uno!

I’ll get the others…

LHP!

Hiya all. Fascinating morning at the Lake!

I’m finding Jane Harmon to be un-frickin’-believable…

Dinelli needs to take a chill pill. This POS is goin’ nowhere and will do nothing.

Somewhere I read that tree-huggers are considered a major internal terrorist threat to our country. Seriously. (for them it is all about private profits, and anything that impinges on that is to be attacked and controlled). Is this Harman’s payback to Pelosi? Stated another way, what is up with her on this?

So much for the meme that Jane Harmon’s primary challenge scared her out of her old neo-con ways.

The Communists are now infiltrating our own country! We must find them and root them out. Don’t worry, nobody innocent will be hurt.

Seen this movie before, don’t like the ending.

(2) Violent radicalization.—The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) Homegrown terrorism.—The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

That aptly describes foxnews.com

I read Dinelli’s post the other day and the text of the bill. Lots more important stuff to be concerned with. Pee-Your-Britches hyperventilating that being a peaceful grassroots protester will make you a “terrorist” purusant to this bill is the kind of crap that the wingnuts love to use against the “left.”

OMG – every single thing in that bill is *so* wrong, and is *so* susceptible for “legalized” mis-use. Totally subjective, totally available for nut-job, paranoid, fear-mongering, publicity-seeking, evangelical, vengeance-seeking, authoritarian representatives to have a never-ending field day/picnic with.

That’s one scary piece of work.

I also read that the beef lobby and the restaurant lobby had animal rights activists listed as terror groups.

BobbyG,
I believe it has already passed the House by something like 404-6.

“tasked”

Nooooooooooo! I’m just sayin’.

When I said “goin’ nowhere” I meant in its practical effect. sorry.

Not a Dem, looseheadprop; Harman is a DINO with the ability to pander on a dime.

There is absolutely no need for this bill. There’s plenty of resources out there to tell our leaders and government what radicalizes people; hell, the current junta has become expert at doing so.

Why should we give them more money to migrate to a thought police state, when all that is really needed is good police work?

I saw that a couple of weeks ago..and I thought WTF?

The use of the word “coerce” in the definitions is pretty bloody scary. I wonder where exactly the line between “persuade” and “coerce” lies.

LHP, from your post:

In truth this bill was not even on my radar until I saw it in the threads (I would give proper hat tips, but I am totally tech freaked by the move to the new digs that I’m still not sure if this thing will get a picture, so trying to figure out how to get back on the old site, is way way beyond my skillz).

Click on the “firedoglake home” button at the top. Scroll down for the posts in reverse order (i.e., newest first). At the bottom of that page is a “< <previous entries" link, and it takes you to the next previous list of posts, and at the bottom of that page is another "<<previous entries" link.</p>

I think with all of the confusion of the transition, nobody’s nose will be seriously out of joint if you don’t hat tip, but I thought folks would like to know how to go back in time.

Thought crimes; not good.

Looks like the Democrats are determined to follow the Republicans’ established anti-terra bona fides (however bogus and Media-created) and attempt to make some of their own Tough On Terra headlines. The Democrats are ignoring their base – ignoring the intellectual and the informed voters – and are pandering to the clueless Joe and Jane Sixpack with Me-Tooism. Jane Harmon-Kardon always was the Beltway Type. She needs to be replaced with a progressive candidate ASAP.

Thought crimes; not good.

I think I’ll be staying on my side of that long northern border, thank you very much.

One post 9/11 response here in Nevada was legislation re-defining “terror” as “any activity” that “interfered” with “law enforcement.”

Yeah, that really went far too.

looseheadprop — tripped on this little tidbit, thought of you and emptywheel:

One of the USIS investors is the omnipresent Carlyle Group, a multibillion-dollar venture capital firm with close ties to George H. W. Bush, former British Prime Minister John Major, and former Secretary of State James Baker, and past ties to the Saudi Bin Laden Companies, which has its tentacles into many of the Bush administration’s major foreign adventures. USIS also owns a subsidiary, Total Information Services, Inc., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, which ironically is similar to the name of the defunct Pentagon program to glean personal information from databases on U.S. and foreign citizens. That program, called the Total Information Awareness (TIA) system was headed by Iran-contra felon retired Admiral John Poindexter before he resigned. TIA, according to media reports, is alive and well in the offices of DARPA in Northern Virginia.

That was written in June of 2004.

So Jane Harmon essentially believes that we should close the doors to our hitherto relatively open society. Is she advocating jackbooted thugs go to internet coffee shops and grab people off the streets? I’m waiting for orders that you would have to pay a licensing fee just to access the internet, or worse yet, that our citizens could be restricted from viewing certain sites like they are in some countries. Isn’t China restricted from certain sites; the government basically blocks these sites out? So by extension, Jane Harmon wants our government to become more like that of China? Whatever made people think she would make a good Senator to begin with, one wonders?

I note how the authors of this thing seem to speak admiringly of Joe McCarthy and HUAC. Jeez

There are groups of people who would seriously like to terrorize. And they are home-grown. (Aryan Brotherhood and the like) They have been caught and convicted using our current law enforcement systems, and tried in our current judicial system. Why the need for change? It makes no sense. Is there an explanation Ms. Harmon has handy?

Egregious at 8: Yup. And sorry about this AM, I was actually laughing as I was writing…. And, as they say, the kids are using it as a “funny,” as in PALUEEEZE! meant as a jocular No Way! Alas, it is all in the inflection, and webs don’t do so well with inflections.

I was all over TIA from Day One.

The Communists are now infiltrating our own country! We must find them and root them out. Don’t worry, nobody innocent will be hurt.

Seen this movie before, don’t like the ending.
reply

When our government starts to use communist tactics “for our own protection,” it may be time to admit that “the communists” are us!

That poor disturbed guy who broke into the Hillary HQ the other day would fit perfectly under this bill under (3) ‘Homegrown Terrorism’. That is, if anyone considers the treatment of mental health issues a “social objective” anymore.

“You need mental health care? Sorry, but we have something else in mind for you.”

I note how the authors of this thing seem to speak admiringly of Joe McCarthy and HUAC.

That’s what I first thought, but then realized that the HUAC comparison is being made by the author of the Huffington Post commentary, presumably disparagingly. It’s not part of the bill.

BobbyG December 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am 23
One post 9/11 response here in Nevada was legislation re-defining “terror” as “any activity” that “interfered” with “law enforcement.”

Yeah, that really went far too.

Jaywalking interferes with law enforcement. Ergo, jaywalkers are terrists.

Here is another analysis of HR 1955

HR 1955: Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism bill

LooHoo: Also the right wing Oklahoma bombers AND the Anthrax mailers (who were never caught because probably they are too closely linked to the Rethug government). By the way the latter would be a great book subject, the amount of money still wasted because of that set of mailings is major. To get a letter to Congress (or anyone in DC) in anything resembling reasonable time you need to do FedEx or the equivalant.

And the meme on “social change.” Um, I guess that is also terra. If one is advocating for it.

They are coming to take us away, they are coming to take us away.

Good Mornin’ All!

I hope all of you have eaten. The Ferragamo Queen has given The Comb Licker a job at State. How benevolent of her and Pimp Daddy Bush.

See Newsweek for the depressing news. Once again, the taxpayers are supporting Wolfowitz.

I wanna puke!

Paraphrasing Mencken: No one ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of American politicians. Not too long ago they held this swell Postal Commission thingy. One of the “Terrah-fighting” proposals coming out of it called for the implementation of sender and recipient ID for all first class mail.

Right.

Turns out that Pitney-Bowes essentially wrote that section of the Report. I found PB’s written “testimony” document down in the bowels of the hearings stuff (having no life, I tend to read a lot of fine print). The mail ID language in the final Commission report was lifted nearly verbatim from their proffer. Pitney-Bowes was salivating at getting the contract to do this particular piece of expensive mindless stupidity.

Expect more of similar mendacity.

BTW- not that I’m advocating complacency. Indeed, scrutinize and hound them every step of the way. But, let’s not go bonkers here.

I just skimmed this and the definitions made me gag.

Dinelli needs to take a chill pill. This POS is goin’ nowhere and will do nothing.

going nowhere? it fucking passed in the house with a vote of 404 to 6.

here’s what the aclu says (via cqpolitics):

The director of the ACLU’s legislative office, Caroline Fredrickson, said the primary objection rests on the legislation’s definition of radicalization.

“It defines violent radicalization as ‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’ and that is way too close to thought police for our comfort and for the comfort of many Americans,” she said.

Instead, Fredrickson said, the bill should read “intentionally aiding and abetting” violent radicalization, “because otherwise you’re really looking at what someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing.”

Fredrickson also criticized the bill’s mention of the Internet as a potent weapon in the spread of violent extremism.

“If Congress finds that the Internet is dangerous, it seems very likely that there would be a proposal that would follow on from this legislation that would restrict access to the Internet,” she said.

The legislation, which the House passed Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6, would create a 10-member commission to study how domestic terrorism takes root and offer suggestions on its prevention to the president and Congress.

Whoa…I leave home for a few days and look what happens!

What I find astounding is the fact that someone of Jane Harmon’s political stature would think that we need such a bill in a country that already has the FBI spying on Quakers.

Yeah.

The use of the word “coerce” in the definitions is pretty bloody scary. I wonder where exactly the line between “persuade” and “coerce” lies.

Or the line between subversive and dissident!

‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’

Sort of describes Republicans since Raygun.

just checking… was that snark? ‘cuz if not i’m about to get offended.

Oilfield at 45: extremist belief system: socialized medicine, hand gun control, abortion rights!

Whoa…I leave home for a few days and look what happens!

Why – has something changed?

“If Congress finds that the Internet is dangerous, it seems very likely that there would be a proposal that would follow on from this legislation that would restrict access to the Internet,” she said.

We already know it’s “dangerous.” Like we need yet another congressional “finding.” Followed by more Quixotic unconstitutional legislation.

C’mon. Snark. Intended to be broadly stated. Not directed at you personally.

Or the line between……. We could do this all day really.
The whole thing is shit. It’s an embarassment. I mean a legislator should be embarrassed to have her name associated with this.

There were 3 Rs and 3 Ds that voted Nay

R: Flake, Rohrabacher, Duncan
D: Abercrombie, Costello, Kucinich

I ave seen on the web that Paul voted no..not true. He is one of 22 that didn’t vote.

I still say 404-6, WTF?

Dinelli is following the trajectory of this legislation. Even if it never gets that far, there is absolutley ZERO utility that I can see to this bill.

It would be like some 3 ring circus with people informing on their neighbors.

At best it’s a dumb waste of time and a distraction, at worst, it’s just creepy, at super worst it is followed by the kind of follow up legislation Dinelli envisions. Maybe Dinelli is Cassandra

“If Congress finds that the Internet is dangerous, it seems very likely that there would be a proposal that would follow on from this legislation that would restrict access to the Internet,” she said.

Yeah. Look how far they’ve gotten restricting access to the arguably very real danger of ‘net porn.

You totally were, BobbyG.

Time to revisit it, do some extremely close reading.

At best it’s a dumb waste of time and a distraction, at worst, it’s just creepy, at super worst it is followed by the kind of follow up legislation Dinelli envisions.

The former, most likely.

OK, I repeat, from my 38:

BTW- not that I’m advocating complacency. Indeed, scrutinize and hound them every step of the way. But, let’s not go bonkers here.

BTW, the Beerfart ratings are in for MTP.

Webb gets one mug. Wasn’t that great but didn’t hide under the table when the impeachment word was mentioned. Tried to run away a little but ultimately didn’t.

Everybody on the Political Roundatable gets nothing. It just plain sucked. Anybody take notes during these shows? ’cause David Gregory said something especially stupid but I just can’t remember what. And I thought David Broder was gonna be on. He gets trashed so bad here, I actually feel sorry for him. Keep up the good work, guys.

Thanks. Read my ten year old grad thesis draft:

Change “war on drugs” to “war on terror” and nothing much has changed.

Oilfield at 45: extremist belief system: socialized medicine, hand gun control, abortion rights!
reply

SCOTUS is going to rule on 2nd Amendment..If Roberts, Alito et al come out for “collective right”..It will be time to leave.

Looks like the Democrats are determined to follow the Republicans’ established anti-terra bona fides (however bogus and Media-created) and attempt to make some of their own Tough On Terra headlines. The Democrats are ignoring their base – ignoring the intellectual and the informed voters – and are pandering to the clueless Joe and Jane Sixpack with Me-Tooism. Jane Harmon-Kardon always was the Beltway Type. She needs to be replaced with a progressive candidate ASAP.

Pretty much all the incumbents do. Tell you what I’m getting increasingly afraid of is that we’ve all kind of assumed that when the Dems take power, they will put an end to the extreme abuses of power that have been taking place. Everything from the President’s usurpation of the Congress’ power through his signing statements to the politicization of the DOJ. Now I’m not so sure that they want to fix any of that, but may prefer to use the power they’ve inherited from the Rethugs by allowing precedents to be set.

BTW, BobbyG, what you got squirreled away on CALEA?

The answer is somewhere in all of this — the project formerly known as TIA, CALEA and purchase of commercially available data that companies like Choicepoint have been gathering on us by way of our purchases.

Repugs already use data like Choicepoint for their GOTV efforts; they just want the rest.

going nowhere? it fucking passed in the house with a vote of 404 to 6.

It’s illuminating to see that civil libertarian and presidential candidate Ron Paul couldn’t be bothered to vote against this atrocity.

You know…I don’t see the argument opposing this Act here. All the stuff cited by LeftCoaster as example of “force” were NOT. They were legally established Expressions of First Amendment Rights. It would be just as distorted an argument to assert that the activities were able to be redefined as “violence”.

The groups or individual would have to actually be advocating the use of force or violence against a ethnicity, religion, or political group.

Force is FORCE…Violence is VIOLENCE. Someone writing a letter that doesn’t threaten force or violence being used against a representative, or political or religious leader, or a practitioner or believer of a particular creed or ideology would not be subject to this law.

The groups that are likely to be subject to such a study group’s recommendations would be Neo-Nazi, Religious Extremists that advocate attacks against doctors or clinics, or Anti-Gay, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Black groups, militia groups marching around with guns outside of courtrooms, etc..

I just don’t get the uproar by those that claim to be interested in protecting Civil Liberties in regards to this Study? I’m willing to be swayed otherwise, but I’d like to hear some more reasonable examples of how established First Amendment acts can be construed as the advocating the use of “force” or “violence”??? And how studying the effects of those groups that do advocate such acts is inappropriate?

404-6! First of all, a whole lot of Progressive Caucus members need to explain themselves.

TIVO’d Stehanopoplopololoplos, so i’ll get back to you on that. But I gave Little Stweven two mugs in adavance.

Watched some of that CNN debacle. Beerfart will rate the host only. Howard Putz gets: Give back the mug & buy everyone on the panel a cuppa joe. I watched the self-flagellating first segment on the YouTube debate and switched.

http://www.forbes.com/business…..orida.html

I know this is OT, but lil’ bro may have stepped in it. Can anyone tell me how to paste it as a link?

Rayne – and remember that the Rethugs use that data to decide who they will approach for votes (and perhaps exclude for same). As in those who drink Scotch are more likely Rethug voters. Ditto Mercedes. Volvo people tend to be a bit leftie.

In response to looseheadprop @ 53

At best it’s a dumb waste of time and a distraction, at worst, it’s just creepy, at super worst it is followed by the kind of follow up legislation Dinelli envisions.

The former, most likely.

OK, I repeat, from my 38:

BTW- not that I’m advocating complacency. Indeed, scrutinize and hound them every step of the way. But, let’s not go bonkers here.

a sincere request – please don’t refer to my deep concern as going “bonkers” without providing a strong case for such a characterization. thank you.

Persuasion is the use of words and reason…coercion is the use or threat of force.

The groups that are likely to be subject to such a study group’s recommendations would be Neo-Nazi, Religious Extremists that advocate attacks against doctors or clinics, or Anti-Gay, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Black groups, militia groups marching around with guns outside of courtrooms, etc..

You’re more of a trusting soul than I am.

I see Anne Coulter’s attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy has worked. How can people not recoil in horror when someone says “Like Joe McCarthy and the HUAC” we’ll run around the country rooting out commies .. er I mean terra-ists?

Never mind, the site is obviously smarter than I am.

Yep. One of the benefits of “collaboratively” using the private sector (see my anti- TIA rant and thesis) is that the private sector is not bound by 4th Amendment constraint (in clear violation of Original Intent, though, as I wrote in my thesis).

Writer David Brin (“The Transparent Society”) argues that “if our salvation lies in blinding the powerful, we are lost.” Whil he’s probably right on that point, I don’t share his apparent sanguinity with respect to the likelihood of two-way transparency.

“As in those who drink Scotch are more likely Rethug voters.”

That must explain why I drink Jameson.

Steve-AR December 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am 52
There were 3 Rs and 3 Ds that voted Nay

R: Flake, Rohrabacher, Duncan
D: Abercrombie, Costello, Kucinich

I ave seen on the web that Paul voted no..not true. He is one of 22 that didn’t vote.

I still say 404-6, WTF?

Democrats believe this to be a winning issue – to take up their very own ant-terra legislation – giving them anti-terra street cred.

Its a big mistake to jump on that bandwagon. There are so many other issues – like human rights, progressive taxation, ending the war, securing the ports, safeguarding the public from phlalates…

This could shut down progressive blogs and still permit terra groups to function on the web. If any terrist act occurs – the Rethugs (the MSM) will blame it on the Dems new law that they effed up. The Dems really stepped in some sh*t on this one.

Persuasion is the use of words and reason…coercion is the use or threat of force.

Your definition, yes? And a perfectly reasonable one at that. But can we be sure that the bill and its subsequent enactments will share this definition?

How can people not recoil in horror when someone says “Like Joe McCarthy and the HUAC” we’ll run around the country rooting out commies .. er I mean terra-ists?

The HuffPo commentator made this comparison, and it was not meant to be laudatory.

And explains why the Irish don’t rule the world.

Yup, already aware of that…explains why they send me crap even though I’m a party official. My buying habits might be aligned with likely repug voters.

My spouse is unaffiliated, but as a gun and truck owner, he’s in the target demographic.

We’ve been studying the use of such demographic data on a local basis; there is one effective response to this, and that is to make sure we get to every single door of strong, leaning and indie voters three times with information about the candidates.

We have that data and we know it works. You want to win, Firepups? either knock doors or help people do that. Three times. Ask for the vote.

Y’know, you seem to be on a hair trigger today to being personally offended. “Bonkers” my reaction to the silly hyperventilating stuff of peeps like Dinelli and others who have and will pick up his Code Brown panic.

my bold

You know…I don’t see the argument opposing this Act here. All the stuff cited by LeftCoaster as example of “force” were NOT. They were legally established Expressions of First Amendment Rights. It would be just as distorted an argument to assert that the activities were able to be redefined as “violence”.

The groups or individual would have to actually be advocating the use of force or violence against a ethnicity, religion, or political group.

Force is FORCE…Violence is VIOLENCE. Someone writing a letter that doesn’t threaten force or violence being used against a representative, or political or religious leader, or a practitioner or believer of a particular creed or ideology would not be subject to this law.

The groups that are likely to be subject to such a study group’s recommendations would be Neo-Nazi, Religious Extremists that advocate attacks against doctors or clinics, or Anti-Gay, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Black groups, militia groups marching around with guns outside of courtrooms, etc..

I just don’t get the uproar by those that claim to be interested in protecting Civil Liberties in regards to this Study? I’m willing to be swayed otherwise, but I’d like to hear some more reasonable examples of how established First Amendment acts can be construed as the advocating the use of “force” or “violence”??? And how studying the effects of those groups that do advocate such acts is inappropriate?

i think you make a good case… here’s why i’m concerned:

1) from my link above:

“It defines violent radicalization as ‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’ and that is way too close to thought police for our comfort and for the comfort of many Americans,” she said.

Instead, Fredrickson said, the bill should read “intentionally aiding and abetting” violent radicalization, “because otherwise you’re really looking at what someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing.”

i don’t think the bill defines “violent radicalization” the same way you or i would.

2) i don’t like being made the target of a study (of national security risks) based on my political views… way too close to being made the target of an investigation.

SCOTUS is going to rule on 2nd Amendment..If Roberts, Alito et al come out for “collective right”..It will be time to leave.

I’m not familiar with the term “collective right”. Help me out here?

We have that data and we know it works. You want to win, Firepups? either knock doors or help people do that. Three times. Ask for the vote.

You are exactly correct, Rayne. Have you had the DNC training on this? I think it is excellent and would love to have FDL host those trainers one day. You know, the weakest link in the tubes is the shoe leather that is missing. It is where we will fall down, if we don’t go D-T-D.

State militias vs personal arms ownership.

State militias vs personal arms ownership.

Sorry, but maybe I’m especially dense this afternoon. Does “collective right” mean that there is indeed a right to own guns, despite the fact that there are no more state militias, well-regulated or otherwise?

just squeaking in with a reminder to DIGG this post and spotlight it, too. and don’t forget the links looseheadprop has given us, help get the word out!

and it is so not true that I get a penny a digg for these little reminders! :)

I think you are correct..but I think the better way now for the Dems to immunize themselves is to “push back” against the Bush cuts in “security and anti-terror” funding.

The question remains unsettled. Maybe the Supremes will dispositively clarify it for us, for better or worse.

thanks.

However – it’s Game Time! Go Colts!

I heard it was a dollar.

Y’know, you seem to be on a hair trigger today to being personally offended. “Bonkers” my reaction to the silly hyperventilating stuff of peeps like Dinelli and others who have and will pick up his Code Brown panic.

and the point, of continuing to provoke where you know the possibility of offense is present, would be?

…no need to answer, unless you wish – i’m going to back to spending a couple of hours putting together this week’s committee hearing list for everyone.

The first and second both emphasize the preamble, or “purpose” clause, of the Amendment — the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The third does not. The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right’s only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals’ benefit. The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed. Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model. Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech. ”

wiki

Yeah. Look how far they’ve gotten restricting access to the arguably very real danger of ‘net porn.

Look how far they’ve gotten restricting access to the soldiers in Iraq already. Do you think it can’t happen here? Only if we let it.

what the aclu says (via cqpolitics):

The director of the ACLU’s legislative office, Caroline Fredrickson, said the primary objection rests on the legislation’s definition of radicalization.

“It defines violent radicalization as ‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’ and that is way too close to thought police for our comfort and for the comfort of many Americans,” she said.

Instead, Fredrickson said, the bill should read “intentionally aiding and abetting” violent radicalization, “because otherwise you’re really looking at what someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing.”

That’s defining something using the term needed to be defined. One still needs to define “violent radicalization”. And the ACLU has left off the latter part of the definition stated in the Bill that further defines the distinction between “radicalization” and violent radicalization…which IS about undertaking or planning violent activities.

The ACLU’s position appears to be that anything short of actual participation in these acts should be allowed. Things like the encouraging of others to commit murder of doctors or bomb abortion clinics would be protected speech since the ones actually operating such sites were not actually “aiding or abetting” the ACTUAL violent act. They could, presumably. provide the names and home addresses of doctors or nurses, present the plans of bombs, or the travel routes of staffmembers, and post “Wanted Dead or Aklive” Posters…and declaim…”But we never knew this person and certainly didn’t assist them…we were only giving out information”.

Fredrickson also criticized the bill’s mention of the Internet as a potent weapon in the spread of violent extremism.“If Congress finds that the Internet is dangerous, it seems very likely that there would be a proposal that would follow on from this legislation that would restrict access to the Internet,” she said.

No more than the use of pamphlets, or radio, or TV being a “potent weapon.” But who would be restricted? Would this mean that providers would be asked to remove certain sites?

And remember, this is a study – it doesn’t undertake any actual regulations at all. It might make suggestions. But it also contains restrictions that any suggested regulatory recommendations to come from the Commission not restrict Constitutional Freedoms.

To my eyes this is only a Study Commission on recruitment by Violent Hate Groups. It could also look into talk radio, for that matter.

Wow:

(2) Violent radicalization.—The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) Homegrown terrorism.—The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

I believe the first definition clearly covers the WH and neocon ideology to foment wars in the ME, including Iraq and Iran. There are plenty of quotes from National Review, Bush/Cheney, AEI and Joe Lieberman that would qualify.

The second definition clearly applies to the White House.

thanks!

I agree. That should be evident in my priors. My objection is simply to the reflexive hyperbolic assertions that This Is The End Of Our Democracy.

What crap. This is just a Blue Dog attempt to again subvert the Constitution, and it appears specifically designed to shut down the new people-powered politics that the Leftroots has been busy building the last few years. So the next time Firepups and/or Kossacks go to unseat some DINO like Harmon, she can criminalize their attempt. It’s bullshit and it must be stopped. I can write letters, but what else can I do?

I think it means no absolute right for individuals to own weapons without some affiliation with government militia of some sort which requires you keep your weapons at the ready – at home.

And remember, this is a study – it doesn’t undertake any actual regulations at all. It might make suggestions. But it also contains restrictions that any suggested regulatory recommendations to come from the Commission not restrict Constitutional Freedoms.

To my eyes this is only a Study Commission on recruitment by Violent Hate Groups. It could also look into talk radio, for that matter.

I don’t find that very comforting. The same might also have been said about the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Joe McCarthy’s efforts. Yet thousands of people were blacklisted and their lives and reputations destroyed because of the hysteria created.

A lot of the issues with this type of surveillance — as usual — will be in the implementation. The people deciding who are valid targets of domestic terrorism dollars and manpower are going to be the same people who run law enforcement agencies and intelligence groups now, and they haven’s shown a whole lot of ability to tell their ass from a hole in the ground. They’re the people who have consistently focused on groups openly protesting against the government (see Mayor Bloomberg’s authorization of NYPD spying across the country on potential protestors at the 2004 Republican convention) as opposed to groups with, say, bombs. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to find protesters on bikes with giant puppets, and they’re not nearly as dangerous to hang out with as the guys with SUVs and guns.

“continuing to provoke”?

Unwarranted thin skin, to me. Sorry. You take my link to the Ativan graphic as a personal affront, and then won’t let it go after I tried to clarify in good faith it was simply intended as a broad “chill, people” allusion to what I see as reflexive overreaction to this latest bozo proposal.

I’m sorry if you see my attempts to stay on point as personal provocation. Such was not my intent. You and I will just have to disagree.

I heard it was a dollar.

Very funny *standing with hands on hips, ascowl*

To make it easy to digg all the links from the last two posts, you can go to my profile page, just click on the digg it icon up top and click me. You’ll find all the posts in my “recent activity”

It’s that important.

Bobby, you said “this POS isn’t going anywhere”?

This bill passed the house 405-6. Why do you expect the Senate to behave differently? You have some insight?

I think it means no absolute right for individuals to own weapons without some affiliation with government militia of some sort which requires you keep your weapons at the ready – at home.

Well yeah, that’s what the 2d Amendment says quite clearly, imo. I’m concerned with this “collective right” terminology, and whether or not the Court intends to ignore the prefatory language of the Amendment, and impute a right where none was originally intended.

presumably. provide the names and home addresses of doctors or nurses, present the plans of bombs, or the travel routes of staffmembers

That would be intentionally aiding and abetting.

Not going anywhere in terms of practical effect. Already clarified that point.

“It defines violent radicalization as ‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’ and that is way too close to thought police for our comfort and for the comfort of many Americans,” she said.

Sounds like a working definition of the Federalist Society.

1. Extremist beliefs? Check.

2. Use of the internet in promotion of said belief system? Check?

3. Desire to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights? Check.

I’m sure that the FBI is on the case.

At the end of the day, the law is what the Court says it is. And, over time, they will contradict themselves. We among the Insolent Great Unwashed are not competent to parse the refined jurisprudential/epistemological import of explicit or implied conjunctions or implicit because…thererfore phraseology.

n response to Fern @ 18

The use of the word “coerce” in the definitions is pretty bloody scary. I wonder where exactly the line between “persuade” and “coerce” lies.

Or the line between subversive and dissident!

In response to Ann in AZ @ 44

Persuasion is the use of words and reason…coercion is the use or threat of force.

Needless to say, it was Fern that questioned the line between persuasion and coercion; I know that a subversive advocates the violent overthrow of the government, but a dissident typically simply advocates civil disobedience, but that line is exceedingly fine. I’m worried about the zealot in a position of power who cannot or will not make the distinction.

goddamn – the image of Clarence Thomas just flashed in front of my eyes…

707!

Yep. Ugh, that whiney dufus.

In response to cinnamonape @ 69: I would also like to point out that by your definition of coersion, our government is currently trying to coerce Iran do as we say, not as we do.

Jayt, Tom and others -on weapons ownership. This could all change with the introduction of Blackwater as a key component of law enforcement, i.e. they could become the only government sanctioned non-military group of “individuals” with the right to have arms. Thnk facism – again.

I am not sure what it clearly says but I really don’t want this court, in this political climate to sort it out. I don’t know much about the 2nd Amendment debate but for the historical record, the “Founders” were well aware that in Europe and England, tyranny was preceded by disarming the people. The 2nd Amendment was also seen a a counter balance to a “Standing Army” and to tyranny of the Federal
government.

Noah Webster (yea the same guy)

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:

Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[19]

One example given by Webster of a “power” that the people could resist was that of a standing army:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[18]

wiki

Let’s see we had the Red Scare and the Yellow Peril. What color will Jane Harmon’s fearmongering bigotry take?

I’d like to be a fly on the wall at NRA HQ as this 2nd Amendment case nears.

Scarecrow -on Bushies, NeoCons etc. as terrorists – as with war, it is the victors (in this case those with power and the hands on the controls) who get to decide who will be terrorist – we can be sure they will not point the finger at themselves, but with those “subversives” trying to safeguard the Constitution.

This bill is so poorly written, it potentially pre-empts (with these new crappy definitions existing law, which has worked prety well so far in dealing wih homegrown terrorism, but also just provides so many bright shiny objects and take away from our abilty to do the hard work of law enforcement.

It doesn’t fill a need and it distracts from legitimate law enforcement, and it potentially turns into some freak show with neighbors coming to these roving Commission hearings and denouncing groups they don’t like.

I just don’t see any upside to this legislation. And how it passed with such a huge margin baffles me

Hugh: Jane Harmon’s color? Brown, as in brown shirts.

You guys are trying to scare me again! I remember watching a group of skinheads in fatigues marching in military formation down Central Avenue in Phoenix one day. That was a scary sight too! I could forsee these two groups clashing on the streets of some unfortunate city and some ordinary innocent citizens getting caught in the crossfire. Anybody want to bet on whether anyone would be held accountable in such an incident?

The Blue Dog Mange

Great post. Thanks. The Framers also clearly intended to confer a broad presumptive right to personal privacy in the 4th Amendment (omission of the explicit word “privacy” notwithstanding). Bu’ush is doing his best to erase that.

“I just don’t see any upside to this legislation. And how it passed with such a huge margin baffles me”

Two words:

Code Brown.

his bill is so poorly written, it potentially pre-empts (with these new crappy definitions existing law, which has worked prety well so far in dealing wih homegrown teroorism, but also just provides so many bright shiny objects and take away from our abilty to do the hard work of law enforcement.

Absolutely, a very poorly written and ill-defined bill; unconstitutional by any measure. And yet it passes by such a wide margin, with supposed progressives such as Chris Van Hollen voting “yeah”. This has to be the worst kind of political pandering.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[18]

Those were the days, I guess. Not any more.

Osamma bin Laden has won!
This is his victory lap.
He was incapable of truly threatening the American Way of Life without our assistance.
Truth is that terrorists are weak aned underpowered.
They seek to destroy their targets by causing them to damage themselves out of fear.
Bingo.
Tru strength is manefested by recognizing these tactics and denying them.

Related to the topic of domestic terrorism: we still consider kidnapping to be terrorism, right?

If so, then we must consider the US government terrorists, both actual and potential. Via Boing Boing (and thence via Warren Ellis), the US government considers kidnapping British citizens within its rights:

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

…

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

On topic, thought crimes legislation was a bad idea from the word “go.” Time to clear folks who support it from the government, and preferably, from any positions of authority whatever.

Osamma bin Laden has won!
This is his victory lap.
He was incapable of truly threatening the American Way of Life without our assistance.
Truth is that terrorists are weak aned underpowered.
They seek to destroy their targets by causing them to damage themselves out of fear.
Bingo.
Tru strength is manefested by recognizing these tactics and denying them

Spot on. I ‘m gonna embroider that on a pillow . No snark

Absolutely, a very poorly written and ill-defined bill; unconstitutional by any measure.

Well, just look at the Military Commissions Act. Give the President Final Cut on interpreting the extent and applicability of Treaties (e.g. Geneva), notwithstanding Article III, Section II?

I’m really beginning to wonder if anyone in congress has actually read the constitution.

Asked and Answered.

That’s why, if the Roberts and Alito cabal go for the “collective right”; it’s time to move.

I personally don’t think current laws have dealt very well with “homegrown terrorism”. Look at Jena…that stuff went on decades. The local police didn’t give a damn.

And we know “words” can be criminal. If someone makes a DIRECT THREAT OF VIOLENCE against you, law enforcement can deal with that. But if the same individual (or group) makes the same threat against a group…they won’t touch them. Why is one “criminal” and not simply a “thought crime”, while the other…which is actually far more of a case of terrorising a group SPECIFIED by race, religion, sex, gender identification, or ideology…is not a criminal act?

Half the Representatives who voted against this bill are Conservative Republicans. I hardly think they are paragons of the First Amendment or protecting those who are victimised by hate groups?

Duncan, John [R]
Flake, Jeff [R]
Rohrabacher, Dana [R]

seriously folks the house of reps. is filled with insane jackasses!

Exactly. You shouldn’t create a weapon to be wielded against “subversives” and then allow it to be wielded by extremists whose philosophy is unconstitutional and who will define “subversives” as those who believe in the constitutional protections. This type of legislation does to the Constitution what Kyl-Liberman did to the regime’s ability to attack Iran. It’s another implicit authorization to be lawless, and picking through the refined wording to find checks on that authorization misses the point. You don’t hand such weapons to people who are inherently untrustworthy.

This is fascism taking off its mask.

You’ll wake up one day and there will no internet and there will be armed militias with rifles all over the place.

Whatya gonna do?

They are all over NYC right now. If you doubt it, check out Grand Central Station.

This bill is so poorly written, it potentially pre-empts (with these new crappy definitions existing law, which has worked prety well so far in dealing wih homegrown teroorism, but also just provides so many bright shiny objects and take away from our abilty to do the hard work of law enforcement.

It doesn’t fill a need and it distracts from legitimate law enforcement, and it potentially turns into some freak show with neighbors coming to these roving Commission hearings and denouncing groups they don’t like.

I just don’t see any upside to thsi legislation. And how it passed with such a huge margin baffles me

It’s the same way with Iran resolutions each one a little more belligerent than the last, each one making the case for war that much more defensible from the White House point of view, and each one passing with large majorities.

I wish there were a forum where Harmon could be grilled over precisely the points you raise. Why promote such a dangerous, ill-conceived, and unnecessary piece of legislation? How can you defend her sloppy overbroad definitions in the light of the Constitution? How can she separate what she proposes with what Joe McCarthy did?

It is because legislators like Harmon can pass crap legislation knowing they will never have to seriously defend it and their motives that allows them to act like this with impunity.

Mack & LHP – It was never really about Osama B-L, but the neo-con’s and neo-facists and their agenda. We would be in the same place (war, perpetual terra, removing individual rights) without Osama. All Osama did was to provide a convenient rationale to go against Iraq and Iran.

I worry we’re not even going to have an election next year. Am I the only one?

In response to BobbyG @ 84

State militias vs personal arms ownership.

Sorry, but maybe I’m especially dense this afternoon. Does “collective right” mean that there is indeed a right to own guns, despite the fact that there are no more state militias, well-regulated or otherwise?

Sounds like it means that the Minutemen down at the southern border might have more of a right to bear arms than I as a private citizen, because they more closely resemble a well-regulated militia.

Scarecrow at 136: Yup!

and all the while TWEETY smears Gore with lies about inventing the internet, effin’ pathetic, and the sub-text is telco’s spying on US! need immunity?

What Richmond said… fascists and one world government freaks are getting the ducks in order to wipe out huge segments of the world’s population because… it’s inconvenient.

I’ve heard that too, the Neocons want to wipe out 80 percent of the world’s population. Makes you wonder…

I wish there were a forum where Harmon could be grilled over precisely the points you raise. Why promote such a dangerous, ill-conceived, and unnecessary piece of legislation? How can you defend her sloppy overbroad definitions in the light of the Constitution? How can she separate what she proposes with what Joe McCarthy did?

There is such a forum, it’s called the Press, the 4th estate. It’s the MSMs job to do just what you propose.

Since they aren’t it’s up to us

Ann Coulter suggested killing Supreme Court justices and her books are a non-stop incitement to violence against anyone who does not share her sick views. Would she and so many of the other right wing nutcases be investigatde by this Commission?

And it could definitely apply to the NRA, and they’ve got guns!

I’ve heard that too, the Neocons want to wipe out 80 percent of the world’s population. Makes you wonder…

Global warming is Race and Politically neutral..The hardest hit area on the planet is projected to be the South Eastern US.

SanderO December 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 am 137
This is fascism taking off its mask.

You’ll wake up one day and there will no internet and there will be armed militias with rifles all over the place.

Whatya gonna do?

They are all over NYC right now. If you doubt it, check out Grand Central Station.

The Free Market won’t go for total elimination of the internet. There is too much money involved. Big Red Amazon, Big Red E-Bay, the banks, the bill pay, check free, e-trade, online shopping, airline ticketing, car rental, hotels, etc. would suffer too great a loss. They have blocked sites from soldiers. They will black out all progressive blogs.

They will use the Chinese internet model.

Totally OT, but Karl Rove’s having a bad day. Even Fox News is calling bullshit on him. He gets an A for effort, though. I’m half expecting him to just snap and say, “What the hell is going on? You guys always believed my horseshit before!”

I am not sure what it clearly says but I really don’t want this court, in this political climate to sort it out. I don’t know much about the 2nd Amendment debate but for the historical record, the “Founders” were well aware that in Europe and England, tyranny was preceded by disarming the people. The 2nd Amendment was also seen a a counter balance to a “Standing Army” and to tyranny of the Federal
government.

Sorry – been watching football. For the first time in my life, I have second thoughts on my life-long interpretation of the 2d Amdmnt. I’m just that sure anymore that the populace might not *need* guns to protect themselves from their own government. How fucking depressing is that?

If the Supremes are truly political animals, and Republicans at that, they could rule against gun ownership, thus affecting the 2008 election and throwing the momentum firmly back to the R side. Maybe even with a wink and a nod that we’ll re-visit this in, say, 2009.

I don’t mean that there will be no internet. But they will use it for THEIR purposes ONLY.

FrankProbst December 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 am 152
Totally OT, but Karl Rove’s having a bad day. Even Fox News is calling bullshit on him. He gets an A for effort, though. I’m half expecting him to just snap and say, “What the hell is going on? You guys always believed my horseshit before!”

Yet another sign of the ever-evasive Tipping Point.

SanderO and ThatGuy – linky? My sense is that the real aim is to control resources and semi-enslave the local workers. Very scary stuff going on in Congo – 4 million dead in “civil war” basically so that privateers (read big business and investors) can rip out tin oxide (essential for computer boards, copper, diamonds etc.). This can only happen in the context of a fractured local government, and furnishing arms to rebel groups to fight each other as the ores get taken. Take a look at the recent YouTube video (google videos) called Grand Theft Congo. It will make you want to throw away your computer – or at least picket Apple, Dell etc.There is another one up recently on clear cutting Congo forests for profit of an American company, that isn’t even paying the workers. It is King Leopold’s Congo all over again, all over the world. (see also recent articles in NYT on the source of crucifixes and manhole covers). While you are in Google Video, pull up White King, Red Rubber, Black Death based on Adam Hochschild’s book, King Leopold’s Ghost. In short, they need people in order to exploit them!

No, you are not the only one to worry they might ‘postpone’ the election, due to a national emergency.

SanderO December 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 am 154
I don’t mean that there will be no internet. But they will use it for THEIR purposes ONLY.

I hear you and I concur. A Chinese Internet like Steve said.

Juan Cole is upstairs!

Juan Cole is upstairs

Hackworth & SanderO – I am convinced that this is the real aim of the push againt Internet Neutrality.

This bill passed by such a wide margin because it’s just a big pork sandwich. It sets up a commission to produce a report on the causes of violent radicalization. It will contain things like, “Maybe don’t bomb their country and kill all their family members.” Despite some of the squishy definitions (which the ACLU and others are on top of), it is trying to deal with radicalization intent on violence. Quakers and other non-violent protesters are not included.

The hype on this bill is out of proportion. It flatly states:

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.

So in as far as the actual actions of the DHS are concerned, this bill will underline the boundary between what they can do and our constitutional rights, including that pesky First Amendment.

Global warming is Race and Politically neutral..The hardest hit area on the planet is projected to be the South Eastern US.

The largest changes in global climate will be in high arctic regions. People will be most severely affected in Africa and South and East Asia where changes will be large and the ability to adapt to them small.

Richmond December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am 161
Hackworth & SanderO – I am convinced that this is the real aim of the push againt Internet Neutrality.

Me, too. If Corporations like AT&T control the net, independents will get blacked out. Its no coincidence that AT&T is a major player in the FISA immunity ploy.

There are and have been a lot of smart people who have looked at the 2nd Amendment and arrived at positions that are 180 degrees apart. I think from the historical record, especially British History and the fight to ratify the US Constitution, it was put in the Bill of Rights as the “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” check on the Central Govt. The relationship of People, State and and Fed Govt were very different at that time. The issue of sovereignty had been “punted” and was not finalized until after the Civil War. The question of the utility of the 2nd Amendment as the fourth check and balance in the modern era is a different question.

This bill passed by such a wide margin because it’s just a big pork sandwich. It sets up a commission to produce a report on the causes of violent radicalization. It will contain things like, “Maybe don’t bomb their country and kill all their family members.” Despite some of the squishy definitions (which the ACLU and others are on top of), it is trying to deal with radicalization intent on violence. Quakers and other non-violent protesters are not included.

The hype on this bill is out of proportion. It flatly states:

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.

So in as far as the actual actions of the DHS are concerned, this bill will underline the boundary between what they can do and our constitutional rights, including that pesky First Amendment.

Violating constitutional rights ought to go without saying, the fact that the authors felt the need to “underline” it shows how broad and worrisome this legislation is. And conflicts with other laws (such as civil rights laws) will be decided by court cases unless the relationship is fairly specifically defined. “This law won’t allow violations of civil rights” is far too vague to define such a relationship, and like the “underlining” of the idea that this doesn’t allow violations of constitutional rights, is nothing more than a statement of “trust us, this won’t be abused.”

Selise, Indeed I DO read the definition different from what the ACLU’s Frederickson does. That’s because I read the FULL definition rather than a parsed version of it.

“(2) Violent radicalization.—The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

“(3) Homegrown terrorism.—The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

“(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpo…..55_rfs.xml

The Commission is designed to obtain information on the causation and dessemination of such violent groups. That information includes studying both domestic and foreign sources of information about their “Homegrown terrorists”. With a few historical exceptions (SLA, Weather Underground) these groups are not left wing, but RIGHT WING.

And the causation of the Weather Underground was an illegally formulated war, the targets were directed at ending the war, and the group made efforts to avoid human casualties. It always stood out as an exception to the rule of the long history of violent radical groups in this country. And wide study of radicalization will show that hyper-Nationalist, racist, sectarian, nativist and other right wing groups are FAR more likely to resort to violence to achieve their goals.

And part of this is that they often have the tacit approval of local, State or Federal law enforcement…or are supported by big Business (strike breakers; pseudo-security forces or bodyguards). An examination of groups that have used violence to intimidate or coerce the US government shows the same pattern.

And I do believe that there should be some Amendments to clarify the bill.

For example, I think that, not just the internet, but other communication media, such as Talk and Religious Radio should be investigated. Do these radicalize their listeners to suggest that violence is justified in dealing with other ethnic, religious, or ideological group.? Other sources of extremist radicalization, such as Churches or Community Organizations might be difficult to study as a consequence of the Bills limitations on “targeting religions…”

I’ve heard that too, the Neocons want to wipe out 80 percent of the world’s population. Makes you wonder…

Makes me wonder about your evidence for such an outrageous claim.

Correct on both counts..I was sloppy, the SE USA is projected to have the biggest impact on Agriculture.

I still think it is a fair question to ask what law enforcement or public safety purpose is served by this commission that is not currently being addressed. It appears that at best, it will be a platform for commissioners to grandstand against any Internet-based groups they don’t like, especially since individual commissioners are empowered to hold hearings.

I don’t know much about the 2nd Amendment debate but for the historical record, the “Founders” were well aware that in Europe and England, tyranny was preceded by disarming the people. The 2nd Amendment was also seen a a counter balance to a “Standing Army” and to tyranny of the Federal
government.

No it wasn’t. The Second Amendment was created to prevent an invasion and to deal with armed insurrectionary groups by using an ORGANIZED, REGULATED and Trained militia. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that it was created to ALLOW the people to rise up against the Federal Government. Recall that the Constitution in Article 1 and 2 specifically designates that Congress will have the power to regulate and discipline the militia, and that the States will appoint the officers and implement the training and regulations.

That hardly sounds as if the Framers were intent on allowing the formations of groups to destroy the Federal Government.

And the whole misused quote by Jefferson about the “blood of patriots and tyrants being periodically necessary” refers also to invasions and successionist movements (such as the Whisky and Shay’s rebellions where the militias were called up to suppress efforts by factions to prevent the functioning of the lawful government).

Exactly.

But that a different — and rational — reaction relative to that of Dinelli et al, screaming “End of Our Democracy” from inside their Depends.

One more redundant exercise in feel-good do-something-ism. We already know that people use the internet for nefarious purposes. We already have law enforement and security agenices charged with dealing with such things.

Quite the contrary. The Constitution was a rejection of the failed Articles of Confederation that had previously enshrined “States Rights” as primary. There was no centralized control of the militias under that document…but after the Shays and Whisky rebellions, and the continued threats from the British, the Framers recognized the need to Federalize the regulation and training of militias under Congress, and to allow the President to call them up to suppress insurrections of armed groups or prevent invasions.

The actual regulations drawn up by Congress in the Militia Acts of 1791 and 1796 were actually quite detailed and demonstrates that any individual that attempted to create an unregulated militia and violate the assigned discipline and management structure would be subject to some pretty harsh penalties.

Violating constitutional rights ought to go without saying, the fact that the authors felt the need to “underline” it shows how broad and worrisome this legislation is.

Well, that’s one way to spin it, I guess. To me, that language being included in the bill means the authors are serious about protecting constitutional and civil rights while trying to deal with an actual problem. The “broadness” of the bill has been severely curtailed by this part of the bill.

And conflicts with other laws (such as civil rights laws) will be decided by court cases unless the relationship is fairly specifically defined. “This law won’t allow violations of civil rights” is far too vague to define such a relationship, and like the “underlining” of the idea that this doesn’t allow violations of constitutional rights, is nothing more than a statement of “trust us, this won’t be abused.”

Actually this is a lot more than a statement of “trust us, this won’t be abused.” This is a strict instruction to the DHS, one with the force of law, that no citizen’s or resident’s civil and constitutional rights will be violated when they are dealing with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

I don’t like the new inability w/respect to editing my typos, LOL.

Violating constitutional rights ought to go without saying, the fact that the authors felt the need to “underline” it shows how broad and worrisome this legislation is. And conflicts with other laws (such as civil rights laws) will be decided by court cases unless the relationship is fairly specifically defined.

This is the law of “higgledy-piggledy”. If somebody says something they MUST mean the opposite. If they DO SOMETHING, they must be concealing opposite intentions. Good is Bad…Up is Down…Black is White.

don’t knowa if this is mentioned but “violence can and will be interperated as even and Idea that they don’t like or that they can construe even convoluted into an argument that is counter to government policy

Oh, yeah, we had a guy who held investigations like that. His name was Joseph McCarthy.

They’ve got the laws, and now they’re gonna use it. Eventually, posting the Declaration of Independence online will be an act for which you can be imprisoned.

Right. Game over, then.

test

, at long LAST! heh *sigh*

test

, at long LAST! heh *sigh*

Test

at long LAST! heh *sigh*
reply

ta dah! & okey dokey. you may delete my foolishness here (180 – 184) if desired, mods *blush*

thank you for all that you do. ;->

But wait. Without this bill, how are they gonna fill up all those concentration camps that they’ve built on the sly in this country?

remember that extra branch a guv’mint we gots now? hmmmm.

Anything in there not covered

by laws already on the books

heh…

Oh, Harmon. We need this legislation like we need another four years of George Bush. Bury it, and stop chasing the twenty-four percenters. Try instead being more progressive and protective of the interests of those not living on deferred comp from Halliburton. The Dems would win re-election by a landslide, barring Emanuel and Harmon, and could then pass legislation we really need.

IMHO, this new, improved, fresh website is a tad underwhelming. In an era where we have to fight appellate courts to preserve our constitutional right to anonymously participate in public debate, I don’t need another site demanding details. Next thing you know, you’ll want my national ID card no. and ask me to opt out of selling my online purchase details to everyone who hasn’t learned about them for free via un/authorized wiretaps.

This is very serious!with her Partner King Mukassey I, they could arrest anyone and anytime for anything! we need to take action with the Senators and Congresspeople,with the Media and the Networks,as well as the Candidates,Republican and Democrats, they must talk about this absurd un-Constitutional Bill,get on the horn and the e-mail !

S 1959 is ambiguosly written, and I am on one of the “conspiracy theory” websites that they mentioned in the House subcommittee meeting.

So with all of that, I have to ask myself, “am I a terrorist”?

http://willyloman.wordpress.co…..terrorist/

white check

testing magic white font

checking magic white font

I’m thinking the same about ALL the California “Democrats.”

Sounds like the California Dems have been coerced by Homegrown Terrorists.
I remember last summer there was a lot of talk about the possibility for another attack, such as dirty bombs on the West Coast. This supposedly came from our Terror Czar’s( Michael Chertoff) gut at “A Briefing by Michael Chertoff USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events” on July 20, 2007. This was attended by Jane Waxman on July 20th, sponsor of the current bill.

http://web-app.usc.edu/ecal/cu…..m=0.864157

a Congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as “homegrown terrorists.”

Gee, I don’t recall seeing that in the Constitution.

Are there supposed to be additional powers assigned to the government for dealing with ‘homegrown terrorists’?

‘the adoption or promotion of an extremist belief system,’

Sort of describes Republicans since Raygun.

It goes back further: Goldwater, Nixon, McCarthy, Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington — all radicals who wanted major major social change or ideological change.

At the end of the day, the law is what the Court says it is. And, over time, they will contradict themselves. We among the Insolent Great Unwashed are not competent to parse the refined jurisprudential/epistemological import of explicit or implied conjunctions or implicit because…thererfore phraseology.

Unfortunately I have to agree. When there is debate about what the words of the Constitution mean and they start playing Orwellian word games, then you know they intend to do wrong and people like that might well do violence as well.

Ordinary words like ‘promote’ can become weasel words confused with ‘coerce’ and then you’re right over the cliff.

A well-regulated militia is under Congressional regulation…it doesn’t mean that the appoint their own leaders and have secret membership lists.

Here is the Constitutional grounds for the creation of such a Commission to study how “insurrectionist” groups might form.

Article I. Powers of Congress

Congress shall have the power…to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Congress certainly has the power to call forward a Commission that studies why groups might form insurrectionist groups and to deal wit methods to prevent that without infringing on other Constitutional rights.