by Cheryl Abraham, Steering Committee, Seattle Chapter of World Can’t Wait
On October 23rd, 2007, bill H.R. 1955 quietly was approved in Congress by a vote of 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting. Voting was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill. The bill’s name? The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
The website (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca36_harman/Oct_23.shtml) of the bills co-author, Representative Jane Harman, states: “H.R. 1955 seeks to understand the root causes of radicalization by creating a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism as well as a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism to examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to work with U.S. allies to learn about their experiences with homegrown terror. ”
But what does the language of the bill state and how will this bill be acted upon if passed by the senate? Lee Rogers wrote in roguegovernment.com (a site promoting the campaign of Republican Ron Paul) that “This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives form (sic) both the democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.”
Is this statement an overreaction? Does this bill really say that “thoughts” are crimes? The text of the bill states in Sec. 899A. Definitions:
(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
The language stated here seems vague at best. What is the definition of “use, planned use, or threatened use” and who is in charge of interpreting this language?
The bill also goes on to say in Sec. 899B:
(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
Who defines what terrorist-related propaganda is? Is the act of writing about it a crime? What about reading it? What about logging onto a website deemed “violent” or “radical”? What is “planned use”? If a person blogs that he or she plans some sort of civil disobedience, (such as holding up red-stained hands in a government official’s face), is this “planned use” or a “threatened use”? Who is interpreting and defining what “radical” or “violent” means? One only has to listen to a few minutes of right-wing radio to realize that the ultra conservatives of this country who continue to support the policies of the Bush Regime also believe that people who want impeachment, people who want the war to end, people who are absolutely against war with Iran are considered to be “dangerous” and need to be “watched”. One has to wonder whether the radical extremism of the right will be subject to this legislation, particularly given its penchant for preemptive war. Is this not the very definition of “ideologically based violence”? Is it simple irony that the Bush Regime’s justification for the continued occupation of Iraq is based solely on its use “of force or violence” to promote “individual political” beliefs” – as in forcing the Bush Regime’s version of democracy on the nation of Iraq?
The section 899B goes on to say:
(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 and lawful permanent residents.
Does this section bring some measure of comfort? The last six years have taught us over and over again that the constitutional, civil, and human rights of any individual, whether a lawful permanent resident or not is in continual jeopardy or has altogether been abolished. The vagueness of this bill only serves to accentuate the troubling trajectory the Bush Regime continues to take this country in. This bill is another in a long line of disturbing legislation that weakens the very democracy that it purports to protect. It is as disturbing as The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, The John Warner Defense Act, and the hundreds of signing statements made into law by the out of control Bush Regime and its complicit congress.
Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Imagine if the Iraq war could have been prevented. Imagine if the Iran war could be prevented. This legislation must be prevented from being passed in the Senate because it is far too vague to be allowed into law. It seriously jeopardizes free speech. America needs and has the right to protect itself from violence and terrorism, but this legislation as it reads now is seriously flawed and it should be prevented from being passed in the Senate.
The following statement from http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/92275.html gets at some essential elements of the law working its way – quickly – through Congress:
“Using rather vague language, the bill justifies the investigation and suspicion of any individuals’ potential “radicalization” as means to prevent possible domestically-born suicide bombers. Section 899B, “Findings”, reads “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.” Of course, no elaboration (that would construe future efforts in loose interpretation should the bill become law) of “motivational factors” inherent in radicalization are present in the language. In effect, any individual possibly thinking of or considering dissent and action could be maligned as a potential “violent” terrorist.
More disturbingly, Section 899D proposes a “Center of Excellence”:
“It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.”
Essentially, this outlines “thought crime”, the bill will become “thought law”. The fascist de facto metamorphoses into fascist de jure,(sic) ladies and gentlemen.”
To read the four versions of this bill in full:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h1955:
To read the voting record on this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993
A similar bill was also introduced into the Senate on August 2, 2007: S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:
I`m sorry to say that the crime rate will go up in the next few years because of the people that prefer to stay frightened than doing something. It makes me sick, because there are a lot of good people than ca do something about this.