Reply #86: Not much difference between the three on Iran.Or maybe they are

[slipslidingaway]

listening to the Bush/Cheney crowd too much...two of them were already fooled and did not bother to read the classified intelligence.

Here is why Kucinich opposed the bill...why do you think he should have voted for it?

Why even bring this new topic up, Kucinich is looking three steps ahead on many pieces of legislation instead of just voting to go along as many do.


Infomation from this link
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/695672.aspx

"...“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Kucinich referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill,” when he explained in a joking fashion that, “We have freedom of speech. Thoughts, sometimes, proceed speech. There is usually a unity in thought, word and deed.”

The bill would create a National Commission, who would be charged with the task (of) making legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Many activists, scholars and civil liberties experts are worried that in order to prevent an act of “homegrown terrorism,” people who have radical or “extreme belief systems” would have to be monitored before a criminal act might occur. This, they surmise, would amount to unlawful surveillance of individuals who are critical to the Bush administration and those who hold power in the current economic and political system..."

Also opposing the bill...

Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens.” <30>

LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA and defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." <31>

Institutional reaction

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying:, "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."<33>

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers issued a joint statement opposing the Bill: "The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Details about their objections can be read here.

The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill and issued this Fact Sheet.

The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: "I haven't found anyone who supports this bill and contests these very negative interpretations. If there isn't anyone who can explain why it does not have these negative consequences, than your objective template is unwarranted and should be removed."<34>


The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill and issued this Fact Sheet.

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007

"...However the greater fear should be the possible future outcomes of any report, which will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism...

...The focus on the internet is crucial, it can set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions can mean penalties for your stance rather than any criminal act..."