Congress Suffers from Constipation

Congress Suffers from Constipation of Thought Once Again: HR 1955
Call your state senators and tell them to vote against HR 1955! I just did. It was easy.

Senate Switchboard phone no.: 202-225-3121

HR 1955 was shuttled through the House of Representatives on October 23, 2007, by a bi-partisan landslide majority of 404-6 votes and is now on its way to the Senate.

Representatives who voted against it:

1. Jeff Flake [Rep-AR]
   
2. Dana Rohrabacher [Rep-CA]
   
3. Neil Abercrombie [Dem-HI]
   
4. Jerry Costello [Dem-IL]
   
5. Dennis Kucinich [Dem-OH]
   
6. John Duncan [Rep-TN]

HR 1955 is probably the most insidious attack against freedom in America because it criminalizes any act, or any promotion of, anything the Government interprets to be "radical" or "extremist."

The Bill will allow the U.S. government to establish a new temporary National Committee to research the motivation behind any and all "violent radicalization" in the United States, and proposes the governmental implementation of long-term methods to be used to prevent the adoption of "extremist ideologies."

In simpler terms, Americans could eventually be found guilty of thought crime. Our words, actions, and ideas could come under potentially heavy scrutiny should this bill pass through the Senate.

As you can see from the following selections, the wording of HR 1955 is horrifically vague:

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

"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."

"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."

"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 main thrust of these words seems admirable enough, but once you stop and think about what it's NOT saying, you're left to wonder just how far the bill goes.

Here's a hint:

"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."

"Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts."

"Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion." (Although Islam is directly mentioned as a source).

"Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations."

The bill itself is extremely short, because its focus is on the need for, funding, and establishment of this temporary (18-month) research Committee. And while there is a need to fight homegrown terrorism, how far is our government willing to go to do it?

I think there has to be another way.