The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955)

thadeus · Nov 21, 2007

Prepare the Hemmers and the Hawers!

The Act itself...

Track it!

The proposed law, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), was passed by the House of Representative in a 404-6 vote Oct. 23. (The Senate is currently considering a companion bill, S. 1959.) The act would establish a “National Commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence” and a university-based “Center for Excellence” to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention, disruption and mitigation.”

Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.
Click to expand...

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would cost $22 million over four years.
Click to expand...

In 2004, the FBI named “eco-terrorism,” a broad term that includes property destruction, the top domestic threat. The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that “special interest groups” were also likely to cause small-scale violent attacks.

These “special interest groups” were outlined in a 2005 RAND report, “Trends in Terrorism.” One chapter was devoted to a non-Muslim “homegrown terrorist” threat — anti-globalists. “Anti-globalists directly challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures and individual welfare,” stated the report. The report identifies rightwing movements such as neo-Nazis as threats and states there should be a focus on anarchist and radical environmental groups, citing anarchists involved in civil disobedience during the 2004 National Republican Contention in New York City and millions of dollars in property damage by the Earth Liberation Front in the last decade.
Click to expand...

Maybe we're gonna need someone to bring democracy to our country in the future! It's nice to see that the parties are cooperating on something - even if they can't agree with one another over gay marriage, at least they can agree that their wealth is sancrosanct, and anyone who threatens it is a terrorist! KUDOS CONGRESS.

Rocket River · Nov 21, 2007

Ridiculous

Rocket River

halfbreed · Nov 21, 2007

So the bill makes nothing illegal and creates a committee.

OH NOES!!!FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GONEZ!!!!!oneone!!

rocketsjudoka · Nov 22, 2007

The law sounds worrisome but in practical terms might not lead to much. As crazy as it sounds $22 mil. isn't that much if this was meant to fund an enforcement agency. What this sounds like is more about funding some professors for research on terrorism. This sounds more like a boondoggle and I oppose it more on that than as a threat to my rights.

thadeus · Nov 25, 2007

I think it's a mistake to believe that this is simply a stake of paper with little more at stack than taking up space in a file cabinet.

The real concern, for me, is official government documentation that even uses this kind of language - if we have the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act that legalizes all sorts of circumventions in the pursuit of terrorists, and then this document that drastically increases the range (and NATIONALITY) of people to whom the label of 'terrorist' is applied (they're both official documents), then we're heading into a situation where the potential for abuse of the law (in favor of capital here, it seems) grows exponentially, and can be applied to any citizen in the U.S. who expresses dissenting views or takes part in some form of protest.

Just blowing this off like it's nothing is tantamount to a head-in-the-sand retreat.

rocketsjudoka · Nov 25, 2007

thadeus said:

The real concern, for me, is official government documentation that even uses this kind of language - if we have the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act that legalizes all sorts of circumventions in the pursuit of terrorists, and then this document that drastically increases the range (and NATIONALITY) of people to whom the label of 'terrorist' is applied (they're both official documents), then we're heading into a situation where the potential for abuse of the law (in favor of capital here, it seems) grows exponentially, and can be applied to any citizen in the U.S. who expresses dissenting views or takes part in some form of protest.
Click to expand...

Except as the original post notes that the definition of terrorists has already included groups like "eco-terrorists" and anti-globalization groups.

In 2004, the FBI named “eco-terrorism,” a broad term that includes property destruction, the top domestic threat. The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that “special interest groups” were also likely to cause small-scale violent attacks.

These “special interest groups” were outlined in a 2005 RAND report, “Trends in Terrorism.” One chapter was devoted to a non-Muslim “homegrown terrorist” threat — anti-globalists. “Anti-globalists directly challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures and individual welfare,” stated the report. The report identifies rightwing movements such as neo-Nazis as threats and states there should be a focus on anarchist and radical environmental groups, citing anarchists involved in civil disobedience during the 2004 National Republican Contention in New York City and millions of dollars in property damage by the Earth Liberation Front in the last decade.
Click to expand...

So this act isn't covering much new ground.

Just blowing this off like it's nothing is tantamount to a head-in-the-sand retreat.
Click to expand...

At the same time given the amount budgetted to it and the description this doesn't seem like quite the threat you make it out to be. While anytime the government seeks to expand its breadth of enforcement that should be looked at critically at the sametime given a rather paltry budget you have to consider if this agency will have any real power.

Deckard · Nov 25, 2007

Then why is it needed, Sishir? Clearly, its purpose is to demonize groups who don't agree with the powers that be and to come up with "studies" that will help in that endeavour, in my opinion. I certainly don't dismiss this totally unneeded bit of Congressional business. There's a heck of a lot more stuff to get exercised about. Congress should address the myriad of problems we already have. We have governmental institutions to handle any problems remotely like the so-called problems addressed in this bill. Sounds like election BS.

D&D. Attempt Civility!

Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.

ROXRAN · Nov 25, 2007

damn Bush.

Ubiquitin · Nov 25, 2007

ROXRAN said:

damn Bush.
Click to expand...

Calm it, I am sure they're going to start watching you soon.

rocketsjudoka · Nov 25, 2007

Deckard said:

Then why is it needed, Sishir? Clearly, its purpose is to demonize groups who don't agree with the powers that be and to come up with "studies" that will help in that endeavour, in my opinion. I certainly don't dismiss this totally unneeded bit of Congressional business. There's a heck of a lot more stuff to get exercised about. Congress should address the myriad of problems we already have. We have governmental institutions to handle any problems remotely like the so-called problems addressed in this bill. Sounds like election BS.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. This is likely election year BS geared towards addressing the public's fear of paranoia and also throwing a bone to business and property interests who are upset about groups like ELF. Its passed with massive support because politicians don't want to appear soft on terrorism while at the same time not really doing anything.

ghettocheeze · Nov 26, 2007

So this means the end for KKK?

Forums

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955)

thadeus Member

Rocket River Member

halfbreed Member

rocketsjudoka Member

thadeus Member

rocketsjudoka Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

ROXRAN Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Member

ghettocheeze Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955)

thadeus Member

Rocket River Member

halfbreed Member

rocketsjudoka Member

thadeus Member

rocketsjudoka Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

ROXRAN Member

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Member

ghettocheeze Member

Share This Page

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member