The Voice » Urgent first amendment threat

The Voice » Urgent first amendment threat

Urgent first amendment threat

by admin — published on November 26th, 2007

Urgent first amendment threat
Carolyn Hileman

They didn’t like our phone calls; they didn’t like them so much they want to make us the terrorists while granting our rights to the real ones.
S 1959, “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ `Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In 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.
Just in case you are not getting what this is saying, it says that they are targeting us. They are creating a bill that will effectively silence us; if we dare speak up once this is passed we will be what are considered a homegrown terrorist. The real terrorists cannot be held without probable cause, the real terrorists must have due process, but we, we my friends will not be allowed those things should our old buddy Teddy Kennedy decide we are terrorists. We do not even have to make any threat all we have to do is try to enact social change.

For those of us who have been fighting illegal immigration the stage has already been set, we have been branded racists, associated with the KKK and now all they need to do is say we were using force to perpetrate social change and they can lock us up.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS
The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be used 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) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.
`(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 and lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
As you can see, rather than listen to the people of the United States of America, our esteemed leaders are seeking the aid of people from another country, aid in silencing the voices of the American people. One must assume that the ACLU is on board with this simply because they have not come out against it and that it targets everyone but them. Isn’t it interesting that this does not target peace protestors, nor does it target the illegal immigrants who marched in our streets, no it targets me, it targets you, and it just may be the catalyst for the next civil war.
We need you to man the phones like never before, send those emails like never before, send those faxes like never before, this is our first amendment rights they are planning to destroy. Our government that cannot manage to round up illegal immigrants, that cannot keep 18 people from boarding planes and flying them into buildings, can and will find us and prosecute us simply because we disagree with their policy. I need you to call 1-866-340-9281, it is toll free and you can talk to any senator you wish. That is when they are not in recess. They are supposed to be in recess but since they do not want Bush appointing anyone they will have a person come in each day so ask for the senator on the floor, better yet call and leave a message, email and fax them so that when they come back their email and voice mail boxes are so full of people against this bill they put it in the shredder.

Do not be fooled, they are not after the uni bomber, they are not after the Oklahoma City bomber, they are after you. It seems unconceivable that our government would target its own people, but that is just exactly what this bill does, it will strip away our freedom of speech, while allowing them to pass what ever they wish without our consent and it must be stopped call 1-866-340-9281, and tell them no to S. 1959

Pictures from Sprint : View Message

Pictures from Sprint : View Message

Democracy Now! | Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Raises Fears of New Government Crackdown on Dissent

Democracy Now! | Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Raises Fears of New Government Crackdown on Dissent

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007
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
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

---

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 under the guise of fighting terrorism. [includes rush transcript]

Al-Qaa'ida is a major Threat

Al Qaeda is major threat to EU: anti-terror chief

Mon Nov 5, 2007 1:36pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Al Qaeda remains the major terrorist threat to the European Union and a fresh attack by Islamist militants is likely, the bloc's new anti-terrorism chief said on Monday.

"An attack perpetrated by local or international networks remains likely," Gilles de Kerchove, appointed in September to coordinate member states' counter-terrorism policies, told EU lawmakers.

"Al Qaeda ... continues to be the most serious terrorism threat to Europe," de Kerchove told the European Parliament's justice, liberty and security committee.

He said the movement founded by Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden, who inspired the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, inspired local radicals.

The Belgian official said many EU countries were particularly concerned by radical terrorism in North Africa.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb grew out of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in January, after winning approval from bin Laden to rename itself an al Qaeda affiliate.

Since then, the Islamists have launched a wave of attacks targeting Algerian security and Western interests.

"The fact that it has embraced Al Qaeda's international terrorism, and the Maghreb's geographical proximity to Europe brings terrorism closer to the borders of Europe," de Kerchove said.

Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had "a considerable impact on radicalization of extremists in Europe", he added.

Attack plots with suspected ties to Al Qaeda were foiled in Germany and Denmark in September.

An attack by British Islamist killed 52 people on July 7, 2005 on London's transport network.

Prosecutors say the March 2004 attack on Madrid, which killed 191 people, was carried out by a group linked to Al Qaeda.

(Reporting by Ingrid Melander; Editing by Matthew Jones

Article | Reuters: "Experts say West can't stop Web radicalization"

Experts say West can't stop Web radicalization

Tue Nov 6, 2007 9:00am EST

By Michael Holden

LONDON (Reuters) - From behind a computer keyboard at his London home, student Younes Tsouli used the Internet to spread al Qaeda propaganda, recruit suicide bombers and promote Web sites that encouraged the killing of non-Muslims.

The Moroccan-born student and two accomplices, one of whom he had never met in person, went on to become the first to be jailed in Britain for inciting terrorism over the Internet.

In September, a Scottish student described as a "wannabe suicide bomber" was imprisoned for eight years for owning terrorism material and distributing it via Web sites.

The two cases are examples of what Western authorities believe is the dangerous and growing role the Internet plays in spreading extremist propaganda and recruiting sympathizers to Islamist militant causes.

But can the West censor radical Web sites and, indeed, is it morally right to do so?

The perceived threat has prompted much talk from governments of the need for action. On Tuesday, the European Commission urged the EU's 27 states to crack down on militant sites.

"The Internet serves ... as one of the principal boosters of the processes of radicalization and recruitment and also serves as a source of information on terrorist means and methods, thus functioning as a virtual training camp," the Commission's proposal said.

New York's police chief described the Internet as "the new Afghanistan" in August. That echoed the views of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said last year potential recruits no longer needed to travel to al Qaeda camps.

"They can train themselves over the Internet," he said.

However, many governments disagree about what should actually be done and experts express serious doubts about what would be effective, saying little research has been carried out.

Johnny Ryan, Senior Researcher at Dublin's Institute of International and European Affairs, said users could easily circumvent any restrictions imposed by the authorities.

"A workable Internet censorship system, even if one were desirable, is not possible within the EU, or anywhere else in the world with a comparable infrastructure or legal norms," he told Reuters.

Web sites could relocate from one country to another unless there was international agreement, while the controversial content was often distributed through services that are hard to block, such as legitimate chat rooms.

"In China, where censorship is a more serious business, users have developed a series of tools to break through government Internet blocks," said Ryan, author of the book "Countering Militant Islamist radicalization on the Internet".

Dr Akil Awan, of the Royal Holloway, University of London, another of the few academics to have studied the issue, agrees.

"The virtual jihadists are very net-savvy and generally are always two steps ahead of the authorities," he told Reuters, adding it would be morally questionable to censor jihadist Web sites that presented an alternative world view.

"These accounts may be skewed, tendentious and indoctrinating, but then so is a lot of other material on the Internet," he said.

Radical preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, banned from Britain after the government ruled that he was not "conducive to the public good" in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, said banning radical sites would be counter-productive.

Syrian-born Bakri, who has been named at several British terrorism trials as a leading influence on young militants, said it would be seen as part of a campaign against Islam.

"I don't think what they are doing is going to stop the Islamists or the Muslims from conveying the Islamic message," Bakri told Reuters by phone from his home in Lebanon.

"They should open debate, discussions, dialogue with the Islamists. There is no need to censor. If you think it is bad, why do you not debate it and destroy it in national media?"

Despite his exile, Bakri, who gained notoriety by calling the September 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19", has continued to communicate with followers in Britain via Internet chat rooms.

"I don't preach much on the Internet like before. But I know very well Muslims worldwide are succeeding in using ... the Internet and I think they are doing very well," he said.

A simple search of the Internet shows how easy it is to find material that could concern the authorities, from speeches by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders to inflammatory videos.

Reuters found a blog supposedly used by prisoners in London's Belmarsh top security jail, including those convicted of soliciting murder at protests in February 2006 outside the Danish Embassy in the British capital.

"This blog is dedicated to those Muslim activists who have been held captive for various reasons -- many of them for demonstrating against the Danish cartoons depicting the Messenger Mohammad," said the blog.

However, it is also not clear whether messages, videos or sermons on the Internet alone can radicalize individuals.

"It is only the means through which individuals can become aligned with jihadist ideologies and causes. Other factors are equally important," the Royal Holloway's Awan said, adding it is estimated there are more than 5,000 extremist Web sites.

Meetings with committed jihadists in the flesh remains an important factor and Awan said even cases of apparent "self-radicalization" via the Internet quickly became conventional when plots were actually planned.

"It is also clear that militant Islamists dedicate significant resources to getting their message out online," Ryan said. "It is, of course, virtually impossible to determine the extent to which one is more important than the other."