Log in

View Full Version : Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007


Maverick
December 7th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Ok I heard about this bill that passed in the House. It was a landslide vote with 404 yes votes and only 6 votes against (3 democrat and 3 Republican). It is now awaiting Senate approval to pass.

So here's the bill in full text as of now. Rather than posting an article that has bias and opinion, figured you can read some of it yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Do you feel this bill is necessary/a good idea? Also this is long, but the definitions and finding section are the major points of what this is all about.


AN ACTTo prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/newurl?type=titlesect&title=6&section=361) et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`SEC. 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.
`SEC. 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.
`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
`(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.
`(9) 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.
`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.
`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.
`(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:
`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.
`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--
`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;
`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and
`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.
`(c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--
`(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;
`(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;
`(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;
`(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
`(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
`(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
`(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`(8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
`(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.`(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.
`(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.
`(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.
`(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
`(h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.
`(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.
`(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.`(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.
`(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.
`(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies-
`(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.
`(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.`(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.
`(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
`(m) Public Meetings-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate.
`(2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).`(n) Staff of Commission-
`(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.
`(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).
`(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
`(B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.`(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.
`(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
`(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.
`(o) Commission Personnel Matters-
`(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.
`(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.
`(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.
`(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.
`(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.`(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.
`(q) Reports-
`(1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.
`(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress--
`(A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on--
`(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and
`(ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and`(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.
`(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.
`(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.
`(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.
`(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.
`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.
`(a) Establishment- 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 (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall 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. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).
`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall--
`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
`(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and
`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.
`SEC. 899E. PREVENTING VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.
`(a) International Effort- The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.
`(b) Implementation- To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
`(c) Reports to Congress- The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that provides--
`(1) a brief description of the foreign partners participating in the survey; and
`(2) a description of lessons learned from the results of the survey and recommendations implemented through this international outreach.
`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, or civil liberties of United States citizens or 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 shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism 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:`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`Sec. 899A. Definitions.
`Sec. 899B. Findings.
`Sec. 899C. National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.
`Sec. 899D. Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.
`Sec. 899E. Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.
`Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.'.
Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

*Dissident*
December 8th, 2007, 10:54 PM
a summary would be nice.

0=
December 8th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Yes, we're very tired.

Maverick
December 8th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Ok I will tomo but I'll be pissed if I take the time to summarize this and get no reply.

0=
December 8th, 2007, 11:37 PM
I'll reply. I like to analyze things. I'm just tired as hell.

Serenity
December 9th, 2007, 09:41 AM
I'll reply. I like to analyze things. I'm just tired as hell.

QFT. I read through the first couple of sections and literally started to see stars...

Whisper
December 11th, 2007, 12:36 AM
....Yes, but what does it all mean basil?

Ok I will tomo but I'll be pissed if I take the time to summarize this and get no reply.

Well then it'd suck to be you!

archangel
December 15th, 2007, 02:24 AM
I personally agree with the bill, however, if I were a liberal I would summarize it as: "It is another bill by the Bush Administration to gain more unconstitutional, police-like rights."

As the reasonable conservative that I am: "It is a bill that updates our previous policies on containing and preventing terrorism, both domestic and foreign. Because it is apparent that terrorists are relentless, updates of our defenses should be equally as relentless."


If I totally missed the point on this bill, I am very sorry but I am very tired, and just want to get my first 10 posts out of the way.

*Dissident*
December 15th, 2007, 08:13 PM
the following was posted on newstarget.com:

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

The bill states:

‘...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...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.

If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")

If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")

If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")

The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.

0=
December 15th, 2007, 11:48 PM
Yeah, this has been going on for a long time. It's just going to be legal now.

archangel
December 16th, 2007, 12:25 AM
the following was posted on newstarget.com:



Yeah, you are way too biased to even comment on this topic. Firstly, just look at your "source". It is obviously a liberal site dedicated to ruining America. If we do not get tough on terrorism, domestic and foreign, we will be defeated.


Why dont you go use your freedom of speech for some use for once. Protest the bashing of our armed forces, protest Ted Kennedy, his car has killed more people than my guns. But, for the sake of our sovereignty, do not protest the defense of the United States of America.

*Dissident*
December 16th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Yeah, you are way too biased to even comment on this topic. Firstly, just look at your "source". It is obviously a liberal site dedicated to ruining America. If we do not get tough on terrorism, domestic and foreign, we will be defeated.


Why dont you go use your freedom of speech for some use for once. Protest the bashing of our armed forces, protest Ted Kennedy, his car has killed more people than my guns. But, for the sake of our sovereignty, do not protest the defense of the United States of America.

The reason the founding fathers MADE the first amendment and HATED the sedition act was so that those who did not agree with the "sovreignty" or the power their government was obtaining could speak out against it with out qualms, and bring necissary change. Thats how we broke free from england, and the main reason most people, conservative and liberal, hold on to the purtiy of our country: the freedom to complain and hopefully bring about change. By taking away someones right to their thought we decend into the realm of facism and tyranny; much the same as Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il.

The real truth behind this bill is that it really is detrimental to the freedom of speech of most of the population who speak out against the war, because the truth is that most people do oppose it. Defense is really out of the question here. What do they hope to achieve? stop terrorists in our own nation (which there are relativaly FEW of) from planning terrorist acts? I mean, really.

"Uh oh. theres a new law that says we cant plan our terrorist attack. should we stop?"

"yea, Im scared we might be incarcerated, instead of just dieing in a suicidal explosion"

how would one effectivly enforce it? denying random/ "suspected" americans their privacy, just listening to them speak and somehow construe it as "force"... your not going to stop a terrorist attack (of which there has been ONE in the united states) by telling people they cant talk about it.

And you really didnt talk about anything in the post...you just called it liberal crap and dismissed it. Please, tell me why it is wrong to see the possibility of abuse extending from this law? Because our government would never do that? Take a look at gitmo, Vietnam, blackwater, iraq. take a look at where the hell habeus corpus went to. just look. open your eyes. open your mind.

Also, its not like im not the only biased one in this arguement. Look at your avatar! the Marine Corps insignia! talk about a middle of the road straight shooting american.

archangel
December 16th, 2007, 01:06 AM
I hope I am mistaken in discerning that you are belittling the September 11th attack? It is not just that 3000 americans lost their lives, it is the fact that we are vulnerable.

How do you know that there are few home grown terrorists in america? Do you work at the Pentagon?

And obviously the terrorists wont stop because of a new law. But it will stop the liberal activist groups from hindering American intelligence and law-enforcement agencies in their efforts to protect the USA.

You dont know the meaning of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not freedom of speech, it is the recognition of a territory or state as a nation state.

Also, about me being biased. Yeah my avatar is the USMC Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. But it shows that I at least believe in something honorable and courageous. What do you believe in Mr. Liberal? Especially with that Nuke Avatar of yours?

Lastly, you have not countered or even brought up the fact that I challenged your source. So therefore it is dropped on your side of the arguement and now void.

The government of the United States of America will not, and can not intentionally remove freedom of speech rights. If you think that Bush is doing things wrong, then blame your congress for voting for it. Blame your congress for approving his Supreme Court nominees. Just because you cannot come up with viable plans for foreign policy does not mean that you bash on the Leader of the Free World.

0=
December 16th, 2007, 11:55 PM
I hope I am mistaken in discerning that you are belittling the September 11th attack? It is not just that 3000 americans lost their lives, it is the fact that we are vulnerable.

That's like fearing a salmonella infection from eating raw eggs. It happens, but it's statistically insignificant.

How do you know that there are few home grown terrorists in america? Do you work at the Pentagon?

Do you?

And obviously the terrorists wont stop because of a new law. But it will stop the liberal activist groups from hindering American intelligence and law-enforcement agencies in their efforts to protect the USA.

Basically, you just declared liberals an enemy of the state because they disagree with their government, which is their right as Americans. There really are more important things we could be doing with trillions of dollars.

You dont know the meaning of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not freedom of speech, it is the recognition of a territory or state as a nation state.

That's pretty irrelevant to the debate and the point that was being made.

Also, about me being biased. Yeah my avatar is the USMC Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. But it shows that I at least believe in something honorable and courageous. What do you believe in Mr. Liberal? Especially with that Nuke Avatar of yours?

Everyone's biased. It's called having a different opinion. Someone's opinion is no reason to insult or attack them, just have a reasonable discussion.

Lastly, you have not countered or even brought up the fact that I challenged your source. So therefore it is dropped on your side of the argument and now void.

That's a logical fallacy. You must first provide factual evidence, not an opinion, that the source is unreliable before he must provide evidence that it is reliable. You saying that it's unreliable simply because it's liberal does not constitute a valid challenge. One cannot argue against evidence that has not been presented; that's just how debate works.

The government of the United States of America will not, and can not intentionally remove freedom of speech rights. If you think that Bush is doing things wrong, then blame your congress for voting for it. Blame your congress for approving his Supreme Court nominees. Just because you cannot come up with viable plans for foreign policy does not mean that you bash on the Leader of the Free World.

In case you haven't noticed, the United States isn't the entirety of the free world. The government does suppress protesting, which is free speech. Just watch videos of non-violent protesters being arrested. I don't blame Bush entirely, I blame the entire government and the American people. Bush is the most influential of those in power because he's the president, so as a single person he deserves more blame than others. As a whole, it's everyone's fault in the government and the country.

archangel
December 17th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Ok first of all, thank you again for the helpful criticism. Secondly I commend you on saying that you dont blame just Bush, but the entire government.

Actually in Debate, if i challenge the source, the one who brought up the evidence must provide defense, I needn't provide an attack, just merely my dissatisfaction or inquiry should suffice.

Sorry, didn't mean to attack the character of any opponent :(

On the issue about how neither of us work at the pentagon is true. But my facts on how we have reduced our nukes comes from State/Defense Department websites; which must be assumed true for the sake of debate, where as he just voiced displeasure with any amount of nukes we may have.

Saying that September 11th was a statistical insignificance makes you sound like Stalin, and then can also be applied to the fact that only 3,000 or so Soldiers have died so far. Is that also a statistical insignificance?


I dont mind labeling Liberals as enemies of the state. We have hung american citizens for treason before, it is not out of the question. But i was mainly speaking about activist groups like the ACLU who protect the rights of terrorists over the lives of Americans.

0=
December 18th, 2007, 01:19 AM
We've lost over 3,000 soldiers because of our reaction to 9/11, so it's pretty irrelevant if they're statistically significant as far as the country's population goes. They died for a hopeless cause that isn't even geared toward homeland security, which is worse than just 3,000 in the incident that allowed the war to happen. You've made no mention of the countless thousands of civilians that have been killed because of our soldiers. Are their lives lesser than those of Americans? There's a major issue when going to war is a greater evil than the force you're supposedly fighting.