What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
206 Comments
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -10/+166For those who say they have read this act, and that it doesn't affect us, take a look at their definitions listed at the top of the act:
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.
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.
Do you see the words "force OR violence?". What is it that we try to accomplish when forming, or participating in a grassroots movement, a protest, an email, phone, or letter campaign?
We are trying to force a change in government action, ideology, or trying to force a change in thought of every day citizens who have the power to locally affect legislation being passed in their state, or local communities.
Congress found "The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security."
Meaning those threats of force OR violence pose a threat to Homeland Security.
Congress found "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."
Meaning that restrictions will most certainly be imposed on the internet to immediately cease traffic to and from known sites commencing with "terrorist" ideologies. After that, and sites with a lot of traffic adhering to their definitions of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, or ideological based terrorism (by the ever changing definition of Homeland Security), will not only be monitored, but the users who post many comments hoping to inspire, motivate, and drive people to action will also be individually monitored, possibly banned from these sites, or otherwise restricted. These restrictions will likely be imposed in other ways of life as well. Look at the no fly lists, police databases, CCTV cameras, etc.
Congress found: "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."
Unless of course, they amend the constitution to allow it. Or, they pass an act, such as this very act, or the patriot act, or the protect america act, that allows executive privilege in a vaguely defined "time of emergency", to disregard those rights in order to protect the homeland.
Congress found: "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."
CCTV cameras, Internet monitoring and censorship, media consolidation under government decree, face tracking, country/continent unification, excessive tasering, the development of surveillance material to be used in public places, and in gatherings of protest/dissent (small hovering microphones and cameras, the development of hovering taser devices).
I can go on and on, and if need be I will.
If you honestly think that this doesn't affect us, that our government couldn't possibly commit illegal acts of censorship, silencing, monitoring, and installing fear among their own citizens, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The government has done all of these things before, and we didn't know about it until many years later when these acts were deemed irrelevant enough to be "declassified".
We have several covert federal agencies operating with our police system, our court system, the internet, phone companies, and will soon be within our medical records as well (RFID chips anyone?).
This is something that WILL affect us. This is something that we have to take care of. WE MUST RETALIATE.
Flood the offices of your congressional leaders with phone calls. Write a letter to them on your computer, save it, and print and send dozens of copies. It'll cost you what, five dollars in stamps?
Contact your media again and again and again. Discuss it with your family and friends.
The time for the passing of this legislation is near. We must act now. We have to act now.
We cannot let apathy get the best of us. We cannot let fatalism or defeatism get the best of us. You are not alone, you are among many. You will make a difference, because your voice will be among thousands. If we don't protect ourselves, our children, and our neighbors, what left will we have to life for? How will we be able to organize and fight for further infringements and atrocities if our rights to organize and dissent are slowly withering away? - phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -9/+72Here is a letter that I just typed out. It contains some of the same material from the previous one. Feel free to use it or draw upon it. Send it to anyone you like, the more the merrier. We need to get this, or anything else, out to as many people as possible. Make sure you include the name(s) of your Senator(s), as well as your name at the bottom (as, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of times, the staff will throw out letters that are not from the constituency as that particular senator). I'm going to send these out to my senators today, after I get more stamps. Please do the same.
Dear Senator
It has come to my attention, that The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is now up for review in the Senate Judiciary committee, listed as S.1959.
Per the language used in the Act itself, S.1959 defines Homegrown Terrorism as: "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."
"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."
Congress found: "The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security."
Congress also found: "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."
Congress also noted: "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."
These findings and definition are of grave concern to us U.S. citizens. The countries listed as having experience and influence of terrorism and terrorism prevention, have consolidated their media under government decree (Canada), leaving almost no room for open, unbiased, investigative journalism that would inform the citizens of the goings on the their countries that should bring concern. The United Kingdom, as well as the United States have begun installing CCTV cameras in public places that will track and monitor, individual faces of persons engaging in loosely defined "suspicious activity". There have been news reports of business in the process of implementing hovering surveillance devices that can monitor visual and audio activity of suspects, as well as surveillance devices that can assist police and government organizations in deterring aggressive resistance of arrest or detainment, by issuing small electric shocks similar to that of the controversial taser device.
This act also allows for a central organization to be created to monitor, detect, and report on suspicious "homegrown terrorist activity within the United States". The definition of such activity is vague, leaving room for the possibility of anyone seriously advocating social change, restoration of the constitution, and advocating the organization of protests to "coerce the United States government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof".
This Act is undermining, and threatening, the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to organize in dissent of the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, telecom immunity, social injustice, the War on Terror, or any other program that the citizenry feels is in violation of their inalienable rights as U.S. citizens.
We have had enough. Your constituency, the people you represent, are asking that you vote no when this Act comes up for review.
Here is the website containing the Act (House Resolution HR1955, also S. 1959) in full detail: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
All U.S. citizens who are doing nothing but voicing their opinions against a President and Vice President who have expanded their executive powers, bypassed our congressional check and balance, and has undermined our U.S. Judiciary System, are now at risk, by this new act, of being labeled and prosecuted as a terrorist. Vote NO on S.1959.
Thank you,
Here is a link to all of the Senators, and their contact information (name, address, phone number):
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ... - BrapAllgood, on 12/03/2007, -5/+43I am standing for this clapping. Thank you.
- iching, on 12/03/2007, -8/+41NON-VIOLENT dissent is a target of this bill:
"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “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.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’ It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence.
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence.
It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page." - FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+32This just in: Merely digging this article will not stop S 1959 from turning into law.
- Thrash16, on 12/03/2007, -11/+37If Diggers want to TRULY show that they can make a difference in the world, they will aid those of us who are rallying to STOP THIS BILL! Isnt Digg supposed to be the place of freedom of speech? Isnt Digg supposed to be a collection of the smartest, most informed citizens? Isnt Digg a place we can go to change things? It might not be for much longer...I called my Senator, have you?
- DeadElephantORG, on 12/03/2007, -4/+28Freedom!
STRICTLY ENFORCED - signal15, on 12/03/2007, -6/+26You are an idiot.
- technoholic, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13both?
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13Sounds like your senator is voting for it! But he/she will keep your views in mind as he/she does!
- spyd3rweb, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12You fail its HR1955 and S1959. Its already passed the house so now its 1959.
- StevenJV, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12Response from my Senator:
Thank you for expressing your concerns about H.R.1955 and S.1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
H.R.1955 and S.1959 amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of terrorism by those born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States.
The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish a grant program to help prevent homegrown terrorism and the use of extremist belief systems to facilitate ideologically-based violence. It would also establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States and conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents.
H.R.1955 passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6. Should S.1959 reach the Senate floor, I will keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me. - wynja, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14Dude, we've been rallying outside the Senate since the onset of this twisted war. It's done no good. The only way to affect change is to vote out all the incumbents in the House and Senate that have voted for the war and all these violations of our Constitutional rights.
- Ndiggnation, on 12/03/2007, -1/+12Wait until "bitching about politics" does equal being considered a Homgrown Terrorist, Herr JonnyTrombone.
People said the same kinds of things about the Patriot Act and all the domestic spying. Sure, you may not being doing anything wrong, but do you want to lose your privacy? I'm not doing anything wrong when I make love to my girlfriend in my own house, but I still don't want the government spying on me when I do it.. - Drahkar, on 12/03/2007, -2/+13Due to the vague wording of the resolution anyone would classify as one if they said anything negative about the government. Not to mention that we are charged by the constitution to take up arms against our government should it move against the people and their right to liberty and justice. This bill makes those people criminals instead of patriots.
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9It was 1955 in the House, its now S.1959 in the Senate. Who has failed now?
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9While the bill does stress that constitutional rights will be upheld, definitions and principles enshrined in this legislation in combination with other laws could be used to undermine protection of rights by the constitution. Constitutional protection of rights may not apply, for example, to those branded as 'terrorist' (Patriot Act) as we have seen happen with the writ of Habeas Corpus. http://lexxicon.universeii.com/2007/11/violent-rad ...
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -2/+10Once again, it is not just the democrats. It is the Republicans too. Both parties have been putting forth bills that are infringing on our civil rights and liberties. Republicans and democrats are one in the same, with the very same interests, with very few (although there are some) exceptions. The only difference in their makeup, is the audience they are catering to.
- rhedwolf, on 12/03/2007, -6/+14Where are the protests in Washington? Nothing will change unless people rally outside the Senate and this gets onto national news.
- RAEP, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9I thought that many of the points outlined in our constitution and bill of rights were suggesting that if the US government goes out of control, the citizens should be ready to take up arms and take it back. Now they seem to be making that illegal.
- loneBoat, on 12/03/2007, -4/+12"Isnt Digg supposed to be a collection of the smartest, most informed citizens?"
Hasn't been my experience so far... - brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -5/+121959=1984
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8Wouldn't it be more concise and to the same effect if he just wrote "***** you" on a cocktail napkin?
- Pinhedd, on 12/03/2007, -2/+9this bill should be S1984
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -4/+11I hope people realize that this bill is being used to create a commission to suggest solutions for preventing homegrown terrorism. This bill makes no laws or has any teeth.
Do you guys ever read anything? At least read the summary:
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. - qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7You are absolutely correct, however, the language used in this legislation is concerning; as is the broad scope and lack of transparency. Even the title "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" is highly evocative, conveying and 'drumming up' a perception of peril or threat that is at odds with evidence and experience. Seemingly justified by this strong language alone, the definitions in the bill give the commission an overly broad scope and opaqueness to public scrutiny. These are worrying trends in legislation produced under the highly emotive umbrella of "terrorism."
The Bill ultimately begs the question, "What homegrown terrorism has there been since 9/11?" And further more: "What evidential basis is there to claim such sweeping definitions and broad scope for such a commission?" - skarphace, on 12/03/2007, -2/+8Thank you. You're the first person on digg that I've seen that realizes this. This misinformation campaign started with a blog post and has run rampant. While in 1 1/2 years, the commission's recommendations could lead to unconstitutional policies, that's no reason to flip ***** over nothing.
- DrMilkdad, on 12/03/2007, -3/+9LoL, what the ***** is wrong over there? Stop ruining your country please, thanks!
- henro112358, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7Call these Six congressmen and thank them for having the balls to say NO in the first place. And if one of 'em is yours, kudos. Six out of hundreds...
Jeff Flake R AZ (202) 225-2635
Dana Rohrabacher R CA (202) 225-2415
Neil Abercrombie D HI (202) 225-2726
Jerry Costello D IL (202) 225-5661
Dennis Kucinich D OH (202) 225-5871
John Duncan Jr. R TN (202) 225-5435 - h0m3styl3, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7I've never wrote in to our senators before, but today I wrote to both. I hope you all will as well.
- FreeStater, on 12/03/2007, -5/+10When people start to realize the ramifications of this, we will see the populace begin to understand how vigilant we must be in the future to prevent things like this Patriot Ac.. I mean, Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, from happening in the future. We'll be ready next time! Fool us once, shame on you! .... the point is, don't fool us again.
- GothAlice, on 12/03/2007, -3/+8If people protest the bill after it has been passed, by demonstrating (say, walking around with megaphones and signs) in front of the White House or Senate, they can be arrested as terrorists because they are a group or individual being "forceful" to enact social and/or political change. Wow, the United States is scary *****-up. Makes me glad I'm not American.
- principle, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7Don’t waist your postage stamps. Calling them, works better.
To find your senator go to:
http://www.senate.gov/ - bigfatpaulie, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7The Fox News call to arms against Iran sounds like violent radicalization. If this gets them off the air, I'm all for it.
- jgzman, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5House Committee on Un-American Activities.
- yodaj007, on 12/03/2007, -5/+10The verb is "affect", not "effect", which is the noun. Your correction only made you look like an idiot, as signal pointed out.
- heartcoldfusion, on 12/03/2007, -4/+9Unfortunately, it looks like free speech for this guy's account has been suspsended.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6Reflection:
http://duggmirror.com/politics/Today_Is_Critical_A ... - rhedwolf, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Well something needs to change, because if we have to wait an entire year for the elections, it will already be too late.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Let 'em pass it. They don't give a ***** about what we think. They have fully realized that the average American is too busy trying to make their mortgage payment, put food on the table and hopefully not have to take a second or third job to make ends meet.
Government = force. It understands one thing and one thing only - force. It grows like cancer since it has unlimited resources thanks to what it steals from its people. It will kick you out of your home yesterday if you can't pay your property tax. It will put a lien on and steal everything you own if you can't pay whatever other tax. THEY DON'T ***** CARE ABOUT YOU! Wake the ***** up and realize the truth! They'll blow smoke up your ass and whisper sweet nothings in your ear while they're sizing up the spot on your back to stick the dagger in.
Within two years, there will be but one recourse to restore this Republic, NOT this democracy, it is enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights. If you're willing to sacrifice all of your liberty based on a smoke and mirrors semblance of safety...we had a few founding fathers who said it way better than I ever could:
1)The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. (Sam Adams)
2) Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. (James Madison)
3) If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. (James Madison)
4) The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. (James Madison)
My personal favorite (not counting everything James Madison and Patrick Henry have ever said)
5) If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your councel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen. (Samuel Adams) - Identity4, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4exactly, but Look above and you shall find links to your Senator. Why not give them a holla' and tell them how you feel?
- KidDynamo0, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Yeah and they are all douches...Whats your point. Lets look at the track recorded of both parties to date. Republicans have setup all the laws to get around our constitution. Democrats have fallen in line with most because they are scared to be different. In conclusion...both parties are retarded. That doesnt mean that all the members of said party are bad. Both have stand out characters...
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Depends what you mean by "force". This is the same government that decided that getting an abortion or growing pot in your own yard is interstate commerce.
- TheVirus, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Used the email webform. Will call tomorrow.
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Is he serious? "smartest, most informed citizens"?! I didn't realize he gave that much credit Digg's users. He must be new.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Uh, we all have two senators, not just one.
And both of mine appear to be supporting it...I'll be voting against Mitch next year, if a democrat of worth runs against him. - stillasleep00, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Just wrote Harry Reid...
- Melkolmr, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4There's really only one way to get through to a senator...
"If you vote in favor of this bill, you'll be looking for work in 2009."
Don't e-mail, that'll just get you a robot response. Call, fax, drive to their nearest office if you can. - badqat, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5You're going to get buried for stating the obvious, and for proving that some diggtards are too stupid to realize this!
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3It's already illegal, unless you win.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is