The Good Reverend is the kind of guy who feels more and more loyal the less that I am messed with. For example, the less the "government" tampers with my rights, the more loyal I will be. Needless to say, The Good Rev is feeling pretty damn disloyal right now.
It's similar to the whole flag burning amendment business, back in the late 90s. I can't see any reason to burn a flag...unless someone tells me I can't...in which case I'd be out there with a flamethrower. Of course, Pat Buchanon always did have a problem with mistaking the symbol of an idea for the idea itself.
In short, I don't get pushed around. Neither should you. If you allow yourself to be cowed by little tin gods like Bush, Cheney, and Chertoff, then you've already lost your freedom. You'd be like a dog wearing one of those "invisible fence" collars...You may not be surrounded by barbed wire, but make no mistake - you're still in prison.
Hell, The Good Reverend can't even keep a straight face when it comes to these morons. I mean, look at them...Cheney is nothing more than a cheap, beady-eyed thug. If he weren't vice president, he'd be breaking legs for the mob, or just stealing for Halliburton like he used to.
So now they're trying to pass The Homegrown Terrorist Act, which is - at the time of this writing - firmly jammed in Obama's committee. The basic text of this bill is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean that anyone who expresses discontent with the "government" is a terrorist or dangerous radical.
Now, let's think that through:
If I express my discontent with the "government", I'm a terrorist. Presumably, I scare someone. But who? Do I scare Joe Sixpack down at the refinery? Nope. Do I scare the soccer moms? I'm pretty sure I don't. I guess I scare the pimps, thieves, and cheap hustlers who feel the need for legislation like this. I imagine they are scared that someone, or a large group of someones, will keep them from abrogating the last little bits of the constitution that they haven't already defecated on.
Or perhaps I am a "dangerous radical". Okay, I can live with that. I am in good company, no? Ben Franklin was called "The Most Dangerous Man in America" by a British Lord...and he wasn't in the habit of blowing anything up. No, he was considered dangerous because of his ideas.
And isn't that what this legislation is really all about? Making ideas illegal? "Thought crimes"? Well, if you put up with THAT, you'll put up with ANYTHING. Hell, you may as well stop walking upright.
So let The Good Rev lay it down for you:
1. You don't have to be afraid of these clowns. They aren't really all that scary, and what's more, THEY'RE afraid of YOU. The "government" is so terrified of The People that they want to lock up anyone who has the balls to stand on their hind legs. Have you ever asked yourself WHY they're so afraid?
2. They're afraid because they have done Bad Things, and people are beginning to notice the stink. This bill is a transparent attempt to get The People to turn on anyone who points out the elephant in the living room, so to speak. They might fool some of the monkeys, but they don't fool me.
3. You don't have to put up with it. Let me say that again: YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT. Like Nancy "Anything For a Laugh" Reagan used to say, "Just say no." Martin Luther King Jr had the right idea...a bad law is no law. Ignore any such laws. You don't have to make a big production out of it, of course...just ignore it. The worst they can do is put you in jail, but at least you won't being paying them for the privilege of being your own jailer.
There are three basic ways to react to tyranny. The Sam Adams method, which is to punch the tyrant in the teeth; the Martin Luther King method, which is to simply say "no", and refuse to cooperate, without violence; and the Quisling method, which is to knuckle under and cooperate.
Which are you going to employ?
Or kill me.
Rah!
Of course, putting you in prison is profitable too.
But that has some rather less appealing implications, if its the only reason for doing such things.
Thank you sir. May I have another?
Quote from: Roo on March 24, 2008, 02:15:45 AM
Thank you sir. May I have another?
Yep. Wait a day or two.
I do not understand why, but reading this has jammed the mental image of a screaming Tickle Me Elmo in my head.
The bill specifically mentions the use of violence in its definition of homegrown terrorist. If you actually hurt somebody are you still "just" a thought criminal?
Where is the section that is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean any dissident?
--
Edit: the bill in question is only to form a committee. The only power the committee gets is to investigate, and its job is to make recommendations on a national policy. How can that oppress anyone?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 24, 2008, 11:25:56 PM
The bill specifically mentions the use of violence in its definition of homegrown terrorist. If you actually hurt somebody are you still "just" a thought criminal?
Where is the section that is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean any dissident?
--
Edit: the bill in question is only to form a committee. The only power the committee gets is to investigate, and its job is to make recommendations on a national policy. How can that oppress anyone?
1.
(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."Promoting"? What's that? So if you're, say, an animal right's activist, and you promote it, you are also promoting the beliefs of the ELF, which is regarded as a terrorist group.
2. No, actually the bill does more than create a committee. It also declares that if you agree with the agenda of a group that PLANS (hehe) to use violence, then you are a terrorist. The committee gets to decide which groups qualify.
You need to work on your command of weasel words.
This board needs a smiley of someone weasel wrangling.
Quote from: H.R. 1955SEC. 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.
The definitions are only for the purpose of the act. And it doesn't just say promoting, it says using, planning to use, or threatening to use violence to promote. So if you promote ELF by bombing (or planning to bomb or threatening to bomb) somebody, you're a terrorist.
Hmm, I just read HR 1955 EH (please note whatever version you're going off of if you want to dispute me, I've been in huge frackups because the other person was reading a different draft in these kinds of discussions).
It looks mostly innocent except for a few things, the one that stands out the most is:
(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
I have no clue what the Federal Advisory Committee act is, but the fact that they want to bypass it can't be good.
The next big one, is that while this bill in and of itself may be benign, it could easily turn bad if other bills grant committees more powers, or the committee decides to recommend drastic measures.
Edit: The unamerican activities commission probably had a similarly innocent bill.
Wikipedia has an article on the Federal Advisory Committee Act with links to its fulll text.
I think the most relevant bit of the FACA is that it requires that all advisory meetings be public, while the Homegrown Terrorist Act seems to imply that some of the meetings could be classified - and states that where possible members should have security clearances. The public will get copies of all its reports, which is better than nothing, I guess.
But you're right - the real test is to see what kind of bill you need to create a monster like the Unamerican Activities Commission. The bill does empower the committee it creates to hold hearings; does that include the ability to force testimony? (I'm no legal expert.)
I'm using H.R. 1955 RFS (referred to Senate.) I think this is the most recent version?
RFS and EH are the same as far as I can tell, so moving to RFS.
If what GA says is true, then the bill states that meeting will be as public as the law requires, right after saying its going to ignore the law that covers secret meetings WTF?
I'm think they can require testimony, since to the best of my knowledge, congressional committees can *always* force non self incriminating testimony. (Unless of course you're investigating the white house, bleh). The exact legalese of the bill would require a legal dictionary though.
About the only thing the unamerican activities commission needed to ruin lives was to investigate people for having an unpopular viewpoint,
Quote from: HR 1955 RFS`(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).
--
`(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.
I'll take this to mean that they'll keep their meetings public except when the might want to discuss information that is important to national security. And here's a hint: The goal of the commission would be to write a report about national security. I expect many things from my government. Transparency is not one of them anymore.
TGRR, that was very awesome.
Applesauce:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2008, 12:00:14 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 24, 2008, 11:25:56 PM
The bill specifically mentions the use of violence in its definition of homegrown terrorist. If you actually hurt somebody are you still "just" a thought criminal?
Where is the section that is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean any dissident?
--
Edit: the bill in question is only to form a committee. The only power the committee gets is to investigate, and its job is to make recommendations on a national policy. How can that oppress anyone?
1.
(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.
Using the phrase "Lets slap around some government officials and put some Discordians in charge for
real change" is now a terrorist act.
But of course, no one would
ever use a law written to combat terrorism for
any other use,
ever.
Just ask Eliot Spitzer.
This entire thread is a delicious STEAK. TGRR, I LOVE the rant, it makes me spit fire,
and I also very much appreciate the dissection of the legal text itself.
You're right - I would be much less dissident if the government wasn't actively installing cameras and taking notes on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The other day, my Dad asked me about this Stephen Colbert stunt I was working on, and I told him about it, and he warned me, "You gotta be careful. Activities like that are gonna get you put on
a list." He said that with such curdling gravity.
Listen, if I can't do PERFECTLY LEGAL things for fear of getting grouped and groped as "one of
them" then I don't know what to do anymore. But I'm not gonna let THAT stop me.
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 12:55:19 PM
Using the phrase "Lets slap around some government officials and put some Discordians in charge for real change" is now a terrorist act.
But of course, no one would ever use a law written to combat terrorism for any other use, ever.
Just ask Eliot Spitzer.
:lulz:
read as: Laughing / Screaming
We need a "horror/mirth" emote.
Just because the Pigs live in the farm house... doesn't mean they'll act like the farmers right? I mean sure they're wearing clothes now... and they're walking on their hind feet... but they're still animals like us, right? Still intent on keeping us free from some crazy controlling overlords... right? RIGHT?!?!?!
:x
I'll lay out the problem of this bill.
From a professional pnoint of view, we NEED money to tell us why people become terrorist and, more importantly, why they disengage or quit. The academic community has been starved of funding, while the no-hoper dropouts and Classical Students who infest the intelligence services have been given sacks of cash and no oversight. We're the ones who make the breakthroughs, in terms of theory and understanding, us and the military theorists, and that is where the money should be headed.
However, this 'Bill' does two very wrong things.
1. It conflates extremism with terrorism
Are terrorists extreme? Sure, but depends on your use of the word extreme. There are peaceful extremists....Buddhists come to mind, or the Muslim brotherhood, who have hardline beliefs that they will not give up, but do not pose a threat. Also, look at the people who are considered "not extreme". Both the official doctrines of the Republican and Democratic parties (Neoconservativism and Neoliberalism) give them the authority to use extreme force in foreign countries - to open markets or in defence of universal human rights. The invasion of Iraq has left at the very least 100,000 people dead, as a direct consequence. How is that not extreme? Why isn't Wolfowitz or Cohen being waterboarded right now? Because they rely on state terror? Its a bullshit dichotomy. State terror is still terrorism, and in a just world, we'd try and hang fuckers like them.
2. I know the so-called terrorist experts in the USA who will be in charge of such a committee. It'll be stacked with RAND corporation 'experts' and NeoCon puppets, who've heavily infiltrated the discourse on terrorism, as well as national security and military policy over the last 20 years. You wanna see what someone like Brian Jenkins, or Daniel Pipes, comes up with? :lulz: It wont be pretty, not at all.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 25, 2008, 04:22:19 AM
The definitions are only for the purpose of the act.
Of course, of course. :lulz:
And the PATRIOT Act has never been used on mere music pirates.
Honest.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 25, 2008, 04:22:19 AM
And it doesn't just say promoting, it says using, planning to use, or threatening to use violence to promote. So if you promote ELF by bombing (or planning to bomb or threatening to bomb) somebody, you're a terrorist.
(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.Great. Now define "facilitating".
Seriously, dude. Legislative creep is a wonderful thing. We can trust the "government".
No, really.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 25, 2008, 06:17:35 AM
Quote from: HR 1955 RFS`(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).
--
`(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.
I'll take this to mean that they'll keep their meetings public except when the might want to discuss information that is important to national security. And here's a hint: The goal of the commission would be to write a report about national security. I expect many things from my government. Transparency is not one of them anymore.
Well, then let's just hop back in the sty with the other piggies, shall we?
Also, remember the US government has used every narrative since the "War on Communism" to imprison and spy on American citizens with impunity. War on drugs? Check. War on internet crime? Check. War on Terrorism? Check.
Maybe after vietnam they decided to play it safe and never declare war on honest to fuck actual human beings just in case they get their asses kicked again.
At least abstract concepts and ideologies don't fight back.
If they did, someone fucked up the gameplan with respects to Iraq.
Although its probably true. Waging war internally tends to be more profitable and lower on visible casualties.
It's also much, much more terrifying. You can see an enemy invasion fleet coming. If there's nukes fired you get 4 mins to hide underground with tinned food. Drugs will infect your children and you won't notice til it's too late to save them. Terrorists will blow up your plane and the only warning you'll get is your legs flying past your head.
Government has only ever worked by fear - the real terrorism. They get better at it every year. About a decade from now I predict that presidents will be chosen purely on the basis of how many cc's of shit they can spontaneously extract from their constituents.
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 03:11:41 PM
We need a "horror/mirth" emote.
LOL I made a meme!
Roger, well done. True enough to be terrifying.
On the subject of ignoring laws, you might be interested in a couple of landlords in the UK who are happily ignoring the smoking ban by dividing the pubs they own into smoking and non-smoking areas, just like they used to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6260000/newsid_6263100?redirect=6263162.stm&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&news=1
Havnt heard much about them recently, I know at least one of them has been fined though.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT285.pdf
God I love it when I'm right. Brian Jenkins gets a whiff of some pork and the chance to stick it to the Muzzies/support the NeoCons and he goes a running!