May 22, 2012, 03:10:40 pm
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007  (Read 747 times)
Evict3d
BKP Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635



WWW
« on: October 26, 2007, 06:02:54 pm »

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

A new bill that recently passed the House and now headed for SeH.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007nate.

The bill defines "violent radicalization" as "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."

It further defines "homegrown terrorism" as "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 term "planned use" has caused concerns that "thinking about violence," ie thought crime, could be considered a terrorist act.

This bill would limit free speech and if this bill passes could very well regulate this very post on this very discussion board as it is bring awareness to the bill and offering decent toward government...
Logged
zipfruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2007, 09:53:28 pm »

if this wipes out scientology, then its a good bill.
Logged

Zeradul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3009


« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2007, 12:07:51 am »

Man I'm glad the Congress has a lower approval rating than even Pres Bush.

What possible need could there be for this law???  WTF?
Logged

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
Ruckus
Tester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2928



« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2007, 12:14:34 am »

HOLY FUCKING SHIT



Haahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Logged
Evict3d
BKP Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2007, 10:30:29 pm »

Man I'm glad the Congress has a lower approval rating than even Pres Bush.

What possible need could there be for this law???  WTF?

no clue, it passed the house


the prez right now is between 24-29%
Logged
kai
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 994


So gangsta


« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2007, 12:13:30 am »

you can't conspire to commit murder, why should it be okay to conspire to commit terrorism?
Logged


Ruckus
Tester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2928



« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2007, 12:44:58 am »

Man I'm glad the Congress has a lower approval rating than even Pres Bush.

What possible need could there be for this law???  WTF?

no clue, it passed the house


the prez right now is between 24-29%

we have a president ?
Logged
Zeradul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3009


« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2007, 11:29:13 pm »

you can't conspire to commit murder, why should it be okay to conspire to commit terrorism?
Kai, conspiring to commit crimes is already illegal.

The problem with this law is that it is another one of these bullshit laws that is extremely vague.  Listen to these words:

"The use, planned use, or threatened use ....... of force ........ to intimidate or coerce the United States government, ....... the civilian population of the United States .......... in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Boy that sounds like voting for a non incumbent to me.  I mean, if I don't like Bush, then voting against him could be seen as a use of force to coerce the government to further my own political objectives.

Yes, that is a silly example, but it's the extreme of what could be "INTERPRETED" to fall under this or any equally vague law.  This could be used to ban or incriminate ALL protesters!!!  Hell, this kind of eliminates aggressive dissent of any government policy, such as an editorial.  This could be used against people trying to get a third party candidate on the ballot.  It could be used against someone sending an angry letter to a politician about a policy change.

You know crazy things like that are possible and will happen.  Hell, we just had that 17 year old jailed for two years after being prosecuted with a law intended for pedophiles.

All laws need to be specific.  Anything else is irresponsible and evil.  Remember, even if you trust the current administration, who knows what's coming down the pipe next.  Hitler was elected by a shocking popular majority.  Laws that expand the government's power are always a bad idea, and should always be opposed.  And any law that does expand government roles, if absolutely necessary, then they should be passed with a 5 year expiration date.  Because in the future, who knows how this law could be interpreted differently.
Logged

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: