1987? Or 2007? A Second Look

Now that I've had some time to do some web browsing I have an update to my post of a couple days ago about the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act that passed the House with an overwhelming majority. There are, of course, differing views on what it all means.

From Dahlia Lithwick at Slate: No need to get alarmed, the bill is actually harmless. It doesn't allow the government to go after terrorists, it merely sets up commissions to study terrorists. In particular, how those with extreme ideas turn violent. Even more specific, the area if inquiry is how the internet is used to encourage those with extreme ideas to become violent and how to carry out that violence. On the good side the bill has sunset clauses. Well, yeah, the commission will propose new laws on how to curb terrorism and those might curb free speech, but we can fight those battles when the time comes. It is good for a change to see a government that is very good at throwing real power behind pretend problems (Iraq and Guantanemo) to throw pretend power at a pretend problem.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Naturally, others aren't convinced.

Amy Goodman at Democracy Now interviewed Jessica Lee of the Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Even for a course of study the definitions of violent terrorism are amazingly broad. Laws that come from the commission will also have broad definitions. The gov't can say "You threatened to use force and we don't like your ideas. You're a terrorist." Though the bill implies, and it's author's commentary states, the target would be Islamic jihadists, the bill is actually sponsored (if not written) by the Rand Corporation, in which the target is the anti-globalization crowd (who have shown willingness to use force). I'm sure there is special significance that the Rand Corp. is a driving force, though I don't know what that is. One of the recommendations of the commission is likely to be putting national filters onto Islamist terrorist sites as well as on sites the gov't doesn't approve of (one wonders how that could be accomplished, but that won't stop lawmakers from trying). Even if it is just a study there are practical and ethical concerns of studying a group so that when the study ends you know the best way to shut them down. In an 18 month study, even if you do get "inside" some of these organizations, how well do you really understand the complex issues?

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears

The source of the original posting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html

1984? Or 2007?

This one is truly scary. A Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act has already passed the US House (by a vote of 404 to 6 -- meaning lots of Democrats support it) and is now before the Senate, where it looks to get broad support. It is being ignored by the press. This act creates "a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as 'homegrown terrorists.' The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them." It does not define terrorism other than saying it has to do with an extremist belief system, and that term is not defined. That means anything outside what the commission defines as anti-American. The likely target is Muslims, but can include such things as anti-tax agitators, immigration protesters, peace demonstrators, and anti-abortion protesters. And those promoting the Homosexual Agenda. In addition, the Internet is cited as a conduit for terrorist ideas. So you better not read my blog. This one is worth a call or letter to your senator. Give me a day or two and I might have a sample letter to share.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3774