Here's a quote from the link below:

"Chertoff, whose name means 'of the devil' in Russian, is attempting to further circumvent Posse Comitatus. He is trying to gain control of law enforcement to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security, which will include the Office of Internal Security, the Office of Political Security, and other agencies to be created after Posse Comitatus is overturned, will have a civilian mechanism to control a militarized law enforcement because they don't want the military to control it."

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=2067

Mr. Weitzel posed three questions at the beginning of this piece. The answers are: YES, YES AND YES of course. why eles would such legislation be proposed in the first place?
It's obvious that we are rolling ever faster toward fascism.

"My guess would be that the Center of Excellence ... will be established somewhere like Oral Roberts University or another equally "unbiased" institution. And funded with our tax dollars."

My guess would be the University of Chicago (home to the 'father-of-neo-Cons', Leo Strauss, idol of neo-Libs Friedman, and as-founded by that 'pillar of so-called American-Interests' -- JDR).
Of course, members from Yale (and its 'mausoleum') will be "present and accounting-for"...

Okay, Gail, I looked at the CCR site. Some good things to think about.
I can see how this legislation is filled with underlying assumptions that lump the holding of unpopular viewpoints together with the commission of violent acts. This is apparent in the use of the terms "violent radicalization" and "ideologically based violence". If the commission this act authorizes reflects a similar train of thought, then this will make matters worse, not better. The focus of the commission's concern should be on violence, without regard to belief.

I did look askance at the specific mention of the Internet as having "aided in facilitating...homegrown terrorism." Well, so have airplanes, cell phones, cars, radios, and guns, but no mention of these "terrorist tools".

The legislation, in itself, is benign, but I can see it providing the foundation for a particularly pernicious "War on Domestic Terror" that, like our other ideological wars, will never end and will never be won. Watch out for who gets appointed to the commission, and what sort of ideological extremism it includes.

Paul--The words are not the problem. The problem is with the president. As long as he is in power, no law is safe, and no part of the Constitution is safe.

The commission that this bill authorizes has a life of 18 months. By the time they issue their final report and disband, Bush will be back in Crawford for good. Or he could pull a Musharraf. But that is not a reasonable expectation.

I did notice the omission of illegal aliens, and that is a concern. I would like the bill to guarantee rights to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States government.

Finally, I didn't emphasize "shall", you did. "Must" is more forceful-sounding, but no more explicit in meaning. The Constitution is full of "shalls" ; it is not viewed as a weasel word there. But then, as I've said, no law is safe in Bush's hands.

vaudree--"for other purposes" is not in the bill itself. If the leaders want to abuse a law now or in the future, we have to take them to court. If the courts won't help us, then we either accept our fate, leave the country, or rebel. That's the history of humanity.

Also, this act does not give any tool to anyone. It just establishes a commission and a think tank.

This is the nature of democracy; it's all on paper, so we can all see what our intent is. But we still have to do what we intend to do, or it's just words. There is no way to guarantee that we will never be deceived again.

Gail--I will look at the link and get back to you.

What's the domestic "Terror Watch List" up to now? 2, 3 million American citizens? Let alone spying.

We live in a surveillance society, that's not debatable, that's reality. But if the fascist government ever really tries to act on any of these "laws," it will be their downfall, no matter how sure they are that the system is in place.

As i've said before, the Government is currently being run by a small marginal radical group who will run this country into the ground.

It's one thing to want to regiment and demoralize Americans, which they've already accomplished. We've been whisked away into timidity, but of course we need look no further than a mirror at who's to blame. Nevertheless, it's quite another thing to create more problems than they can handle.

RE: redjeff December 2nd, 2007 3:46 pm

When you point out,

Then under Sec. 899F(a) it says:
"The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein SHALL (emphasis added) not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

you apparently haven't taken into account:

1)There are already laws on the books to cover these issues, so there is no need for further legislation,

2) From the President down, members of this administration & congress have repeatedly & consistantly broken laws, or treaties, violated the Constitution, and violated oaths they all swore to the people (AND God),

3) They've also covered, or attempted to cover, their illegal immoral acts by legislation or decrees of retroactive immunity,

4) Hitler rose to power, and committed crimes against his own people (and humanity in general) through legal means such as this,

5) My previously posted Orwellian quote, to wit: "All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."— George Orwell, 'Politics and the English Language,' 1946", is an historical (and present) statement of fact. Current examples are the fairly recent, "I was for it before I was against it" mantras,

6) Since George Bush obviously has a dubious comprehension of the English language the 'SHOULD' or 'SHALL', you made such an issue of pointing out, must read 'MUST' to qualm the fears of this un-trusting populace. We've been burned too many times by the neo-CONS to trust them handling legaleze strike-on-anything matches,

7) Since congressional approval ratings barely hover over single digits, it has become painfully obvious THEIR legislations represent THEIR agendas rather than representing the will of the vast majority of the American people,

8) By current wording all illegal immigrants in this country are subject to detention (and torture even) just like the 'unlawful combatants' in Guantanamo.

i admit i did not study the details. the title "Violent Radicaliztion And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act' is more than plenty alarming.
think about it. we have been watching thousands of innocent people getting captured, tortured and imprisoned for the last six years, without charges. in those very rare cases where we could look at the criminals, we find they sent money to a Muslim charity. or they went to Pakistan, which of course means they were thinking about going to Taliban school. Thoughts like that have been major crimes since the bombing of Afghnistan started. Plus also the u.s. jailers don't even need any charges at all, or any evidence, to lock people up forever.
my guess is this thing is meant to lock up ordinary american citizens, so they can be treated the same way they have been doing to their Islamic captives.

redjeff December 2nd, 2007 3:46 pm

"Are you all done making fools of yourselves? DAMN, no wonder no one listens to you. Of all the posts above, only bbr-001 got it right. One guy did his homework, everyone else flew off the handle."

redjeff,

Click on the following link to the Center for Constitutional Rights and read the section entitled: "Noteworthy Points".

http://www.ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-...

"The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change."

They apparently believe H.R. 1955 is a "creative use of law" which could potentially be used as a negative force for social change.

AMONG THE BELIEVERS:
CRACKING THE TORONTO TERROR CELL

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/torontoterror/index.html

A moderate religious leader complains about extremists trying to recruit young people at a local Islamic community centre. Others in the community complain about these recruiters. Police don't seem interested, which frustrates the Muslims who lodged the complaints. Meanwhile, the police have recruited a couple of devout Muslims to be "recruited" by these extremists so that they can figure out how big the group is before closing it down. Sometimes when it looks like the police are not doing anything, they are.

As far as the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" goes, it is a farce. Making it a crime to promote or incite hatred would be better because it would close down the right websites. That may be the problem, such a law would not discriminate between those trying to recruit home grown terrorists and those preaching hatred against gays - nor should it.

When the Congresspersons were reading: "To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes" - why didn't they get it spelled out what these "other purposes" were. Seems to me that any tool the Act gives law enforcement to counter "homegrown terrorism" (whatever that term means) could be used for off label purposes as well. This means, irregardless as to whether you think that these tools should be made available for any specific purpose, once they are made available, these tools can be used for ANY purpose.

It is like Diane-35 which, because it can be legally used to get rid of severe acne, was also being prescribed as a contraception (an unsafe and unauthorised use of the drug which proved to be very deadly).

Off-label prescribing: a term used to denote the prescribing of a drug for a use which it has not been approved for.

"To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes"

Is an Act which states that certain tools which have been made available for one purpose can, once they exist, can be used legally for other purposes they have not been approved for. In other words, off label use of these tools was written into the Act itself.

bbr-001: I must differ with you that the people posting here today are perhaps overreacting.

One of the persons testifying before the Rep. Harman's committee was the Los Angeles assistant police chief responsible for anti-terror activities. Before the ink was dry on that insane vote (HOW WERE SO MANY INTELLIGENT DEMS CONVINCED THIS BILL WAS A GOOD THING?), this gentlemen had the police begin mapping the locations of all Muslims living in the LA. area.

The outcry was so huge he was forced to cancel the project, saying that he would have to find a different way to "reach out" to those who are in danger of being "radicalized" by "extremist ideologies." Such as the peaceful religion of Islam, perhaps. Or the peace groups sponsored by Quakers and other religious or political groups. Or those guardians of our civil rights and honest government, the ACLU, PFAW or Public Citizen. Or all of us who march and demonstrate against the insane actions of our government.

My guess would be that the Center of Excellence that is to study the radicalization process (as though no legitimate scholars were already doing that) will be established somewhere like Oral Roberts University or another equally "unbiased" institution. And funded with our tax dollars.

Are you all done making fools of yourselves? DAMN, no wonder no one listens to you. Of all the posts above, only bbr-001 got it right. One guy did his homework, everyone else flew off the handle.

Go read the actual bill; use the link in Robert Weitzel's article, like I did. The phrase "for other purposes" appears above the title; it's not even part of the bill.

The bill does exactly two things; establish a commission to study the causes and possible ways of preventing domestic terrorism, and establish a think tank to do further research and recommendations on the same subject.

There is nothing being made illegal by this bill.

There is nothing being enforced by this bill.

Under the Findings section of the bill, paragraph (8) reads:
"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."

Then under Sec. 899F(a) it says:
"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."

It is not without it's faults, but it is not anything like what Robert Weitzel has portrayed. You should all be ashamed for letting this hothead suck you in. This is exactly how Rush Limbaugh works his listeners.

I am ashamed but I gotta admit that it feels so good to see the monster turn on its own people, reminiscent of Saddam gassed his own people.

For decades this monster screwed up other peoples while its citizens were mute, uninformed, or didn't care and didn't give a damn. It feels so good to see that chickens are coming home to roost. Yes, you're right. I'm a vindictive s.o.b.. But it feels good, notwithstanding, and the worst is yet to come when the mercenary Johnny comes home marching on you!

Here's a link to the FEMA concentration camps already set up:

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062

For those interested in a link to the Orwell essay Weitzel mentions, without having to purchase it from Amazon, you can read the whole piece at:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

It's well worth the time. Here's one gem included that I especially appreciate:

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."--- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

Have you heard of this other "Act" that was passed which also criminalizes dissent?

http://www.ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/abolish-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-%28aeta%29

Why are y'all surprised? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) enacted Nov 27, 2007 was a warning shot across the bows. Yet STILL there is no Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others.

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the "terrorist" tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

The AETA niche law was a test that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law. It provides "victims" the right to determine what constitutes fear, and bring nefarious charges of terrorism against those that may only be expressing freedom of speech, with no bodily harm or property damage to the "victim". AETA has turned simple misdemeanors into federal crimes of terrorism.

There are only minor differences between the parties--they drink from the same koolaid.

If environmentalists cant protest and make change peacefully then they will resort to vandalism. So the government will just encourage the behavior they want to suppress.

Like the law they passed that make it a crime(terrorism) if you cause financial loss to a corporation that exploits other animal species.

So if you tell people not to use a product, you are a terrorist.

Just arrest a few hundred people for that crime and before long you will probably see company HQs being firebombed.

Free speech suppression leads to violent radicalization.

"We need to restore the administration to the rule of law and let the Republican party know they need to put the neocons out to pasture."

Good-luck with that...[Hilly or Obama (or 'their-ticket'?...whatever) should be "as a breath of fresh-air" in DC -- and address, thoroughly, ALL of our 'concerns' when they/he/she/it "hits the ground, running" in 2008) -- right after flying-monkeys emerge from Robert's-ass when he administers the Oath of 'protect and defend']

Quick lets run for the hills, we now have a democrat Jane Harman acting like a Republican.

When Napoleon was criticized by the pope for his imperialism, the emperor replied, how many divisions does the pope have?

What power does the Jewish congresswoman Jane Harman have, accept for her connection to AIPAC.

"Pelosi has nursed a well-publicized grudge against her fellow California Democrat because she believes Harman has not been a tough enough critic of President Bush on security matters, while using her ties to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee to lobby for the chairmanship," Washington Post

Another blatant attempt to criticize the dems, while completely ignoring the culprit in the unraveling of our constitution, the Republican Party.

Need I remind everyone of the fickleness of the electorate, Bush won in 2004 basically because the voters thought he might do a better job protecting the country.

Do you think the voters gave a damn about who started the war and why?

Do you think the voters were concerned about the blatant lies that led us into war with Iraq?

Basically, at least 50% of the voters are cowardly redneck bigoted warmongers and another 10% can ebb and flow with the tide of opinion at any particular moment.

These are all very insignificant issues unless the person in the white house chooses to act Orwellian.

The person sitting in the oval office is the "decider" of these issues.

Remember it was a Republican oilman and his dancing monkey Cheney that launched this war and a Republican congress that wholeheartedly approved it.

Columnists continue to place the emphasis on a few renegade democrats and their meek ineffectual attempt at ending the war, when the real villians of destroying the equilibrium of our nation, belongs to the rightful owners of this war the Republican Party.

Lets all grasp at any news that portrays a democrat acting like the republicans and use that to abandon all reason and throw our hands in the air and proclaim they are all the same, except of course for Saint Ralph.

"The Senate blocked legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal. The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate." Washington September 21, 2007

"You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
Mark Twain

Hey folks. As a newbie to Commondreams, it occurs to me the reaction to this Act is a litle shrill. To me it reads as a sincere attempt to understand what causes people to cross the line and plan violent acts against their community and government, and use this knowledge along with best pracices from abroad to prevent future Oklahoma City court house or Columbine events.

I would think Dubya would want to veto this one. First, the Commission is mandated to use scholarly information and studies, experts in related fields. People who use their intellects. In another word - "Liberals".

Secondly, the commission will probably recommend things that are going to cost money, and will discuss how people become alienated from our discrimminatory, over competitve money grubbing society, and become prey to Islamists, Wahabists, Black Panthers or whatever true believer flavor of the month is going around. The commission will probably recommend that dedicated professionals collect grass roots info on juvenile delinquents, repeat offenders, unusual mailings, travel and internet traffic, and unusual behavior of groups reported by local law enforcement.

Bush won't want to hear that. He already has all sorts of covert monitoring mecanisims of varying degrees of legality in place. He doesn't care about cause. His primary purpose for the justice department is to commit election fraud at the highest level, and his primary purpose for FEMA is the sort of patronage that would make "Boss Hogg" proud. No professionals need apply.

There is a difference between the democrats and these "republicans". This administration has misled this country for two terms in ideological campaigns to gut environmental and business law, allowed abuse of trade agreements and China normalized free trade status, and has used falsified evidence as an excuse to attempt colonization of Iraq. They continue to make mistakes and manipulate public opinion with falsehoods and their connection to right wing media.

A republican victory in 2008 would be rewarding the neocons and the real president (Cheney) for 8 years of disastrous mistakes that will take years to fix. We need to restore the administration to the rule of law and let the Republican party know they need to put the neocons out to pasture.

MORE NEWS!

I just read on another site that Bush wants to cut the Homeland Security budget. This cut would take money away from protecting what little protection we already have at our "ports" and "railways" in addition to cuts for first responders.

Remember when Bush wanted to allow the United Arab Emerates to buy and control our ports? Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of the UAE just purchased $7.5 Billion in convertible stock from Citigroup, the second largest U.S. financial institution and one which has taken a major $$ hit from the sub-prime debacle.

Do you remember it was the ruling sheiks from Abu Dhabi that were connected with BCCI (bank) which was involved in the Iran/Contra secret arms deal? At the time, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the Abu Dhabi sheiks called the State Department and warned that if anyone from Abu Dhabi was indicted, they'd pull all their petrodollars out of the U.S.".

In light of this new information, Robert Weitzel would be much on target when he said: "Predictably then, H.R. 1955 is not about protecting homegrown Americans. That protection is only incidental to its "other purposes" of protecting homegrown corporate interest and its unconscionable manipulation of the American political process to fill its coffers."

Can we trust anyone on these Congressional Intelligence Committees to address the "real" future concerns for this country?

Are you really concerned that we are being made a note of somewhere when chimpy and the dick cant even find the emails that were used by the rnc? I am going to start selling "I AM A TERRORIST" t-shirts.
Anyone want one? "Hang Jane Harman"

While we all get in a justifiable huff over those who want to control us like so many dogs, perhaps we might ask "What (or perhaps more appropriately--"Who") gave them the idea that they oculd do such a thing?" The answer is that we did(I am not speaking of particular individuals that post here as much as the American culture at large).

To quote Ghandi or someone of equal sagacity once observed:"we must become the change we want".

"Therefore, i ask this question? Per this proposed rule could someone be pursued for merely expressing an opinion at this site?"

As per referral to same as 'Inalienable Right', all people anywhere/anytime have "Freedom of Speech" (and as anywhere/anytime, all governments/leaders of those People have the Inalienable-Might to 'respond' to whatever is said...).

"Has anyone considered the likelihood that HR 1955 and similar measures have been designed specifically to provoke the actions that they purport to condemn?"

Governments/leaders with sizable-constituencies must perform the preparatory and prerequisite 'hard work' of assembling all their 'Lists', after-all...
[All we who Comment here at CD needn't 'feel alone' or singled-out -- even those who just occasionally 'drop-in' on this site are certainly and increasingly "made note of", somewhere -- in redundantly-stored and 'growingly-massive' databases (those tax-dollars had to be well-spent, did they not?).]

Did you really think otherwise?

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened."
Benjamin Franklin

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1781

"Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Pre American Revolution

"Every generation needs a new revolution."
Thomas Jefferson

Listen carefully to the founders. Reclaim your freedom.

aajhill December 2nd, 2007 2:40 am just wrote about our liberties
"....we must either voluntarily surrender them or knowingly provide the pretext for their repression."

Is this so inevitable - to be left with little choice but to be either passive or to become the justification for further repression. There is great danger in feeling there is nothing left to us that can be done which might be in any way helpful for our cause. Surely between the extremes of passivity and inflamatory actions there are other courses of action available to help awaken more people to the key issues.

Has anyone considered the likelihood that HR 1955 and similar measures have been designed specifically to provoke the actions that they purport to condemn? The combination of barb-wire bounded "First Amendment" zones and deliberately plastic definitions of terrorism has left so little room for legitimate expression of our liberties that we must either voluntarily surrender them or knowingly provide the pretext for their repression. This Hellerian trap becomes worse with every day we acquiesce and may already be inescapable.
Anyone who has read Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free" will recognize in us today the Germans of 1940. It was too late for them.

Robert Goldsborough

It was Denmark and the king appeared with a star of David on his coat as soon as the Nazis required all Jews to wear one. It did effectively negate the Nazi order.

A Police Provocateur's Dream, HR 1955 & S.1959
author: Ross Stone
"The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"
Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" is not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Reich Constitution, but it can bring America to the same place by trashing America's civil liberties. Harman's bill has the potential of driving lawful political and other activists underground into American cell groups. Perhaps expectantly creating the domestic terrorists the Bush Administration has said we need to be protected from.

The Nazis were dead serious when they outlawed specific types of dancing, singing, artwork; any act of expression the Government said "might" cause public unrest in the German State. German Citizens got arrested for dancing the Jitterbug. On February 28, 1933 Hitler signed the Discriminatory Decrees banning free association and speech that might cause public disturbance or adversely affect the peace and security of the German State—according to police. Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" when closely examined, defines "homegrown terrorism" as "any planned act" that might use force to coerce the U.S. Government or its people to promote or accomplish a "political or social objective." No actual force need occur. Government need only charge that an individual or group thought about doing it.

The Harman bill may extend to "planned acts" in America against foreign governments that are "U.S. alleys." See "planned acts" covered under Patriot Act. Under the Harman bill, environmental organizations in America are at risk when they coordinate activities with or support foreign activist groups in some countries. American environmental organizations can't control what might happen overseas at a "planned" environmental demonstration or control the "planned acts" of foreign activists they network with.

Under the broad language of the Harman bill, anyone attending a "planned anti war rally" could be charged with trying to coerce a government and its people. Government need only charge that an individual in a group "thought about coercing a government or its people." Labor demonstrators that block or intimidate shoppers from entering a store could be charged with "coercing people" under Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act." The Nazi's used similar provisions found in the Harman bill to charge labor leaders as communists.

Under the Harman bill, should violence breakout at a "planned" demonstration, the government can charge that everyone attending was "ideologically based toward violence." The individual activists who set up web sites promoting their "planned activities", wrote, emailed or handed out "flyers" promoting "that planned" demonstration could also be charged with Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism, depending on the violence that occurred at the demonstration. It is foreseeable that "information flyers" not intended by the author to be distributed at a particular event but were somehow distributed, could under the Harman bill open the door for government to charge the author with promoting "Violent Radicalization and/or Homegrown Terrorism, if that subsequently results. Such concerns by writers will crush free speech and written dissent.

The broad language of the Harman bill gives the government the power to bully and charge Americans with terrorism when Citizens exercise their Constitutional Right to Association. Lawful Americans that attend public meetings, demonstrations and other group public events should not be charged with Violent Radicalization, Homegrown Terrorism, or labeled "ideologically based toward violence" because of what another person said or did at a "planned" meeting. Of course, under such circumstances millions of Americans would become afraid to support or attend political and other public meetings out of concern someone might do something that violates Rep. Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act." Attendance by an American at a "political or environmentalist' meeting" could put a U.S. Citizen on the government's "no fly list."

Should the Jane Harman bill pass in its present form, the U.S. Government, federal and state police will have no difficulty legally terminating American Citizens and activist organizations that exercise their Constitutional Right to free association, free speech, expression, assembly and writings. Once the Harman bill passes, Police Provocateurs can easily destroy any anti-war group, person or organization that supports or attends a "planned" meeting or demonstration. Police Provocateurs need only join a crowd of protestors at a demonstration, then throw rocks toward uniformed police to criminalize an entire demonstration. Or covertly contact a group's participants before, at or after a "planned" demonstration, then lie and claim the person(s) the Provocateur spoke with were ideologically bent toward violence; "Violent Radicalization; or Homegrown Terrorism.

Uneducated police provocateurs and informants, which there are many, are more apt to misinterpret intellectual discussion at a political meeting as being ideologically bent toward violence, "Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism.

Forgive my lack of memory, someone please help. When Nazi Germany was capturing countries, I believe it was Norway, it made citizens of the country where pink triangles on their shoulders to show that they were gay. The prince of the country decided to wear a pink triangle and the entire country did likewise, effectively nullifying the order. (Someone please correct me on the details)

Maybe we should all wear T-shirts that say I'm another anti-globalist environmentalist. Meanwhile although not a terrorist my thoughts are way out of control according to the Rand corporation. Blackwater come get me, thank you Jane Harman, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the rest of the gang.

Globalize ©
By Robert R.Goldsborough III

Structural adjustment policies

Privatization, privatization! The corporate world -/ - They like privatization
Corporatize, globalize We become desensitized.
Polarize, victimize! We're all disenfranchised /
Compromise, anesthetize! We find ourselves minimized, mesmerized.
Dehumanize, Demoralize - / - The human race is brutalized /

Privatization, privatization! The corporate world - / -They like privatization
Reducing corporate taxes / Slashing funds for public needs.
Sell them off to global corporations - -
Poverty prevails. Privatize our jails
They jeopardize our lives, Maximize their greed. -
They Prey on human frailties, Prey on human needs.

Privatization, privatization! The corporate world - / - They like privatization
Oh no no no no no! They pick apart our world. Our national parks,
Public forests, No stone is left unturned. - /
They privatize our armies, leave their trash behind.
Globalize war They terrorize us all. - /-
Transnational corporations how Racing round the world for contracts - -
Commodify the water make us pay for rain

Oh no no, no no no no no! let's create a better place,
Diversify, humanize!, Its time for us to improvise.
Recognize, Organize! Let's get wise and mobilize
Realize revitalize let's become politicized.
We need public safety, and when they cross the line
Take away their license. Stop their private greed and crime
Take away their assets, confiscate their buildings
We should all cooperate, we need a living wage,
All around the Globe and for a six-hour day.
We could go to school, plenty time to love and play.

People hear my song, if you like you can sing along.

© copyright All rights reserved by Robert R.Goldsborough III 12/20/2004-7.
rrgoldiii@sbcglobal.net

Here's how bad it has gotten:

http://blip.tv/file/314908

I'm going to sit by my pretty Christmas tree now and sip some rum spiked eggnog and listen to my pretty carols while ya'll watch this great speech by Sibel Edmunds.

On the plus side, the powers that be have finally, in a way, spoken the truth about their intents and interests: to wage war on indigenous people, destroy nature, and to destroy humanity by placing the interests of corporations above those of people.

In a way, this bill is nothing new. What's new is the honest mission statement of capitalism and virtual reality democracy that exists within the USA, the United States of Atrocities.

Bohica

Another day, another atrocity documented by common dreams dot org. I move we rename this site common nightmares dot org, as all these news stories are like nightmares experienced while fully awake.

Bohica

"Perhaps the solution is to begin putting all of our energies into building real and sustainable communities close to home, and turn our backs on the supposed elected govt in DC. Inter-dependence and cooperation are the real life support systems available to us."

Yes, yes, yes!

We simply must let go of the illusion that what's left of this government is on our side - it's not! WE are the ones we've been waiting for and we need each other like we need water, which is becoming a scarce commodity.

We need to fix this, one person, one group, and one little community at a time. If we don't know how, we'd better start asking...each other.

"People of the nation of the free ...no longer free."

We the People are under siege.

Who is it that takes an oath to defend the Constitution? Simple, all of the assholes that voted for this bill. Myself, I dont need to take an oath because me and my little friend .223 are ready to defend it at anytime.

The one amazing vote against in the House - "B-52" Rohrbach R-Ca. An arch conservative.

I'm afraid KH is absolutly correct. Under terms of the acts, we ahve all made statements that could be construed to make us guilty as terrorists and in danger of becoming non-citizens and defined as enemy combatants.

The MSM still ain't talkin' about this topic.

willybill, what "ideologically based violence" is depends on who is defining the violence. Torture is, in my mind, an absolute act of violence on any level. Yet, I don't see this bill boomeranging back to hit the White House in the butt, do you?

But, is it an act of "violence" when protestors shout in anger at the Congress or the cops protecting them? Is it "homegrown violence" if someone burns a flag in anger at the government's policies?

Is it an act of "violence" when bloggers such as we call out vehemently for a change in government and an uprooting of the corporate status quo in Washington? Is that "violent thought," leading to perhaps "violent actions," and if so, would that not qualify under these new definitions? In other words, isn't it possible that some would see these actions as the "seeds" of their so-called homegrown violence?

This thing has the potential for becoming so far-reaching in scope in the hands of those who would gleefully silence the progressive protestors among us.

If someone thinks I am offbase here, please say so...it would help me to sleep a bit better tonight.

I guess the next escalation will be a progressive security force to counteract the conservative Blackwater force. As the stakes are raised the chances of domestic violence raises with it. The neo-cons seem hellbound for violent action both domestically and internationally. That is why strong effective non-violent resistance is so very important, otherwise blood will run like rivers.

Under this legislation and according to its definitions, i am a homegrown terrorist.
Flag me internet surveillance robots cause i'm coming out of the closet on this one.
I formally declare to you and the rest of the world that i am not "with you" on this bogus
war on terrorism. And thus, i must be, one of the terrorists. i await the knock on my
door for transport to the nearest detention center where i may be "reeducated." Maybe
there i'll find someone to talk to.

Predictable. Interesting how this bill is really just pushing the door open a bit for further legislation down the line, and providing funding. "Think tank," or whatever term is used, is code for "conservative think tank" or worse, "ultraconservative think tank." We're gradually inching toward Rule by Think Tank! Someday soon it won't matter what kind of Congress we have.

Maybe DAVID is saying, lets risk the slow death choke for the short term, instead of a sure fast one, and maybe we'll garner time to have a viable third party? Right now, we don't have one.

As far as the next electin if there is one? It will be all Democrats, president, house and senate. They have the money this time.

Google __ FEMA PRISONS ___ then scroll down to the third and forth articles. It is all set up and ready to roll. Preston Bush's Adolf has arisen from the ashes, just like the Pheonix.

Daniel David voting for a democrat is slow suffocation, as opposed to quick strangulation by a vote for republicans. We will never save the republic by supporting the two criminal parties that have sold their souls to the corporate powers, who think one world solidarity means a free hand to rape and pillage the world for profits.
and nothing provides profits like a nice war, or as the secretary of the army put it, persistent conflict. ( a euphemism for endless war)

0

Hi KEN, I believe you may be right about the flusing toilet.

We can't let these bastards shut us up; if so, they have already won. "Ideologically based violence"....isn't that the basis on which this administration governs and conquers? Anyone know a word that takes hypocricy to the next level? C'mon, now..I'm setting you up for some excellent replies! Proper nouns are acceptable. Here's one..Bushspeak...another...Neoconnism..

It remains curious whether this bill applies to persons in elected office or to Blackwater. We assume there is an automatic exemption for anyone in the Executive Branch, or working under their auspices. But lines are fuzzier today, in this era of privatization.

This brings us to the next exhibit. Is capitalism/economics an ideology in its own right?

I'm not of the alarmist view as some are here, since the wording of this bill seems rather clear about violence, not about speech. But there is quite a bit of ideological violence in the US -- mostly the far-right fundies calling for someone's head, or the autocrats trying to rile them up. For instance, Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez.

Oops! Don't miss this take on HR 1955.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7509

whatfools December 1st, 2007 3:07 pm

"One thing is sure, I'll NEVER vote for anyone that voted for this atrocity. Never!"

Dennis Kucinich voted against it. And yes, he actually showed up to vote "NO"!

startofthesea - thanks for what you say.

Here is something else i am curious about. The individuals who voted against this. I'd like to know what inspired them. My suspician is that these are the type of leaders our country so desparately needs today.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

One thing is sure, I'll NEVER vote for anyone that voted for this atrocity. Never!

No, ricg. The activities of the Ku Klux Klan, neo Nazi groups, etc., do not fit the definition of "homegrown terrorism." They do not "intimidate or coerce the United States." To the contrary, they encourage it to further pursue its current path and are thus deeply patriotic.

KEN HAUSLE---I am afraid you may just have nailed it. IN your first post

Perhaps the solution is to begin putting all of our energies into building real and sustainable communities close to home, and turn our backs on the supposed elected govt in DC. Inter-dependence and cooperation are the real life support systems available to us. We have got to stop looking to that broken system for support. They don't give a rat's ass about the people.Surely that is becoming clearer everyday.

As to your second question---perhaps although I suspect they have bigger fish to fry than those of us here on CD--I am not going to censor myself in fear, in any case. What kind of existence would that be?

I think we all need to remember that we are not as fringe or as isolated as they would have us believe---and I don't believe they can put out the LIGHT that we are all working hard to anchor and amplify. Shine on Dreamers! The best is yet to come!

And guess who gets to enforce this nightmare...my guess, probably 'blackwater' coming to a suburb or town near you...

Just throwing something out for consideration and feedback:

Each and everything each and every one of us communicate here are opinions. Is this not so?

Therefore, i ask this question? Per this proposed rule could someone be pursued for merely expressing an opinion at this site?

If so, then this means we no longer have freedom of expression, doesn't it? If so, does this not mean the country is flushed rather than just in the toilet?

It seems this way to me, but maybe i'm reading too much into it.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

Dumbs and Repugs- When relegated to choosing the lesser of two evils, one is still stuck with evil in the end. There really needs to be some house cleaning in Washington.

One more point, though. In the few articles about H.R. 1955 and S. 1959, no one here has mentioned that it is not just environmentalists and anti-globalizers that Jane Harmon and her posse at the hearings are after. Mark Weitzman of the Wiesenthal Center named names. In fact, whole websites and groups. They are directly attacking the 9/11 Truth movement by equating scientists and engineers that challenge the official tripe about 9/11 with alleged violent jihadists from the Mideast. I'm not talking about the far fringe that scream about electro-magnetic weapons, pods, or no planes, though they should have their right to not be targeted. I'm talking about sound academics and other professionals that are now being named IN CONGRESSIONAL hearings! Why do progressives and other journalists have such an allergy to the obvious problems surrounding 9/11 that they won't even defend members of that movement that are now under direct attack? Whether right or wrong, these people deserve protection and and their rights deserve to be supported along with environmentalists and anti-globalists. Read the link below...

See here for details.

Paragraphs 1 - 4 of Section 899A would appear to make this legislation immediately applicable on passage to the Ku Klux Klan, neo Nazi groups, Operation Rescue, various christian fundamentalist denominations, and other ideological, violent groups operating within the United States.

Perhaps the Republicans would like to grandfather these groups so that the GOP won't lose much of its base?

I suspect if we get a Rebublican Congress in 2008 it could mean that the "Democrat-sham" is more annoying than the "Repubican-shaft". It might also mean that american's still haven't learned to overcome fear, or it could just mean that the voting machines are rigged.

It could help civil liberties because at least the Republican's are a bit more honest while they are giving you the shaft, and this way, folks might be quicker to start recognizing what is really happening in the made up city of DC, but i doubt it. If we don't learn soon, it will probably make no difference who is in DC in 08....

Just my opinion.

Peace,
Ken Hause

Aside from the typical impulse reaction to the title of this Bill, the cozy relationship between Harmon and RAND is what the country needs to be concerned about. Private sector corporate interests are today's source of terror, the legislation written by these quasi-governmental corporate spooks represents the tyranny of your nightmares. For anyone who's ever worked for CACI, Northrup, Raytheon or any of the smaller rats and cockroaches that feed at the Federal trough, the sanitizing of fraud is decorated under reams of paper and process, so that massive funding flows into their coffers on a never ending basis. As for this bill, the funding may lead to the "discovery" that companies like RAND have actually created and profited immensely from "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence". Then again, "homegrown idealism" decided that a small release of weaponized antrhax was an excellent followup to 9/11.

Homegrown terrorism definition: You and I and anyone else who is against the corporate facism that now represents our former democracy. You and I and anyone else who is against the Administration's agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. You and I and anyone else who realizes that the concepts formerly applied to other nations in Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine are now being applied to the United States. You and I and anyone else who is tired of the economic hitmen, the destruction of our environment, rampant consumerism, and eslavement by debt.

Daniel, did you read the article? The sponsor of HR-1955 is a Democrat, Jane Harmon. The vote in the House was 404 - 6 in favor of the bill. The 6 who opposed it included 3 Dems, 3 Repubs. So there's no difference between the parties, in this regard.

Okay, since a knock on Daniel David and my recommended Democrats beat even Daniel David (me) to the comment box, let's try in 2008 a Republican Congress, or a mixed-bag Congress, a Republican president and some more strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. Can someone please explain how that's going to improve the problem of civil liberties flying out the windows?

The shit just keeps getting deeper. Tony
TO THE DEMS

I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I'm 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony

Sleep deprivation, stress positions, water boarding, that's not torture, but opposing Bu$h and Uncle Dick, now that's real terrorism for you.

I'd expect this kind of a death blow when the GOP controls both the legislative branch and the White House but with Democrats in control of one or both, this is unacceptable. At this rate, I think we all better forget the Democrats altogether and start voting 3rd party more often. And no, Daniel David, putting Democrats in control of both chambers will NOT NOT NOT restore civil liberties !