Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Will S.1959 be used to restrict U.S. Citizens traveling in their own Country?
Government officials have called lawful protesters potential terrorists and a threat to national security. Will protestors be able to fly after the Senate passes S.1959?
“The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."
“The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."
S.1959 will create a powerful “new government commission” that will investigate and report to the U.S. Government which Americans and organizations are “idealistically based toward Violence”, might or do support "Violent Radicalization; or Homegrown Terrorism.
S.1959 vaguely defines "homegrown terrorism" as "any planned act" that might use force to promote or accomplish a "political or social objective." No actual force need occur. The government need only allege that an individual or organization thought about using force. Any individual donating money to or attending a “planned” anti-war rally or political meeting could be charged with attempting to coerce the government or its people. Should this new “federal commission” become corrupt, it could be used to target and legally eliminate any person or group that supports a cause opposed by the government. The Nazis used similar commissions to crush political dissent and stop free association. Except this time it will not be the German SS beating civil liberties to the curb, it will be “American S.1959 Storm Troopers” attacking our democracy.
Senate bill 1959 begs the question “does the U.S. Government have reason to fear the American People?” S.1959 will create a powerful commission that can charge lawful U.S. Citizens with "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism because they attended a planned lawful activity, even when no violence occurred. Similar laws were enacted by Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees. Under S.1959, U.S. Citizens exercising their Constitutional Right to free association—and are then named by “the new commission” will like Citizens in Hitler’s Germany, start out guilty, when accused by the Government.
Should You Be On A Government Watch List?
Compare S.1959 provisions with the guidelines found in the “new Domestic Secure Flight Program” which you can access below: Read how the government can prohibit U.S. Citizens from domestic air travel.
Currently, International air carriers are responsible for checking passengers against “government watch lists.” That will change in 2008.
Subsequently in 2008, under the Federal Government’s “Secure Flight Program” the Government will begin not allowing U.S. Citizens on domestic flights until the government has prescreened a passenger’s information against “government Watch Lists.” On its face—that sounds great. Everyone wants safe air travel. The Government states, “Watch Lists” will be used to identify individuals who “may pose” a known or suspected threat to aviation or national security. But what does that mean? “May pose a suspected threat—to national security? U.S. Government officials have called protesters potential terrorists and a threat to national security. The words “May pose a suspected threat…” are so vague one can’t help wonder if that might” apply to individuals wanting to fly to an anti-war or environmental protest. You can read about the Government “Watch Lists” in the “Secure Flight Program” at:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm
The Government’s “new Domestic Secure Flight Program” never defines what “may pose” means when they state, “may pose a suspected threat to national security.”
So what happens after the Senate passes S.1959? Will the Domestic Secure Flight Program “Watch Lists” include lawful U.S. Citizens, protestors and union demonstrators “named” by “S.1959’s new Commission” as “may pose a suspected threat to national security?” Americans need to find out before S.1959 is passed by the Senate—what Constitutionally protected activities “may pose a suspected threat to National Security” according to the Federal “new Domestic Secure Flight Program.” Imagine thousands of lawful U.S. Activists be prohibited from traveling (flying) because they were “named” by a government commission operating under the "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" S.1959.
DHS TRIP provides a single portal for travelers to seek redress for adverse screening experiences and to resolve possible watch list misidentification issues. http://www.dhs.gov/trip
S.1959 vaguely defines "homegrown terrorism" as "any planned act" that might use force to promote or accomplish a "political or social objective." No actual force need occur. The government need only allege that an individual or organization thought about using force. Any individual donating money to or attending a “planned” anti-war rally or political meeting could be charged with attempting to coerce the government or its people. Should this new “federal commission” become corrupt, it could be used to target and legally eliminate any person or group that supports a cause opposed by the government. The Nazis used similar commissions to crush political dissent and stop free association. Except this time it will not be the German SS beating civil liberties to the curb, it will be “American S.1959 Storm Troopers” attacking our democracy.
Senate bill 1959 begs the question “does the U.S. Government have reason to fear the American People?” S.1959 will create a powerful commission that can charge lawful U.S. Citizens with "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism because they attended a planned lawful activity, even when no violence occurred. Similar laws were enacted by Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees. Under S.1959, U.S. Citizens exercising their Constitutional Right to free association—and are then named by “the new commission” will like Citizens in Hitler’s Germany, start out guilty, when accused by the Government.
Should You Be On A Government Watch List?
Compare S.1959 provisions with the guidelines found in the “new Domestic Secure Flight Program” which you can access below: Read how the government can prohibit U.S. Citizens from domestic air travel.
Currently, International air carriers are responsible for checking passengers against “government watch lists.” That will change in 2008.
Subsequently in 2008, under the Federal Government’s “Secure Flight Program” the Government will begin not allowing U.S. Citizens on domestic flights until the government has prescreened a passenger’s information against “government Watch Lists.” On its face—that sounds great. Everyone wants safe air travel. The Government states, “Watch Lists” will be used to identify individuals who “may pose” a known or suspected threat to aviation or national security. But what does that mean? “May pose a suspected threat—to national security? U.S. Government officials have called protesters potential terrorists and a threat to national security. The words “May pose a suspected threat…” are so vague one can’t help wonder if that might” apply to individuals wanting to fly to an anti-war or environmental protest. You can read about the Government “Watch Lists” in the “Secure Flight Program” at:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm
The Government’s “new Domestic Secure Flight Program” never defines what “may pose” means when they state, “may pose a suspected threat to national security.”
So what happens after the Senate passes S.1959? Will the Domestic Secure Flight Program “Watch Lists” include lawful U.S. Citizens, protestors and union demonstrators “named” by “S.1959’s new Commission” as “may pose a suspected threat to national security?” Americans need to find out before S.1959 is passed by the Senate—what Constitutionally protected activities “may pose a suspected threat to National Security” according to the Federal “new Domestic Secure Flight Program.” Imagine thousands of lawful U.S. Activists be prohibited from traveling (flying) because they were “named” by a government commission operating under the "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" S.1959.
DHS TRIP provides a single portal for travelers to seek redress for adverse screening experiences and to resolve possible watch list misidentification issues. http://www.dhs.gov/trip
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 says, “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.” Because of this, the Senate is considering amending the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include a subtitle (J) that would create a measure for preventing these types of violence and terrorism. The amendment would create a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence that would examine and report upon the facts and causes this type of violence. Subsequently, this Commission would report to the President and Congress on its findings and conclusions, including legislative recommendations, preventative measures, and any additional grant programs to support the prevention of homegrown violence and terrorism in the United States. Once this report is issued, the proposed Act states that the Commission will be terminated.
This Act makes no mention of the creation of or addition to any terrorist watch lists maintained by the government that could potentially be used by the Secure Flight program.
According to the Secure Flight Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, during normal Secure Flight operations, TSA will match limited passenger information to the No Fly and Selectee components of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). TSA will only use a larger list when warranted for security purposes, such as intelligence that terrorists are targeting a specific flight route. In order to meet the Secure Flight mission of both preventing known and suspected terrorists from boarding an aircraft and facilitating legitimate passenger air travel, TSA will only utilize those watch lists that identify individuals with a nexus to terrorism that pose a threat to aviation. For more information regarding the TSC and TSDB, please see the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Frequently Asked Questions.
This Act makes no mention of the creation of or addition to any terrorist watch lists maintained by the government that could potentially be used by the Secure Flight program.
According to the Secure Flight Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, during normal Secure Flight operations, TSA will match limited passenger information to the No Fly and Selectee components of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). TSA will only use a larger list when warranted for security purposes, such as intelligence that terrorists are targeting a specific flight route. In order to meet the Secure Flight mission of both preventing known and suspected terrorists from boarding an aircraft and facilitating legitimate passenger air travel, TSA will only utilize those watch lists that identify individuals with a nexus to terrorism that pose a threat to aviation. For more information regarding the TSC and TSDB, please see the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Frequently Asked Questions.
If passed by Congress, “Senate Amendment Subtitle J” would reduce Constitutional protections for lawful immigrants and U.S. Citizens.
You may access this Senate Amendment at: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959
ALERT regarding S.1959, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."
The U.S. Senate Amendment—Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism-that Amends Senate bill S.1959—removes many Constitutional protections and civil rights for both permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens. Shown below is the Senate “Subtitle J Amendment.” Please note the Senate has in Sec. 899b used the very weak words “should not” violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. The words “should not” are not binding legally and don’t mean much of anything.
If the Senate really wanted to protect the rights of permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens the Senate would have used the legally stronger words “Shall Not” violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
See below:
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`(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.
Now Consider that if S. 1959 is passed it will create a new “government commission” that will investigate Americans, study ethnic groups and cultures to “determine” which groups and individuals that reside in the United States might be prone to violence or homegrown terrorism.
Evidence and other information collected by this “Commission’s” may be used by the Government and law enforcement to label Americans and others as “promoters” of homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence and violent radicalization. Because this information may be kept “classified” lawful Americans and lawful permanent residents—may never have the opportunity to refute terrorist accusations made against them by government investigators. The “new Commission” will provide in reports, its findings and recommendations” to Congress and the President.
Concern regarding Senate bill 1959:
“Government Planned Disruption of Activities.” S.1959 states it will establish university based study programs to find “immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence…” While that sounds positive, S.1959 also states that its study program will “conduct classified studies and make recommendations” for “Disruption.” ”S.1959 fails to explain how the U.S. Government might “disrupt Ideologically Based Violence” when no crimes have been committed.
The text in S.1959’s B) ANNEX effectively states—reports submitted under subparagraph (A) may include a “classified annex” with recommendations on the feasibility to be administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence if such a program is feasible.
That information can be found at:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959
Because S.1959 doesn’t explain what “Disrupt” means, one can’t help wonder if S.1959 Study Groups might serve a government COINTELPRO operation, like the Domestic Counter Intelligence Program that illegally targeted U.S. Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights (protesting the Vietnam War) during the 1960’s and 70”s.
S.1959 also never explains what kind of “Force” or “Violence” promotes “Ideologically Based Violence.” So any bodily act or activity by a group or individual may constitute “use of force” or violence to “promote a social objective.” For example: demonstrators sometimes verbally taught and make body-gestures at police. Under S.1959 that would appear to constitute “group threatening.”
Protestors often put up their arms to defend themselves from being hit by police and opposing factions at demonstrations: Defending yourself might be “use of force” according to the vague language of S.1959. Demonstrators blocking traffic may constitute “planned use of force?”
Under the vague language of S.1959, the presence of lawful demonstrators at an event could be alleged by the “new government Commission” to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population. S.1959 is so vague, any individual contributing money to a lawful cause or attending a “planned” political immigration rally or meeting could be reported to the “Commission” for attempting to coerce the U.S. Government or its people.
S.1959’s definition of Homegrown Terrorism does not state or clarify what kind of “Force or Violence constitutes Homegrown Terrorism. Common fistfights or property damage at an anti-war or labor demonstration may qualify as “homegrown terrorism” to threaten, intimidate or coerce the U.S. Government or its people. S.1959 does not explain what kind of physical behavior may “intimidate or coerce” the United States Government and a civilian population of the United States.
You may access this Senate Amendment at: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959
ALERT regarding S.1959, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."
The U.S. Senate Amendment—Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism-that Amends Senate bill S.1959—removes many Constitutional protections and civil rights for both permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens. Shown below is the Senate “Subtitle J Amendment.” Please note the Senate has in Sec. 899b used the very weak words “should not” violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. The words “should not” are not binding legally and don’t mean much of anything.
If the Senate really wanted to protect the rights of permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens the Senate would have used the legally stronger words “Shall Not” violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
See below:
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`(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.
Now Consider that if S. 1959 is passed it will create a new “government commission” that will investigate Americans, study ethnic groups and cultures to “determine” which groups and individuals that reside in the United States might be prone to violence or homegrown terrorism.
Evidence and other information collected by this “Commission’s” may be used by the Government and law enforcement to label Americans and others as “promoters” of homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence and violent radicalization. Because this information may be kept “classified” lawful Americans and lawful permanent residents—may never have the opportunity to refute terrorist accusations made against them by government investigators. The “new Commission” will provide in reports, its findings and recommendations” to Congress and the President.
Concern regarding Senate bill 1959:
“Government Planned Disruption of Activities.” S.1959 states it will establish university based study programs to find “immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence…” While that sounds positive, S.1959 also states that its study program will “conduct classified studies and make recommendations” for “Disruption.” ”S.1959 fails to explain how the U.S. Government might “disrupt Ideologically Based Violence” when no crimes have been committed.
The text in S.1959’s B) ANNEX effectively states—reports submitted under subparagraph (A) may include a “classified annex” with recommendations on the feasibility to be administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence if such a program is feasible.
That information can be found at:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959
Because S.1959 doesn’t explain what “Disrupt” means, one can’t help wonder if S.1959 Study Groups might serve a government COINTELPRO operation, like the Domestic Counter Intelligence Program that illegally targeted U.S. Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights (protesting the Vietnam War) during the 1960’s and 70”s.
S.1959 also never explains what kind of “Force” or “Violence” promotes “Ideologically Based Violence.” So any bodily act or activity by a group or individual may constitute “use of force” or violence to “promote a social objective.” For example: demonstrators sometimes verbally taught and make body-gestures at police. Under S.1959 that would appear to constitute “group threatening.”
Protestors often put up their arms to defend themselves from being hit by police and opposing factions at demonstrations: Defending yourself might be “use of force” according to the vague language of S.1959. Demonstrators blocking traffic may constitute “planned use of force?”
Under the vague language of S.1959, the presence of lawful demonstrators at an event could be alleged by the “new government Commission” to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population. S.1959 is so vague, any individual contributing money to a lawful cause or attending a “planned” political immigration rally or meeting could be reported to the “Commission” for attempting to coerce the U.S. Government or its people.
S.1959’s definition of Homegrown Terrorism does not state or clarify what kind of “Force or Violence constitutes Homegrown Terrorism. Common fistfights or property damage at an anti-war or labor demonstration may qualify as “homegrown terrorism” to threaten, intimidate or coerce the U.S. Government or its people. S.1959 does not explain what kind of physical behavior may “intimidate or coerce” the United States Government and a civilian population of the United States.
Published: Wednesday July 16, 2008:
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Breaking Story at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_off_terror_watch_0716.html
CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list
rawstory.com — The post-9/11 airline watch list that is supposed to keep terrorists off of airplanes has swelled to more than 1 million names, including at least one investigative reporter who had been critical of the Transportation Security Agency, which maintains the watch list...
CNN's Drew Griffin reported on the bloating of the watch list, which an ACLU count pegged at 1,001,308 names Wednesday afternoon. Griffin's is one of those names, he says.
"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA. Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported.
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Breaking Story at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_off_terror_watch_0716.html
CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list
rawstory.com — The post-9/11 airline watch list that is supposed to keep terrorists off of airplanes has swelled to more than 1 million names, including at least one investigative reporter who had been critical of the Transportation Security Agency, which maintains the watch list...
CNN's Drew Griffin reported on the bloating of the watch list, which an ACLU count pegged at 1,001,308 names Wednesday afternoon. Griffin's is one of those names, he says.
"Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA. Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket," Griffin reported.
Nov. 27, 2008:
Could “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" be reintroduced in 2009?
Rep. Jane Harman who introduced “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" has been considered or picked by Pres. Obama to head one of the following positions: INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR; CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Homeland Security."
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif currently heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence.
Could “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" be reintroduced in 2009?
Rep. Jane Harman who introduced “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" has been considered or picked by Pres. Obama to head one of the following positions: INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR; CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Homeland Security."
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif currently heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network