Post by: Paddy on November 24, 2007, 07:45:46 AM
Summary:
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
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.
Full text:
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except set up an advisory committee. Nonetheless, the language is disturbing. And, it's already passed the House.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 24, 2007, 07:52:12 AM
Look at the UK. A lot of the homegrown sorts there started as young Muslim males who got brainwashed by a violent imam in a radical mosque, then went to Pakistan and trained, came back and blew stuff up or tried to.
That chain of events needs to be broken before it can be completed, here.
Not like the government will be overly effective at it, since committee meetings by outdated men with outdated briefcases and outdated ideas won't do much to stop radical imams from radicalizing impressionable young Muslims, but it is a need.
Post by: Paddy on November 24, 2007, 07:54:08 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 24, 2007, 07:55:50 AM
Also, included in the bill is this line, which you didn't mention:
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
But this is why it won't work, it also includes this line:
Quote
Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
Right, then. So, listen to the UK, which appeases non-assimilating violent groups within at every opportunity and disarmed its citizens, Canada, which actually debated allowing Sharia law and can't even keep the Russian mafia from nearly running Toronto, now, and Australia, which disarmed its citizens and has "homegrown" sorts calling women "whores" and attacking them for "dressing immodestly".
Yeah, that's good people to listen to.
Post by: Paddy on November 24, 2007, 08:00:57 AM
Quote
Also, included in the bill is this line, which you didn't mention:
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Well, that's a relief. Certainly nothing in the Patriot Act(s) so far have violated any constitutional or civil rights and liberties.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 24, 2007, 08:05:07 AM
Quote
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
will be a threat to your civil liberties?
It's just a taxpayer-funded excuse to have a nicely-appointed office and expensive lunches. There's a need, but this is just big-government navel-gazing by some people who will discuss nothing and do nothing.
Post by: Paddy on November 24, 2007, 10:08:16 AM
This 'bill' is just a smokescreen and further powergrab.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 24, 2007, 02:14:09 PM
really? you missed a couple news items last decade or so
Post by: Finch on November 24, 2007, 03:16:51 PM
Nope, it doesn't. But that's the most prominent threat at present.
But that is how it starts. The Patriot act was sold to us on the basis that it was needed to fight terrorism. But just recently it was used to shut down a strip club here in Vegas (among hundereds of thousands of other misues). I got lost trying to connect the dots. While this bill seems rather harmless in it's current state, we do need to be extra cautious in watching congress nowadays.
Post by: Len Budney on November 25, 2007, 03:34:04 AM
Nope, it doesn't. But that's the most prominent threat at present.
Agreed. Until Hillary's inauguration, when armed Americans who blabber about the Constitution, limited government, etc., are deemed the "most prominent threat" of the time. Recall the demonization of all "militias" under President Bubba?
Giving government the power to destroy your liberty--in this case, by punishing thoughtcrime--while trusting them only to use it in ways you approve, is suicidal. The whole premise behind limited government is that, like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a terrifying master.
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 25, 2007, 04:26:52 AM
And you think this:
will be a threat to your civil liberties?
It's just a taxpayer-funded excuse to have a nicely-appointed office and expensive lunches. There's a need, but this is just big-government navel-gazing by some people who will discuss nothing and do nothing.
Quote
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
will be a threat to your civil liberties?
It's just a taxpayer-funded excuse to have a nicely-appointed office and expensive lunches. There's a need, but this is just big-government navel-gazing by some people who will discuss nothing and do nothing.
Having read the bill, thats exactly what it looks like to me.
A bunch of bloviating and posturing to make it appear that they care, while creating a new way to spend money and give friends lucrative careers.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 25, 2007, 06:08:51 AM
Quote
Also, included in the bill is this line, which you didn't mention:
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Well, that's a relief. Certainly nothing in the Patriot Act(s) so far have violated any constitutional or civil rights and liberties.
Don't let Riley get away with that. When you challenge him, he changes the subject over to the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, or some other barely-related item.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 25, 2007, 06:41:00 AM
It's just a taxpayer-funded excuse to have a nicely-appointed office and expensive lunches. There's a need, but this is just big-government navel-gazing by some people who will discuss nothing and do nothing.
Come on, they will discuss stuff. After all, who do you think all the news shows will use when they need an expert on terrorism. They will call these guys!! I doubt they will elevate the discourse much though. 
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 06:49:48 AM
Quote
Also, included in the bill is this line, which you didn't mention:
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Quote
Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Well, that's a relief. Certainly nothing in the Patriot Act(s) so far have violated any constitutional or civil rights and liberties.
Don't let Riley get away with that. When you challenge him, he changes the subject over to the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, or some other barely-related item.
Well, that's rather transparent, I thought, yes.
It's sort of like:
"Pie is bad."
"No, pie is not bad. Pie can be very good. Here's citations as to why."
"...But cake has caused all sorts of issues!"
Post by: Paddy on November 25, 2007, 02:30:09 PM
Is that what you're saying?
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 25, 2007, 04:15:50 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 04:33:35 PM
So, according to fistful and Manedwolf, nothing in the Patriot Acts has violated any constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents?
Is that what you're saying?
Is that what you're saying?
Why are you trying to change this thread to the Patriot Act? Your original post was about H.R. 1955. Do you realize you've lost that argument, that why?
Post by: De Selby on November 25, 2007, 04:44:19 PM
Right, then. So, listen to the UK, which appeases non-assimilating violent groups within at every opportunity and disarmed its citizens, Canada, which actually debated allowing Sharia law and can't even keep the Russian mafia from nearly running Toronto, now, and Australia, which disarmed its citizens and has "homegrown" sorts calling women "whores" and attacking them for "dressing immodestly".
Yeah, that's good people to listen to.
In what way does the UK "appease violent groups"? Do you have any specific examples of "appeasing violence" in modern times? I can think of only one: granting the IRA everything it asked for in the political process in Northern Ireland. But that move led to peace, so I don't think you can be criticizing that reaction to terrorism.
Canada is debating "allowing Sharia"? Huh? Which legislators are pushing it, and where might I find the text of such debates?
The only violence I've seen committed in Australia for political reasons wasn't "homegrown Muslims" doing anything, it was "homegrown whites" with Aussie flag tattoos beating anyone with brown skin during the big riots.
You are taking the wrong lessons from other countries, it seems. In places most similar to the United States, the mosque is not likely to cause trouble. A native born, non-middle eastern or sub-continent origin national with a gun is infinitely more likely to kill you here than someone who prays in Arabic. Don't be surprised when the next anti-gun administration points this out to justify spending even more tracking you and your guns.
Post by: Paddy on November 25, 2007, 06:26:51 PM
Quote
Why are you trying to change this thread to the Patriot Act? Your original post was about H.R. 1955. Do you realize you've lost that argument, that why?
H.R. 1955 expands the Homeland Security Act. HSA and PA are two horns on the same beast. How does splitting the two in your mind win some non existent 'argument'? Does your ideology justify trading liberty for 'security'?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 06:29:43 PM
Quote
Why are you trying to change this thread to the Patriot Act? Your original post was about H.R. 1955. Do you realize you've lost that argument, that why?
H.R. 1955 expands the Homeland Security Act. HSA and PA are two horns on the same beast. How does splitting the two in your mind win some non existent 'argument'? Does your ideology justify trading liberty for 'security'?
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 08:52:51 AM
Birds of a feather.................
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 09:07:53 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 09:16:03 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 09:21:20 AM
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 09:34:40 AM
Now go crap in somebody else's thread Manedwolf. You're not in kindergarten anymore.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 09:39:48 AM
You give him too much credit, Len. Trolling actually requires some mental horsepower.
Now go crap in somebody else's thread Manedwolf. You're not in kindergarten anymore.
Now go crap in somebody else's thread Manedwolf. You're not in kindergarten anymore.
Excuse me? WHO is talking about crapping in threads? You and Len are the masters of schizophrenic strawmen in every thread you post in!
Scroll back a bit, look at Len's "Bbbbbut....I HATE BUSH SPEW BLARRG!" reply that added nothing at all.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 09:43:51 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 09:44:36 AM
This is a DISCUSSION forum. Only your mommy thinks you're cute and precocious with your childish pictures. They don't impress anybody else. Either engage the discussion or get lost.
Funny, Riley, I didn't think YOU were a moderator.
Try to give me orders, I'll tell you where to put them.
And whose fault is it that the OP started a thread without apparently even reading the damned bill, then tried to change it to patriot act, bush is bad, etc, etc...when called on the fact that it was much ado about nothing?
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 09:58:03 AM
Scroll back a bit, look at Len's "Bbbbbut....I HATE BUSH SPEW BLARRG!" reply that added nothing at all.
Um, what the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned Bush in this thread. If it was a "spew blarrg," then it was against Hillary, not Bush. However, it was also not hysterical. The only one indulging in hysterics around here is you. Note the all-caps, the constant use of pejoratives, usually directed against other posters' sanity, etc.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 09:59:38 AM
Scroll back a bit, look at Len's "Bbbbbut....I HATE BUSH SPEW BLARRG!" reply that added nothing at all.
Um, what the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned Bush in this thread. If it was a "spew blarrg," then it was against Hillary, not Bush. However, it was also not hysterical. The only one indulging in hysterics around here is you. Note the all-caps, the constant use of pejoratives, usually directed against other posters' sanity, etc.
--Len.
Excuse me, that was Riley. You two post from the same perspective quite often.
Quote
Once again, Manedwolf is simply unable to engage the argument. Instead, following in the Great Tradition of our Esteemed Leader, he proclaims 'victory' ("Mission Accomplished") and disappears.
Birds of a feather.................
Birds of a feather.................
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 11:00:51 AM
Quote
Funny, Riley, I didn't think YOU were a moderator.
Try to give me orders, I'll tell you where to put them.
Try to give me orders, I'll tell you where to put them.
Translation: "You're not the boss of me". How old are you, about 12?
Post by: K Frame on November 26, 2007, 12:07:00 PM
I AM a moderator.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2007, 06:35:19 PM
Riley, you really aren't the one who should be commenting on other poster's maturity. Your posts in this thread don't show much of it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 06:38:23 PM
So, according to fistful and Manedwolf, nothing in the Patriot Acts has violated any constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents?
Is that what you're saying?
Is that what you're saying?
