Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House Says the Internet is Terrorist Threat
GayBliss writes "The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 1955) last month, by a vote of 404 to 6, that says the Internet is a terrorist tool and that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat it."
The House tends to do stupid things that the Senate will ignore or stop.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
How did this submission get green lit?!?! This is completely irresponsible. Cripes Taco, go back to posting dupes or something.
If you're talking about Ron Paul, he wasn't present for that vote.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Slate has a pretty decent write-up about the bill.
I agree. Generally, I am the first to jump on the anti-government bandwagon, but this bill does not say the internet is a terrorist threat.
And propaganda is not necessarily "bad". Propaganda is a means to spread your ideas. You can be passive and hope someone goes to the library or a webpage and reads up on you or you can be active and drop fliers, knock on doors etc. Most "propaganda" on the web I wouldn't label as such. If you go to www.jihad.com you are looking for information not having it forced on you, information isn't propaganda just because a particular group wants you to know it. Heck I'd love for everyone to have a basic understanding of physics, that doesn't make it a cult, and doesn't mean I hate you if you don't agree with what I try to teach you.
You can see propaganda on mainstream news sites, if nowhere else. Look at the coverage of recent riots in France on CNN, and notice how the culprits are always described as "youths." They used to be described as "Muslim youths" a few years ago, but the word "Muslim" was dropped. Also look at the photos the BBC decided to run to accompany their article, and notice how it includes photos of burning cars, buildings, and cops-- but there's not a single photo of any of these "youths".
I'm not a crazy conservative "bomb them all" type. But let's call a spade a spade: these riots are Muslim vs. Christian.
Comment of the year
The summary you submitted on the 2nd is more misleading than this one. In it, you stated "One of the main problems here seems that the wording is so vague that simply resisting arrest {an offense that, in the US, is generally considered to be using force} could be deemed prosecutable under the current draft." Nothing is prosecutable under the current draft of the legislation, because it doesn't define any crimes.
To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(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 new subtitle:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 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.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized 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) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
`(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 or lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL CO
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
The article's authors defended their research, claiming that their work was the only active study of the death toll, and that this is more accurate than passively counting reported deaths.[26] They cited a number of factors that could lead to smaller figures from other sources; for example, the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death. They claim that the sources of bias in their study push the figure down.
An Oct. 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports:
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have." ORB survey compared with Lancet studies
See also: ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War
On September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent UK based polling agency, published an estimate of the total casualties of the Iraq war. The figure suggested by ORB, which was based on survey responses from 1,499 adults, stands at 1,220,580 deaths, with a margin of error of 2.5%. This estimate, although conducted independently, and using a different polling methodology, is consistent with the Lancet findings.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Exactly! And it was endorsed by subversive organisations such as the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence. Bunch of pansy, bed-wetting, bleeding-heart liberals.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."