H. R. 1955 To prevent homegrown terrorism and other purposes

TheFunkHole · Post by **TheFunkHole** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:52 pm

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1955

â†

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:17 pm

Scary stuff. More surveilance and suppression of speech! Yay!

I we get a Guliani/Romney administration I'm outta here.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:54 pm

Oh, you want to be blown up because you don't think the way some asshole wants you to think?

BTW, good find, Funkhole.

Edit: Thinking on it a bit, under the current administrative climate, yeah, this is a scary bit of legislation. But so is the existence of domestic terror cells (the Operation Backfire people lived and operated not far from me and ALF put my dad's company out of business by burning his trucks).

So what do we do? We can quote Ben Franklin all we want, but there's also sticking up for yourself. If you know someone who's about to blow up a police station or go shooting at cars along the freeway, you could do something about it personally but then you'd be branded a vigilante and sermoned about innocent-until-proven-guiltiness. And meanwhile, the police station continues to stand, serve and operate.

Let's just say that I have no sympathy for violent militants. I include the KKK in that category.

Zhust · Post by **Zhust** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:51 am

diane o'thirst wrote:But so is the existence of domestic terror cells

I thought it was already illegal to blow up police stations. But I guess we'll have to sacrifice the Bill of Rights to get such a law on the books.

At least we can finally go after the Republican Christian Church for enacting terror in America. Oh, what? They're exempt? Aw crap.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:02 am

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

That makes me feel so comfortable.

Fear a government that fears its people. News at 11.

BitterDan · Post by **BitterDan** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:56 am

Let's just say that I have no sympathy for violent militants.

What about the people who violently resisted the English and formed the country we know as America?

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so." - Mohandas Gandhi

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:20 am

It's not a question of whether violence against the state is appropriate or necessary or not.

This law is the equivalent of a thief pulling a ski-mask over his head prior to a robbery. For some strange reason, the government fears a revolt more than ever before.

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

Rocket75377 · Post by **Rocket75377** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:35 am

Ugly Dougly wrote: Fear a government that fears its people. News at 11.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.â€

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:14 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:It's not a question of whether violence against the state is appropriate or necessary or not.

This law is the equivalent of a thief pulling a ski-mask over his head prior to a robbery. For some strange reason, the government fears a revolt more than ever before.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

They should be in fear. They have been pushing harder and harder. Some are tired of being pushed and are going to push back more and more. They say violence isn't the answer.. But I have witnessed far too often peaceful words responded to with extreme violence. I took part in a permitted gathering of folks in Florida in 2003 regarding the FTAA. As I was leaving as illegally ordered I was shot at by numerous thugs dressed much like star wars stormtroopers. I was hit 3 times in the back with rubber bullets that left fist sized bruises and hurt for weeks. I was hit in the back of the head with a plastic round fired from a grenade launcher. After being knocked out I was than shot at another couple dozen times. Over half of the rounds impacted my limp body while the others kept me from being saved by bystanders. All I wanted to do was stand in solidarity with other people as a machinist and toolmaker and beg those listening to keep manufacturing in America. I only wanted to peacefully express my concerns about free trade vs. what I was taught in school about checks and balances in trade matters. I followed the orders of their agents IMMEDIATELY. Yet I was still fired upon with military grade tools of war. Rubber and plastics rounds do not tickle. They are not non-lethal. In some cases folks were disfigured for life after being shot in the face. Even attorneys and journalist were fired upon during this one particular day in 2003. This kind of thing is common nowadays everywhere in the country. Is there any other solution? What are we to do when what we want is being ignored. Even our votes don't matter any more. I fear. I fear that we will be forced to be violent in self defense. I fear that I will not be able to restrain myself as their attacks against my fellow Americans continue. The camcorder police brigade has done nothing.. except for wake up a few folks via youtube. Rebbi Rick posted something like the following.

They came for the Jews and I did nothing.
They came for the Blacks and I did nothing.
They came for the Monks and I did nothing.
They came for me and there was nobody to help me.

This is probably not the exact context but the meaning was basically the same. If we keep sitting around doing nothing than eventually everyone will be a terrorist. Eventually everything will be outlawed. We will all be criminals. Than what? This kinda gets me to why I am into Burningman. I fear this may be our future. Well.. rather the future for us smart ones. As this country continues its meltdown we will eventually have to live in something more like Burningman year round. Even the rich are starting to feel the pinch a little. Its not a bad thing in a way I guess. I've been preparing for this for a long time now. I have known this has been on its way for awhile now. Guess I read too much as a kid and listened to too many radicals. Oh well.. shit happens I guess. If we all bring shovels maybe we'll get it sorted eventually.

I'm done ranting.. sorry.. bad mood today.

edited to add the following:

Also wanted to write something since many writers are on strike.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:01 am

BitterDan wrote:What about the people who violently resisted the English and formed the country we know as America?

Congratulations, you've arrived. Here's your Berkeley Union Card. Now go fix that window...

Actually I was drawing more of an analogy to the KKK. They definitely fit the profile. The Boston Tea Party had more in common with someone giving the local garden gnomes a field trip to the baseball diamond than it did Oklahoma City. Unless the perps smeared them with ricin. Fuuuuuuunnn...

Sorry, the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just blowing smoke. Maybe the concept of representational government was radical to inbred twerps in 18th Century Europe but I think that general who called the American Revolutionists "terrorists" would recant and apologize if he saw the towers fall.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:18 am

one mans twin towers is another man's babel.

"Remember the Maine!"

"i have seen the enemy, and he is us"

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:01 pm

Would that include groups like the KKK, Nazi Uber chicks of the middle playa and others like them.

Or would that include people plotting against those groups.

Which side gets to say who is the real terrorist

And Whittie is on the moon

mereth · Post by **mereth** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:58 am

[youtube][/youtube]

Nazi Uber Chicks? Now for something 99% non sequitur...

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:04 am

Toolmaker wrote: They came for the Jews and I did nothing.
They came for the Blacks and I did nothing.
They came for the Monks and I did nothing.
They came for me and there was nobody to help me.

It's from They Thought They Were Free

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:12 pm

At least we can finally go after the Republican Christian Church for enacting terror in America. Oh, what? They're exempt? Aw crap.

Actually, I think they have more to fear than you think.

The bill came from the left. From a Democrat. From California.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:31 am

Democrat and Republican are two puppets, from the left and right hands of the same puppeteer. Look behind the curtain if you dare.

draconispax · Post by **draconispax** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:27 pm

behind it you just might find satan

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:11 am

Blessed are those that stand against him.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:27 pm

Democrat and Republican are two puppets, from the left and right hands of the same puppeteer. Look behind the curtain if you dare.

Democrat and Republican are puppets indeed and change hands, faces and puppeteers.

But left and right? I do not think so.

Left leads to perfect communism. The hive. The Body.

Right? Who can say? We don't explore that way. We simply accept that far right is fascism even though state power is anathemic to the most basic tenets of what we call 'right'

I think the Right might lead to perfect individualism. A state in which all interaction is by choice, not any bodily need.

But here's the thing. Why is it that this 'they're all alike' thing seems to trot out whenever the stated oppression comes from the left, rather than the right?

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:30 pm

AFAICT, that law creates a Commission that is empowered to collect evidence and release reports on domestic and potential terrorists. I didn't see any expansion of police power or erosion of Constitutional liberty.

What's everybody so het up about?

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:25 pm

Mostly, I object to the language in the "findings" section. It seems to indicate that the conclusion has already been made and this law is the first step - create a group whose mission is to find evidence of rampant homegrown terrorism, then use their reports to push through new laws restricting speech. Why would this group be specifically excluded from the Federal Advisory Committee Act unless they anticipate the need to hide things from the public?

The sections about requesting reports from any government agency, and about contacting with private firms are rather vague. Do they allow the committee to direct the agencies or firms to investigate specific groups?

Can they compell people to testify publicly? McCarthy comes to mind.

Isn't this type of investigation and reporting something the FBI would handle? Why would hand-picked politicians be better able to collect this information?

Is there any way to tell who actually wrote this thing or just who submitted it?

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:13 am

Dork wrote:Is there any way to tell who actually wrote this thing or just who submitted it?

Sponsor:
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]

Cosponsors [as of 2007-10-24]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D-WA]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01955:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/sh ... _1955.html

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:03 pm

Dork wrote:Mostly, I object to the language in the "findings" section. It seems to indicate that the conclusion has already been made and this law is the first step - create a group whose mission is to find evidence of rampant homegrown terrorism, then use their reports to push through new laws restricting speech. Why would this group be specifically excluded from the Federal Advisory Committee Act unless they anticipate the need to hide things from the public?

The sections about requesting reports from any government agency, and about contacting with private firms are rather vague. Do they allow the committee to direct the agencies or firms to investigate specific groups?

Can they compell people to testify publicly? McCarthy comes to mind.

Isn't this type of investigation and reporting something the FBI would handle? Why would hand-picked politicians be better able to collect this information?

Is there any way to tell who actually wrote this thing or just who submitted it?

Here's an interesting article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/nav/tap3/

I didn't notice that it was exempt from FACA, that's a little disquieting. Th

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:05 pm

I thought it was already illegal to overthrow the government violently.
Does this mean that it was legal before?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:16 pm

lurker wrote:But here's the thing. Why is it that this 'they're all alike' thing seems to trot out whenever the stated oppression comes from the left, rather than the right?

404 Ayes, 6 Nays. As many Republicans resisted it as Democrats, to be fair.

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:24 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:I thought it was already illegal to overthrow the government violently.
Does this mean that it was legal before?

Right now it's illegal to commit those acts of violence, and in some cases to prepare to commit them. What's currently legal is talking about what I think "should" happen. I can post a blog talking about how the government is corrupt and should be forcibly removed and replaced with something more to my liking. Or about how my religion is the one true one, and the lives of followers of other religions are worth less. Or people attacking our nation's troops walking the streets in their country might be a justified act. Free speech and all, you know.