Nov 21 2007

“The Violent Radicalisation and Home Grown Terrorist Protection Act of 2007”

I really didn’t want to write this, waited all day to see if someone else picked up on it, especially Tigana (from his 10/25 diary, “This Way to the Camps…”).

This is the next step in the crackdown on dissent / free speech.  It’s scarey! Representative Jane Harmon, down there in Rand Corp country sponsored this bill:  

THE VIOLENT RADICALISATION AND HOME GROWN TERRORIST PROTECTION ACT OF 2007

It’s H. Res 1955, offered by Jane Harmon with 14 co-sponsors, including Zoe Lofgren.

It passed the house with only 6 nays coming from DENNIS KUCINICH (pardon my prejudice), and Congresspersons Abercrombie, Costello, Duncan, Flake, amd Rohrabacher.  Six nays: 3 dems & 3 repubs.  Today it was to be reviewed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Please google & look for more info than I’m able to write right now.  

10 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Tigana on November 21, 2007 at 10:02
    • #

    Damn.

  2. on Faux “News”(enemy watch assignment), they featured a story about a New York citizen whose vanity plate(GETOSAMA) was recalled.  The plate it seems was attached to a car painted up as an American flag.  This man just wanted to express himself and is now learning that this is Amerika and this is now prohibited.

    Now how does this relate to 1955?  Well “the authorities” apparently know political paradigms are about to shift and attention must be diverted away from the galactic screw up of the global war on “terra”.  Far too many people questioning 911, the event that started it all.  They certainly don’t need a guy driving around in an American flag with GETOSAMA license plates.

  3. There was a um lively discussion of the topic and House votes at PFF, 26 October. The post picks up a libertarian site’s interrogation, “House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill,” by Lee Rogers @ Rogue Government, October 25, 2007, and reproduces summary of the act’s provisions at length.

    Live links to thomas.gov available in the comments.

    Worth remembering in this context is that the SCOTUS agreed Tuesday (20 Nov) to hear a case testing the legalities of individual right to bear arms in Washington, D.C. — which not being a “state” is not represented in Congress. The appeal could provide the basis for a landmark high court ruling defining the limits of the Second Amendment.

    on 4th Circuit citing States vs Miller (1939)

    NewswithViews: What does that mean? It means current DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the DC Commission will likely be filing an appeal to the US Supreme Court-or, at least, they will ask for an en banc review of the ruling by the 4th Circuit. According to David Gossett, a partner at the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw (which represents the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence), “…[t]he fact that, even on this panel, there was one dissent is a sign that the decision is open to question.” However, Gossett believes if the case goes before the Supreme Court, the justices will rule in favor of individual rights on this issue.

    on federal antagonism to 2nd Amendment

    Cato: The situation changed when in May 2001 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a change in policy at the Department of Justice with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Ashcroft said the Department was adopting the view that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was an important symbolic victory because it showed that the conventional view-that the Amendment was only about militias and the National Guard–was losing not only academic but institutional support. Then a thorny problem arose. Criminal defense lawyers started to invoke the 2nd Amendment against federal prosecutors whenever they represented a client who was facing federal firearms charges. The sudden eruption of 2nd Amendment legal challenges meant that appeals courts would soon be addressing the issue and precedents would soon be coming left and right.

    Newshour Marcia Coyle MP3 audio; transcript not yet available.

    supremecourtus.gov

    search Parker vs District of Columbia

  4. 4/19/2007–Introduced.

    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.

    First they came for the Muslims….

    What countries do you think might be in that ‘survey of methodologies’?  Egypt? Uzbekistan? Algeria?

    • Tigana on November 21, 2007 at 18:53
    • #

    Where’s Waldo type illustration hosted at About.com

    http://z.about.com/d/political…

  6. Thanks for the extra info & for filling in the blanks in my essay!

    Yes,

     

    First they came for the  Muslims…

    Indeed!

  7. There’s a lot of overheated commentary on tghis floating around the Web, which is not to say it’s a good bill. The stuff in the preface, the “findings,” does not create any new crimes, just gives “sense of the Congress.” All that actually happens as a matter of law is creation of the study Commission, and pork for the “Centers of Excellence.”

    The danger here is that following the next incident, the Congress willsee calls to “implement the Commissions recomendations,” which will be steamrollered without careful Committee review. Self-promoting “terrorism experts” from the Centers of excellence will be deemed credible  solely on the basis of their affiliations. Kinda like the way the Dems demanded “Implement the 9/11 Commission’s recomendations,” leading to creation of the Department of Homeland Security,” which the Administration had initially opposed, but bowed to political pressure.

    Diaries about legislation should include bill number and a link to the actual text.HR 1955

Comments have been disabled.