please take the time to read this, and conact your senators
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?S1959
sign here
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
This bill is a topic I've been loathe to address, because I think I find it so confusing. Who can argue with opposing terrorism? The bill SEEMS to create a sort of study group. But when Ron Paul is right, he really hits the nail on the head. He says:
"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."
http://dailypaul.com/node/11769
When one reads through the bill, it's hard to understand what the point of it is. So one thinks, maybe this was all clarified during debate. But apparently there was little to no debate over the bill and it was passed under suspension of ordinary rules. Looking on my Rep's site (Baron Hill), I could find no reference to it.
But the really glaring trouble spots in the bill, it seems to me, are these:
"(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.
...
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
I think the concept of violence is reasonably easy to understand, but what about "force"? "Force" is a word that could cover almost anything. How could this legislation have failed to define very, very specifically such a vague word? My first reaction to the inclusion of the word "force" is that it is a word intended to designate any kind of public demonstration which someone in a position of power decides they don't want.
And then there's that reference to the internet. What the hell are they talking about there?
This bill is very strange and disturbing, even though it seems designed to reccomend laws and measures that might be created and doesn't seem to actually create any itself; and how it could have been passed without extensive discussion and explanation and amendment and how our Dems could have voted for it, I don't understand. I mean, I've given up on most of the Dems being signifigantly better than the Pubs at this point and STILL I don't get them voting for this bill.
www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?S1959
sign here
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
This bill is a topic I've been loathe to address, because I think I find it so confusing. Who can argue with opposing terrorism? The bill SEEMS to create a sort of study group. But when Ron Paul is right, he really hits the nail on the head. He says:
"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."
http://dailypaul.com/node/11769
When one reads through the bill, it's hard to understand what the point of it is. So one thinks, maybe this was all clarified during debate. But apparently there was little to no debate over the bill and it was passed under suspension of ordinary rules. Looking on my Rep's site (Baron Hill), I could find no reference to it.
But the really glaring trouble spots in the bill, it seems to me, are these:
"(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.
...
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
I think the concept of violence is reasonably easy to understand, but what about "force"? "Force" is a word that could cover almost anything. How could this legislation have failed to define very, very specifically such a vague word? My first reaction to the inclusion of the word "force" is that it is a word intended to designate any kind of public demonstration which someone in a position of power decides they don't want.
And then there's that reference to the internet. What the hell are they talking about there?
This bill is very strange and disturbing, even though it seems designed to reccomend laws and measures that might be created and doesn't seem to actually create any itself; and how it could have been passed without extensive discussion and explanation and amendment and how our Dems could have voted for it, I don't understand. I mean, I've given up on most of the Dems being signifigantly better than the Pubs at this point and STILL I don't get them voting for this bill.
www.ronpaul2008.com
