The Thought Police have ARRIVED- H.R. 1955 and S.1959

[thegodfather]

Title: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Bill Numbers: H.R. 1955 and S. 1959

Sponsors: Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

Bill Summary:
According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it."

Critics of both pieces of legislation allege that the act is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bills' vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.


Bill Status:
H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on August 2, 2007. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Our Position:
The John Birch Society opposes the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as a terribly drafted and badly misnamed bill that is a dangerous assault on both free speech and thought. The Senate should reject the measure.

Among the many problems with this legislation are the definitions, such as these below, which could be applied to criminalize the speech of not only, for example, violent jihadists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who advocate suicide bombing, but also to jail and/or silence American patriots who write or speak out forcefully against a host of issues abortion, gun control, police-state surveillance, illegal immigration, or the Iraq War:

(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.
In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "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."

The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights."

[thegodfather]

Anyone care that we are only a few votes away from losing the 1st Amendment?

[***xxx***]

well, most of you were in favor of all the other mind and thought controling acts after 9/11. may be now ppl will start to wake up? u r all on the straight way to 1984

[thegodfather]

well, most of you were in favor of all the other mind and thought controling acts after 9/11. may be now ppl will start to wake up? u r all on the straight way to 1984

Who was in favor? If you mean the general public in America, you're absolutely wrong, and you should not comment on things which you know nothing about. If you mean that 4 or 500 politicians in Washington who are suppose to vote in the peoples interest, then maybe yes. But they are by no means representative of what the American people want. They are SUPPOSED to be, but they have proved time and time again not to be.

[***xxx***]

oh yes, I meant the general public? tell me about all those ppl who opposed the new laws. everybody who was against it was called a liberal and a traitor of the fatherland! I know it s ugly, but u should be capable of analyzing your faults. the public had a big stake in these steps taken to take away freedom from th american ppl. and you all embraced it! now go and deal with it. you elected gw bush again, or didn t u? was it also a minority? bullshit

[thegodfather]

oh yes, I meant the general public? tell me about all those ppl who opposed the new laws. everybody who was against it was called a liberal and a traitor of the fatherland! I know it s ugly, but u should be capable of analyzing your faults. the public had a big stake in these steps taken to take away freedom from th american ppl. and you all embraced it! now go and deal with it. you elected gw bush again, or didn t u? was it also a minority? bullshit

For one, to be honest the only recourse that we, the American people, have to oppose a law or bill is to email/mail our state representatives and voice how pissed off we are. It often doesn't mean anything to them regardless.

Next, the election that took place was extremely sketchy in 2004. The entire system is ****ed up here to be honest. The "electoral college" is what elects the Presidency, not the "Popular vote" which is what all of us citizens vote in, not the electroal college. Besides the fact that theres usually only two candidates which have a chance, and you are basically voting for the lesser of two evils.

When I talk about what the majority of the American people want, I referr to independent pollsters which show what the American peoples general opinions are on certain issues. And even those can be manipulated. So in closing, we the American people, really have dick for recourse.

[mcpeepants]

These civil liberty alternating bills like this one and the military commission act seem to always come out at the dead of night. I didn't hear about this bill be passed for a couple days and I usually pay good to the news. So this law appears to make you a terrorists for certain thoughts and combined with the military commissions act would kick habeas corpus out the door and allows US civilians to be tried in military courts.