Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama in favor of voting for Senate bill 1959.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:12 PM
Original message
Obama in favor of voting for Senate bill 1959.

Known as the "thought crime" bill, this is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act.

This bill is in committee, the same committee that Obama sits on and Joe Lieberman chairs. (Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs)

Folks, this is legislation specifically designed to circumvent our civil liberties.

I wonder how many progressives who support Obama know about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jasmine621 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not many. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. never heard of it.....do you have a link with this info...
and with Obama's support of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I think this might help --
S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Here is the link to the bill. the senate version is S.1959



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

I called his office today and asked where the senator stood on the issue. His secretary told me he was in favor of it. If you don't believe me, then call his office and ask for yourself. I urge you to do so, because he won't make an issue of it during the campaign. Guarantee it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Passed the House: 404 - 6
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 10:10 PM by MH1
The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.


Edited to add (hit post too soon): it doesn't look like this is as controversial a bill as some on DU say it is. Not that I know the details, but - 404 - 6? And you're getting excited about Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Kucinich was one of the nays
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
40. Thank you.
I would have just assumed as much... but thanks for doing the research and posting evidence of what many here already know. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
48. So... what?
Seems like a bill to study an issue, nothing more.

"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; (2) survey methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent such radicalization and terrorism; and (3) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal.

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal government homeland security officials in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to ensure that activities to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Read this part again:
"establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal government homeland security officials in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States"

And consider what groups are being targeted by anti-terror laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Try it this way:
"establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal government homeland security officials in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States"

It's a commission designed to waste money & release a report that no one will read. It changes NOTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. I disagree. I see this as a stepping stone...
that will be used to legitimize the categorization of Peace groups and Environmental groups as "terrorists".

Guess we'll have to wait and see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Eh.
I'd be more worried about 'stepping stone' to something worse if we still had the Republican Congress & 4 more years of Bushco. This commission won't even release the report until 18+ months after the bill is passed - Bushco will be long gone by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I don't paint "Bushco" as a boogeyman.
I don't have any faith that these kinds of serious threats to freedom will just disappear once Bush is out of office.

Keep in mind: free speech zones started under Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. LOL, or President Edwards?
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 03:12 PM by Marie26
If you don't think there's a huge difference between the Bush Admin & the Democrats, why support a Democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. There are huge differences in some areas...
not nearly enough in others.

What a snide post that was... "Why support a Democrat?"

*sigh*

This place just gets worse and worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Deal
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 03:30 PM by Marie26
IMO it's snide to say that I'm just an idiot who thinks of "Bushco" as a bogeyman & doesn't see the real issues. This is DU, a flame free-speech zone. You're just backtracking now because you didn't know what the bill was in the first place. And I'm betting that you also didn't know that the commission wouldn't even release a report until 18 months after the commission is created. So, this bill isn't even out of Senate committee yet, & could still take months to be passed (if it even leaves committee). And even if it does pass, the commission would probably take another 2 years to even release a report. The Bush/Cheney Admin. will be a bad memory by that point, and a Democrat will almost certainly be in power, w/a Democratic head of DHS, etc. And ALL of the Dem candidates have expressed support for protecting civil liberties. Chertoff would be all over the chance to try to get liberals & peace activists; a Democratic administration, not so much. That is a HUGE difference & it's the reason why elections matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I didn't say you were an idiot, did I?
I'm not backtracking, and I read it before you did.

Un-frickin-real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Uh-huh
So why did you post stuff like this: "Worse! Environmental activists, peace activists, etc.
Civil disobedience is now "terrorism"." Talk about fanning the flames! Unless you think President Edwards, Clinton or Obama will want to jail peace activists, this is a whole lot of smoke without any fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Fanning the flames? That's fucking reality.
Nevermind.

Some people are fucking impossible to discuss things civilly with. I'll remember your name from now on and avoid trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Oh, please feel free
Sorry I made you confront your own mistakes. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why does that surprise you? Obama doesn't represent his constituents. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Obama has not said he supported it.
interesting that you're so eager to believe a story without a link or anything to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Call his office, Cali, before you go around calling me a liar.
I won't print falsehoods, but if you don't believe me then call his fucking office. His secretary will tell you that he issued a release stating his support for the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
37. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me.
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 09:14 AM by Joe Fields

Conversely, I called Clinton's office to find out where she stood on this bill, and was told that she has no opinion on it yet. The bill has been in the senate for five months, and she has no opinion of it? Seems like this is too much of a hot potato, and she is ducking for cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is this the bill
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 09:16 PM by MonkeyFunk
that everyone screams like Chicken Little over, but in fact, just establishes a commission to write a report?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. how naive...
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yes or no?
Does the bill establish a commission to write a report or not?

What else does it establish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. CRS Summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01955:@@@D&summ2=m&

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/16/2007--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary)

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).

Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to 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. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.

Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Two reports actually.
A bipartisan commission writes two reports, and then a think tank is established to provide continuing education and study.

The commission has no powers whatsoever to enact or alter policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:39 PM
Original message
Yep, looks like. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
50. dupe. nt
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 01:40 PM by Marie26
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. If Lieberman is involved it has to be bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. wrong. Obama has not said he will support it or that he's in favor of it
and you provide no links. Why on earth would you make a claim like this without links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Call his office. I made the effort to do so. I suggest you do the same.
You surely don't think he's going to brag about it, do you? He issued a release, as I said before. Are you hard of hearing, or just plain dense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chascarrillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Link please.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. First I've heard of it. Thanks for posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Good for Obama. There is a reason it passed 404-6 in the House
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. My mistake I thought it was HR1955
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 11:06 PM by Vincardog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. There is nothing unconstitutional about trying to reduce terrorism. Read what it does in post 17
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 10:35 PM by jackson_dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. *bangs head*
Did you even read the bill?

Here's a clip of it for you.

Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

This is not a bill that limits civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. You haven't been around very long. Just what the hell do you think
they're trying to set up, a barn dance? Too many people around here still have their heads stuck in the fucking sand and taken in by the cult of celebrity. You need to wake the fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
76. All this does is
establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. That's it. It doesn't limit any civil rights.

You are paranoid, man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
23. So, how does it circumvent our civil liberties? This should be fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. What is wrong with using criminal laws that already exist?
There are already laws on the books for murder, vandalism, conspiracy, etc.

Why the need to set up more laws to categorize "special" activities?

That sounds like Bushism to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. What "new laws" are being set up? Be specific.
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 10:41 PM by Occam Bandage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. The law is always updated to reflect a changing world
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 10:43 PM by jackson_dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. This bill doesn't even go that far. It only establishes a commission to look at how well
current laws are working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I know. I was just answering the general question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Ah, okay. Agreed, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
75. It will do a lot more than that. But then, I guess if you trust your govt.,
you have absolutely nothing to worry about. After all, our govt. wouldn't start a war under false pretenses, would they? Our government wouldn't illegally spy on us now, would they?:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. What's wrong with a study to find out if there is a better approach?
That's all this bill is doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. The slippery slope
Unless you've been asleep for the last six years, you may have noticed all kinds if infringements on liberty and freedom in the name of Homeland Security. The same laws that were supposedly only supposed to be narrowly applied to actual security threats have been misused in other aspects of law enforcement (such as the use of the Patriot Act to go after gambling).

The more we set up this "special" form of illegality, such encroachments will undoubtedly continue.

If a University wants to do in-depth studies of terrorism, that's fine with me. If law enforcement wants to improve its efficiency to better protect the population within the law, I got no problem.

But whenever Congress or the Executive branch makes such moves to increase its potential for Big Brother intervention, we damn well all better do more than accept this type of "Trust us citizen" expansion of powers, and the increasing politicization of the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I agree with blocking expansion of power. This is not expanding anyone's power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. No, but it does train "Homeland Security officials" in how to deal with
"homegrown terrorists".

This should alarm anyone who's noticed how many peace activists are already on watch lists, in data bases, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. Id like an answer to this as well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. That seals it for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
36. A good example of why it's difficult for a Senator to run for President.
They all will have some votes that we don't agree with. Even if we agree with them in other ways, there will always be votes with which we disagree.

Perhaps it's better to run as a current Governor or former Senator. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
38. He does not support it
He's said if the bill is considered by the Homeland Security Committee, he will carefully evaluate it. This was only a few weeks ago. Nothing has changed in the bill's status, has it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I suggest you call his office.
I took the time and trouble to do just that, and the answer I got was that he supports the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
41. Would street gangs and organized crime groups qualify as “Homegrown Terrorist” under S 1959?
S.1959, SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS says “(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.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Possibly.
The broad language in this bill could potentially mean just about any individual or group that doesn't conform to what nebulous standards the Dept. of Homeland Security sets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
64. Even DU might qualify! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Worse! Environmental activists, peace activists, etc.
Civil disobedience is now "terrorism".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
43. All the support it got in the House means nothing to me. Most don't bother reading bills..
especially something most in congress would just kneejerkingly approve of cuz it's "preventing terrorism".

"Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to 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."

Considering that up to now, these "anti-terror" laws have been disproportionately directed at peace activists, it's nothing to just brush off as a non-issue, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Exactly. and as you alluded to, Dems have been beaten up when
it comes to the security of this country. (unfairly so, I'll add) but that is the perception that the republicans have ingrained into the average citizen. So, it seems that, to prove how tough we are in fighting "terror" the dems will knee jerkingly pass this type of bullshit legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Kucinich wasn't fooled.
I wish more Americans paid attention. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. No, he wasn't, and that's just one more of many reasons why I
trust and support Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
46. not many progressives know much about what Obama supports
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
51. Who cares?
This is a total non-issue, & I'm not an Obama supporter. It just sets up a commission to study an issue, that's it. And it even includes a provision to protect civil liberties. DU is worse than Fox News sometimes when it comes to disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I've seen this movie before. Oh, and we should all care.
This is the prelude to starting a department within Homeland Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That would be a concern.
But that's not what this bill does. I don't think you're being misleading, but IMO this is a lot of panic over a bill that changes nothing. If they ever try to create a "homegrown terrorist" department, that would worry me, & it would bother me if any Dem candidate voted for it. But that's not this bill. So IMO it's unfair to criticize Obama for voting for a bill that pretty much every Dem supported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Panic?
Where do you see panic?

All it is is pointing out that maybe he's not so progressive as some might think. That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. It does not "just set up a commission to study an issue".
Why are people insisting that this is the case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Because that's what the bill says
If anyone's found any provisions that actually change the law, I'd like to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #51
77. "This is a total non-issue" - - uh, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
62. This is one of the reasons why Kucinich's endorsement of Obama lost Kucinich my support
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Kucinich is the only candidate to speak out against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
65. This bill will likely pass
and take yet more of our civil liberties away. It is aimed to curb ANY dissent against the regime of the corporate elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC