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

Ratchet down the hyperbole folks. The bill is bad enough as it is without getting all worked up about "criminalizing" thoughts. That's not ever remotely close to what the bill actually does.
 
Still the idea that they are creating a framework for streamlining any future decision to pursue criminalization is a cause for unease.
 
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...


That's deep.

But recognize what the historical significance will be of what is unfolding before your eyes. Welcome to 1939 Germany, complete with the Reichstag Fire. And, like the German people of that era, the American people are equally as clueless.

Pay attention my brother, and don't fall for the okey-doke because there is far more there than what you see.

I'm sorry to do this to you if you don't already know, but I'm about to make your day even worse.

Rex 84: FEMA's Blueprint for Martial Law in America

by Allen L Roland

Global Research, August 20, 2006

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

" These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached."

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.

“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe"

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops in a national emergency.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal " one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs."
The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of " a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe" in the United States.

Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the people demanding the truth.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROL20060820&articleId=3010

Don't take my word for it .. research it for yourself, but also consider this, we are the greatest prison nation on the planet, perhaps in the history of the world. We even have prisons in other countries, even countries we don't like and they don't like us, like Cuba.

Now we have demonized thought .. and you can't have thoughts that deny the holocaust. That has nothing to do with being against the Israeli people or jews, but we've demonized thought. If someone denied slavery ever existed and blacks swam to America .. what difference would that make to me or to history? Why would I want to demonize the thought?

Now we want to classify thought.

Here's the punch line .. Americans don't even have control of their own elections. They've been privatized .. and PROVEN .. 3 years ago PROVEN to be a fraud. Yet Michael Vick gets more press than this reality.

The American people have no clue.
 
uscitizen said:
Me ? Well I still consider him about the same as always. A nut.
Click to expand...

So are we nuts for thinking this Senate Bill is dangerous to our personal liberty? These are the things he is the strongest of any candidate on. These are the bills he fights agaisnt when he is that 1 vote against everyone else in Congress. My question would be, what exactly do you think the impact of a Paul presidency would have on policies?

I don't think he'd be able to effect Education much, other than getting rid of NCLB. Congress would prevent him from removing the Dept. of Education.

I don't think he'd be able to effect Social Security other than he wouldn't pretend we have a more balanced budget using surpluses from it. He may disagree with it, but he damn sure takes care of his Constituents needs when it comes to Social Security, and it goes where it is meant to go.

He might be successful at getting rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security... that is a big if with Congress and the Senate if enough of them to come around and see the light, but I don't think it'll happen even if he had two terms.

However, he WILL pull us out of Iraq. Being Commander in Chief, he has that ability. He WILL veto bills like this one that are dangerous. Where exactly will Paul be a dangerous candidate considering the role the president has in working with Congress?
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I agree with him on the dangers.
 
Young Libertarian said:
This is an area where our social positions align well. Though I know you don't favor the term, we share elements of civil libertarianism.
Click to expand...

We share a lot of things my brother, not the least of which is that we exist in the same boat. This is not a partisan issue and it's interesting to note that among the 6 that voted against the bill, 3 were republican and 3 were democrat.

This is an American issue and we've allowed them to chip away at our rights based on our FEAR, until now they feel free to slide in a bill such as this under cover of darkness.

We're becoming subjects, not citizens .. and for the most part, we deserve what is happening to this nation. We deserved George Bush.
 
blackascoal said:
That's exactly what the bill says.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. It establishes a commission that has the power to study things, hold hearings, obtain information from federal agencies (including the FBI, CIA and other agencies presumably) but no power to do anything other than report to the President and Congress.

I agree that it is a dangerous step, but it isn't nearly as threatening as you have stated.
 
The funny thing is that this sets up for exactly the "national collaborativism" (a political philosophy I am currently developing) that I have both predicted for the future and plan on bringing to the political forefront.
 
Dungheap said:
No it doesn't. It establishes a commission that has the power to study things, hold hearings, obtain information from federal agencies (including the FBI, CIA and other agencies presumably) but no power to do anything other than report to the President and Congress.

I agree that it is a dangerous step, but it isn't nearly as threatening as you have stated.
Click to expand...

So should we wait until a law that specifically criminalizes thought gets slid under the table before we should speak out as an informed people. At what point in this transition should we be alarmed?

Does this matter ...

860,000 Name Long Terror Watch List Scrutinizes Americans Most

The nation's centralized watch list has grown to include 755,000 names suspected of having terrorist ties, resulting in nearly 20,000 positive matches of persons against the list in 2006, according to a new report from Congress's investigative reporting arm. Since the list is now used in nearly all routine police stops and for domestic airline travel, Americans made up the bulk of those matches.

The Government Accountability Office's report was presented in a hearing to the Senate's Homeland Security Committee Wednesday, causing senators to express concern about the size and effectiveness of the list.
The GAO report (here) included a few new details about the list's size and operation but much of this was reported by Wired months ago.

The Terrorist Screening Center runs the list, which is created from nominations from a wide array of government agencies via the National Counter Terrorism Center. The watch list entries are used to check persons seeking visas, travellers entering or leaving the country, domestic airline passengers and persons stopped by state, local or federal law enforcement. Most of the positive matches on the list came from police routinely checking persons, such as speeding motorists, against the list, according to the Government Accountability Office's report (.pdf).

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/Terrorist-Watch-List24oct2007.htm

None of this may be threatening to you, but it is to my children and their future.
 
blackascoal said:
So should we wait until a law that specifically criminalizes thought gets slid under the table before we should speak out as an informed people. At what point in this transition should we be alarmed?

Does this matter ...

860,000 Name Long Terror Watch List Scrutinizes Americans Most

The nation's centralized watch list has grown to include 755,000 names suspected of having terrorist ties, resulting in nearly 20,000 positive matches of persons against the list in 2006, according to a new report from Congress's investigative reporting arm. Since the list is now used in nearly all routine police stops and for domestic airline travel, Americans made up the bulk of those matches.

The Government Accountability Office's report was presented in a hearing to the Senate's Homeland Security Committee Wednesday, causing senators to express concern about the size and effectiveness of the list.
The GAO report (here) included a few new details about the list's size and operation but much of this was reported by Wired months ago.

The Terrorist Screening Center runs the list, which is created from nominations from a wide array of government agencies via the National Counter Terrorism Center. The watch list entries are used to check persons seeking visas, travellers entering or leaving the country, domestic airline passengers and persons stopped by state, local or federal law enforcement. Most of the positive matches on the list came from police routinely checking persons, such as speeding motorists, against the list, according to the Government Accountability Office's report (.pdf).

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/Terrorist-Watch-List24oct2007.htm

None of this may be threatening to you, but it is to my children and their future.
Click to expand...



I'm not saying you should wait until a law specifically criminalizes, I'm just saying that you shouldn't misrepresent the law that you oppose. It undermines your credibility.
 
blackascoal said:
So should we wait until a law that specifically criminalizes thought gets slid under the table before we should speak out as an informed people. At what point in this transition should we be alarmed?

Does this matter ...

860,000 Name Long Terror Watch List Scrutinizes Americans Most

The nation's centralized watch list has grown to include 755,000 names suspected of having terrorist ties, resulting in nearly 20,000 positive matches of persons against the list in 2006, according to a new report from Congress's investigative reporting arm. Since the list is now used in nearly all routine police stops and for domestic airline travel, Americans made up the bulk of those matches.

The Government Accountability Office's report was presented in a hearing to the Senate's Homeland Security Committee Wednesday, causing senators to express concern about the size and effectiveness of the list.
The GAO report (here) included a few new details about the list's size and operation but much of this was reported by Wired months ago.

The Terrorist Screening Center runs the list, which is created from nominations from a wide array of government agencies via the National Counter Terrorism Center. The watch list entries are used to check persons seeking visas, travellers entering or leaving the country, domestic airline passengers and persons stopped by state, local or federal law enforcement. Most of the positive matches on the list came from police routinely checking persons, such as speeding motorists, against the list, according to the Government Accountability Office's report (.pdf).

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/Terrorist-Watch-List24oct2007.htm

None of this may be threatening to you, but it is to my children and their future.
Click to expand...

We should have all been alarmed with the Patriot Act, but its amazes me that people jsut keep ignoring the steps they are taking to have complete control of the things we say and do in all walks of life. It's just one step at a time. Call me paranoid but I wonder when people will start being paranoid with me because it's becoming more and more clear just what they are working towards.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not saying you should wait until a law specifically criminalizes, I'm just saying that you shouldn't misrepresent the law that you oppose. It undermines your credibility.
Click to expand...

I will agree there. I have seen desh post threads about bills with similar text and now it's rather difficult to consider them all with the severity they deserve.
 
DigitalDave said:
We should have all been alarmed with the Patriot Act, but its amazes me that people jsut keep ignoring the steps they are taking to have complete control of the things we say and do in all walks of life. It's just one step at a time. Call me paranoid but I wonder when people will start being paranoid with me because it's becoming more and more clear just what they are working towards.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top