As the media daily reports government abuses of individual civil and constitutional rights in the name of the "war against terrorism," and as the now Democratic-controlled Congress continues to hold public hearings on the worst of these abuses, a new threat to the civil liberties of Americans quietly wends its way through the halls of Congress.
On April 19, 2007, Rep. Jane Harmon, Democrat of California, introduced H.R. 1955 onto the floor of the House of Representatives. On Oct. 24, 2007, this bill, named the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was passed by a bipartisan majority by the House. Its Senate counterpart, S.1959, introduced by Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, is now in committee awaiting action. While it is good to see that Congress is still capable of bipartisan activity, one might have hoped that this cooperation would not have extended to this bill.
H.R. 1955 and S. 1959 are designed to establish a new "National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence." This commission is given broad powers to investigate "homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence, and violent radicalization" anywhere in the United States. The definitions provided for these activities are frighteningly broad and include both violence against individuals and property as well as coming quite close to creating what some in the media have referred to as "thought crimes."
Section 899A(2), for instance, defines "violent radicalization" as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically base violence to advance political, religious, or social change." Sec. 899A(4) includes the "planned use" of "force or violence" within the scope of the commission's charge. Thus, a group that wishes to promote political, religious, or social change, even though it takes no actions at all, would still be deemed "homegrown terrorists" by this proposed law.
As I read the broad language of this proposed legislation it could easily result in the serious violation of Americans' First Amendment rights. For instance, would a church group that contemplated a anti-abortion protest that might involve property damage, such as painting graffiti on a clinic's walls, be deemed a "homegrown terrorist" group? Would an animal rights group that proposed spilling paint on fur coats equally be a "terrorist group?"
What about a student anti-war protest that led to a fistfight between protesters and anti-protest groups? Would these groups also be terrorist groups? This legislation is frighteningly close to that which established the House Un-American Activities Committee, the committee that became the vehicle for Sen. Joseph McCarthy's reign of terror against freedom of speech and association.
The legislation also calls for establishing "centers of excellence" at universities in the United States, places where the Homeland Security and the new commission could hire faculty experts in such fields as law, sociology, anthropology and other social sciences to work to identify those ideologies that should be considered terroristic. Is this what we want academia to be spending its time doing?
H.R. 1955 passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It is very likely to have a similar fate in the Senate and become law unless the American people rise up in protest and tell their senators that they will not tolerate a new era of "McCarthyism." The time to act is now before it is too late.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Correctomundo; "Who are the thought police?"
Frank Zappa
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Good article. This bill is part of the fascist shift described by Naomi Wolf. Our founding fathers would have made the list for their "process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
hoeflich (Mike Hoeflich) says…
right_thinker: My point is that this is dangerous to all Americans regardless of political viewpoint precisely because the bill adopts an exceptionally broad view of "violence" and "terrorist." You might be interested to know that a number of politically conservative groups--and blogs--have spoken out against this legislation. When you define "violence" to include all crimes, no matter how minor, you put everyone at risk. Certainly, social conservatives opposed to things like abortion or gay marriage will be equally at risk in their protests and planning as any "far left" groups you might find. So would NRA members protesting anti-gun laws.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Good points, Mr. Hoeflich.
Additionally, supposed "hate crimes" legislation currently under debate in this nation pushes our society dangerously close policing the thoughts and motives of the accused.
freeordie (anonymous) says…
Wow. It won't suprise me when there is little or no outrage at this. People don't care anymore-they're worried about important things like football.
Souki (anonymous) says…
"Additionally, supposed "hate crimes" legislation currently under debate in this nation pushes our society dangerously close policing the thoughts and motives of the accused."
Laws (and punishments) that take into account the thoughts and motives of criminals are nothing new. Such considerations have been made long before "hate crimes" legislation was ever proposed.
Consider, for example, that the difference between premeditated murder and nonpremeditated murder, a distinction that rests wholly on the thoughts of the murderer.
monkeyspunk (anonymous) says…
hoeflich:
While I agree that such a bill could be used wrongly by the powers that be, I find your justifications wanting.
"Thus, a group that wishes to promote political, religious, or social change, even though it takes no actions at all, would still be deemed "homegrown terrorists" by this proposed law."
The bill(s) talk about "'planned use" of "force or violence", but your statement here makes it seem like a church group planning a bake sale could be labeled as a "terrorist group." Over-dramatize much?
"For instance, would a church group that contemplated a anti-abortion protest that might involve property damage, such as painting graffiti on a clinic's walls, be deemed a "homegrown terrorist" group?"
But isnt' that what they are? If they PLAN on doing damage, using violence and terror to promote their beliefs, aren't they then a terrorist group?
"Would an animal rights group that proposed spilling paint on fur coats equally be a "terrorist group?""
They are condoning damage to property that belongs to another individual. They are trying to prevent the wearing of fur by making people AFRAID to wear fur. Perhaps its a stretch, but yes, they are a "terrorist group". Maybe not one that requires surveillance but one nonetheless.
"What about a student anti-war protest that led to a fistfight between protesters and anti-protest groups? Would these groups also be terrorist groups? "
I think you are just confused now. Did you actually read the article before you sent it in? Did it make sense to you when you did? Perhaps you should reread the bill.
"Is this what we want academia to be spending its time doing?"
You are writing a LTE and you are complaining about how academia is spending their time. Thanks for the laugh.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
thinker?
thinker?
You in there, man?
You OK?
We're talking about rights, right_, and you're talking about burning witches. Don't go all the way over to the dark side, man. You and I are not oppressed. Take a deep breath. Neither your ilk nor mine is oppressed. Take a deep breath.
When someone calls me a dvmb@$$, I realize that is not oppression. You should realize that, too. Don't be so much of a little namby pamby liberal hater that you start acting like a little namby pamby "liberal"...and don't give up our rights to help alleviate YOUR fear, dvmb@$$!~)
temperance (anonymous) says…
spunky: " . . . making people AFRAID to wear fur. Perhaps its [sic] a stretch, but yes, they are a 'terrorist group'."
Personally, I'm *terrified* of the Fur Coat Paint Spillers. It's a rough group. We need new laws and new governmental agencies to protect us. Help government! More surveillance! I'm afraid of the The Terrorists!
spunky: "You are writing a LTE and you are complaining about how academia is spending their time. Thanks for the laugh."
I missed the joke. Educated people shouldn't write to newspapers?
JJE007 (anonymous) says…
monkeyspunk says...
"While I agree that such a bill could be used wrongly by the powers that be..."
'nough said...
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
The far-left did not blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. I believe he (whose name I refuse to remember, because he thought he would be a martyr) and RT would have gotten along quite well.
Regardless, we must preserve our freedoms, and I'm glad this writer is alerting us to this legislation. RT and his cronies constantly talk about the soldiers who are fighting to preserve our freedoms, but then they try and dismantle those same freedoms.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
RT
I know in your world everything is black and white, Dems and Rep, us and them, etc. In reality, power hungry and paranoid politicians can be from any party. I can't remember who said this, but the downfall of US is coming because being a politician has become a profession, not a duty.
Magpie (anonymous) says…
I wonder if the recent Planned Parenthood bombings in New Mexico qualify as "ideologically based violence." This law should address those instances of homegrown terrorism.
But it was probably ratified to stop English Departments, day laborers, and PETA. Oh, and also The Gays (TM).
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
I hope this bill targets Fred Phelps funeral pickets. What gives HIM the right to invade the privacy rights of mourning loved ones of soldiers who have been killed in our two wars? He says he can claim right to freedom of speech, but as an agent of evil himself, he has no right to invade other people's privacy rights especially during a time of grieving.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says: "This is why I am enthused by Ron Paul's candidacy."
roflmao!
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Hysteria rules on both sides of this issue. Thought police, FCC Equal Time and Star Chambers aside, what does this Commission actually do?
It's primary function is to study, write a report, and then disband within 18 months. Yes, seriously.
"(q) Reports- (1) final report- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, 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, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex."
"Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt...
Slippery slopes and Black Helicopters aside, this is just another study by bearded man experts and will be complete waste of tax payers dollars. Thankfully.
But there is one question Mike Hoeflich can answer for me. Is it shiny side out or shiny side in when wearing tin foil hats?
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
It is prudent to be wary of measures such as this, but Hoeflich is stirring the pot a bit here.
Everyone disagrees with "a group that wishes to promote political, religious, or social change, even though it takes no actions at all, would still be deemed "homegrown terrorists" by this proposed law."
This is not what the law states, however.
Violence and the intent of violence is what is what the law targets. Such things are already against the law in this country. Ever heard of laws against conspiracy to commit murder, etc.?
As for "thought police", they are already here. Just think of things like sex offender registries and exclusion zones. No crime has been committed, but the law is assuming the mental state of the offender and he/she is subject to these laws accordingly. Also, the issue of a "premeditated crime" is trying to read the mind of the criminal.
Hoeflich's attitude is also one of "terrorism can't happen here, therefore we don't need the law". This is clearly wrong. One need only look to Tim McVeigh and to Eric Rudolph to see that violent radicalization can and does happen in this country.
Having said that, laws such as this often creep into the territories described by Hoeflich. This law is not there, and civil libertarians must assure that it never will be.
x96merrill3 (anonymous) says…
Just curious....before ANY of you began commenting and blessing us all with your vast knowledge and proselytizing, did you look up the bill for yourself or just take the word of a Law Professor who, I'm sure has no agenda of his own, in a letter to the editor of A-Dolph's publication?
That's what I thought. What happened to "Question Everything?" Wouldn't everything include the source?
Bitterfalls (anonymous) says…
Is the bus service ideologically driven? Does that save gas compared to manually driven?
Bitterfalls (anonymous) says…
Oh confused would we?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says: "As anyone that has read anything about the bill, the report will be used to form the basis for legislation outlining criminal penalties. Of course, that requires someone capable of reading:."
Really? Where does anyone, other than your literate self, say this bill "will be used to form the basis for legislation outlining criminal penalties?" Even your sites at the their worst fear only "possible future outcomes of any report."
Then logrithmic (Anonymous) says: "Complete text of the bill notwithstanding...", which is another way of saying "after reading the text of the bill from the URL Sigmund posted, nothing in the legislation in anyway matches my dire predictions and paranoia."
But hey, don't let me keep you from your Ron Paul rally!
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Oh now I see your point....
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.
I guess this is part of the "Complete text of the bill notwithstanding:" that we are supposed to ignore? How completely sinister!
Bitterfalls (anonymous) says…
The government's incompetence is what both dooms us and saves us.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says:"Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. If you can believe that after the lies about WMDs, 9-11, global warming, and warrantless surveillance, then you'll probably enjoy a drink from my septic tank if I call it the fountain of youth. Drink up Sigfreuden:."
If the facts don't support your paranoia, simply imagining some other set of facts that might is not a well reasoned persuasive argument. But you are so out of control that nobody, even those inclined to listen to your point of view, take you and your angst filled adolescent ranting and vitriol seriously.
By the way, I heard from Prof. Hoeflich. He has rightly pointed out that tin foil is in fact very hard to find lately and suggested double strength aluminum foil, shiny side out, as the proper protective head gear these days.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
It always comes back to the Reptoids, doesn't it?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Despite the 232/200 democratic majority in house, as many republicans voted against the Bill as democrats. BTW, the Bill passed 404/6 and nearly four times more representatives were absent (22) that voted against. 94% of the entire House of Representatives of both parties voted aye.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote....
But when your entire world view depends upon grand conspiracies of "the man," Skull and Bones, Bittenbergers, Free Masons, Federal Reserve Board, Haliburton, Big Oil, Big Auto, Giant Media, BushCo, Karl Rove, and Chinese Walmarts which is keeping the rest of the world from recognizing your genius and preventing you from navigating your "vessel" across the "sea of wheat" without a license, things like facts are **easily** dispensed with.
Bitterfalls (anonymous) says…
I think there is a misunderstanding here.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
posessionannex says "If Bush wanted to steal land and oil, why not invade Mexico? Lots of oil, great beaches, less jihadis intent on martyrdom."
Iraq is the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world.
Mexico, not anywhere near.
sunnyhenry (anonymous) says…
often the list of recomendations becomes law.
my recomendation is to ask our police officers to hold a convention to promote a consitutional convention to rewrite the constitution of the United States.