Senate Bill 1959 - Internet Homegrown Terrorist ACT

[Ex Post Facto]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Anyone have more info. on this bill. I know Ron Paul voted against it, but 94% of the house voted for it.

This is the only info. I have about the text of the bill.

"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." You don't have to have too much imagination to see that a free and open Internet where a man running for President can get his ideas out to the public may be in jeopardy. Ron Paul's type of Internet driven campaign may be the last of its kind.

[rollingpig]

we're fucked

[Give me liberty]

Thanks for the heads up on this bill, you know that ron paul is the only GOP candidate Who is against this bill? and well the rest of the GOP flied are for it, and i wonder when will the media talk about this bill They haven't talked about it since oct of 2007 because all new networks are in a blackout mood over this bill.

[Redcard]

Typically, the House will make statements like that, by passing a bill heavily, and then the senate becomes more reasonable.

As it happens, this bill is in a committee, having been read twice. I think it gets one more reading and then they can either bring it to a vote or table it, thus killing it. I imagine if it was going to get out of committee, it would have already, and it's not showing up on the schedule.

The Senate, I believe, is still in pro forma sessions until January 22.

[constituent]

simple....

we build new networks.

i don't see why everyone gets so down like the government can actually prevent computers from being linked to one another.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Anyone have more info. on this bill. I know Ron Paul voted against it, but 94% of the house voted for it.

This is the only info. I have about the text of the bill.

"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." You don't have to have too much imagination to see that a free and open Internet where a man running for President can get his ideas out to the public may be in jeopardy. Ron Paul's type of Internet driven campaign may be the last of its kind.

OMG TEH INTERWEBZ IS OUT TO GIT US!!!!

AL GORE WUT HAV U DUN?!

[OhioMichael]

Why haven't I heard about this before now?

[Redcard]

Why haven't I heard about this before now?

Dunno. I wish Paul would have voted against it though. He no voted it.

[deedles]

Why haven't I heard about this before now?


For the same reason half the country doesn't get to hear about Ron Paul or the north american union...

our free, unbiased media!!! Yea!!!!

[ThomasJ]

He didn't no vote it by choice.

They pushed it through with no debate when he was signing himself onto the New Hampshire ballot.

[robert4rp08]

4 things:

1. Paul didn't vote on it. I suspect he was campaigning.
2. It's currently in the senate under S. 1959 in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
3. The members of that committee are:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
4. Contact the above and your state Senators if you want to put a stop to this!

[robert4rp08]

Also, check these "plans" for internet spying out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=994008#post994008

[pilby]

i contacted both of my senators about this just after the House vote. i usually get responses from them when i contact them about issues, explaining their position on the issue (either agreeing or disagreeing with what i told them). this time i got no response from either.

[mcgraw_wv]

Someone should protest this law, it is unconstitutional.

Under no law can you remove an AMERICAN citizens rights and civil liberty. You can not remove the constituional protection when the government feels it is nesseccary.


Government is there so represent us... WHO THE HELL IN THE PUBLIC WORLD NEEDED OR WANTED THIS???

[surf]

not to be lazy, but does anyone have a draft of a note i can send my two D senators?

[pilby]

you know that ron paul is the only GOP candidate Who is against this bill?

for the record, that's not true. Jeff Flake from AZ, John Duncan from TN and Dana Rohrabacher from CA, all Republicans, all voted against it. not very many, true.

and, also for the record, Dr Paul was not in the House for the vote and when he found out about it later, he blasted the bill and blasted the House for passing it under a procedural vote with no debate usually reserved for very mundane, non-controversial items.

[pilby]

not to be lazy, but does anyone have a draft of a note i can send my two D senators?

here's what i sent just after the House vote:


Senator XXXX,

I was alarmed to read yesterday HR 1955 entitled "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" which passed the House this week almost unanimously.

With regards to the Senate version of this bill, S 1959, I strongly urge you to not only vote against it, but also work to mobilize awareness and opposition to this atrocious bill.

Though the bill includes language that supposedly ensures that nobody's Constitutional rights will be violated, the entire premise of the bill is repugnant to the ideas of personal liberty, due process and limited government.

From Congresswoman Jane Harmon's own mouth:

"Our plan must be to intervene BEFORE a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior." (emphasis added)

Please consider this carefully and vote accordingly.

Thank you,

<my signature>

[MrCobaltBlue]

4 things:

1. Paul didn't vote on it. I suspect he was campaigning.
2. It's currently in the senate under S. 1959 in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
3. The members of that committee are:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
4. Contact the above and your state Senators if you want to put a stop to this!

E-mailing as I write this.

heh Barack is on here?

Ted Stevens as well? The terrorists are trying to clog our tubes!

[SteveMartin]

My Senator, Susan Collins ("R"-ME), is the co-author. I sat across from her top aide at the last Republican County meeting and told him in front of everybody that this bill is going to really hurt her re-election opportunities and what a horrible piece of legislation it is.

I will see him again tomorrow morning at our next monthly meeting, and urge him to have her withdraw it with a room full of Ron Paul people with me to witness it. I'm vice-chair of the County Republicans (where she lives and grew up) and I will not let this one go...

[robert4rp08]

My Senator, Susan Collins ("R"-ME), is the co-author. I sat across from her top aide at the last Republican County meeting and told him in front of everybody that this bill is going to really hurt her re-election opportunities and what a horrible piece of legislation it is.

I will see him again tomorrow morning at our next monthly meeting, and urge him to have her withdraw it with a room full of Ron Paul people with me to witness it. I'm vice-chair of the County Republicans (where she lives and grew up) and I will not let this one go...

/salute

[mcgraw_wv]

Read the bill slow and close...


Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.


Does it Prohibit the DHS from violating our civil rights?

Or

Does is Prohibit the DHS from violating out rights as they will not be subjected to upholding the rights we have if you are a suspected terrorist...

I could read that either way...

[mcgraw_wv]

Yeah guysm after consulting with a gramer policemen... This law PROTECTS us from DHS...

This is a GOOD THING

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

here ya go (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20071023-31&bill=h110-1955)

scroll down.... i know it's hard to read, but did you expect them to make it easy?

looks like it's in partial HTML lol

excerpt:

""(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..."

[Margo37]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955)

The House overwhelmingly passed this measure on October 23 that some observers call "the thought crime prevention bill." It's now in the Senate (S 1959) where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center for Excellence to study and take action against "thought criminals." The commission will be empowered to subpoena and investigate anyone that will automatically create a perception of guilt that may be highlighted in the media for added emphasis.

This Act is a direct assault on democratic freedoms in the current atmosphere with both parties and a President determined to end them. The bill's language hides its possible intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" may be whatever the administration says they are. "Violent radicalization" is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change." "Homegrown terrorism" is used to mean "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 (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."

This and other repressive laws may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policy, even illegal ones, and historian Howard Zinn is concerned. He says: "This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration." Under Woodrow Wilson in WW I, "the Espionage (and) Sedition Act(s) (jailed) close to a thousand people (who spoke) out against the war." From HR 1955 and other post-9/11 laws, authorities now have the same power to target anti-war protesters or anyone expressing views this Act alone calls "terrorist-related propaganda." Persons charged and convicted face stiff penalties in an effort to deter others. This measure is still another step toward full-blown tyranny in "police state America."

[BarryDonegan]

hey, credit where credits due... TN has a republican who votes down the big brother crap!

check the nay votes. congressman duncan jr is good about that and is with Dr Paul against lots of that stuff.

[Caravello]

One can only hope, sadly enough, that the country goes into a financial crisis so they -- feds -- don't have the means or the funding to keep up all these stupid plans.

[Ex Post Facto]

My god, these forums are filled with true patriots.

[SteveMartin]

Everyone of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would now be labeled terrorists in this country were they still with us.

[Ex Post Facto]

Yeah guysm after consulting with a gramer policemen... This law PROTECTS us from DHS...

This is a GOOD THING

I have no idea how you can say this. Homegrown Terrorist is anyone who has the has ideals that threaten the United States. Need I show you tons of article recently in the news that say Ron Paul supporters are becoming violent?

Here is one such article by a well known TV talkshow host. http://gwinnettherald.com/Articles-i-2008-01-11-169360.112113_Journalism_as_a_contact_sport.html

[Ex Post Facto]

Bump for Freedom.

[JSCHAFER1337]

I sent this to Feinstein and Boxer:

Senator _______,

My name is Justin Schafer and I am a second year student at California State University, Long Beach. I am an International Studies major but have also developed a keen interest in national politics over the past several months. Lately I have also begun to examine the bills that are put before congress with a far greater degree of interest than ever before.
One bill in particular, H.R. 1955, otherwise known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, has given me great reason for alarm. The vagueness of the bill, at least in the summary that I have read, causes me concern, as it, "Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States)."
While I certainly understand a need to prevent "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence," I also recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, specifically the lines: "...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
If the government, as outlined in this bill, seeks to prevent "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change," then how are the people supposed to safeguard themselves from a tyrannical government? Furthermore, who determines which belief systems are “extremist” and which are not? Though never the preferred choice, violence is sometimes necessary to enact essential changes; indeed, the American Revolution could never have been successful without it, and I would certainly contend that the patriots who fought for their freedoms were then considered “extremists.”
Though this bill was ostensibly written to prevent the spread of terrorism from within, I think that the current measures in place are sufficient. If certain locations are to be focused upon – i.e. prisons - in which to prevent the proliferation of extremist ideologies, then those locations should be specified within the bill. Overall, however, I see this bill as one more step towards a loss of civil liberties, an unnecessary tool in the fight against terror, and another frivolous expenditure that will contribute to the ever-growing national debt. I urge you to consider all of these things when this bill comes before you in the senate.

Sincerely,
Justin Schafer

[tommy7154]

We need to get Ron Paul into The White House to stop this madness. All these fiends are looking for is more power. They will try and try hard until the internet is regulated one way or another. Fuck the government. (Sorry I just wanted to type that while I still have the freedom to do so...)

[Knightskye]

All that there terrorist propoganda there on YouTube. Yep...

[ValidusCustodiae]

All that there terrorist propoganda there on YouTube. Yep...

There are a lot of us they want silenced, permanently.

[expatriot]

http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html

[Highstreet]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Anyone have more info. on this bill. I know Ron Paul voted against it, but 94% of the house voted for it.

This is the only info. I have about the text of the bill.

"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." You don't have to have too much imagination to see that a free and open Internet where a man running for President can get his ideas out to the public may be in jeopardy. Ron Paul's type of Internet driven campaign may be the last of its kind.

Obama and Hillary support it and their base doesn't know it.

And it's Thought Crime. This is much more insidious than just an Internet focused bill. This is against all DISSIDENTS.

[Ex Post Facto]

Bump for Awareness.

[pinkmandy]

`(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.



Blackwater anyone? :mad:

[asgardshill]

Someone should protest this law, it is unconstitutional.

Under no law can you remove an AMERICAN citizens rights and civil liberty. You can not remove the constituional protection when the government feels it is nesseccary.

Tell it to Abraham Lincoln when he suspended Habeus Corpus. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Another thread on this. I guess people are still waking up.
When some of us were outraged about this last year we were all paranoid nuts.
Personally I am offended that this was even written by Our "Representatives".

[nate895]

I have never liked Jane Harman.

[Crowish]

5 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

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.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm

[InLoveWithRon]

5 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

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.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm

Here here... Damn I love Ron Paul

That speech right there added 500 bucks to my total for the money bomb tomorrow.. RP is the Thomas Jefferson of our generation,, Listening to this great man speak today is like listening to the forefathers who wrote the constitution and founded the United States of America..



.

[Ex Post Facto]

Another thread on this. I guess people are still waking up.
When some of us were outraged about this last year we were all paranoid nuts.
Personally I am offended that this was even written by Our "Representatives".

We need more people to wake up to this.

[Captain Shays]

simple....

we build new networks.

i don't see why everyone gets so down like the government can actually prevent computers from being linked to one another.
Well we better start NOW