It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Last I checked my Constitution and Declaration of Independence, (turn to the left and look at the copies on my wall), We the People have a duty to rise up and throw off the shackles of tyranny even if it is our own government. That is part of the Founding Laws of this Country.




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wlessard
 


You also have a duty and an obligation to follow the just laws that have been passed for all. And you don't have the right to overthrow the gov't willy-nilly, for any old reason. You must use the procedures established for change, i.e., the ballot box. And simply because the vote does not go your way is not a reason for violence. It is only when the procedures have been corrupted do you have that right of revolt.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You also have a duty and an obligation to follow the just laws that have been passed for all.



Sorry but this law was not passed for the benefit or protection of anyone (not the American people anyway). Making it illegal to protest and riot is against our constitutional right.

Or did you forget about the constitution?



And you don't have the right to overthrow the gov't willy-nilly, for any old reason. You must use the procedures established for change, i.e., the ballot box. And simply because the vote does not go your way is not a reason for violence.



Since when has voting changed anything? The democrats are the same as the republicans. Both parties are crooked snakes only there to further their own personal goals and ambitions.

Voting doesn't change # and you know it.



It is only when the procedures have been corrupted do you have that right of revolt.


Remember the Declaration of Independence?




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



That's pretty explicit. If the government becomes tyrannical, it is the people's duty to abolish that government and start over.

We've been living under tyrannical oppression for years now, way before the Bush regime's rigged election(s). He just made it more obvious we were slaves.



Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Again, very explicit and clear. When a "train of abuses" puts the people under a despot, it is their right and duty to overthrow that government and begin anew.

I didn't write this my friend. Our FOUNDING FATHERS did! They foresaw a time when America would come under similar rule as the British monarchy. The executive branch has become overgrown and taken over the other 2 branches.

No more checks and balances.



— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



This time it isn't a tyrant 3000 miles away, but one in our very own country, feasting on the very livelihood of this nation.

It is our duty to fight. DUTY, not privilege. I will even fight for those who speak out against me as it is their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and their inalienable right to be who they are.

No government, no man can take that freedom away.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   


Sorry but this law was not passed for the benefit or protection of anyone (not the American people anyway). Making it illegal to protest and riot is against our constitutional right.

Or did you forget about the constitution?


I would say that Riots are not a good idea. After all there is a difference between armed revolt and a riot.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


biggie smalls

You've got some catching up to do before you jump back into this discussion. You haven't yet answered the question I posed to you on the previous page: Do you think it is OK to use violence to hurt anyone who thinks differently than you?

The rest of your post is mainly just cut and paste. I have my own copy of the DoI, thank you.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No I do not think its ok to harm someone because they believe differently. Where have I advocated violence upon anyone?

Sorry for not responding I must not have read it.

I do think its important to overthrow tyrants (doesn't mean kill anyone) after they have made it clear they do not care about the people they are meant to protect.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 



Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by jsobecky
You also have a duty and an obligation to follow the just laws that have been passed for all.



Sorry but this law was not passed for the benefit or protection of anyone (not the American people anyway). Making it illegal to protest and riot is against our constitutional right.

Or did you forget about the constitution?


Where in the Constitution are you granted the right to riot?



And you don't have the right to overthrow the gov't willy-nilly, for any old reason. You must use the procedures established for change, i.e., the ballot box. And simply because the vote does not go your way is not a reason for violence.


Originally posted by biggie smalls
Since when has voting changed anything? The democrats are the same as the republicans. Both parties are crooked snakes only there to further their own personal goals and ambitions.

Voting doesn't change # and you know it.


This is a prime example of what I warned against in a previous post. Knee-jerk reaction masquerading as "rights".

Voting is part of our system. It works. Voting does not guarantee ideal candidates on the ballot, or an endless choice of political parties. Those luxuries come about as a result of a vigilant, active populace. Don't blame the system because you're too lazy to do anything except sit at your keyboard and whine.



It is only when the procedures have been corrupted do you have that right of revolt.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Remember the Declaration of Independence?

We've been living under tyrannical oppression for years now, way before the Bush regime's rigged election(s). He just made it more obvious we were slaves.

What a crock! You don't know what "tyrannical oppression" is. You wouldn't be able to sit there and whine if you lived under "tyrannical oppression".



It's people like you that are the problem with our country. You know how to whine, and to get all emotional, but when the rubber meets the road, you'll be hiding under your bed.

You want everything to be peachy-keen but you want someone else to do the heavy lifting. The fact is, you wouldn't know where to start to get things changed. All you can do is say "Burn the place down!" like some teenage heavy metal rocker. Well, it doesn't work that way.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 





Originally posted by biggie smalls
No I do not think its ok to harm someone because they believe differently. Where have I advocated violence upon anyone?



When you said this:


If you plan to hurt anyone that was born, raised, or "operating" primarily in the US then you're a terrorist.


You seem to disagree with the fact that it is not OK to "plan to hurt anyone that was born, raised, or "operating" primarily in the US."



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I think what I am seeing is this.

We can go back beyond the Patriot Act but lets start there.

Patriot Act
Military Commision Act of 2006 or 7... forgot the year.
This one.

A handful of Presidential Directives.

Okay so they are all well meaning directives and laws. Now as much as I like FDR he did one thing I cannot agree with. He locked up a whole section of americans using if I remember right an Act passed not long after Dec 7th 1941.

Well if you put all these together and decide. Hey I just need a little provocation and I can take over permanently. Why not.

I guess what I am saying is that with this act and all the others plus the Presidential Directives there could be a declaration of Martial Law and there goes the ball game.

I could be and I hope I am wrong but it is quite possible that it could happen. History shows us it does happen.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wlessard
 


Do you know who wrote and introduced this law?



Eye of Eagle



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No, you're misinterpreting my words again. A person who does harm to a US citizen is not a terrorist, they're a criminal. There's a huge difference.

A terrorist's intention is to create fear in a population as a form of control. A criminal does not wish to intimidate the American public. Government? Maybe, but that's not terrorism, that's called being pissed off (and rightly so).

If you're not pissed, you're not paying enough attention.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


I'd call Mohammed Atta a terrorist. The best kind of terrorist ( a dead one ) but a terrorist nonetheless.

What you're doing is playing semantics, trying to make everything that contains the word "terror" an alarmist piece of legislation designed to take away our rights. As I said earlier, be vigilant but don't be a tool.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I like it very much when you kids intelligently discourse. It helps to restore my faith in democracy.

Based on some of the definitions I have seen on this thread, I am and have been a domestic terrorist since about 1966. I think the difference for me now is I'm just a little slower with a little more patience. Also I don't seem to heal as quickly lately.

Though I am perfectly willing to physically and financially disagree with a fellow citizen that in my view has the intent to harm what I have accepted as my family, flag [constitution], or country; my current m.o. is to let the brother live.

The evidence supports my conviction that it is much better to very sucessfully outlive my self appointed enemies.

Besides, where I currently reside, there are very few troglodyte abodes to retreat to.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
1 -The architects of this law and it's introduction: I would start with Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Susan Collins (R-Me) - however there were 11 other co-sponsors

2 - Should it be allowed to stand, I think we will see the application of this draconian legislature in the protection of citizens; corporate citizens who's activities fall under resistance by those local to the corporation's activities - think protests against commercial activities which disrupt people's way of life - like the 'super highway' and 'nuclear/chemical' waste sites. It won't stop there.

As usual, the 'fear' factor will be the well spring of their power to engage in activities that the citizens would never allow given the choice. Imagine pseudo-mercenary organizations like Blackwater establishing 'facilities' in your area - suddenly housing 'undesirables' of some type - foreign soldiers, illegals in detention, or any number of things. The communities can't object other than through processes and mean 'granted' them by legislation - if they do object differently - they are terrorists, if they discuss alternatives, they are terrorists, if they peacefully protest at the location doing sit-ins or blocking traffic, they are terrorists. That is how it begins.

This is not about protection, this is about suppression.

They clever use of verbiage like 'Violent', "facilitate','adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' and such is to provide a suitably 'fuzzy' open-to-interpretation application of government force and coercion to deny free-thinking people the ability to effect a change which would limit or restrict the scope of power the PTB can bring to bear on it's own citizens.

As with most legislation and legal findings, the key to it's intent is embodied in the definitions. People need to pay attention to the fact that the all important phrase "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."

So any belief system that purports to support the furtherance of political or social objectives is now subject to consideration by some committee as 'Terrorist". Also note the use of the words "`ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group." What exactly does the word 'force' mean here? - it is inexcusably undefined. Should this mean that force = violence? This bears much closer examination.

Sorry for the supporters, but this gem is little more than legislative terrorism in and of itself - threatening criminality and stigma to all who would dare organize an effort to call for it to be changed. If we don't defeat this - it will hang around the necks of the citizens like a yoke for decades to come.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Originally posted by Maxmars
1 -The architects of this law and it's introduction: I would start with Jane Harman (D-Ca) and Susan Collins (R-Me) - however there were 11 other co-sponsors

2 - Should it be allowed to stand, I think we will see the application of this draconian legislature in the protection of citizens; corporate citizens who's activities fall under resistance by those local to the corporation's activities - think protests against commercial activities which disrupt people's way of life - like the 'super highway' and 'nuclear/chemical' waste sites. It won't stop there.

So, in your interpretation, this law is intended to pave the way for the "Super highway" and "nuclear/chemical" wastesites?




Originally posted by Maxmars
As usual, the 'fear' factor will be the well spring of their power to engage in activities that the citizens would never allow given the choice. Imagine pseudo-mercenary organizations like Blackwater establishing 'facilities' in your area - suddenly housing 'undesirables' of some type - foreign soldiers, illegals in detention, or any number of things. The communities can't object other than through processes and mean 'granted' them by legislation -



Emphasis added.

As it is and shall be, as long as we remain a lawful nation. Of course the legislature does not grant us our rights. Those are God-given and inalienable.



Originally posted by Maxmars
if they do object differently - they are terrorists, if they discuss alternatives, they are terrorists, if they peacefully protest at the location doing sit-ins or blocking traffic, they are terrorists.

No, that is not true. That is alarmist rhetoric, is what it is.

You are conveniently leaving the word violence out of your definitions in order to make your intentions seem above ground and innocent, while at the same time making the gov't seem sinister and menacing.




Originally posted by Maxmars
They clever use of verbiage like 'Violent', "facilitate','adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' and such is to provide a suitably 'fuzzy' open-to-interpretation application of government force and coercion to deny free-thinking people the ability to effect a change which would limit or restrict the scope of power the PTB can bring to bear on it's own citizens.

And you cleverly omit the same phrases to gloss over your unlawful tactics.




Originally posted by Maxmars
People need to pay attention to the fact that the all important phrase "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."


____________________? What? It seems like you left a sentence dangling in mid-air.

"People need to realize that the phrase XYZ _________." What??




Originally posted by Maxmars
So any belief system that purports to support the furtherance of political or social objectives is now subject to consideration by some committee as 'Terrorist".

Incorrect and once again, alarmist rhetoric.




Originally posted by Maxmars
Also note the use of the words "`ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group." What exactly does the word 'force' mean here? - it is inexcusably undefined. Should this mean that force = violence? This bears much closer examination.


Force does not equal violence. Accomplishing something using the force of the law, or of free speech, can be done without resorting to violence.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Maxmars
 


So, in your interpretation, this law is intended to pave the way for the "Super highway" and "nuclear/chemical" wastesites?


Not at all, I simply state these would be good 'testing grounds' for the government to implement it's 'protection' from 'homegrown terrorists.' There are many ways this legislation is open to abuse.


...As it is and shall be, as long as we remain a lawful nation. Of course the legislature does not grant us our rights. Those are God-given and inalienable.


Not anymore, legislation like this focuses on 'qualifying' rights, and the governments available 'measures' to 'deal' with them.



You are conveniently leaving the word violence out of your definitions in order to make your intentions seem above ground and innocent, while at the same time making the gov't seem sinister and menacing.


Actually the convenience was in the phrasing ...

`(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.'


The full text of the legislation

Notice the term force OR violence (It was not I who separated the two). Obviously the two are meant to fall under the same 'categorization' separately or it would say force AND violence. I think you might be trying to make 'nice' here; the separation of the two semantically expands the applicability of the term "homegrown terrorist' beyond simply violence.





Originally posted by Maxmars
They clever use of verbiage like 'Violent', "facilitate','adopting or promoting an extremist belief system' and such is to provide a suitably 'fuzzy' open-to-interpretation application of government force and coercion to deny free-thinking people the ability to effect a change which would limit or restrict the scope of power the PTB can bring to bear on it's own citizens.


And you cleverly omit the same phrases to gloss over your unlawful tactics.


The word "unlawful" is a peculiarly interesting turn of phrase. It kind of foreshadows where this all headed, don't you think?

I omit only for the sake of brevity. I didn't want to bury the post in text everyone seems to be familiar with, but I can and will gladly do so if the abbreviated text seems too carefully 'crafted' to address.




Originally posted by Maxmars
People need to pay attention to the fact that the all important phrase "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."


____________________? What? It seems like you left a sentence dangling in mid-air.

"People need to realize that the phrase XYZ _________." What??


Yikes! I messed up there. I wanted to continue but obviously lost my train of thought, thanks for pointing that out.

I don't object to the notion of creating legislation that would enable our government to respond to the rising threat of 'homegrown' terrorism - whatever form that might take. But the lawyerly way in which that statement is put forth allows a degree of latitude of discretion than can be (and thus will be) abused.

This country is all about 'social change' and 'ideological objectives'. How else can a nation formed of thousands of different cultural and social groups contend with each other? We deal with social and ideological intimidation all the time, just ask any on-air jockey who was fired because of a comment they made; or a company who's product was boycotted by a 'citizens group' for some transgression the group found offensive? We see protesters everywhere all the time in this country. But now, if that 'victim' of social or ideological intimidation is poised in the proper 'political' way - bingo - these protesters or boycotters are now facing potential 'terrorist' status.



Force does not equal violence. Accomplishing something using the force of the law, or of free speech, can be done without resorting to violence.


Yet 'force' is now ALSO part of the legislation - it's not force AND violence - it's force OR violence. Maybe the distinction is lost on you.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
LETS MOVE TO EUROPE!!! THIS SHIP IS GONNA SINK!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The reasons I have for worrying about this Bill are many fold but most if not all of them lie directly in history.

FDR’s Executive Order 9066

This Executive order was the legal basis, and I use the term legal very loosely here, for the internment of 200,000 Japanese Americans "for their own protection".

History shows that even men who think they are doing right sometimes do very wrong. The more power we allow them to have over us the more likely they will make a mistake and use it poorly. Yet the problem is a systematic construction of directives and laws that collectively null and void the Constitution.

You can state Unalienable Rights all day long and think that will stop a soldier ordered to arrest you or a loved one when they protest. If it makes you feel good to emphasize the words. You must remember that it took the deaths of many soldiers and citizens before those words could be honored in the United States of America.

Do not think just by standing up and saying you want your Unalienable rights you will get them back.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Originally posted by Maxmars



...As it is and shall be, as long as we remain a lawful nation. Of course the legislature does not grant us our rights. Those are God-given and inalienable.


Not anymore, legislation like this focuses on 'qualifying' rights, and the governments available 'measures' to 'deal' with them.

I don't get that from the text, and I sincerely hope that you are wrong.



You are conveniently leaving the word violence out of your definitions in order to make your intentions seem above ground and innocent, while at the same time making the gov't seem sinister and menacing.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Actually the convenience was in the phrasing ...

I was referring to your writing, not the bill:


Originally posted by Maxmars
The communities can't object other than through processes and mean 'granted' them by legislation - if they do object differently - they are terrorists, if they discuss alternatives, they are terrorists, if they peacefully protest at the location doing sit-ins or blocking traffic, they are terrorists. That is how it begins.


You make it sound like any innocent statement could be interpreted as terrorism. You left out the word violence, which is the thrust of the argument.


Originally posted by Maxmars
Notice the term force OR violence (It was not I who separated the two). Obviously the two are meant to fall under the same 'categorization' separately or it would say force AND violence. I think you might be trying to make 'nice' here; the separation of the two semantically expands the applicability of the term "homegrown terrorist' beyond simply violence.


I agree that this is a dangerous statement, and needs to be clarified. To my knowledge, it hasn't passed the Senate yet, so hopefully it will be caught by their editors.

I'm going to email my 2 Senators with these concerns, and the wording of "force" issue. They always respond - usually in a few weeks - and I'll post their answers here.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I'll do the same. Funny, had you not said that I would have sat here grinding my teeth, I completely forgot to do that! (duh)

I wonder if they respond via the same form letter or do different state representatives (or maybe parties) use their own.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join