You are a terrorist.
From: The Angry Scotsman
Date: Nov 19, 2007 9:32 AM
The following is the full language of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which literally sets up a commission to analyze certain behaviors, beliefs, and ideologies and classify them in such a way as to link them to terrorist activities. In short, it’s broad definitions allow the commission to equate dissent, unappealing to the standing government, with terrorism. This is a frightening attack on the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment and must not be allowed to travel to the desk of the president. Please keep in mind while reading, that for any reason one may have their citizenship stripped and be redesignated an “enemy combatant” at any time under evidence that has such a low bar of proof that one may be able to simply step over it under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Therefore, any language regarding the protection of civil liberties and Constitutional rights would only pertain to those not taken out of Constitutional jurisdiction and placed under military jurisdiction. This is pre-crime/thought crime legislation, people![CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE BILL]
Have you read the Bill? It creates a hybrid between a think tank and a data collection center. All it does is look at what is going on for 18 months and create a list of recommendations for how to counter domestic terrorism – you know, like Oklahoma City?
I absolutely read it. I read it twice. And just because you asked, I read it a third time just now.
There is so much in this bill that is frightening and unconstitutional that I’m going to write a follow up post just to cover it all.
The most frightening part is the Bill’s definition of a homegrown terrorist:
(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 use, planned use, or threatened use of force by a citizen of the United States against the government for political and social reasons is homegrown terrorism? Well then what the hell was the American Revolution?
I consider the Second Amendment itself to be a threat of force against the government.
Actually the American Revolution symbolically started with an act of terrorism – the Boston tea party! LOL
To me it comes down to do you believe it’s OK to use violence or the threat of violence to try to enact political change in the US? For myself I would expect the State to “discourage” such revolutionary behaviors.
Do you have a problem with a government agency researching what can be done to prevent terrorism, insurgency and insurrection?
What I have a problem with is labeling American citizens as Homegrown Terrorists or Unlawful Enemy Combatants for expressing their views.
And yes the Boston Tea party would fall under this definition of homegrown terrorism. That’s the problem. Most of the heroic acts of our founding fathers and patriots would be considered terrorism today.
The spirit of resistance to State authority is an American tradition. Just look at the Constitution of New Hampshire. It has an article protecting the people’s Right to Revolution.
Ummm…unless those views are that violent revolution should be undertaken it wouldn’t qualify as Homegrown Terrorism. American’s have no right to engage in armed revolt against the Government. Of course that doesn’t mean that it is “wrong” to do so under certain circumstances. You just have to accept that the State is going to fight back
Haha true but just because a Right isn’t listed in the Constitution doesn’t me we don’t have that right. In fact that’s exactly what the 9th Amendment says.