In another display of adherence to the principle that the will of the people is the sworn enemy of the state, congress, with unprecedented bipartisan support rarely seen in recent years (404 Ayes to 6 Nays), passed the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".
http://www.govtrack.us/...
A summary statement says: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other nefarious reasons. Oops, sorry I threw the nefarious part in to clarify their wording with my humble sentiments.
If you're going shopping, don't read further.
Such a rare dispaly of bipartisan support can be measured by how your state 'representatives' voted are here:
http://www.govtrack.us/...
I really love how they pass this stuff while everyone's watching california burn. Now, of course, it is worded in such a way to simply quell 'violent' activity or perhaps 'thinking' of it. It should be lovely when all foreclosures start hitting even bigger numbers as the dollar continues to tumble into the abyss of globalized trade, unending war, so on and so forth.
It'll get better when we initiate WWIII and a draft is needed because of "We couldn't forsee planes being crashed into buildings" type arguments when, upon attacking Iran, China and Russia become involved with oil approaching around $200 barrel because of their vested interests in oil. Nah...
(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.
- 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.
I suppose anti abortion groups have been granted immunity from these type of classifications...knowing full well how 'effectively' the US government has pursued these groups- NOT.
(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.
Can anyone spell Blackwater or the other plethora of merc companies out there? Perhaps reward money will be offered to our neighbors to entice them to tell the 'state' that some dkos kossack next door has been radicalized by the political process that never does the will of the people. This nation's founding fathers were exactly the type of radicals this type of ridiculous legislation would be going after. Its easily adaptable to citizens who want government to abide by the constitution.
(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.
Well, well....how lovely. Since the criminal-in-chief decided we don't have the right of habeus corpus and a plethora of other 'insubordinate' rights guaranteed by the constitution because he's diligently protecting us from the bogey man, that little caveat seems pretty 'quaint'.
The violent radicalization and ideologically based violence has been coming from the White House and its enablers. Start there and I may start believing our government is a constitutional government rather than the capitulating, obfuscating and 'sternly worded subpoena' despotic regime it appears to be these days.
The Nays were:
John Duncan - R TN-2
Dennis Kucinich D OH-10
Dana Rohrabacher R CA-46 wow!
Jeff Flake R AZ-6
Jerry Costello D IL-12
Neil Abercrombie D HI-1
Ron Paul didn't vote...ok mr constitutionalist, were you too busy counting your campaign donations?
Dennis, you rock on with true constitutional beliefs.
Three republicans voted nay...wow Dana Rohrabacher.. you surprise me with a rare vote for the right thing...cudos.
Congress ... democrats or republicans is truly pathetic. Will the Senate be the same? I suspect so. Laws were already there to handle all the scenarios that this nonsensical legislation supposedly addresses.
I'm sick and tired of the entire framework of the so-called 'war on terror' ... not only is the US losing horribly in this so-called righteous effort ... it has, in fact, become the terrorist. The High Chancellor in V for Vendetta would be proud of you.