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."
Holy crap, that title and summary is misleading.
I just read the bill (linky, it's not that long), and the Internet is mentioned only once:
That's it, nothing else. The bill's purpose is to establish a committee to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to assist federal officials in training and education efforts to prevent such things.
If you disagree with spending tax dollars to do that, then I don't have a problem with that. If the committee comes up with some outlandish plan to regulate the Internet as a result of their research, then I agree we need to get worked up about it. But the bill does not say that the Internet is a "terrorist threat," and it sure as hell does not define the Internet as a "terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat."
Sponsored by a Democrat.
Consponsored by 10 other Democrats (and 4 Republicans).
Passed 404 - 6.
The summary:
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Wow, sounds like something we really shouldn't be looking into!
The bill contains the word "Internet" ONCE in the Findings section, in the sentence:
"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."
Hmm. If someone could explain to me how that isn't a factually correct statement, I'm all ears.
Also, if someone could explain how that implies that the "Internet" is exclusively defined as a terrorist tool, as is the implication of the summary, that'd be great.
It says what it says: "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."
True or false?
And we, as a nation-state that ostensibly values our own existence and structures of government, shouldn't be looking for ways to prevent "violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism"? Of course it all matters how it's done. But it appears there was a good deal of consensus here -- almost complete consensus -- and no one can argue it was done for publicity or because of pressure, since this was a relatively low profile bill.
Conclusion:
Terrible, terrible, terrible summary, from someone who probably buys the hype that every homeland security or terrorism related law is a secret plot to create a police state, shut down the internet, or trample the Constitution -- anything other than, you know, actually legitimately trying to find ways to do what they say they're going to do in the text, and which is the actually the charge of many components of government (e.g., counterterrorism).
Why not include all the articles about the Senate version, too, and how it eviscerates free speech, guts the Constitution, creates a world of "thought crime", and how the mainstream press are covering it all up because they're administration lapdogs, and how liberal Democrats really don't understand what they're authoring, sponsoring, and passing (or, better yet, how Democrats are really far right, and Republicans are ULTRA, super far right, and no "liberals" are left in Congress)?
Or maybe we can just use slashdot as a pulpit for more crackpot garbage instead of any real debate?
I'm sure glad we had the Firehose to filter out crap like this.
Oh, wait...
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Of all the times to need mod points... This is among the most sensational, FUD filled summaries I've seen on /., and that's saying a lot.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
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 visit slashdot for two reasons now:
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh.
No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics.
Does anyone else find it amusing that the number of votes it passed by was 404?
I guess to reflect what will soon happen to the internet...
(and the captcha was "congress". hmm...)
"`(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."
Well, that's it then. This bill renounces the motivations behind the Revolutionary War.
I want a law banning Independence Day celebrations, any burning of the Gaspee in effigy (Tea in the harbor? Wimps. _We_ burned a British tax ship to the friggin waterline), Bunker Hill battle reconstructions, and anything else related to "violence in the name of ideology"
What a fucking joke.
--
BMO
Poor Al Gore - looks like he invented the very weapon that will destroy the US.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
404 Democrats Not Found.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
404: Intelligence not found.
Look I've been reading slashdot for years now, but you guys really need to tighten up your editorial. You keep crying wolf when it comes to anything government related and the cracks are starting to show. I know you guys hate Bush with a passion(I'm not too fond of the guy myself), but you can't let hatred be the prism you view everything through or you become that which you hate. I've read the bill and really tried hard to figure out how you've drawn such conclusions, but don't see anything that would warrant such a sensational headline. I'm starting to see the lefties turning into what they despise most; a PROPAGANDA MACHINE! Don't let it happen guys!! I don't exactly see things the way you do, but realize the value in having other's opinions. The problem is your opinions; more and more everyday; seem to have less basis in reality and therefore aren't even worth arguing over. You're starting to look screwy. In conclusion; take a breather before hitting post on your next sensational headline.
This is why we, the techs and the geeks, need an organization that can both educate and lobby Congress.
It was just a few years ago that someone asked "Who represents you, the geeks, to Congress?"
He started an organization and it died because all the people who complain about things like this don't bother to provide support to groups that would help prevent this kind of thing.
If you haven't learned yet, you can't unring a bell. Once something becomes law (DMCA, Copyright extensions, PATRIOT Act, etc, H1B laws) it is damn near impossible to get rid of it.
Quit bitching about it and do something about it. Help create a group to educate and lobby Congress on our behalf.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
It establishes a commission, which will study some things, and suggest some things, any or all of which are required to be Constitutionally valid. It also calls for the establishment of a vaguely defined academic center to study the problem.
It doesn't prohibit anything. It doesn't call for the prohibition of anything. In theory the commission could come back with suggestions to prohibit things, but a) they might not - they could come up with monitoring strategies, figure out why the terrorist propaganda works on some people, and provide counter-propaganda strategies, and b) suggestions of prohibition would still have to become law.
Commissions are generally a way to look like you're doing something, when in fact nothing is being done.
So unclench.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
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..."
One of this generation's greatest thinkers, the comedian Gallagher, I think said it best:
"There's a reason 'Congress' begins with the word 'con'. 'Con' is the oppsosite of 'pro', so 'Congress' must be the opposite of 'progress'."
My friends, wiser words have never been spoken.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
A really digg-worthy headline though. I must commend whoever put it together. Would have hit frontpage on digg in 3 seconds with misleading garbage like that.