Comments on: Are Homegrown Terrorists Growing on the Internet?

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:46:20 +0000

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.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:31:27 +0000

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

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:43:37 +0000

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.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:30:11 +0000

‘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.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:21:22 +0000

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’?

By: MiMiCcS

MiMiCcS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:42:28 +0000

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

By: RickinSF

RickinSF — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:45:25 +0000

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

By: perris

perris — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:23:42 +0000

checking magic white font

By: perris

perris — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:12:28 +0000

white check

testing magic white font

By: willyloman

willyloman — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:33:51 +0000

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/