[Winstonm]

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
and it now is in the Senate. For full text of the measure go here: http://www.govtrack....?bill=h110-1955

There is IMO some disquieting language in this bill. First, this:

Quote

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

That seems blatantly ill-defined - other purposes?

Quote

`(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.

O.K., and this extremist belief system would be based on whose concept of extreme?

Quote

(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

So, if I understand this correctly, the Chicago police would have been guilty under this bill of ideologically based violence during the 1968 Democratic Convention?

Quote

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

Free speech is a bitch to control on the internet, for sure.

Quote

(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

`© Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission

`(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

Quote

(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence.

Although not spelled out, I would assume The Center would be responsible for Newspeak production?


This bill passed the House 404-6.

[kenberg]

I wasn't aware of this. It's worthy of thought and discussion. Let me provide two extremes, my point being that we must find the correct balance.

1952: I was thirteen. The Eisenhower-Stevenson race was the first I had followed with any interest. I supported Stevenson. I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on TV telling of associations in Stevenson's past with groups that were on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations. I thought, correctly, that this was hooey. I believe it was Averill Harriman who later, after being attacked by McCarthy, commented "If after all this time I have to prove that I am not a traitor it hardly seems worth it".

But: During the war their were Soviet spies infiltrating the Manhattan Project, greatly helping the Soviet Union develop atomic weaponry. I think historians generally accept that Julius Rosenberg really was a spy after the war. There was an Iron Curtain (well, metaphorically speaking) and the Soviet control of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on was brutal.

We need to get this right. McCarthy was an alcoholic demagogue. His charges were irresponsible and any truth in them was buried in the trash. But like today, there were legitimate concerns about security. The country is desperately in need of leadership that is committed to a free and open society, and that is committed to effective measures to deal with real dangers.



I have no brilliant ideas myself on just how this is to be done in the modern age, and I will be happy to read what others think. I believe that this issue will be the strongest issue in my mind as I decide how to vote in 2008.

[mike777]

"This bill passed the House 404-6."

Ok and you suggest we find out who these six are and where they live?

Are you suggesting most if not all of these 404 will not be reelected by the People?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 3 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

"This bill passed the House 404-6."

Ok and you suggest we find out who these six are and where they live?

Are you suggesting most if not all of these 404 will not be reelected by the People?

I am suggesting that 404 people voted for the bill while 6 voted against the bill.

What are you suggesting?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 3 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 3 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

"This bill passed the House 404-6."

Ok and you suggest we find out who these six are and where they live?

Are you suggesting most if not all of these 404 will not be reelected by the People?

I am suggesting that 404 people voted for the bill while 6 voted against the bill.

What are you suggesting?

That someone is for this or just does not care? 404 Americans are for it or simply could not be bothered to read the bill but still vote yes?

99% of the people we elect every two years are for it or simply could care less?

[Winstonm]

Most likely there were 410 duly elected representatives who didn't bother to read the bill.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I wasn't aware of this. It's worthy of thought and discussion.

Ken,
I can sympathize with your plight - it is not easy to try to keep up with the more important current events as you really have to dig around on the internet instead of relying on mainstream media. And, of course, once found on the internet it then becomes imperative to verify that what is claimed is valid.

Lots of time and work. What happened to our media? Oh, yeah - Brittney, Paris, and American Idol.

I understand your concerns over security - but then I wonder why as a nation we have done so little to protect our borders if we are so concerned. Lately, we have expanded the freedom of truck entries from Mexico. This doesn't sound like concern over security.

You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to understand that a few people in key positions of power surrounded by an apathetic populace and an apologetic, non-adversarial media can instill their ideologies slowly, insidiously, almost without notice.

I would like to think most of this is overzealousy created by well-intentioned sponsors, and that in the future it will be changed - but I am no longer so sure that is the case.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Dec 4 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

Quote

I wasn't aware of this. It's worthy of thought and discussion.

Ken,
I can sympathize with your plight - it is not easy to try to keep up with the more important current events as you really have to dig around on the internet instead of relying on mainstream media. And, of course, once found on the internet it then becomes imperative to verify that what is claimed is valid.

Lots of time and work. What happened to our media? Oh, yeah - Brittney, Paris, and American Idol.

I understand your concerns over security - but then I wonder why as a nation we have done so little to protect our borders if we are so concerned. Lately, we have expanded the freedom of truck entries from Mexico. This doesn't sound like concern over security.

You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to understand that a few people in key positions of power surrounded by an apathetic populace and an apologetic, non-adversarial media can instill their ideologies slowly, insidiously, almost without notice.

I would like to think most of this is overzealousy created by well-intentioned sponsors, and that in the future it will be changed - but I am no longer so sure that is the case.

Border patrol is one of the many problems I really don't know how to solve. I sort of hate to keep proclaiming my lack of ability to solve problems but...

Mostly I think we should try as hard as we can for realism. Hardly original of course. If we have a large number of people South of the Border who want a better life, and employers who would love to hire them, it's an uphill fight to keep them apart. There are ways, true, but it's not easy. Recently a guy (Latino) and his wife ( speaking good English, probably Gringo) came around and offered to cut down and haul away a dead tree for me. Sure thing. I did not check his papers. It's OK, I'm not running for President. I didn't notice any American born guys coming around offering to cut down my tree. I forget what he charged, but it was enough so that I expect he makes a pretty decent living at it. I don't at all mean we shouldn't try to control our borders, such control is the essence of statehood. But easy it is not.

There are many problems where I believe some fundamental realities are ignored. Example: The Earth simply cannot support having 6 billion plus folks all leading the current American lifestyle. Or at least I don't believe it can. There are, we are told, nine million bicycles in Beijing (I learned this during the recent BB, thanks to a BBO linked video). Well, how about having nine million SUVs in Beijing? Why should they accept that we get to live that way and they do not? Ditto for India.

The problems are serious, the solutions escape me.


I saw an interview with Kathryn Hepburn towards the end of her life. She felt she was born at exactly the right time and was dying not a moment too soon. I try to avoid such pessimism but it tempts me sometimes.


Well, off to do some mathematics. The problems there I can sometimes solve.

[jtfanclub]

http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Article about this.

[PassedOut]

jtfanclub, on Dec 5 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Article about this.

Thanks, great article...

Dahlia Lithwick, on Bad Ideas, Slate, Nov 27, 2007, said:

Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but then the Democrats in Congress have taught me to keep my expectations very low. Today, therefore, I am profoundly grateful that instead of criminalizing protected speech outright, Democrats merely form a commission that will do a study, which will in turn christen a Drive-Thru Center for Excellence, where they will someday consider criminalizing protected free speech.