasn't joking, he was pissed off.

I've been to Canada since that visit and avoided using US airports. Going again shortly to Toronto this time with Air Canada. You know what? They're trumpeting in their advertising that we can go from Sydney to Vancouver without going through a US airport (apparently they did the Honolulu stopover but with the Boeing 777-300ER they go straight from Sydney to Vancouver). It's a selling point, no US airport stopover.

I am having a bloody nightmare, I must be.
Click to expand...
Yeah, with reactions like this, who needs enemies?

The US ability to react this way astounds me. I'll never comprehend it.
 
blackascoal said:
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. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated.
http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The bill ...
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

Castro, Chavez haters come one, come all.
Click to expand...


how can all those people be imprisoned based on this act? i read thru it and dont see how its possible.
 
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
 
Socrtease said:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

You know what is interesting is that they get neither.
 
Chapdog said:
how can all those people be imprisoned based on this act? i read thru it and dont see how its possible.
Click to expand...


As far as I can tell they can't. The act doesn't even make anything criminal. It does however set up a framework, budget and personnel for government monitoring of citizens and the creation of a sort of "enemies list," which they could end up on. That's no picnic either.
 
Wow nice to see that things have changed since the Democrats got to town and started running the show again. And just so those that monitor the internet can see, There is going to come a time soon when we the people are not going to take this anymore. Soon, people on the left and on the right are going to see freedom not so much in terms of abortion and guns and sexual orientation but in terms of resisting an ever encroaching government that decides our thoughts and beliefs are crimes. When they day comes they will stand side by side rather than across from each other and they will take back the country that the Constitution USED to represent. Either with a wholesale revamping of our system, or by Force.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey, The Right to Arms, Abbey's Road, 1979
 
Socrtease said:
Wow nice to see that things have changed since the Democrats got to town and started running the show again. And just so those that monitor the internet can see, There is going to come a time soon when we the people are not going to take this anymore. Soon, people on the left and on the right are going to see freedom not so much in terms of abortion and guns and sexual orientation but in terms of resisting an ever encroaching government that decides our thoughts and beliefs are crimes. When they day comes they will stand side by side rather than across from each other and they will take back the country that the Constitution USED to represent. Either with a wholesale revamping of our system, or by Force.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey, The Right to Arms, Abbey's Road, 1979
Click to expand...

Another couple weeks you will go to prison for that. :pke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top