Del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Newsvine
co.mments
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Other Bill Titles (4 more)Hide Other Bill Titles- Official: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes. as introduced.
- Short: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as passed house.
- Short: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as reported to house.
- Short: Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as introduced.
10/23/2007--Passed House amended. Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives). Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to:
(1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and
(2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires:
(1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations;
(2) the public availability of such reports; and
(3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to:
(1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and
(2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results. Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the:
(1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and
(2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.
... morehide bill summarySee Full Bill Text
Sponsor
- Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
- and 14 Co-Sponsors
- Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10]
- Rep. Donna Christensen [D, VI-0]
- Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
- Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
- Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6]
- Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
- Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
- Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
- Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
- Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3]
- Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
- Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
- Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
- Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Amendments to H.R.1955
| Number | Status | Purpose |
|---|
Bill Status
Make a Bill Status Widget
(Close help)
(Close help)
OpenCongress widgets allow you to display information about bills and issue areas on your own website or blog. First, select which bill or issue you want to track, then customize the appearance of the panel, and finally paste a simple chunk of HTML into your site. Now your community will have an easy, up-to-date way to track the status of important bills and issues in Congress.
| Introduced |  | Voted on by House |  | Voted on by Senate | | Considered By President | | Bill Becomes Law |
| April 19, 2007 | October 23, 2007 |
Latest Vote
| October 23, 2007Roll call number 993 in the House | |||
| Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: H R 1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 | |||
| Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 2/3 (66%) | Percentage of 'aye' votes: 93% | Result: Passed | |
Democrats Voting 'Aye'
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5]Rep. Thomas Allen [D, ME-1]
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24]
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
Rep. Brian Baird [D, WA-3]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Melissa Bean [D, IL-8]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D, VA-9]
Rep. F. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2]
Rep. Nancy Boyda [D, KS-2]
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3]
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5]
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Robert Cramer [D, AL-5]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7]
Rep. Artur Davis [D, AL-7]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4]
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
Rep. William Delahunt [D, MA-10]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6]
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D, IL-5]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2]
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY-20]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D, TN-6]
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Luis Gutierrez [D, IL-4]
Rep. John Hall [D, NY-19]
Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2]
Rep. Paul Hodes [D, NH-2]
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D, OR-5]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1]
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. William Jefferson [D, LA-2]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D, OH-11]
Rep. Steve Kagen [D, WI-8]
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D, RI-1]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D, MI-13]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Rep. Ron Klein [D, FL-22]
Rep. Nicholas Lampson [D, TX-22]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Tom Lantos [D, CA-12]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2]
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12]
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9]
Rep. Tim Mahoney [D, FL-16]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14]
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11]
Rep. Michael McNulty [D, NY-21]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D, FL-17]
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6]
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. R. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D, WV-1]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4]
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. John Murtha [D, PA-12]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38]
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2]
Rep. James Oberstar [D, MN-8]
Rep. David Obey [D, WI-7]
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0]
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]
Rep. Linda Sanchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13]
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3]
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D, PA-7]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D, NH-1]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13]
Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. Victor Snyder [D, AR-2]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D, CA-32]
Rep. Zackary Space [D, OH-18]
Rep. John Spratt [D, SC-5]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D, CA-10]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. C. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]
Rep. Mark Udall [D, CO-2]
Rep. Tom Udall [D, NM-3]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8]
Rep. Nydia Velazquez [D, NY-12]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Diane Watson [D, CA-33]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D, NY-9]
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D, FL-19]
Rep. David Wu [D, OR-1]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D, MD-4]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]
Republicans Voting 'Aye'
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]Rep. W. Todd Akin [R, MO-2]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. Richard Baker [R, LA-6]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R, MO-7]
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. John Boozman [R, AR-3]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Henry Brown [R, SC-1]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R, IN-4]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
Rep. Christopher Cannon [R, UT-3]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1]
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. K. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. David Davis [R, TN-1]
Rep. Nathan Deal [R, GA-9]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25]
Rep. John Doolittle [R, CA-4]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R, VA-2]
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R, MI-3]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Philip English [R, PA-3]
Rep. Terry Everett [R, AL-2]
Rep. Mary Fallin [R, OK-5]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R, NJ-7]
Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Vito Fossella [R, NY-13]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. E. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R, MD-1]
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R, VA-5]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4]
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert [R, IL-14]
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4]
Rep. Robin Hayes [R, NC-8]
Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5]
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]
Rep. David Hobson [R, OH-7]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R, MI-2]
Rep. Kenny Hulshof [R, MO-9]
Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Ric Keller [R, FL-8]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2]
Rep. Joseph Knollenberg [R, MI-9]
Rep. John Kuhl [R, NY-29]
Rep. Ray LaHood [R, IL-18]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. Ron Lewis [R, KY-2]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3]
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24]
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. James McCrery [R, LA-4]
Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. John McHugh [R, NY-23]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R, KS-1]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R, CO-4]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rating Filter: 5
(Close help)
Comments
(Close help)
Displaying 1-30 of 36 total comments.
I OPPOSE introduction of HR-1955 into law. It's a heinous usurpation of our Constitution and would eviscerate our Bill of Rights. This is America and its elected government representatives should uphold the rights of its citizens; not the wishes of a self appointed dictator. We the People DEMAND that our elected representatives in the Senate take a stand for America and vote "NO" on HR-1955 and abolish any new un-Constitutional legislation. We should NOT be made to fear our government. Passage of this bill would alienate every freedom loving citizen in the United States and could possibly lead to a national crises. Please listen to your conscience and vote "NO"! on HR-1955. Don't give up.
We the People are counting on you to keep America free.
Can anyone point out where in this bill new powers are granted? As far as I can tell from actually reading this proposed law (yet to pass the Senate) all that is created is a commission that has the mandate to study and report concerning homegrown terrorism. It has 18 months, and will dissolve with 30 days delivering the report. What powers does this bill grant beyond that? Am I missing something in the text?
I also read the entire bill....and I was sure to check all language. Of course you should look into the 899c.d act or something like that that does not apply to this certain bill. That just infuriated me even more. This entire bill is put in their language. Oh and that 899c.d thing basically says that all groups commission etc... must be terminated when no longer of use. So what confused me was if this is supposed to terminate within a set amount of days why would they include such an act to not apply?
This is a serious attack on all Americans that should be involved in the political process in our Local, State and Federal governments. While I do not disgree with everything happening in our Nation, I do want the chance to voice my opinions publicaly when it is nessesary, if this piece of filth passes that ability becomes limited because I could be arrested as a terrorist because I would be LABELED and then silenced. This is wrong in every sense of the word.
This is nothing more then a committee designation for looking into home grown terrorism. It doesn't grant the government any new powers over American Citizens. It also has a provision to investigate the actions of foreign governments towards terrorism and make sure the government does overstep the Bill of Rights.
In response to the comments about the bill only providing for a committee: Increment by increment is how our freedoms are lost. First it's just a committee. Then the committee returns results that show homegrown terrorism to be a problem in order to survive, and a task force is put into place. The task force then depends upon homegrown terrorism to survive and thus exacerbates the problem, and before you know it there have been terror scares, attacks, etc and freedoms are eradicated in order to keep us all safe.
Sure sounds extreme but not if you look at what has happened since November 2000.
Slippery slope. I agree with zachtobias, I don't see a significant threat here. I oppose it, however, because I don't see a need for a committee to analyze something that our existing law enforcement / criminal justice system can and already has the power to handle. Waste of time and money. But I don't see it as a threat to civil liberties.
I think the big thing I have against the bill is it doesn't clarify what exactly "terrorism" is. This is how we got screwed in the Patriot Act. But I have to say that if this bill could be reworded to focus on organizations, corporations, or other established entites whose mission whether directly or indirectly stated, is to "terrorize" American citizens with violence then I would be more in support of it. This would include White Seperatist, Pro-life organizations that have been linked to violence, as well as some local police. Though I'm pretty sure that isn't what they were thinking when writing it up. Though I would think it would be unconstitutional, both against the first and second amendment. If you equate guns to violence and as tools of "terorism", whether justified of not, it seems like it would cause major conflicts with the NRA.
I fear H.B.1955 will just be another brick in the wall of the Police State the DC Regime has been steadily building since the end of the Cold War. Right now it is supposedly directed at Islamic extremists; but under the next administration it might be gun owners, anti-tax protesters, pro-lifers, homeschoolers, or folks with traditional views on marriage and gender. This is a flood gate that should not be opened.
Although I do not subscribe to the concept that this bill will imping on our rights, I do oppose this on two grounds.
1. It is unnecessary and a waste of time and money. It will likely conclude that there are domestic terrorists (as we all know there are a few).
2. It strikes me as I read this like the House Committee on Un-American activities and Former Senator Joseph McCarthy's antics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities
I see the risks pointed out by Cajunpatriot as real possibilities. We need to keep the perspective that the office holders of today are possibly going to change every two years or so. The next person may not have the same intentions and may use this committee for different purposes.
Moderated Comment
Homegrown Terrorism. Somebody call Congress...
“The process of [military] transformation...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
-PNAC September 2000
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/kristol_clear.html
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” -PNAC September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.orgRebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://www.twif.org
Here's a reply from my representative, Tammy Baldwin, who is one of the most progressive representatives but still voted for this bill.
"Additionally, this bill 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. The bill also states that individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion. While I understand concerns that have been raised about the possible exploitation of this bill, it was these inclusion of these provisions that prompted me to vote for this measures when it passed the House by a vote of 404 to 6 on October 23, 2007. The bill is now pending in the U.S. Senate."
That seems like a narrow exception of groups from being persecuted. Though since only recently George Bush stated that Hmong are not terrorist, it is a good based line.
Ask Tammy Baldwin if someone who says this is protected from prosecution... “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” -PNAC September 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.orgRebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
As a lawyer of 31 years, I see the bill as immediately dangerous and also ominous for future legislation. First, the "study group" is given subpoena and contempt powers, and its subhject is so broad that it can literally make any American answer any question on any subject, at any length, or face jail. Second, it incorporates a definitional framework based on neocon newspeak which is frightening. Examples: "intimidation" can mean ANY change of another's behavior. "A segment of the civilian population" means any ONE person. And, a "social belief" is basically any belief you hold, about ANYTHING. Literally, under this act, such things as advocating the imprisonment of rapists is a "terrorist" act. Now, if this bill passes, here's the scary part -- all they have to do next is pass a new law that says, "Homegrown terrorism AS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE LAW is declared a crime." And further, "All existing laws pertaining to terrorism are hereby made applicable to homegrown terrorism AS DEFINED IN THE EXISTING LAW." Who in Congress has the guts to vote "no" on a bill like that? And presto, you will have the entire FISA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Presidential Directive 20 structure -- so carefully and clandestinely erected to this point -- made applicable to just about every act of advocacy by every citizen. THIS is how freedom dies.
I object this bill because the big security is the loss of freedom. Because the problems with this bill its like the government is figuring that we are terrorist. We are scared of the terrorist that we want security Ben Franklin said that if you limit freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom or security
It should be clear that the gravest threat to this country's security and its constitution comes from the bush administration itself.
Check out Sibel Edmond's (the FBI whistleblower) story at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/sibel-edmonds-speaks_b_80077.html
if you don't believe me, then see her gallery of rogues and the french documentary about her at justacitizen.org
Also see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
It appears that the Valerie Plame outing served to shut down the CIA's investigation of the neo-traitor's nuclear weapons trafficking network that Edmonds was eavesdropping on.
Moderated Comment
When you give up Libery for the promise of Security, you get neither - Ben Franklin
I would support this bill if it attacked real terrorism. Lets define the bloated ceo and business executive salaries as anti-American and therefore terrorism. Also, lets define the U.S. governments failure to contol our borders and to stop illegal immigration(invasion) as anti-American and therefore terrorism. Lets really help Americans.
How could you vote to pass bill H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? Do you think Americans' should not have their civil liberties?! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?! I will do everything make it known that we have a state reps that are willing to take away our rights, because of a potential problem! That because some people are potential threats that you believe the innocent must suffer as well! I love my freedoms to think what I want, and I am going to make sure everyone knows that you said yes to a bill that says I can no longer express them if they go against the government for fear of being a homegrown terrorist! I hope you can live with your decision on helping with the destruction of this once great country!
I found this information on a government web site: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8633/hr1955.pdf
It has a nice overview of what Members of Congress have voted on, and what the Senate will soon vote on. It says,
" H.R. 1955 would direct DHS to establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. The center
would coordinate research on terrorism with other academic institutions. The bill also would establish 10-member commission to examine the causes of terrorist acts committed by persons raised or living in the United States. The commission would report its findings and recommendations to the Congress over the next two years. Finally, the bill would require DHS to prepare reports on certain issues relating to terrorism in the United States. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts and based on information provided by DHS on the cost of conducting similar activities, CBO estimates that the agency would spend about $22 million over the 2008-2012 period to implement the legislation. Of that amount, $4 million a year would be used to support the new Center of Excellence. The remaining amount would be spent over the next two years for studies and reports required by the bill, primarily those to be carried out by the new commission."
Sounds pretty innocuous. If you disagree, let your Senators and congressmen know about it. At this point, we still have a representative government. Work It.
We need to be taking ground, not giving ground on this issue. This feels like the kiss on the cheek you get after being anal raped in prison. In the grand sceme of things possibly unimportant, but let this be the straw that breaks our back. I for one am ready to get back the civil liberties that were taken from us and to give any more ground at all is ludicrous. It's local police, port patrol, air port security and similar groups that gaurd americans. NOT salivating voyeurs.
Obviously, our elected officials have forgotten that our constitution provides us with freedom. The government staying out of our lives as much as possible is the best possible freedom that I know. These policians don't care what the people think anymore. Vote this one down!
ngscents-
In truth, the Constitution provides the People with nothing; it was written as a contract for OFFICEHOLDERS to be bound by, not the People.
Some cites in support:
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it." - Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520
If you rely on a piece of paper to "give" you your rights, another piece of paper will take them away from you. This is the mystical foundation of the law; that some believe that because it IS "the law," therefore it is just and must be obeyed unthinkingly, without question.
Jefferson disagreed, when he defined Liberty thusly:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Here's a several more cites on-point to the fact that the CONstitution is binding on those who swear oaths to it, not the People themselves:
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). See also Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491 and Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
-- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author
"The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government."
-- Daniel Webster(1782-1852) US Senator
"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face."
-- Justice Potter Stewart(1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Walker v. Birmingham, 1967
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
-- Samuel Adams
"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed
with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
-- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
-- John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton
“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and courts. These are false hopes, believe me; these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it.”
-- Judge Learned Hand, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 1872-1961
“The world is different now...And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issues around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” — President John F. Kennedy 1961 Inaugural
"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government."
-- Ayn Rand(1905-1982) Author
On-topic, I agree with the earlier post by the lawyer of 21 years, that the subpoena power of this Commission has a very good chance of making it the modern-day equivalent of the MacCarthy Commie witch-hunting cabal.
With goodwill to all the People-
Hatman
THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC )WE MUST STAND UP AND STOP THIS BILL HR 1955 TOGETHER WE HAVE POWER TO STOP THIS BILL MY PEOPLE STAND UP NOW !!!!!!!! CALL 1-866-675-2008 BARACK OBAMA, AND SENATOR HARRY REID 1-202-224-7327
MY PEOPLE STAND UP FOR FREEDOM NOW IN 2008 AND ALWAYS FREEDOM NOW FREEDOM FOR ALL IN THE USA THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC MR JERRY ROBINSON IN CHICAGO
I OPPOSE this act. Any citizen wanting to preserve their freedom opposes this act. This act is anti-American!
Take careful note of the words "homegrown terrorism". The despotic King George of colonial times would have branded every one of our Founding Fathers as "homegrown terrorists". This is nothing more than a bald-faced leap into absolute tyranny. If this piece of garbage passes into "law" (sic) anyone and everyone who disagrees and says a word against the "ruling class" of this fascist oligarchy could be arrested, tortured, jailed or worse. Patriotic citizens, or soon to be "homegrown terrorists" should mark the names of both the sponsors of this bill from hell and every one of those sycophants who voted for it. These traitors to our Constitution should be thrown out of our gov't immediately for treasonous acts. Let's call it what it is while we still can: Barbaric Tyranny on a colossal scale not seen on American shores since the end of the Revolutionary War. Rise, Patriots...your nation needs you!
Add A Comment