LJWorld.com

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

Good article. This bill is part of the fascist shift described by Naomi Wolf. Our founding fathers would have made the list for their “process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”

hoeflich (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker: My point is that this is dangerous to all Americans regardless of political viewpoint precisely because the bill adopts an exceptionally broad view of “violence” and “terrorist.” You might be interested to know that a number of politically conservative groups—and blogs—have spoken out against this legislation. When you define “violence” to include all crimes, no matter how minor, you put everyone at risk. Certainly, social conservatives opposed to things like abortion or gay marriage will be equally at risk in their protests and planning as any “far left” groups you might find. So would NRA members protesting anti-gun laws.

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Good points, Mr. Hoeflich.

Additionally, supposed “hate crimes” legislation currently under debate in this nation pushes our society dangerously close policing the thoughts and motives of the accused.

freeordie (Anonymous) says…

Wow. It won't suprise me when there is little or no outrage at this. People don't care anymore-they're worried about important things like football.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“The far-left of America may be more ideologically driven and more dangerous than any other extremist group on the planet.”—RT

–––––––––-

Will someone please turn right_thinker off of 'Automatic' mode? As often happens in that mode, his reality filter is jammed.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

the gigolo has been programmed into automatic. He is incapable of thinking for himself. Exactly the kind of supporter the current administration wants.

Souki (Anonymous) says…

“Additionally, supposed “hate crimes” legislation currently under debate in this nation pushes our society dangerously close policing the thoughts and motives of the accused.”

Laws (and punishments) that take into account the thoughts and motives of criminals are nothing new. Such considerations have been made long before “hate crimes” legislation was ever proposed.

Consider, for example, that the difference between premeditated murder and nonpremeditated murder, a distinction that rests wholly on the thoughts of the murderer.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

This is why the Democraps cannot be trusted on this issue.

Look, Harman governs a district in S. Cal. that houses the Rand Corporation, many defense contractors, the entertainment industry, and many left-leaning areas like Santa Monica and Venice. Rand comes to her and says, look, we'd like some federal money to study “homegrown” terrorism. She immediately sponsors this bill and it passes in the dark of night without any hearings whatsoever.

It's an outrage. Boyda, Moran, and Tiahart voted for it and Moore did not vote.

This map says it all: http://www.privacyinternational.org/arti…

We are rapidly seeing our privacy diminished to that of the average Russian or Chinese. Yet our media rails against these violations ONLY when it involves Russia or Chinese citizens. But with this Harman bill, the corporate media didn't run a single story on it. Fortunately this bill has been discussed in some forums for the last two months, but ONLY after it was passed by the House.

Here's a link to the discussion of it on Democracy Now, in November:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/h…

Our media continues to downplay these violations to our civil liberties. The fact that the Journal World is only now bringing it to our attention demonstrates this in spades.

The first, fourth, fifth, and other amendments are all under attack in our country.

Now, beyond this legislation, which is disturbing enough, are two further developments. First, the NSA is planning to turn its satellites on our homes to spy on us:

http://www.news.com/Spy-satellite-plan-d…

Second, the FBI plans to develop biometric databases on all American citizens. These databases will permit law enforcement to identify you simply walking down the street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

We also have the passage of the Real ID law that is being fought by 22 states in court. It would standardize drivers’ licenses nationwide. You would also be required to have this ID on your person at all times. It might contain an RF ID chip that would permit the government to monitor your whereabouts anywhere in the U.S.

Of course, the big question is what is driving this assault on our privacy? Americans as a whole don't believe in terrorism as a means to achieve policy changes.

Post 9-11, however there has not been any domestic terrorism. So why is the government so paranoid? Why are they violating our constitutional rights? Why do they want to control our thoughts and actions to an unparalleled degree? What has got them so spooked? These are the larger questions that should be answered, but unfortunately, they lay hidden behind our own government's insistence on the legitimacy of state secrets and limits on our freedom to know what our own government is up to.

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

hoeflich:

While I agree that such a bill could be used wrongly by the powers that be, I find your justifications wanting.

“Thus, a group that wishes to promote political, religious, or social change, even though it takes no actions at all, would still be deemed “homegrown terrorists” by this proposed law.”

The bill(s) talk about “'planned use” of “force or violence”, but your statement here makes it seem like a church group planning a bake sale could be labeled as a “terrorist group.” Over-dramatize much?

“For instance, would a church group that contemplated a anti-abortion protest that might involve property damage, such as painting graffiti on a clinic’s walls, be deemed a “homegrown terrorist” group?”

But isnt' that what they are? If they PLAN on doing damage, using violence and terror to promote their beliefs, aren't they then a terrorist group?

“Would an animal rights group that proposed spilling paint on fur coats equally be a “terrorist group?”“

They are condoning damage to property that belongs to another individual. They are trying to prevent the wearing of fur by making people AFRAID to wear fur. Perhaps its a stretch, but yes, they are a “terrorist group”. Maybe not one that requires surveillance but one nonetheless.

“What about a student anti-war protest that led to a fistfight between protesters and anti-protest groups? Would these groups also be terrorist groups? ”

I think you are just confused now. Did you actually read the article before you sent it in? Did it make sense to you when you did? Perhaps you should reread the bill.

“Is this what we want academia to be spending its time doing?”

You are writing a LTE and you are complaining about how academia is spending their time. Thanks for the laugh.

JJE007 (Anonymous) says…

thinker?
thinker?
You in there, man?
You OK?
We're talking about rights, right_, and you're talking about burning witches. Don't go all the way over to the dark side, man. You and I are not oppressed. Take a deep breath. Neither your ilk nor mine is oppressed. Take a deep breath.
When someone calls me a dvmb@$$, I realize that is not oppression. You should realize that, too. Don't be so much of a little namby pamby liberal hater that you start acting like a little namby pamby “liberal”…and don't give up our rights to help alleviate YOUR fear, dvmb@$$!~)

temperance (Anonymous) says…

spunky: “ … making people AFRAID to wear fur. Perhaps its [sic] a stretch, but yes, they are a ‘terrorist group’.”

Personally, I’m *terrified* of the Fur Coat Paint Spillers. It’s a rough group. We need new laws and new governmental agencies to protect us. Help government! More surveillance! I’m afraid of the The Terrorists!

spunky: “You are writing a LTE and you are complaining about how academia is spending their time. Thanks for the laugh.”

I missed the joke. Educated people shouldn’t write to newspapers?

JJE007 (Anonymous) says…

monkeyspunk says…
“While I agree that such a bill could be used wrongly by the powers that be…”

'nough said…

Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…

The intent of the bill is fine. However we already have laws that prohibit conspiring to commit violence or committing violence and terrorist acts. Evidently, we need this bill so we can prosecute those who can't be prosecuted under the existing laws due to what, lack of evidence? Scary stuff.

Again, the intent is fine (although I question the need). The problem is that the bill is written too broadly. There is no telling how it might be interpreted in the future when it is convenient for the government to do so. Courts and politics change over time…what we may find just objectionable speech today could conceivably be considered “inciting terrorism” tomorrow under this bill. Hence we need our your laws to be narrowly focused in order to stand the test of time. Broad laws are bad laws.

It's a “slippery slope” that I don't believe we need to venture down at this time.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Let's see, the first amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now let's look at right non-thinker's position:

“She wants to prevent academia and the media, two of the most powerful venues for far-left dogma, from going any farther left and people getting hurt.”

First, right non-thinker is putting words or thoughts in Harman's head. “She wants to….”

Second, right non-thinker suggests that the media and academia are “powerful venues for far-left dogma….” Yet right non-thinker provides no support for this.

I can provide support for all of my positions and do so regularly. When I discuss the media, it is in light of the fact that a handful of multi-national corporations now control 85% of what is on the nation's airwaves. These corporations are governed by the “greed is good” mantra espoused by the character Gecko in the movie “Wall Street.” And increasingly, harried and busy Americans do not read newspapers or the Internet. Instead they take as their primary form of information the corporate spew that pollutes TV. Go into any airport in the nation and you find CNN playing on every TV - simply because it is the corporate message they want Americans to believe is true.

Leftwing alternatives to this message have been increasingly banished to the Internet (leftwing) as the nation's airwaves tilt heavily right.

Furthermore, one must understand this government surveillance of U.S. citizens in the context of the so-called “War on Terror.” We know that the Bushies lied about the reasons to go to war with Iraq. Why then would it be beyond their rationale to also lie about the War on Terror?

If one can then grasp that, one can begin to study the real motives for both wars. In the case of Iraq, oil. In the case of the War on Terror, it is to shut down dissent in our country - a preemptive strike on those who would speak out against government abuse and the “unitary” executive - more better described as soft dictatorship or fascism.

This is why I am enthused by Ron Paul's candidacy. He has strongly condemned this abuse. And as a RepublicKLAN, he has more gravitas than any Democrap could, with carrying this message to the rightwing. Here is Paul on the threat on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/…

Our country is being reformulated into a soft dictatorship or totalitarian state. We must do everything in our power to resist non-violently. We were able to stare down the Soviet Union based on our commitment to freedom and this commitment is now being outlawed. It is important that Americans know that the alternative to resisting is a world not unlike that of Orwell's “1984.” This cannot be the future we leave to our kids.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

2nd Request: someone please change RT's settings back to 'Manual'.

We don't want him overheating and shutting down, do we?

Magpie (Anonymous) says…

I wonder if the recent Planned Parenthood bombings in New Mexico qualify as “ideologically based violence.” This law should address those instances of homegrown terrorism.

But it was probably ratified to stop English Departments, day laborers, and PETA. Oh, and also The Gays (TM).

rhd99 (Anonymous) says…

I hope this bill targets Fred Phelps funeral pickets. What gives HIM the right to invade the privacy rights of mourning loved ones of soldiers who have been killed in our two wars? He says he can claim right to freedom of speech, but as an agent of evil himself, he has no right to invade other people's privacy rights especially during a time of grieving.

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic (Anonymous) says… “This is why I am enthused by Ron Paul's candidacy.”

roflmao!

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Hysteria rules on both sides of this issue. Thought police, FCC Equal Time and Star Chambers aside, what does this Commission actually do?

It's primary function is to study, write a report, and then disband within 18 months. Yes, seriously.

“(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.”

“Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext…

Slippery slopes and Black Helicopters aside, this is just another study by bearded man experts and will be complete waste of tax payers dollars. Thankfully.

But there is one question Mike Hoeflich can answer for me. Is it shiny side out or shiny side in when wearing tin foil hats?

ChristmasCarol (Anonymous) says…

“Oh I'm just a bill up on Capitol Hill; until them make me a law.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

ChristmasCarol (Anonymous) says…

I found a site on You Tube you all should check out.

I know specifics blah blah blah…

Well find Philosophyblackbelt on You Tube and School House Rock.

Man what's new?

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

It is prudent to be wary of measures such as this, but Hoeflich is stirring the pot a bit here.

Everyone disagrees with “a group that wishes to promote political, religious, or social change, even though it takes no actions at all, would still be deemed “homegrown terrorists” by this proposed law.”

This is not what the law states, however.

Violence and the intent of violence is what is what the law targets. Such things are already against the law in this country. Ever heard of laws against conspiracy to commit murder, etc.?

As for “thought police”, they are already here. Just think of things like sex offender registries and exclusion zones. No crime has been committed, but the law is assuming the mental state of the offender and he/she is subject to these laws accordingly. Also, the issue of a “premeditated crime” is trying to read the mind of the criminal.

Hoeflich's attitude is also one of “terrorism can't happen here, therefore we don't need the law”. This is clearly wrong. One need only look to Tim McVeigh and to Eric Rudolph to see that violent radicalization can and does happen in this country.

Having said that, laws such as this often creep into the territories described by Hoeflich. This law is not there, and civil libertarians must assure that it never will be.

x96merrill3 (Anonymous) says…

Just curious….before ANY of you began commenting and blessing us all with your vast knowledge and proselytizing, did you look up the bill for yourself or just take the word of a Law Professor who, I'm sure has no agenda of his own, in a letter to the editor of A-Dolph's publication?
That's what I thought. What happened to “Question Everything?” Wouldn't everything include the source?

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“It's primary function is to study, write a report, and then disband within 18 months. Yes, seriously.”

As anyone that has read anything about the bill, the report will be used to form the basis for legislation outlining criminal penalties. Of course, that requires someone capable of reading….

“Just curious….before ANY of you began commenting and blessing us all with your vast knowledge and proselytizing, did you look up the bill for yourself or just take the word of a Law Professor who, I'm sure has no agenda of his own, in a letter to the editor of A-Dolph's publication?”

Complete text of the bill notwithstanding, superficial criticism of those posting to this forum only reflects on the writer's conceit. Would that it was deserved.

For those interested in this bill, check out this site:

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/fa…

For the complete text, go here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext…

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“I assume you mean homegrown—as in concieved, hatched and carried out—because you left out Atta and the other eighteen radicals.”

You have to really be an utter fool to believe 19 men could completely outfox the combined efforts of the:

1) the CIA
2) the FAA
3) the DOD
4) the TSA
5) the FBI

They had help. Lots of it. Too bad the thumbsuckers and the bootlickers just can't get enough of daddy's sweet juice.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“I assume you mean homegrown—as in concieved, hatched and carried out—because you left out Atta and the other eighteen radicals.”

Interesting that in today's New York Times, the co-chairs of the 9-11 Commission state that their inquiry was obstructed, this time by the CIA. Only foolish people still believe the government's official conspiracy theory. The op-ed piece by these commissioners can be viewed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinio…

It states: “The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.”

Bootlickers and thumbsuckers - lick and suck on that….

Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…

Is the bus service ideologically driven? Does that save gas compared to manually driven?

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

The Homer Simpson reality is alive and well I see….

Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…

Oh confused would we?

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic (Anonymous) says… “As anyone that has read anything about the bill, the report will be used to form the basis for legislation outlining criminal penalties. Of course, that requires someone capable of reading….”

Really? Where does anyone, other than your literate self, say this bill “will be used to form the basis for legislation outlining criminal penalties?” Even your sites at the their worst fear only “possible future outcomes of any report.”

Then logrithmic (Anonymous) says… “Complete text of the bill notwithstanding…”, which is another way of saying “after reading the text of the bill from the URL Sigmund posted, nothing in the legislation in anyway matches my dire predictions and paranoia.”

But hey, don't let me keep you from your Ron Paul rally!

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Let's see, “paranoia”?

1) Real ID Act which mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national identity card that contains an their personal information and will be needed to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, or conduct virtually any other essential type business.
2) FBI biometric database (see my post above)
3) NSA satellite spying on U.S. households (see my post above)
4) Military Commissions Act permits U.S. president to designate American citizens as enemy combatants and deny them habeus corpus
5) Patriot Act permits warrantless searches of U.S. private residences for up to 30 days, including the ability to steal computers and other artifacts from the private residence.
6) Warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping on American citizens in direct violation of federal law.
7) Protect America Act: Allows virtual unrestricted warrantless spying of anyone for any claimed “national security” reason. Renders the notion of illegal searches and privacy rights null and void.
8) Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act: Has broad and vague language to criminalize First Amendment activities advocating for animal rights like peaceful protests, leafleting, undercover investigations, whisleblowing and boycotts.

These are but a few of the many examples of a growing police state that is depriving America of its constitutional rights. The Sigmunds of the world are too busy licking boot to recognize these threats to their freedoms. But real American do and they, like the founding fathers, will stand together and say enough is enough.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“Then logrithmic (Anonymous) says… “Complete text of the bill notwithstanding…”, which is another way of saying “after reading the text of the bill from the URL Sigmund posted, nothing in the legislation in anyway matches my dire predictions and paranoia.””

Only in the pea-shaped brain of a bootlicker….

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Oh now I see your point….

Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.

(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.

I guess this is part of the “Complete text of the bill notwithstanding…” that we are supposed to ignore? How completely sinister!

Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…

The government's incompetence is what both dooms us and saves us.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.”

If you can believe that after the lies about WMDs, 9-11, global warming, and warrantless surveillance, then you'll probably enjoy a drink from my septic tank if I call it the fountain of youth. Drink up Sigfreuden….

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

You and your black helicopters Passion….

Get a clue!

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…“Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. If you can believe that after the lies about WMDs, 9-11, global warming, and warrantless surveillance, then you'll probably enjoy a drink from my septic tank if I call it the fountain of youth. Drink up Sigfreuden….”

If the facts don't support your paranoia, simply imagining some other set of facts that might is not a well reasoned persuasive argument. But you are so out of control that nobody, even those inclined to listen to your point of view, take you and your angst filled adolescent ranting and vitriol seriously.

By the way, I heard from Prof. Hoeflich. He has rightly pointed out that tin foil is in fact very hard to find lately and suggested double strength aluminum foil, shiny side out, as the proper protective head gear these days.

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

It always comes back to the Reptoids, doesn't it?

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Despite the 232/200 democratic majority in house, as many republicans voted against the Bill as democrats. BTW, the Bill passed 404/6 and nearly four times more representatives were absent (22) that voted against. 94% of the entire House of Representatives of both parties voted aye.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd…

But when your entire world view depends upon grand conspiracies of “the man,” Skull and Bones, Bittenbergers, Free Masons, Federal Reserve Board, Haliburton, Big Oil, Big Auto, Giant Media, BushCo, Karl Rove, and Chinese Walmarts which is keeping the rest of the world from recognizing your genius and preventing you from navigating your “vessel” across the “sea of wheat” without a license, things like facts are **easily** dispensed with.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

SigFrueden:

I'm sorry to hear that “your entire world view depends upon grand conspiracies of “the man,” Skull and Bones, Bittenbergers, Free Masons, Federal Reserve Board, Haliburton, Big Oil, Big Auto, Giant Media, BushCo, Karl Rove, and Chinese Walmarts which is keeping the rest of the world from recognizing your genius and preventing you from navigating your “vessel” across the “sea of wheat” without a license.”

Perhaps you should lay off the meth…

BTW, instead of ad hominen, something that is particularly suited to your low brow intelligence, you might try to argue the facts. So what if 94% of the Congress passed the bill. There were substantial majorities that approved of the war in Iraq too.

As usual, a rudderless reply from an absolutely clueless and ridiculous moron…

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“If the facts don't support your paranoia, simply imagining some other set of facts that might is not a well reasoned persuasive argument. But you are so out of control that nobody, even those inclined to listen to your point of view, take you and your angst filled adolescent ranting and vitriol seriously.”

Speaking of rantings, did you mama forget to change your diapers?

Your accusations of paranoia are tiring - like your arguments - simply ad hominen with a particularly poor use of low brow wit.

You remind me of that carictature in the Dr. Strangelove movie, General Jack Ripper. Is that your true identity Sigfrueden? Are you worried about your precious bodily fluids? Have you sent the air wing against the Ruskies again?

Because someone doesn't goosestep with your point of view, you choose to paint that person has a “conspiracist.” Yet you buy off on four of the biggest conspiracies that have graced the news during your Fuhrer's reign of error:

1) 9-11 - a completely false narrative of conspiracy between a man in a cave and 19 guys who couldn't fly a paper airplane, much less a Boeing jetliner.

2) WMDs - a completely false narrative presented by your Fuhrer to justify the taking of land and resources illegally.

3) Warrantless wiretapping - a completely false narrative by your Fuhrer to justify spying on every u.s. citizen, in direct violation of the Constitution.

4) No such thing as global warming - a completely false narrative that even your Fuhrer has had to recant given all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Yes you win the tin hat award. Better wear it proudly. And I still have some of daddy's sweet juice for you if you'd like. Wouldn't want you to go to bed crying now…. There there….

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Possession,

Your bud Sigfrueden brought up black helicopters in her post at 4:52 p.m. yesterday. I thought you, like her, subscribes to this notion. I guess licking boot is a more apt description of your mindset. Now get to licking….

Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

posessionannex says “If Bush wanted to steal land and oil, why not invade Mexico? Lots of oil, great beaches, less jihadis intent on martyrdom.”

Iraq is the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world.

Mexico, not anywhere near.

sunnyhenry (Anonymous) says…

often the list of recomendations becomes law.
my recomendation is to ask our police officers to hold a convention to promote a consitutional convention to rewrite the constitution of the United States.