Saturday, December 29, 2007

Thought Police?; CA Democrat introduces legislation to quiet dissent

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

I suggest that everyone contact their legislators to oppose this legislation.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5320/
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907J.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/knaebel/knaebel11.html



2 Comments:

Professor Rex said...

But if you read the bill it has a specific provision in it that prevents it from violating people's civil rights. I don't know if it is a good bill or not, but I do know that most of the hysteria about it is overblown. To be a target of the provisions in this bill, you have to be connected to people who want to engage in violence.

Yogi Chi said...

You are correct. It is mentioned twice in the bill and specifically in the paragraph:
“`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
• `(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
• `(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.
• `(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.”

The standard line.
But, we have seen with other acts passed in the US that pertain to 'terrorism' have, indeed, violated our rights. I don't think this one will be any different. It changes the definition of 'violent radicalization' to “`(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.”

So, now instead of actually causing violence, all you have to do is discuss and you fall under this act. It is very similar to the "Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4239); except that that bill actually described the 'crimes' and the excessive punishment. We have no idea who this bill will affect or what actions it will focus on.

“`(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”

To have a group of TEN people to decide what are 'extremist beliefs' and impose their views on everyone and prevent people with opposing views to express them is definitely a violation of our rights. What is considered violent language? What is their definition of homegrown terrorism? Who knows.

I have, finally, read the full text of the bill. I agree with all the articles. The American people's rights are already under attack from the Patriot Act to the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act, and others.

The American people do not need, nor warrant, another death nail to our First Amendment right to dissent.