![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The American Fascism Clock, first mentioned in my post on the Military Commissions Act, is back up to about thirty seconds from midnight. In realtime, that might mean a little over 18 months. If H.R. 1955 goes on to be passed by the Senate and signed into law, 18 months is how long the new National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence will have to make its final report. The report is to contain "legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States." (Emphasis added)
Let's back up. H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, was passed 404 to 6 in the House on October 23rd. It was introduced by a Democrat, Jane Harman, and also supported by Democrat Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. The main reason why I am so disappointed in my party, and why left-wing bloggers are so riled up about in general, is primarily because of the bill's vague definitions. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the following could possibly be twisted to allow for the eventual labeling of your favorite activist groups as homegrown terrorists:
"(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." (Emphasis added)
There are two ways that these definitions seem to promote the idea of Thought Police. First, there's the implication that we have to prevent "violent radicalization," defined as the adoption (thoughts) or promotion (free speech) of a belief system. Second is the phrase "planned use . . . of force or violence," which could include innocent joking about the use of force that happens to be overheard by a wiretapper.
What form might the Thought Police take? Well, the language on interim reports (one to be delivered after 6 months, another after 12) contains the requirement of "recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence." I guess they're basically suggesting that the government throw money at the problem and maybe hope that Blackwater picks up the contract.
Also, under the section on "International Cooperative Efforts" (learning from what other countries with homegrown terrorists have done), the bill says that "To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Of course, while it would be hard to argue that "planned use of force or violence" could never constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, if this bill is passed and the Supreme Court fails to strike it down as unconstitutional, it will set a precedent.
The one ray of hope in all this is that, as noted by the Congressional Quarterly, the bill "includes no authorization of funds for the commission." But if this bill itself was able to attract the support of the vast majority of House members, can a follow-on bill containing funding (probably buried in the depths of some much larger spending bill) possibly fail?
Let's back up. H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, was passed 404 to 6 in the House on October 23rd. It was introduced by a Democrat, Jane Harman, and also supported by Democrat Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. The main reason why I am so disappointed in my party, and why left-wing bloggers are so riled up about in general, is primarily because of the bill's vague definitions. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the following could possibly be twisted to allow for the eventual labeling of your favorite activist groups as homegrown terrorists:
"(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." (Emphasis added)
There are two ways that these definitions seem to promote the idea of Thought Police. First, there's the implication that we have to prevent "violent radicalization," defined as the adoption (thoughts) or promotion (free speech) of a belief system. Second is the phrase "planned use . . . of force or violence," which could include innocent joking about the use of force that happens to be overheard by a wiretapper.
What form might the Thought Police take? Well, the language on interim reports (one to be delivered after 6 months, another after 12) contains the requirement of "recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence." I guess they're basically suggesting that the government throw money at the problem and maybe hope that Blackwater picks up the contract.
Also, under the section on "International Cooperative Efforts" (learning from what other countries with homegrown terrorists have done), the bill says that "To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Of course, while it would be hard to argue that "planned use of force or violence" could never constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, if this bill is passed and the Supreme Court fails to strike it down as unconstitutional, it will set a precedent.
The one ray of hope in all this is that, as noted by the Congressional Quarterly, the bill "includes no authorization of funds for the commission." But if this bill itself was able to attract the support of the vast majority of House members, can a follow-on bill containing funding (probably buried in the depths of some much larger spending bill) possibly fail?
