Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention [Archive]

View Full Version : Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention

Michael Collins

11-19-2007, 03:30 AM

This bill passed 400 or so to six. The six nays are 3 and 3 for the major parties.

The question is, what the heck are they up to with this bill. It's appropriate to look at this as a particular in the larger questions Mike is raising on domestic fascism. Too bad Congress won't study itself but the victors write history (the victors in faux elections).

The European Economic Union has been talking about "violent radicalization" for a couple of years. They're kicking it in now that we've got right wing governments in France (1st time every used voting machines;) and Germany. The bill references evaluation of models from overseas. But wait, the European bill is targeting Muslims residing in their countries and accessing information from all over. Two points:

1) The debate in Europe is pretty much over. The program has been declared a non starter.
http://tinyurl.com/2pflgm
2) The American bill targets "homegrown" radicalization."

The hearings on this bill were sparse as was the debate. But look what they did in the hearings:

Subcommittee Chairperson Jane Harman, (D-CA), invited the Rand Corporation and some other group to talk up the need. There's what they said: (from Global Research http://tinyurl.com/2sgcr4)
House Subcommittee Presentation Equates 9/11 Truth With Terrorism

Represents the internet, sites such as myspace and youtube as a virtual terror training camps

by Steve Watson and Paul Watson
----------------------
In a very poorly prepared and delivered PowerPoint splurge, Mark Weitzman (pictured far right) stated:

"Some of these are conspiracy theories that present a closed view of the world, such as blaming 9/11 as an "outside job"(?) or blaming outside groups such as the U.S. government, or er the Jews etc, some of these are pro-Iraqi insurgency videos, some of them are media portals that people can enter into, ones that you saw earlier with the flags, the U.S. flags show that thy were based on U.S. servers..."

Under the heading "Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation " Weiztman threw in video of WTC building 7 collapsing on 9/11 as posted on various 9/11 truth affiliated websites, along with screen shots of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site and other sites, such as Killtown's, who raised awareness of this .

"We need to be aware of the empowering effect of the internet upon extremists, we must have researchers and responders for both the technical and and linguistic skills to keep us informed and to be able to respond to what is online. We must make users aware of the misinformation and of the techniques used by extremists." Weitzman continued.
----------------------

Not being an engineer, I don't know anyting about WTC7. But I do know what I read in this bill that comes from this testimony: (From "DEFINITIONS")

`"(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."

"Facilitating" - combine this language with the use of some 911 Truthers claims that WTC7 came down by plan and you've got a meaning for "facilitating" - information so egregious in it's claim, it would incite some to violence.

So what the Hell is this about? In general is of interest, but in particular is of great value. I can't discuss this most places so why not here.

--------------------------------------------
H.R.1955
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

HR 1955 RFS
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1955
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 24, 2007
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

AN ACT
To 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 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.

boyfriend

11-19-2007, 11:29 AM

wolfgang von skeptik

11-19-2007, 04:45 PM

Even inside the Second Amendment community, too many U.S. voters remain oblivious to the fact the Democrats and the Republicans are now openly collaborating to forcibly disarm as many Americans as possible -- especially U.S. military veterans -- with an oppressive package of bipartisan Congressional legislation already enacted or pending.

More troubling still is the fact so many of our traditional guardians of other constitutional rights -- groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and its political kindred -- are too blinded by their hatred of firearms owners and firearms to see how this newly emerging onslaught portends a final betrayal of American liberty by the very people sworn to protect it…

However, the implications of this legislative blitz go far beyond the question of firearms ownership. HR1955, the so-called “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” has been passed 404-6 by the House and is pending in the Senate, where it has been renamed S1959. Supporters say the bill is essential for national defense, but -- once again (and ever more predictably) -- the definitions of “violent radicalization” and “terrorism” are so vague they effectively cancel the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. Literally, under HR1955/S1959, a member of a militant labor union could be imprisoned merely for paying dues.(13, 14) And when HR1955/S1959 is viewed in concert with HR2640/S2084, HR327 and S1237, what emerges is undeniable proof of underlying bipartisan malevolence -- not just an unprecedented effort to eliminate individual liberty by weasel-wording past the Bill of Rights, but to impose on the nation a climate of fear that has no counterpart in U.S. history: the ultimate ruling-class tactic to guarantee the abject submissiveness of the entire population. Any nation that disarms its firearms owners by sidestepping or suspending due process can just as easily silence its critics by the same methods -- clearly the intent of HR1955/S1959.

Meanwhile -- if we dare to let ourselves acknowledge the evidence -- the grand strategy of the ruling class also comes into sharp focus. Now we see how forcible disarmament through HR2640/S2084, HR327 and S1237 is essential to clear the way for the final destruction of American liberty via HR1955/S1959. Hence the deceitful histrionics of the 2008 presidential campaign: the ruling class feigning anger at Bush and the Republicans for doing precisely as they were ordered to do. Hence too the deliberately deceptive turnabout in which the ruling class lends the unstoppable power of its near-infinite wealth to the Democrats -- who are thereby guaranteed control of the federal government (and most local governments as well) for the next four years. The remaining scenario is obvious: the Democrats fulfill their appointed purpose not just by zealously disarming the population but by ruthlessly suppressing dissent. The electorate then reacts as it did to the Clintons’ forcible disarmament campaigns of the 1990s and again votes the Democrats out of public office -- this time probably forever.

13 'Thought Crimes,' HR 1955 Passed With 404 Votes - by Jeff Knaebel

14 H.R. 1955 - (commentary) at the Women of Color blog

(The links associated with the above footnotes won't copy -- much less activate -- and I have neither the time nor the esoteric knowledge of computers to battle this system to force them to activation. Anyone who wants to read them should go to http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... .php?t=677 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=677) )

Essentially what HR1955 does -- with a vicious irony implicit in its number (the fact 1955 was the height of the McCarthy Purge, which forever destroyed the U.S. Left, enshrined anti-intellectuality as the framework of U.S. political discussion and thus shrank allowable political discourse to the vapid babble of buzzwords we have today) -- is resurrect the House UnAmerican Activities Committee via creation of a new national commission. That the creation of another HUAAC is indeed the purpose of the legislation is proven by the Rand Corporation testimony so cited: the claim that "9/11 Truth" (or by implication ANY other form of dissent) is equivalent to Islamic Terrorism.

Thus via Democratic/Republican government, the ruling class positions itself for its final offensive against American liberty.

Note too that -- just as Marxists were silenced during the 1950s -- HR1955 and its Senate companion S1959 clear the way not just for the suppression of all socialist thought and agitation, but for declaring all socialists "enemy combatants" and confining us for the rest of our lives at Guantanamo or in some other hellhole jungle gulag. Welcome to the Fourth Reich...

blindpig

11-19-2007, 05:56 PM

chlamor

11-19-2007, 09:56 PM

n/t

wolfgang von skeptik

11-19-2007, 11:20 PM

Democrats:

Neil Abercrombie (HI) http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/
Jerry F. Costello (IL) http://www.house.gov/costello/
Dennis Kucinich (OH) http://kucinich.house.gov/

Republicans:

John J. Duncan Jr. (TN) http://www.house.gov/duncan/bio.shtml
Jeff Flake (AZ) http://flake.house.gov/
Dana Rohrabacher (CA) http://rohrabacher.house.gov/

(This information is available through the Thomas congressional information site. I put up links for each representative to facilitate study of their individual positions.)

Kid of the Black Hole

11-20-2007, 02:40 AM

Michael Collins

11-20-2007, 04:45 AM

i've read through most of the OP, and i honestly dont see how this is any different from the Smith Act (ie, is that not its precedent, like the sedition laws) except for how specific it is (yet paradoxically it could be interpreted to include a whole range of political activities)

it is possible i did not read the OP carefully enough, in which case i apologize

No need to apologize, this is helpful. "The Smith Act" - since it already exists, why offer up a new one. Supposedly they're funding a "Center for Excellence" to study it. My view is a bit more sinister. They could get the research done in any number of ways. I think they want to "operationalize," as they might say, the process of identifying those who would "facilitate" bad acts. That way they can reach their Nirmana, the end of active web based agitation. The Democrats near unanimous support indicates to me that they're sick and tired of hearing from their constituents.

Michael Collins

11-20-2007, 04:50 AM

Michael Collins

11-20-2007, 04:51 AM

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... 4977.story (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thoughtpolice19nov19,0,2384977.story)

I love the Baltimore Sun. They don't miss a beat. It's tough to do business in Baltimore but they do and then deliver great analysis.

It is a thought crimes bill. Harman should be ashamed of herself. Oh sure, that iwll happen.

blindpig

11-20-2007, 12:23 PM

Anyone who takes the time to study the economic history of our country will know that we moved quickly from a democracy to a qausi-oligarchy and have moved finally into an actual oligarchy which perhaps is what Benjamin Franklin was alluding to when he predicted that our Constitution would not survive 200 years and would collapse under the weight of corruption. He knew well the basic greed of man.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." And with that, the House of Rothschild was born.

At the time Mayer Rothschild spoke those words, he had five sons with five banks in five countries. And there was a new country, the United States of America, and with that new country came a vision of a central bank in that new country through which the world's banking business could eventually be controlled through it and the five Rothschild banks. And with the new nation came the new capitalism. Venture capitalism. Backed by the Rothschilds. Better than any other standard. Including gold. The great American fortunes, including the fortunes of JP Morgan and the Rockefellers, were built on venture capital provided by the Rothschilds to increase their own wealth and their own empire. And through that empire, the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund were eventually created. To serve the Rothschilds.

Anyone who believes that the Federal Reserve and the International Money Fund are not controlled by the Rothschilds is a total fool. Among the biggest fools are the Bushes. There are now 30 Rothschild banks in 30 countries.

Looks like the Rothschilds no longer like the dollar. Or like it better devalued. Part of the OPEC meeting the other day was "accidentally" televised. Accidentally on purpose no doubt.

According to some historians, Nathan Rothschild went to the London Stock Exchange knowing that the Battle of Waterloo had been won and began selling his bonds, knowing that observers would believe the Battle of Waterloo had been lost and that they would then quickly sell their bonds as well. And of course he bought them back just as quickly as they sold them knowing that as soon as the news hit that the Battle of Waterloo had actually been won, the bonds would go up. Which they did. And so the second creation of the Rotschilds was born. Market manipulation. And the markets have been manipulated, quite openly in some cases, ever since. Bank runs are always started by rumors. Market slides are always started by "news releases." And dollar devaluations perhaps are caused by accidentally televised OPEC meetings.

You have to wonder if a Rothschild was standing by as the OPEC meeting was "accidentally" televised.

JP Morgan and the Rockefellers of course created two banks which are now one. JPMorgan Chase. The Rothschilds most likely have an interest in every bank in this country at this point. In addition to their own.

With 30 banks in 30 countries, it may be that the Rothschilds no longer need a central bank so to speak. They have become the central bank.

Empires rise and fall on the whim, and some say the wisdom, of the Rothschilds. I suspect we are about to fall along with the dollar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=2317899 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2312653&mesg_id=2317899)

Paging Dr Paul, paging Dr Paul....

chlamor

11-20-2007, 08:07 PM

Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to ‘Disrupt’ Radical Movements in the United States
From the November 20, 2007 issue

By Jessica Lee

Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians.

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.

David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University who studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars, says the bill “is a shot over the bow of environmental activists, animal-rights activists, anti-globalization activists and scholars who are working in the Middle East who have views that go against the administration.” Price says some right-wing outfits such as gun clubs are also threatened because “[they] would be looked at with suspicion under the bill.”

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), which has been organizing against post-Sept. 11 legislative attacks on First Amendment rights, is critical of the bill. “When you first look at this bill, it might seem harmless because it is about the development of a commission to do a study,” explained Hope Marston, a regional organizer with BORDC.

“However, when you realize the focus of the study is ‘homegrown terrorism,’ it raises red flags,” Marston said. “When you consider that the government has wiretapped our phone calls and emails, spied on religious and political groups and has done extensive data mining of our daily records, it is worrisome of what might be done with the study. I am concerned that there appears to be an inclination to study religious and political groups to ultimately try to find subversion. This would violate our First Amendment rights to free speech and freedoms of religion and association.”

One pressing concern is definitions contained in the bill. For example, “violent radicalization” is defined 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.”

Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center, asks, “What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. … It is criminalizing thought and ideology.”

For her part, Marston takes issue with the definition of homegrown terrorism. “It is about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence to intimidate or coerce the government.’ This is often the language that refers to political activity.”

Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope.

“Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) Oct. 23, who co-authored the bill. “Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution — but violent behavior is not.”

The bill’s purpose goes beyond academic inquiry, however. In a press release dated Nov. 6, Harman stated: “the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent.” (Harman’s office refused three separate requests by The Indypendent for comment.)

Some assert this would allow law enforcement agencies to target radicals in general. Price says, “This bill is trying to bridge the gap between those with radical dissenting views and those who engage in violent acts. It’s a form of prior restraint.”

Price explains how this may work, citing an example in his home town of Olympia, Wash., where a peaceful blockade took place in early November at the Port of Olympia to prevent the shipment of war materials between the United States and Iraq. He says, “It will be these types of things that will start getting defined as terrorism, including Quakers and indigenous rights’ campaigns.”

Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), is also concerned at the targeting of peaceful protests. He says the “Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist act.” It’s possible, he says, “that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute.”

“My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new criminal penalties and federal crimes,” says Franklin. “Activists are nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing civil disobedience and squashing the momentum of the left.”

The bill provides a list of Congressional findings, including a failure to understand the development and promotion of “violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence,” which is argued to pose a threat to domestic security. The Internet was highlighted as a tool in “providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

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

THE THREAT (OR LACK THEREOF)

Although the legislation is vague, a chief target appears to be Islamic militants living in the United States. Harman, in her Nov. 6 press release, says the bill is needed to combat violent radicalization and cites four cases as examples of such — all of them involving Muslim Americans allegedly engaged in terrorist activity. The bill’s language also states that proposed appointees to the National Commission should have “expertise and experience” in a long list of disciplines such as “world religions.” But the only religion named is Islam.

The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND … and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.

Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.

In his testimony, Jenkins admitted convictions in these cases — in Lackawanna, N.Y., Northern Virginia, New York City, Portland, Ore., and elsewhere — relied on charges being “interpreted broadly” by the courts.

There has been significant criticism of how government officials have hyped many of these cases as mass terror attacks thwarted in the nick of time despite a lack of any actual plans or means to commit a violent act on the part of the defendants. It’s also been noted that in numerous instances the government employed informants who goaded the suspects into committing the illegal acts for which they were arrested.

In June, Jenkins was back before Harman’s subcommittee discussing the role of the National Commission. According to the Congressional Quarterly website, Jenkins said, “[Homegrown terrorism] is the principal threat that we face as a country and it will likely be the principal threat that we face for decades.” The website stated, “Unless a way of intervening in the radicalization process can be found, ‘we are condemned to stepping on cockroaches one at a time,’ he added.”

At the end of his second round of testimony, Jenkins undercut the claims that there is any real danger requiring the creation of the National Commission and Center for Excellence. He said, “Judging by the terrorist conspiracies uncovered since 9/11, violent radicalization has yielded very few recruits. Indeed, the level of terrorist activities in the United States was much higher in the 1970s that it is today.” (Repeated inquiries by The Indypendent to the RAND Corporation to interview Jenkins or other staff analysts were turned down by the media relations department, which claimed they were all unavailable for the rest of the year.)

This has the Arab-American community worried. “When you look at the creation of the Commission, it is scary, especially when people [on the national commission] will be appointed by the White House,” said Kareem Shora, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). He pointed to the recess appointment, despite widespread criticism, of Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, who, Shora said, “propagated hate against Arabs.”

Shora is worried H.R. 1955 will unfairly target Muslims, even though he says they have been largely helpful in terrorist investigations since Sept. 11. Despite the assistance, he says civil rights abuses continue to occur, including “voluntary interviews,” the Absconder Apprehension Initiative and the Special Registration Program.

MAPPING MUSLIMS

The passage of the H.R. 1955 coincided with a furor over the Los Angeles Police Department’s plan to “map” Muslim communities in the city. Appearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security on Oct. 30, Michael Downing, the assistant commanding officer of LAPD’s Counter-terrorism/Criminal Intelligence Bureau, said the project “will lay out the geographic locations of the many different Muslim population groups around Los Angeles [and] take a deeper look at their history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socio-economic status and social interactions.”

Shora says, “Looking at a community based on religious affiliation alone … is unconstitutional. The ADC added in a press release that singling “out individuals for investigation, surveillance, and data collection based solely on religion … would violate equal protection and burden the free exercise of religion.”

Following the outcry, the LAPD announced Nov. 15 that it was dropping the mapping plan. Opposition came from many quarters, including scholars, because the LAPD envisioned using academics in the mapping program. It reportedly intended “to have the data assembled by the University of Southern California’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis.” Recruiting academics for counterterrorism efforts is also at the heart of H.R. 1955, which proposes a university-based Center of Excellence.

Roberto Gonzalez, an anthropologist who co-authored a recent article with David Price criticizing the Pentagon’s use of scholars in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says the prospect of creating a Center “is a bad idea because it is likely to compromise the intellectual integrity of the academy.” H.R. 1955 advocates for the use of “cultural anthropologists,” which concerns Price that they would “be doing secretive work for the state.”

Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the Boston-based Political Research Associates, argues the government is trying to establish a Center to get around legal prohibitions on gathering data specifically based on race and religion. He explains that there is already extensive research being done on the roots of political violence by scores of academics around the country but many of their findings do not fit into the government’s agenda. To Berlet, the proposed Center is nothing more than “a slush fund for politically connected hacks.”

TARGET ‘ANTI-GLOBALISTS’

Islamic militants are not the only threat on the government’s radar.

“A chief problem is radical forms of Islam, but we’re not only studying radical Islam,” Harman told In These Times, a Chicago-based newsmagazine. “We’re studying the phenomenon of people with radical beliefs who turn into people who would use violence.”

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.

A WAR OF WORDS — A LOOK AT VIOLENCE

Observers say using vaguely defined terms is part of a historical pattern of sweeping government repression that includes the post- World War II “Red Scare” and the FBI’s counter-intellegence program, nicknamed Cointelpro. They are also concerned that H.R. 1955 will foster a legislative momentum on criminalizing a broad range of dissident voices.

Jules Boykoff, an assistant professor of politics and government at Pacific University and author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States, said he was alarmed that “violence” was not defined. He noted the definition of “ideologically based violence” is the “means to 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.”

“It is a circular definition, what does that mean?” asked Boykoff, while reading the bill aloud. “What does violence mean? We do not need laws like this because we already have plenty of laws on the books that make it a crime to blow up or set fire to buildings. It is called arson.”

Boykoff commented that the bill used the terms “extremism” and “radicalism” interchangeably. “The word ‘radical’ shares the etymological root to the word ‘radish,’ which means to get to the root of the problem. So, if the government wants to get at the actual root of terrorism, then let’s really talk about it. We need to talk about the economic roots, the vast inequalities in wealth between the rich and poor.” Boykoff says historically the government has used “radical” as a way of dismissing groups as “extremists,” however, and uses the two words as synonyms.

Hope Marston of the BORDC is nervous about the definition of homegrown terrorism, which is “about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence’ to intimidate or coerce the government.” She says, “The definition does not make clear what force is.”

Bron Taylor, a professor at University of Florida who studies radical religion and environmental movements, questioned the government’s interpretation of violence. He spent years as an ethnographic researcher exploring the propensity of individuals within the radical environmental movement to turn to violence, a word he says defines as harm to sentient beings, not property destruction.

“There are all sorts of things that activists do that involve little or no risk of hurting people, but their actions get labeled as violent, or even worse, as acts of terrorism,” Taylor said. “For example, if 10 activists push themselves into a congressperson’s regional office, make noise, pull out files and make a scene, is that an act of terrorism? It is quite possible that the act could scare the hell out of the secretary and office workers because they don’t know these people or what they intend to do? But is that terrorism? Some people would like to frame it that way.”

“In any political dispute, whoever succeeds in defining the terms is likely to prevail in the debate,” Taylor said. “That is why scholars and the media need to be scrupulous in the ways they use and define terms deployed by the partisans in these disputes. They should strive to come up with terms that are as descriptive, accurate and as neutral as possible.”

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION

The legislation authorizes a 10-member National Commission (the Senate bill calls for 12 members) appointed by the President, the secretary of homeland security, congressional leaders and the chairpersons of both the Senate and House committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

After convening, the Commission is to submit reports at six-month intervals for 18 months to the President and Congress, stating its findings, conclusions, and legislative recommendations “for immediate and long-term countermeasures … to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence.”

Kamau Franklin of CCR says he finds the timing of the legislation disturbing coming a year before the presidential elections and about eight months prior to the Democratic and Republication National Conventions — both which of have increasingly been the site of large-scale protests and civil disobedience.

More disturbing are the similarities to Cointelpro, which was investigated by a U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence activities (commonly known as the Church Committee), which convened in 1975. The Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”

Hope Marston says, “In the 1970s when we learned of the violation in rights that the government had been doing for 40 years, there was public outrage. Because these erosions of the Bill of Rights have happened during ‘the war on terror,’ we aren’t supposed to protest anything the government does because they are ‘protecting us.’ That feeling has made the government’s actions more dangerous.”

MONEY FOR COPS, REPRESSION FOR FREE

The Senate version of the bill finds that the domestic threats “cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.”

“That’s about joint terrorism task force making,” Franklin said. “It’s a way to create a federal slush fund so local police departments can get their hands on it. This happened in the 1960s.”

Marston agreed. “This sounds like part of the same continuum we’ve experienced in the last seven years, which is the effort to deputize local law enforcement to work with the FBI and national agencies without local accountability, as we have seen with the establishment of joint-terrorism task forces across the country,” Marston said. “On 9/11, there were only a few joint-terrorism task forces, now there are more than 100 in existence. … When you talk about working with local law enforcement to possibly spy on groups and individuals to try to find the so-called ‘needle in the haystack,’ this definitely poses a threat to local autonomy.”

Although Cointelpro was partially dismantled in the 1970s and the FBI’s power to conduct domestic intelligence curbed, many safeguards have been overturned in the last 30 years, according to David Cole and Jim Dempsey, authors of Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. Legislation such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the 2001 USA Patriot Act “radically transformed the landscape of government power, and did so in ways that virtually guarantee repetition of some of law enforcement’s worst abuses of the past,” the authors wrote.

In the last few years, many states have passed versions of the Patriot Act, while Congress has placed further checks on civil liberties with the Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act (2006), the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006) and the Protect America Now Act (2007), which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and legalized the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

THE BOGUS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

H.R. 1955 gives Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff the power to establish a “Center of Excellence,” a university-based research program to “bring together leading experts and researchers to conduct multidisciplinary research and education for homeland security solutions.” The Department currently has eight Centers at academic institutions across the country, strengthening what many see as a growing military-security-academic complex.

Rep. Harman, in an Oct. 23 press release, stated that, the Center would “examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism.”

“I do not have a lot of concerns with this legislation,” said Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Violent radicalization is an issue that deserves to be studied and understood. I am more comfortable with this bill’s approach, which is to treat the issue as a matter for broad study using largely open sources, than I would be with an approach that directed the FBI, DHS or the CIA to examine the issue,” Dempsey said. Dempsey was the assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights from 1985-1994, the former Deputy Director for the Center for National Security Studies and co-authored with David Cole, Terrorism and the Constitution.

“I do have some concern that the Commission and the Center will focus on Muslims and will contribute to a climate of apprehension,” Dempsey continued. “But I still think the bill is probably a good idea, if its concepts are in a true spirit of inquiry.”

Taylor agrees, but is leery that Washington politicians will hold power over commission and Center. “As an academic, I like the idea of creating Centers of Excellence in general because they bring together excellent scholars,” Taylor said. “But this is not something that the government should have a great deal of control over, because it is so ideologically charged. We’ve had plenty of examples of administrations, this one in particular, that likes to manipulate and downplay scientific findings that run at variance with their ideological and political objectives.”

“The bill itself, no matter how well drafted, does not guarantee a balanced outcome,” noted Dempsey. “To ensure balance, human rights activists will have to get involved in the work of the Commission and the Center.”

“If they really want to know why we have terrorism, they are going to need to explore counter-narratives,” explained Boykoff. “When the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, one narrative to explain the situation was that there is ‘an external enemy out there who hates America.’ Other narratives, such as that perhaps U.S. foreign policy might be fueling acrimonious feelings towards the U.S., were not considered. I am skeptical that the Center for Excellence would be open to these other narratives, but rather would be regurgitating the standard narrative.”

It is unclear how researchers would gather the information.

“If you are trying to understand in the broadest sense what turns people to violence in a variety of political causes, it is not something you can do easily, and it must be studied in a serious way,” said Taylor, who has began studying the radical environmental movement since 1989. “It is exceptionally hard to study these groups. They tend to be suspicious of new comers and outsiders, rightfully so. They aren’t fond of academic institutions or academics because they tend to view most of what goes on at institutions of higher education as being subservient to interests of global capital,” he said.

With his research experience, Taylor believes that it is absurd to think the Commission could produce a significant report in 18 months.

“To find out what makes people tick, you actually have to engage with them as a human being, and that is a long process that takes patience and trust building.”

Anthropologist Price is also worried. “My concern is that anthropologists would again be doing secretive work for the state. This bill is going to be interpreted so narrowly. It is calling for an ideological litmus test,” Price said. “The military believes there are ways to get around this questions legally, but ethically, it is a big deal. There are ethical codes of conduct in anthropology, sociology, psychology, in the social sciences in general, that they very basic precautions are taken.”

A LONG HISTORY OF DISSENT

For U.S. historian Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, H.R. 1955 can be added to a long list of government policies that have been passed to target dissent in the United States.

“This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration,” Zinn said in an email to The Indypendent. “During World War I, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act sent close to a thousand people to jail for speaking out against the war. On the eve of World War II, the Smith Act was passed, harmless enough title, but it enabled the jailing of radicals — first Trotskyists during the war and Communist party leaders after the war, for organizing literature, etc., interpreted as “conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence.”

“In all cases, the environment was one in which the government was involved in a war or Cold War or near-war situation and wanted to suppress criticism of its policies,” Zinn said.

Regardless, Zinn remains optimistic. “We should keep in mind that an act of repression by the state is a recognition of the potential of social movements and therefore we need to persist, through the repression, in order to bring about social change,” Zinn said. “We can learn to expect the repression, and not to be intimidated.”

Hope Marston remains hopeful. “The work we have been doing at BORDC is mobilizing people in the grassroots across the political spectrum, she said. “It is not just a Leftist effort to protect the Bill of Rights. We have worked with libertarians and republicans. We have helped get 412 resolution passed on the state and local level against the erosion of the Bill of rights.”

Editors Note:

Shortly after this article went to press, the Los Angeles Police Department announced they scrapped their plan to “map the muslim community” after meeting behind closed doors with leaders in the Arab-American communities.

A.K. Gupta contributed research and interviews.

PPLE

11-20-2007, 08:08 PM

to D.C. Gun Ban

November 20th, 2007 by Alan Gura

Washington, D.C.—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, and decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

Alan Gura, lead counsel for the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms. After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes. We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”

Dick Heller, a District resident who works as an armed security guard protecting the lives of various government officials during the day but is forbidden by District law from keeping a handgun at home to protect himself, explained, “I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home. The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.”

The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. The case ended before the defendant had the opportunity to establish whether sawed-off shotguns are covered by the word “arms” in the text of the Amendment. But regular shotguns, along with rifles and handguns, are precisely the kind of “arms” the Framers had in mind in drafting the Second Amendment. The District’s functional firearms ban defies the Framers’ obvious intent to ensure that the government could never disarm citizens in America, as other governments have done elsewhere.

Clark Neily, a public interest lawyer specializing in constitutional law cases and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The framers of our Constitution made clear that the government has no more business disarming citizens than it has censoring them or telling them what values to hold sacred.”

“The citizens of Washington, D.C. − indeed, all Americans − deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation’s highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment,” stated Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs. Levy added, “Later cases will decide what gun regulations are constitutional, but an outright ban on all functional firearms clearly is not constitutional.”

Heller will likely be the highest-profile case on the Court’s docket this term, and it promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the Court’s willingness to stand up for rights that are clearly expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority.

Oral argument will most likely be scheduled for March or April, with a decision expected by June 2008.
http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/

D.C. Gun Ban Appeal Could Change National Policy
Posted: 09.12.07

Washington, D.C. is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the city's handgun ban is legal, setting the stage for a showdown over gun control law in America.

Washington, D.C. filed a petition in September asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's decision to strike down the city's ban on handgun ownership.

"Having a handgun, whether in the home or outside it, comes at the expense of those who might be victims. Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the DistrictMayor Adrian Fenty to stand by while its citizens die," the city's petition to the court said.

The 30-year-old law in question makes it illegal to posses a handgun inside the city but allows citizens to own shotguns or rifles. Most of the shootings in the city are committed with handguns.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March 2007 ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A decision would clarify whether the Second Amendment protects private gun ownership (the "individual" interpretation) or only imparts a civic right related to maintaining state militias (the "collective" interpretation).

It also would be the first time the highest court in the land considers an important gun rights case since 1939, according to the Washington Post.

At issue in the D.C. case, which is named District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, is whether the city is allowed to outlaw all handguns while still allowing citizens to own shotguns or rifles.
Reading and Discussion Questions

The appeals judges decided in a 2-1 vote that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms"

and "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

Most of the other appeals courts -- there are 13 in all -- havea handgun ruled that the Second Amendment concerns militias ("collective") and does not guarantee private gun ownership ("individual"). The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans agreed with the D.C. Court.

The Supreme Court usually takes cases that have been decided differently at various courts of appeals because diverse interpretations of the Constitution can lead to confusion.

The issue of gun control is particularly controversial to many Americans.

Gun control advocates want the government to be able to regulate weapons to protect innocent people, while gun rights U.S. Supreme Courtproponents argue that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens a right to own weapons, primarily so that they can protect themselves.

If the Supreme Court sides with Washington, D.C. and upholds the handgun ban, it would validate the legal arguments of the gun control camp.

If the court sides with the appeals court and declares the D.C. ban unconstitutional, it could become difficult, but not impossible, for the government to regulate ownership and use of guns, according to the Legal Times.

One important factor that could influence the outcome is the relatively new makeup of the nine-member Supreme Court.

President Bush and Justice Samuel AlitoPresident Bush recently replaced the conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the more moderate Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with two solidly conservative justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

The court now has four conservative-leaning justices and four liberal-leaning justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy straddling the middle.

This new lineup gives conservative judicial decisions, like the D.C. court of appeals' overturning of the handgun ban, a greater chance of becoming the law of the land.

-- Compiled by Quinn Bowman for NewsHour Extra
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featu ... _9-12.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec07/gunlaw_9-12.html)

chlamor

11-20-2007, 08:37 PM

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 20/1458214 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1458214)

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Raises Fears of New Government Crackdown on Dissent

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Email to a friend

A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400 to six House vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two government-appointed bodies to study, monitor and propose ways of curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United States. The first body, a National Commission, would convene for eighteen months. A university-based "Center for Excellence" would follow, bringing together academic specialists to recommend laws and other measures.

Critics say the bill's definition of "extremism" and "terrorism" is too vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise and independence, the government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.

Following last month's approval in the House, the Senate version is expected to go before the Judiciary Committee this week.

* Jessica Lee, reporter for the Indypendent, published by the NYC Indymedia Center. Her latest article is called "Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to 'Disrupt' Radical Movements in the United States"
* Kamau Karl Franklin, Racial Justice Fellow at the NY-based Center for Constitutional Rights. He is also co-chair of the National Conference of Black Lawyers and serves on the Executive Committee of the National Lawyers Guild.

Michael Collins

11-21-2007, 01:49 AM

PPLE

11-21-2007, 06:40 AM

Chlamor, the Jessica Lee article is excellent. I went to the site and left a response. 404 to 6 -- yikes. You KNOW it's a bad bill when they all agree, truly frightening.

PPLE, what do you think about the DC court case? DC doesn't need any more weapons but if they decide to overturn the law, the same court should release the results of the legalize cannabis election (which reputedly passed by 80%). That way people could have their hand guns, smoke up, and just think about doing something. The most effective measure against gun related deaths in DC was the imprisonment of a deadly drug overlord who apparently dispatched people on a whim. Murders dropped by about 200 very quickly. Amazing.

I think the court case has the potential to be a landmark, though its origination in DC sets it apart a bit from what states may do in the aftermath. It appears the thin decision will address the long contested meaning of the phrase "A well regulated Militia(, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.) and whether that implies a collective right to bear arms (i.e. national guard, the modern counterpart of a militia) or whether there is an implicit individual right to gun ownership. As I understand it, the Bush administration has in the past advocated for the latter position; beyond doubt their opinion will come to bear also - and probably in a way that has more importance than a mere amicus brief. For once, I am kinda happy about that.

Even so, if the court finds in favor of the defendant (DC), the ramifications will be earth moving for gun owners. The right of gun ownership has never been directly handed to the states for regulation. A finding for the defendant could then mean the end of the right if I grasp this correctly. That is indeed scary, although it would also create a political backlash that is as large as anything this nation has seen. That could be scary good...

wolfgang von skeptik

11-21-2007, 07:20 AM

As quoted above, National Public Radio (and most other mainstream media) tells us one of the bigger Big Lies I have ever seen:

The 30-year-old law in question makes it illegal to posses a handgun inside the city but allows citizens to own shotguns or rifles.

Here, also as quoted above, is the truth:

At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded
and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

And -- lest the infinite malice of the forcible disarmament fanatics (yes even those on this site) prompt the typically venomous, deliberately
misleading jeers of dismissal -- here is the law itself:

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while
being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

And here for those few fanatics who might yet be inclined to gibber in deception or shriek in obfuscation, here is the citation:

DC ST § 7-2507.02; Formerly cited as DC ST 1981 § 6-2372; District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness;
Division I. Government of District; Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety. (Refs & Annos); Subtitle J. Public Safety; Chapter 25.
Firearms Control; Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations; Subchapter VII. Miscellaneous Provisions; § 7-2507.02. Firearms
required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked.

Which is available here:

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/defa ... a=DCC-1000 (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=40&Action=Search&CFID=0&DB=dc%2Dst%2Dweb&Method=WIN&query=firearms&RecreatePath=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT295052111&RLTDB=CLID%5FDB295052111&SEARCH=Search&SP=DCC%2D1000&spolt=Return+to+the+District+of+Columbia+Code+Online+Source&sposu=http%3A%2F%2Fgovernment%2Ewestlaw%2Ecom%2Flinkedslice%2Fdefault%2Easp%3FSP%3DDCC%2D1000&spou=http%3A%2F%2Fgovernment%2Ewestlaw%2Ecom%2Flinkedslice%2Fdefault%2Easp%3FSP%3DDCC%2D1000&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.11&VR=2.0&SPa=DCC-1000)

For those unfamiliar with firearms and/or the methods and tactics of self-defense, three principles apply:

(1)-An unloaded, trigger-locked or dismantled firearm is useless as a weapon. While an obviously loaded firearm most often
deters criminals without a round being fired -- the loaded condition of a revolver is obvious to anyone viewing the cylinder,
while the cycling of the action typically indicates a loaded rifle, shotgun or semiautomatic pistol -- there is always a
possibility an attacker will continue the assault.

(2)-A loaded firearm is the ONLY weapon incident-proven to be reliably capable of overcoming the rage of street criminals --
a rage that is typically fueled by hate and/or envy, intensified by drugs, whetted to total fearlessness by brain-dead
impulsiveness and further reinforced by the criminal's own (illegally possessed) weapons.

(3)-Effective self-defense has three component parts. These are equipment, training/skill and attitude. Mere possession
of a firearm is insufficient. One must be learned in its use and skilled in its employment -- the byproducts of training
and practice. Most important of all, one must be psychologically ready to properly assess whether a threat is deadly
or not and to fire if necessary. Truly, there is no greater responsibility.

Given (1) and (2) above, the DC law effectively denies all law-abiding residents any and all rational means of self-defense,
even when they are in their homes. (Bows, crossbows, swords, broadaxes, daggers, morning stars, other types of cudgels
and indeed any other viable modern or primitive weapon are also illegal.) Hence the law-abiding citizens of our nation's
capital -- especially the elderly, the infirm and anyone else who might be physically weaker than an attacking predator --
are paralyzed by mandatory pacifism and sentenced to compulsory victimhood -- this in a city where the Ruling Class
is always protected by its own armed guards and which, outside the Ruling Class districts, is the most deadly
dangerous municipality in North America and one of the most dangerous realms on the entire planet.

blindpig

11-21-2007, 11:06 AM

:lol:

http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/LikeWhatYouLike.jpg

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching
on one candy bar after another.
After the 6th candy bar, a man on the
bench across from him said,
"Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you.
It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat.

"Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old.

"The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/

Humorous shorthand but that's the nut of it. Take away the enormous profits of the contraband drug trade and the reason for a great amount of firearms violence disappears. Didn't those assholes learn anything from Prohibition? But of course they did, illicit profits and a nice stick to beat the people with will trump the commonweal any day when thugs are running the show.

Even if it could be proven that the benefits of gun control outweighed it's inherent fascism the fact remains that America is so awash in firearms that keeping them out of the hands of those with ill intent is utterly futile.

The poor people of DC need to have the option of owning firearms for their self defense because they certainly cannot rely on the police. Even in this podunk town the cops won't respond to calls in the poorest neighborhoods unless they can do so in overwhelming force, paramilitary style. I sold guns for many years and some might be surprised at the number of elderly folks who just wanted a revolver to keep in the nightstand. It is evil to deny them that most basic right.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined,
but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government.
--George Washington

Kid of the Black Hole

11-21-2007, 03:24 PM

Wolf, are you sure there's anybody here who qualifies as a forcible disarmament fanatics on this site?

anaxarchos

11-21-2007, 04:28 PM

Wolf, are you sure there's anybody here who qualifies as a forcible disarmament fanatics on this site?

Me...

I want to forcibly disarm all right-wingers, capitalists, imperialists, Democrats, and instruments of the state.

I put special emphasis on the "forcible" part...

Everyone else gets a tank...

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/tank091006_700x526.jpg