Have any of you seen THIS ?

Here's the bill itself, or rather the "act"

Conspiracy is already a crime. So is violence so this is really nothing new in that respect.

This reminds me of hate crimes; it's "okay" to beat someone to a pulp, but you're going down if you use a slur word during the process.

Note the definitions:

quote:

899A. DEFINITIONS.

“For purposes of this subtitle:

“(1) Commission.—The term ‘Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

“(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.

“(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.

“(4) Ideologically based violence.—

“The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Some smokers have experienced "ideologically based violence". Though I doubt this ruling would ever be used against TC.

Note finding number 3:

quote:

899B. FINDINGS.

“The Congress finds the following:

“(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

“(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

“(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

“(4)

“While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

Of course, it will all depend on how they plan on RE-defining the words "force" and "violence". As we all know, they love re-defining words and not telling us how they've re-defined them.

For example, according to Dr. Siegel, in the scientific community the word "cause" is used to indicate a small statistical increase in risk, and is not used to convey an absolute guaranteed outcome. YET, they know the general public accepts the word cause as defined in the dictionary: {n}1. One that produces and effect, result, or consequence. 2. A motive. 3. A reason. 4. A principle or goal. {v} To be the cause of: bring about. ~from~ Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, Office Edition, Revised Edition.

They continually use the word "cause" to further push their agenda.

Force does NOT have to be violent or physical, look at smoking ban laws.

Also note these 2 parts:

quote:

“(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

“(8) 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.

It doesn't say that this act SHALL NOT be used to target or violate, but only that it "should not". That is a nice loop hole they have there.

This just feels like another step towards totally trashing the constitution.

They couldn't get away with calling it the "New and Improved Sedition Act of 2007"

Not that the population has any idea of what the previous sedition act incarnations were to begin with.

I'd be willing to bet that fully half the population doesn't understand the definition of the word "SEDITION" if used in ordinary conversation with the "average" person on the street.
SAD.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda F:
It doesn't say that this act SHALL NOT be used to target or violate, but only that it "should not". That is a nice loop hole they have there.

I noticed that too. Too bad for them the Constitution trumps any BS they care to write.

When I joined the military I took this oath:

I, {my name}, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Anybody who takes an oath (politicians) and says the Constitution "should be" followed, and not "must be" followed, sounds like they've broken their oath to me, or at the least, conspiracy to not defend the Constitution. They sound like traitors. We already know they're thieves.

Edited due to a typo.

I'm beginning to think that we're going to see a Constitutional convention in the next 5 to 10 years and the politicians are just going to take a bottle of white-out to the whole damn thing. Kind of like "Animal Farm".

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
I'm beginning to think that we're going to see a Constitutional convention in the next 5 to 10 years and the politicians are just going to take a bottle of white-out to the whole damn thing. Kind of like "Animal Farm".

There won't be any convention. They are already doing it, sneakily under the guise of "homeland security". It became obvious to me with the "Patriot Act".

By the time these clowns are done, there will be no constitution. What really burns me though are the men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for THEIR freedoms, coming home damaged and maimed for life to find their own freedoms gone. And that is some nasty, twisted slap in the face to them.

Without meaning to offend anyone, or be disrespectful, the ones who actually die are probably better off....at least I know they are in a far better place than this. And I sincerely mean no offense or disrespect to anyone with this statement.

Yeah, I agree Lynda. Why rewrite the Constitution when you've not only redefined black as white, but gone the additional step of establishing precedents for the notion that black equals white?

Note to slow readers: that was a color analogy, not a race analogy.

In effect that is what the Supreme Court of the United States has done, but it didn't do it alone. It had plenty of help from the Executive and Legislative branches, too.

I also hear what you're saying about our people in the military. Yes, I support our troops. What I don't support are those who only pretend to support them, who used a pack of lies to place them in harm's way for profit, who wrap themselves in the flag and not only lie, but accuse true patriots of being anti-American.

The Oath of Office is simple: support the Constitution. Our troops trusted that they'd be used to that end. Their Commander in Chief lied to them.

I'm a patriot. Our troops are patriots. I know where the traitors are.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda F:
Without meaning to offend anyone, or be disrespectful, the ones who actually die are probably better off....at least I know they are in a far better place than this. And I sincerely mean no offense or disrespect to anyone with this statement.

You may not mean any disrespect, but you might as well blow your brains out if you believe that. Or, in the form of a question, why haven't you already blown your brains out?

Some of those soldiers may have agreed with what's going on here. They certainly would rather be alive. And there's those who would've rather come home and gladly fought against this. And I'm sure there are some who wouldn't have cared one way or the other.

So please don't say they are probably better off dead. I doubt one of them would agree with you and I know not ONE of their family members would.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda F:
Without meaning to offend anyone, or be disrespectful, the ones who actually die are probably better off....at least I know they are in a far better place than this. And I sincerely mean no offense or disrespect to anyone with this statement.

You may not mean any disrespect, but you might as well blow your brains out if you believe that. Or, in the form of a question, why haven't you already blown your brains out?

Some of those soldiers may have agreed with what's going on here. They certainly would rather be alive. And there's those who would've rather come home and gladly fought against this. And I'm sure there are some who wouldn't have cared one way or the other.

So please don't say they are probably better off dead. I doubt one of them would agree with you and I know not ONE of their family members would.

Squeezer, I think you are taking it out of context. Our boys and girls are over there, being maimed and killed, based on lies to start with, to bring some of the same freedoms we have enjoyed here to those people. Then they come home, injured, physically and mentally, just to find that those same freedoms they were fighting to give others, are being stripped from them here at home. And just to add insult to their injury, the same people who sent them there in the first place, are trying to deny them proper medical care when they get back here.

I get your point completely, Lynda. If it's a war for 'freedom', they'll have more over there than we have left here. That's what's turned me into a 'bring the troops home NOW' type. It's senseless. They come home to a land where it's being freely given away at the ballot box.

dave clark: "If it's a war for 'freedom', they'll have more over there than we have left here."

They already do. They again have the freedom to identify themselves not as Iraqis, but as Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds (oh my).

We gave 'em that freedom. We made that. If somebody knocked the props out from under the U.S., it would factionalize too--but in the case of Iraq, it possessed no firm national identity in the first place. It's just some lines on a map drawn by Europeans in the Twentieth Century. Most people there are like, "fuck it."

And we knew that. Filmed statements made by Dick Cheney ten years ago prove he knew that. The only hypothesis that might explain our national leaders innocently blundering into an inevitable quagmire involves extreme ignorance and incompetence, and because of Cheney's statements we know that hypothesis to be false.

They knew what was coming. They knew it was something we could pour a decade's worth of lives and money into, and we'd still lose.

We have to search for alternate hypotheses to explain our leaders' decisions. An honest mistake doesn't cut it.

Have at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda F:
Squeezer, I think you are taking it out of context. Our boys and girls are over there, being maimed and killed, based on lies to start with, to bring some of the same freedoms we have enjoyed here to those people.

That's not what I have a problem with. It's this: "the ones who actually die are probably better off"

I wouldn't even try to defending that. I'd just delete it.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
That's not what I have a problem with. It's this: "the ones who actually die are probably better off"

I know what you had a problem with Squeezer. Obviously you are choosing to NOT understand what I was saying. If you think it is perfectly acceptable to have our children maimed and injured to return home and be slapped in the face for their efforts and losses with the loss of some freedoms they had when they left, that is your right.

We will simply agree to disagree. I really meant no insult and I believe most understood what I was saying.

I'm sorry if you feel offended, but I will NOT censor my post, because you don't like the sentence. We still have the freedom to speak our mind in this country, unless you'd like to see that revoked?