PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007


boloboffin
17th November 2007, 08:54 PM
Behold, the text of the final NWO crackdown on the 9/11 Truth Movement: H.R. 1955, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955).

You might read this and think, "Well, I'm glad somebody's going to look into this problem and see what can be done." You may read this and think, "Jane Harman's got a lock on a nice pork project for her favorite university," but the 9/11 Truth Movement knows better than you.

Homeland Security Links 9/11 Truthers to Taliban

by Barbara Peterson

Do you remember when Bush Jr. said, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”? Well, he meant it. Homeland Security’s sub-committee on terrorism risk assessment convened a hearing on 11-06-2007 to discuss “using the Web as a weapon – the Internet as a tool for violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” In a video of this meeting, which was last aired by C-Span on 11-12-2007, members of the sub-committee clearly pointed to Internet sites that question the legitimacy of the official 9/11 story as tools for recruiting terrorists.

...One of these “media portals” displayed in the Power Point presentation is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This site is sandwiched between a Taliban training manual, and several Taliban recruitment sites showing how to make bombs, take captives, and blow buildings up.

Representative Jane Harmon posed the following question to Bruce Hoffman regarding extremist groups using the Internet to recruit potential terrorists: “So this movement develops them into violent killers?” Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University security studies professor, and Chairman of the Rand Corporation in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, stated that “falsehoods and conspiracy theorists have become so ubiquitous and believed that you almost have some sort of parallel truth, and it has become a very effective tool for recruiting people.” The “people” he is referring to are potential terrorists. Mark Weitzman stated: “These people are constructing their own version of reality, full of conspiracy theories, full of doctored videos, that will recruit or inflame the emotions.” 9/11 “conspiracy theorist” groups are included in this generalization.

By portraying sites such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as terrorist recruitment organizations, the Department of Homeland Security has taken a dangerous step towards punishing anyone who questions the government. If you go to the A&E Website, you will see that it is a group of “ 212 architectural and engineering professionals and 518 other supporters including A/E students who have joined...in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings.” Their mission statement is, “To research and to disseminate the truth of the 9/11 “collapses” of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings to every architect and engineer.” I cannot find any indication that this site promotes terrorism, much less recruits terrorists for the Taliban, yet the Department of Homeland Security has taken the stance that the site is “intended to recruit or inflame the emotions” (Weitzman, M.), and lumps it in with sites disseminating the Taliban Training Manual, and advocating suicide bombings.

When it was pointed out at DU, and perhaps other sites, that the Department of Homeland Security shouldn't be equated with either the HR Committee on Homeland Security or the Simon Wiesenthal Center, not if you want to be taken seriously, a second article was quickly posted by Steve and Paul Watson:

House Subcommittee Presentation Equates 9/11 Truth With Terrorism

A House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week, and broadcast on C-Span, featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.

The hearing was chaired by Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, and ranking Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert. It was supposed to focus on the use of the internet by "home grown terrorist recruiters" yet in a shocking move it blatantly related the 9/11 truth movement with so called radical "jihadists".

In a very poorly prepared and delivered PowerPoint splurge, Mark Weitzman 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.

The entire hearing can be viewed online at here. (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202123-1)

So this is what happened, if you go watch the C-Span broadcast. Weitzman had 5 minutes to make his presentation, and had brought a PowerPoint presentation that obviously required an hour. Very likely this was just a standard presentation that he can do for anyone who asks for a speaker from the SWC. As he hurridly moved through the presentation, the camera picked up for a brief moment a slide with AE911Truth. Weitzman didn't even refer to it. Literally, the authors of that second article had to freeze the frame to write down the subject heading under which the slide had been grouped.

9/11 CTers are at DU right now, squealing about how this bill is going to let Bush label them all Padillas and disappear them to the mountains of the Ukraine. It is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. None of them has bothered to even read the bill. They've seized onto some findings at the beginning and think that it give Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.

All manufactured outrage, in other words, to pump this momentary appearance on C-Span for all it is worth in free publicity. Booga-booga-booga!

Brainster
17th November 2007, 10:52 PM
It would make a great Twilight Zone episode if we had one of these preachers of Doom and Gloom suddenly wake up to find that the world they've been selling to their flock really existed.

leftysergeant
17th November 2007, 11:59 PM
Why are they whining about AE911 getting lump in with Barret getting lumped in with al Qaeda? The only problem i could see with the presentation is if they didn't lump them in with Stormfront and National Vanguard.

bofors
18th November 2007, 12:05 AM
You might read this and think, "Well, I'm glad somebody's going to look into this problem and see what can be done."...

[Edit]

Incivility and attacking the arguer.

boloboffin
18th November 2007, 12:44 AM
The only problem I see here is your raging ignorance.

Why don't you explain all about my ignorance? What have I got wrong? Be sure and support what you say from the actual bill.

Alareth
18th November 2007, 12:49 AM
The only problem I see here is your raging ignorance.


Are you in a room filled with mirrors?

boloboffin
18th November 2007, 01:20 PM
And bofors flees again.

pomeroo
18th November 2007, 01:39 PM
The only problem I see here is your raging ignorance.


Hey, that's telling him, Roadrunner.

Beep-beep. Z-O-O-O-O-O-M !!!!!

chillzero
18th November 2007, 02:02 PM
Please don't personalise discussions, so that they are more likely to remain civil.
Thanks.

T.A.M.
18th November 2007, 02:04 PM
it'll be like watching mice scurry. Yet despite their irrational, paranoid fears, NOTHING will happen to them, their movement will still be allowed to spread their hate and accusations and speculation, despite the turn to fascism and police state that THEIR USA will become.

Quick, duck truthers, the black helicopters will see you.

TAM:)

LashL
18th November 2007, 07:32 PM
9/11 CTers are at DU right now, squealing about how this bill is going to let Bush label them all Padillas and disappear them to the mountains of the Ukraine. It is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. None of them has bothered to even read the bill. They've seized onto some findings at the beginning and think that it give Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.

All manufactured outrage, in other words, to pump this momentary appearance on C-Span for all it is worth in free publicity. Booga-booga-booga!



Well, twoofers are nothing if not consistently ridiculous, misinformed, and deliberately obtuse.

JMarshall
18th November 2007, 08:31 PM
So that's why my handler preformed a drop with local 9/11Truth group information in it... I was wondering since there weren't any official NWO orders inside the envelope...

boloboffin
18th November 2007, 11:17 PM
Be alert! Jane Harman has defined violent radicalization and is setting up UCLA to do a study on it! Protection of civil rights is part of the commission and the study mandates, but you know Bush will issue a signing statement making this end of teh wurrrrlld!!!!

Brainster
19th November 2007, 10:03 PM
The Urinal of 9-11 Stundies (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LettertoJaneHarmanUSCongress.pdf) (PDF) posted an open letter from Reprehensor to Congresswoman Harman on this. As with all "open letters" it's not really aimed at the nominal recipient, but at the rest of the Troof movement.

MetalliSociety
19th November 2007, 10:30 PM
The only problem I see here is your raging ignorance.

Wat evidence have you brought forward to discussion?

All that you've done that put you on the map so to speak here is get mad when Gravy put you in your place and try to file a lawsuit like a juvenile.

Can't we all just ignore this guy and get on with our discussions like civilized people?

And boloboffin, isn't that all Truthers do is listen to portions they want to hear and then try and run with it, only to look foolish to the average joe with common sense?

boloboffin
19th November 2007, 11:42 PM
Pretty much, MetalliSociety. However, a lot of the more articulate CTers are hyping this bill. They really do see this as a threat. I've not seen things go this wide in the CT world since Zeitgeist. That's what made me bring it back here.

MetalliSociety
20th November 2007, 12:08 AM
Zeitgeist...pfft...if I haven't become swamped with grad school h/w the past two months i'd of had my rebuttal to it out by now. Just have the bankers part to do and it'll be done.

But academic work for my future will always come first!

RedIbis
20th November 2007, 11:01 AM
I don’t know what’s worse, the passing of a bill that uses vague and broad language to quell dissent or the tired groan of apathy that such news elicits.

boloboffin
20th November 2007, 11:15 AM
RedIbis: please explain how this bill "quells dissent." Please use direct quotations from the bill from a section other than the definitions or the findings, as neither section possesses any legal instrument to quell dissent.

JimBenArm
20th November 2007, 11:16 AM
I don’t know what’s worse, the passing of a bill that uses vague and broad language to quell dissent or the tired groan of apathy that such news elicits.
Is this better?
:yikes:Oh my god, everyone run for the hills! Grab up the wimmins and childrens! My hair's on fire! Good lord, they've gone and done it! Oh, the humanity! Please, take him, I have a family! I'll be good, honest! Oh, god, it hurts, stop, oh, don't, stop, oh, don't, stop, don't stop, don't stop, oh yeah baby, don't stop, oh, sorry, got carried away.
"When in danger, or in doubt;
Run in circles, scream and shout!"

RedIbis
20th November 2007, 11:27 AM
RedIbis: please explain how this bill "quells dissent." Please use direct quotations from the bill from a section other than the definitions or the findings, as neither section possesses any legal instrument to quell dissent.

Gee, I probably would have went ahead and quoted the definitions and findings, but since you have deemed them acceptable, the sheep can go back to sleep.

JimBenArm
20th November 2007, 11:29 AM
Gee, I probably would have went ahead and quoted the definitions and findings, but since you have deemed them acceptable, the sheep can go back to sleep.
Translation: There aren't any that I can find, but I know they're there, and if you can't see what's not there, that's not my problem.

SDC
20th November 2007, 11:31 AM
Gee, I probably would have went ahead and quoted the definitions and findings, but since you have deemed them acceptable, the sheep can go back to sleep.

Aren't you one who has complained about incivility? How would you describe this little "sheep/ sleep" couplet, if not that?

I prefer the version from Handel's Messiah:

"All we like sheep..."

RedIbis
20th November 2007, 11:38 AM
Aren't you one who has complained about incivility? How would you describe this little "sheep/ sleep" couplet, if not that?

I prefer the version from Handel's Messiah:

"All we like sheep..."


Only if you feel it applies. My comment was not directed at anyone personally. I was speaking in the more general sense. As for the broad, vague language of legislation that sets little constraint on gov't's discretion at defining "terrorism", I have nothing but incivility and contempt.

SDC
20th November 2007, 11:44 AM
Aren't you one who has complained about incivility? How would you describe this little "sheep/ sleep" couplet, if not that?

I prefer the version from Handel's Messiah:

"All we like sheep..."

Pfeh. The next line is "have gone astray." Teach me to expect much in the way of literacy. Well, I have nothing but contempt for those who run out of arguments except to call their opponents "sheep."

Bah.

More seriously, who the heck started the "sheep/ sheeple" expression with reference to non-Trutherians? A.Jones? Cthulu?

RedIbis
20th November 2007, 11:52 AM
Pfeh. The next line is "have gone astray." Teach me to expect much in the way of literacy. Well, I have nothing but contempt for those who run out of arguments except to call their opponents "sheep."

Bah.

More seriously, who the heck started the "sheep/ sheeple" expression with reference to non-Trutherians? A.Jones? Cthulu?

Excellent. I see I've made another friend. I can't help you on the origins of the metaphor, except to say it's been useful in reference to any group of people who simply refuse to question and critically analyze the laws passed by leadership. I have no idea what a trutherian is, nor do I know what cthulu is.

boloboffin
20th November 2007, 11:55 AM
RedIbis: If you can find actual empowering of legal agencies to do anything at all in the definitions and findings, feel free to quote that. However, definitions and findings don't have these empowerments. That's why I "deemed them unacceptable." There is no empowerment there.

Read the bill. The bill empowers some people to do some things. Who does the bill empower, and what does it empower them to do?

tomwaits
20th November 2007, 11:58 AM
RedIbis, none of your posts here matter until you explain why this bill does what you say it does. Just saying "I have nothing but incivility and contempt" means absolutely nothing, despite your self-importance. EXPLAIN TO US WHY USING THE TEXT OF THE BILL. Why is this so hard to understand?

SDC
20th November 2007, 11:58 AM
Excellent. I see I've made another friend. I can't help you on the origins of the metaphor, except to say it's been useful in reference to any group of people who simply refuse to question and critically analyze the laws passed by leadership. I have no idea what a trutherian is, nor do I know what cthulu is.

"Trutherian" is, I think, a word I made up. It means Truthers & Truthettes. I am uncomfortable saying "twoof" or derivations.

Cthulhu (I can't believe the level of cultural illiteracy I'm confronting; what has happened to the level of education in this country?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos

I'm sure there are better references but this is quick.

JimBenArm
20th November 2007, 12:00 PM
Excellent. I see I've made another friend. I can't help you on the origins of the metaphor, except to say it's been useful in reference to any group of people who simply refuse to question and critically analyze the laws passed by leadership. I have no idea what a trutherian is, nor do I know what cthulu is.
And you base this accusation on what? You could have spelled out what has your panties in a knot about this, but I guess that's too much like work. Easier to just say we are not questioning, and are sheep, than actually trying to back up your statement.
Come on. Prove me wrong. Show me what is so terrible in this, that I need to go into a major panic about it.

RedIbis
20th November 2007, 12:07 PM
"Trutherian" is, I think, a word I made up. It means Truthers & Truthettes. I am uncomfortable saying "twoof" or derivations.

Cthulhu (I can't believe the level of cultural illiteracy I'm confronting; what has happened to the level of education in this country?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos

I'm sure there are better references but this is quick.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply being facetious by suggesting that cultural illiteracy is evidenced by a lack of familiarity with Lovecraft. Forgive me for never getting around to the horror fiction drama.

And although I never referred to anyone personally in this forum as a sheep, how about I pledge never to do that if you refrain from referring to me as a truther, trutherian or any derivation. That way, we can be sure some friendly discussion might ensue.

tomwaits
20th November 2007, 12:11 PM
All I see is "blah blah blah blah stop attacking me even though i called everyone who didn't immediately believe me 'sheep'"

Any quotes from the bill yet? no? alright later.

beachnut
20th November 2007, 01:51 PM
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply being facetious by suggesting that cultural illiteracy is evidenced by a lack of familiarity with Lovecraft. Forgive me for never getting around to the horror fiction drama.

And although I never referred to anyone personally in this forum as a sheep, how about I pledge never to do that if you refrain from referring to me as a truther, trutherian or any derivation. That way, we can be sure some friendly discussion might ensue.
Calm down, you believe in 9/11 truth dim witted ideas. Relax, truther is a badge of honor for people who believe in the crazy ideas of 9/11 truth. It means you need no evidence to say ridiculous things about 9/11. Be proud, you are the one with the ideas on 9/11 that have no rational basis.

You will not understand the OP anyway, so why worry now?

boloboffin
28th November 2007, 02:18 PM
Here's more. Randi Rhodes gets the bill exactly wrong (http://media.putfile.com/Randi-Rhodes-on-HR-1955---11-27-2007).

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 09:27 AM
Okay, folks, is there an organized debunking of this somewhere? I'm being accused of being an NWO shill (http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40459&showall=1) on another message board.

WildCat
12th January 2008, 09:54 AM
Okay, folks, is there an organized debunking of this somewhere? I'm being accused of being an NWO shill (http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40459&showall=1) on another message board.
You NWO shill!

Unless the truthers are advocating violence to accomplish their goals I don't see what this would have to do with them.

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 10:09 AM
Did my own debunking here; http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=200031

Comments most welcome, and if some of you Democrats want to sign up and have your say there, consider this an invitation.

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 12:05 PM
I'd include the whole text here but it contains "bad words" that I cannot post here.

boloboffin
12th January 2008, 12:12 PM
That's it, pretty much. Pork for days. It should be noted that the Center of Excellence can be combined with an existing CoE, and that a couple of civil liberties groups are working to make the definitions better at the express invitation of the House subcommittee. The anti-government loons need their daily dose of suspicious fear, and H.R. 1955 provided a bumper crop.

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 12:26 PM
And I really WOULD love to be appointed to this body! :-) I have always wanted one of those government sinecures, but we don't have those here in Illinois any more...

Blender Head
12th January 2008, 01:27 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Here's the relevant bill. Can someone tell me where I should place my tin foil?

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 01:47 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Here's the relevant bill. Can someone tell me where I should place my tin foil?

Around your potato. Then bake for 55 minutes in a 350 degree oven. Split and top with low-cholesterol margarine and fat-free sour cream and garnish with chopped parsley. Serve hot.

HereticHulk
12th January 2008, 02:53 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Here's the relevant bill. Can someone tell me where I should place my tin foil?


I would really like to tell you where you could 'place' your tin foil, but I wont.

HereticHulk
12th January 2008, 03:01 PM
I agree w/ Dr. Paul's take on it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul428.html

Que the ad hominem and baseless assertions in....3....2....1

BenBurch
12th January 2008, 03:08 PM
Except that Dr. Paul is misrepresenting the bill to you entirely.

HereticHulk
12th January 2008, 04:02 PM
Except that Dr. Paul is misrepresenting the bill to you entirely.

How is that?

Home Land Security is not only scary but is an entirely ineffective bureaucracy, how can this be anything but a tutorial in Orwellian Newspeak?

“Political language has to consist largely of euphemisms . . . and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

- George Orwell -

Some vague terminology examples right from the beginning of this gem:

"and other purposes" and "extreme beliefs"

..and other purposes? That's a pretty broad definition.

...extreme beliefs?

Belief:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


Extreme:
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.
6. going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.: an extreme conservative.
7. last or final: extreme hopes.
8. Chiefly Sports. extremely dangerous or difficult: extreme skiing.
–noun
9. the utmost or highest degree, or a very high degree: cautious to an extreme.
10. one of two things as remote or different from each other as possible: the extremes of joy and grief.
11. the furthest or utmost length; an excessive length, beyond the ordinary or average: extremes in dress.
12. an extreme act, measure, condition, etc.: the extreme of poverty.

So do I need to point out how many different interpretations this can have due to the sheer vagueness?

Extreme Beliefs? According to whom? Who defines what 'normal' is to determine what 'their' definition of extreme would be? What may be extreme to one, maybe the norm for another.

..and on and on. :tragedy:

beachnut
12th January 2008, 04:09 PM
How is that?

Home Land Security is not only scary but is an entirely ineffective bureaucracy, how can this be anything but a tutorial in Orwellian Newspeak?


- George Orwell -

Some vague terminology examples right from the beginning of this gem:

"and other purposes" and "extreme beliefs"

..and other purposes? That's a pretty broad definition.

...extreme beliefs?

Belief:


Extreme:


So do I need to point out how many different interpretations this can have due to the sheer vagueness?

Extreme Beliefs? According to whom? Who defines what 'normal' is to determine what 'their' definition of extreme would be? What may be extreme to one, maybe the norm for another.

..and on and on. :tragedy:
This is CT, not politics - do you understand anything? The problem with 9/11 CTers is they can not draw the line between facts and lies, that is called politics, go start a thread in politics! Cool