House Passes "Thought Crime" Prevention Bill

I just love the ambiguity of the title :
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1955

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

..other purposes?

The bright side of this action is that it shows that, there is an element of concern for the authority of the government. The ruling powers are in jeopardy. This bill is a measure to prevent any type of alternative grass root movement to reclaim the "Republic for which it stands." This is an action motivated out of fear. It is basically an admission of culpability in governmental abuse of constitutional right. It send a clear message that the government is aware of what may happen if they "drop the ball" again.

Governments always function better when the government is afraid of the people who are governed, not the other way around. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Any charges brought against US citizens based on this bill could be overturned in appeals court and would be overturned as unconstitutional.

of course you would be defending yourself from jail and any appeals would be moot if the"fix" was in play !

Originally posted by NWRHINO
Governments always function better when the government is afraid of the people who are governed, not the other way around. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Exactly. When people are afraid of their governments and not vice versa, democracy has turned into a tyranny.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

---- Thomas Jefferson

Source: Jefferson Quotes (many good quotes here)

I tried to find some quotes by George Bush... there was none. What a surprise.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by nethrelm


True that "violent" is the key word here. However, according to this bill, if they suspect you MIGHT be trying to incite violence they have got ya. It is, effectively, a "thought crime" bill.


As said above; 1984


That about sums it up.
Jasn

Six, count that -- 6 (!!) people in the House voted against this.

One was a Mr. Kucinich from Ohio.

Here's a breakdown of the usual traitors for special-interest:
www.govtrack.us...

[edit on 26-10-2007 by anhinga]

reply to post by SimiusDei


Wonder if it works the other way around. I suspect the US government for trying to incite violence, specially George Bush and Dick Cheney. I also suspect some members of police, the Bilderberg group and the military.

Apparently I dont need proof. Guilty until proven innocent.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Copernicus]

It seems to me that this bill is intended to shut down any group who opposes the current status quo. There is a chance for violence anytime 2 or more people get together. This gives the government the power to arrest anyone based on the possibilty of violence. The next thing will be a bill taking away firearms from anyone who is outspoken in defiance of government oppression.

I'm a gun owner and a patriot, but I know that if I try to make a stand I'll be jailed or worse. We need groups of people to get together to make a difference, a bunch of small groups can turn into a large group and that's what the government fears. It's time for us to stand together and demand changes, take our government and our country back. I'm not saying we need an armed revolution, but I feel like this is what this bill is trying to head off.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm sorry, I'm against the government having too much power as much as the next person, but the idea that a bunch of folks with their rifles are going to take on the US military is ridiculous.

This isn't 1776.

Also, as another poster said, the key word here is 'violence'. I want government reform, but I'm certainly not promoting, nor planning a violent revolution. And if people on ATS /are/, then, I hope that this bill prevents them.

However, there's a big difference between that, and speculation. It should never be against the law to consider such things, or have a thoughtful discourse on the subject. I suppose that's the slippery slope. Would such things be censored, illegal and prosecuted?

If I write a book, fiction or otherwise, about the issues involved in overthrowing the government, would I go to jail?

For instance, back in the 1980s, I knew many folks that owned t-shirts with Reagan's face with a bullet hole in the forehead. And yet, I don't believe that would be tolerated today. And I think that's /wrong/.

So I guess the key question is for this bill, does it define what it means sufficiently? Will it be for genuine threats, or will it be 'bent' to silence people when it's inconvient?

Great last two posts with some amazing points. Will it stiffen freedom of expression of that 'Bush is a terrorist' t-shirts or anything like that? 1st Amendment is turning into such a grey area. Here's a good college site about the line being drawn over the 1stA and artist's rights. Pretty interesting read:

www.csulb.edu...

Too be honest with you, I think this bill actually has no teeth. It basically outlines 2 things, the creation of the Commitee to review documentation and talk to congressmen/women on radicalization issues, and creates a funded "center" which shall be established at a university to provide training and theorization of the radicalization of americans.

Additionally, as outlined in the bill, the commitee has to abide by the constiutional rights and well as the bill of rights.

This bill really doesn't do anything in and of itself. That being said, it can establish the pretext to create documentation to eventually pass legislation that has more teeth.

Here is the link I found that looks like it contains the bill:

www.govtrack.us...

and here is the excerpt holding to the constitution:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx

SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Here's my thoughts, While this bill doesn't really do anything, upon the completion of the final report which is due in 18 months, other legislation may be implemented or at least brought forward based upon there results. This being said, I think this bill doesn't do much, however, it could establish a foundation to build more on.

Regards,

Camain

I'm guessing a lot more people will just read this thread than will actually read the bill... soo... a few definitions from the bill:

`(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.

One interesting point of this is "an extremist belief system". I guess we can all read Islam; I'm certain those that wrote the bill haven't a grain of worldly knowledge they didn't acquire via their nightly fox news worship. But again, it's all semantics - I suppose the "belief system" could be nothing more than the "belief" that the government is denying us our constitutional rights.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means 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 possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This definition is that which completely undermines the Declaration of Independence and our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. An example, say, 3 years down the line (at this rate, anyhow): The house is passing a bill abolishing our first and second amendments. We the people claim that if the house passes this bill, we will riot in the streets. By way of this definition and this bill; we're all terrorists. The president flips a switch and FEMA takes over using Black Water who, in turn, uses whatever means necessary to quell the violence. FEMA never let's go of power (since there is no "FEMA off" switch in any of the three branches). Ok... I may be getting carried away.


However - and this is a big however - this bill does not state that any person or organization can be affected as a result of this bill. All this bill calls for is the implementation of a committee that will research the causes and development of "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism". The committee is only to conduct this research and then file a report "no later than 18 months" after the committee has been formed.

This bill is no threat. The definitions suck, but the bill itself poses no threat. Now, based on that final report, it will be important to watch what bills get passed after the committee is dissolved (or it's life extended).

edit: run on sentence in p. 5

[edit on 26-10-2007 by memoir]

reply to post by camain


D*&^ you camain! You must have clicked 'post reply' right as I clicked 'reply to this post'. Sorry for the lengthy duplication everybody. I suppose, in short, I agree with camain.

edit: grammar

[edit on 26-10-2007 by memoir]

reply to post by Jadette


I'm in agreement about a bunch of guys with rifles fighting the government. It wouldn't work in America in this day and age. As Americans, our first response is to fight, at least that's mine. But, anyone with any common sence will realize the futility of it. I was talking about groups of people standing together to expose what is going on.

In 1776 a small group of visionaries stood together and created the greatest nation the world has ever known, because of unfair taxes. This was accomplished through force of arms, mainly because it took so long for the oppressors to get troops here in any number, and the determination of those vizionaries not to give up the fight. Now the battleground is public opinion and education. If we can teach our children the truth about how our government is supposed to work and teach the uninformed the same thing, we can't lose. We need to be loud with our protests and loud with the truth. If enough of us speak up then the world and our " government " will be forced to listen. Then and only then will we be great again.

All this country needs is a leader, or a group of leaders, to get us back on the right track. People not influenced by corporations throwing money at them. Idealists who don't care what Europe thinks of our policies. If this doesn't happen soon, we will see "our" laws being enforced by UN "peacekeepers". To me, that is the scariest thing of all. When that happens, America is gone, and we will be right back where we were 231 years ago.

Diebold fixed elections, God, do I want Ron Paul or Dennis K in office, too bad Billary NWO wins already.

Onward w/ this topic, so when is it up for voted in the Congress? Like it'll matter w/ Pelosi the traitor in there.

Interesting how they'll wag this one in a la Patriot Act, or like that even matters when there's traitors crawling all over DC.

Tomorrow, somehow try to organize MILLIONS of anti-war people in your cities, check that recent thread and keep it alive! Our freedoms are at stake to sound a little dramatic about this!

reply to post by anhinga


I agree. Nothing would please me more than seeing those demonstrations become really big and get attention out to millions of viewers. Just because the media will not help inform people they will be going on doesnt mean that they will ignore them once they happen.

I think they will be in the news, probably biased or ridiculed, but who cares...we're used to that, arent we?

Absolutely and should these cities get a lot of people together -- then the mainstream has to cover it without bias. Should be a good march, looking forward to it rain or shine.

www.unitedforpeace.org...

Tell others to attend! 11 cities.

This bill could be construed as a 'trial balloon' to test which way the winds will blow on this topic.

I suggest that we put up a windblock.
The only way yhat this bill will receive the notice it deserves, is unfortunately thru the MSM.
Having said that, I suggest the following tactic:

1- We need to have a contest.
The contest would be decided by majority vote or consensus. It would be a contest to write the shortest, pitheiest, most scathing rebuttal to this bill citing a) Where the bill violates constitution. b) Passages that also contradict the essence of the bill uttered by our founding fathers.
The ultimate goal would be to incite anger in anyone who reads this letter, and which will cause that person to take action and to write to their congressman, representitive, senator, and the MSM.
The winner would have our thanks and admiration, a feeling that he/she made a difference, and maybe a 1000 point bonus if the mods agree. After all, this has the potential to affect this very site.

2- Once we have a winning 'short' letter we begin an exposure campaign:

3- We email this letter to all of our friends, work mates, AND the editors of MSM newspapers, journals, and TV stations asking that they do an investigative piece on this bill and it's ramifications for Amerika, and the constitution, in practice. Not in theory.
As we all can surmise, the potential for governmental abuse/misuse of this bill is enormous.

We could start a thread just as a repository for for congressional and MSM email addresses so we could just come that page and click and send.

I would think it would be better to send it first to the MSM to get a buzz going, wait a few weeks for there to be an angry reaction, and then send it to the Hill.

Should we do something like this?
I'm pretty sure the MSM will be too busy with britney, or lindsey, to bother with this particular story....

My admiration, kudos and applause to Simiusdei for the thread.

Let's pop this trial balloon.

Llink to all congressional email by state:
www.house.gov...

You know what is so ironic about all these new ambiguous laws and pieces of legislation?

The government can't even enforce all the ones they have in place now.

I guess they have to justify their existence.

reply to post by tetsujin420


if they start to censor our internet look out?i'm already going thru this in a suggestive manner which is also real---------there are websites i try to visit and incure the wrath of ?microsoft ? for reasons unknown to me ------whoever it is uses their logo anyway------i get shutdowns/warnings and suggestions to change my computer set up to work with microsoft--------and then when i start taking steps to try and conform----norton anti-virus tells me--warning --do you really want to proceed ?---malicious intent is detected !malicious intent ?by microsoft?yeah thats the warning from norton anti-virus protection system on this computer.i've been hacked by ? at least 3x and i'm sure someone is monitoring what i do------these attacks seem to become more prevelent after writing something like this ------up to now.enjoy the internet while we can----big brother is watching !

reply to post by Realtruth


they cant enforce the laws they have now in place?------------oh they could but why beat on someone that pays taxes still and is not considered a serious threat ?but if they make laws that cover everything under the sun-------then they can pick and choose who they deem to be ringleaders?--------and get rid of them.wait till they chip us-----they'll make us pay for breathing past our limit of air rations or if you have too much------in their opinion------sex-----they'll charge us extra for that as well.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Isn't it our duty, as Americans, to do whatever we feel has to be done to save our liberties? INCLUDING violent means?

That's why this bill is pointless.

They can warn, "Don't you do anything!", and send the pigs they pay, etc., but if there's ever going to be violence then this bill definitely isn't going to stop it. It'll just become meaningless with the rest of what they've put in place.