On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed what may be the most dangerous bill ever to come down the pike. This bill, like many of its predecessors on our steady march toward totalitarianism, sailed under the radar. There was virtually no publicity or fanfare. Now, the bill has gone to the Senate, and is in committee.
The bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955/S. 1959). The language in this bill is so maddeningly vague it could mean anything. It could therefore be tailored to attack any group opposing national and international policies that have the backing of the corporatist-governmental power system.
Consider the definition offered of ‘violent radicalization’ (from Sec. 899A of the bill being referred to the Senate): “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.”
This definition alone ought to raise your hackles! What counts as an ‘extremist belief system’? What constitutes ‘violence’? Either one is anyone’s guess, because nowhere in the bill is the word ‘extremist’ defined, nor is ‘violence’ defined. In practice, they will mean whatever federal bureaucrats or others calling the shots want them to mean. What about ‘facilitating’? This is a favorite word in today’s mushy political-correctese. Does it mean ‘causing’? Or merely ‘encouraging’? How much ‘encouragement’?
Consider the definition offered for ‘homegrown terrorism’: “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.”
No examples of ‘homegrown terrorism’ are offered.
One could understand a federal proscription against ‘the use … of force or violence…’ assuming we know what these amount to. But ‘planned’ use? What does this mean? ‘Planning’ involves thought, not action. In such ways this bill kicks open the door to the officially sanctioned creation of thought crimes that can be smuggled in under ‘homegrown terrorism’ and treated accordingly. Some critics have therefore dubbed H.R. 1955/S. 1959 as the Thought Crimes Act of 2007. They have spoken of the potential criminalization of dissent in America.
There is plenty more in this insidious bill that ought to scare the living daylights out of anyone defending basic freedoms recognized by our Constitution. Sec. 899B of the bill is entitled ‘Findings’ and consists of nine numbered paragraphs—all of them legislative land mines. There is no need to look at them all. Consider (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.”
Again, the bill offers no definition or examples of ‘terrorist-related propaganda’ available over the Internet. The phrase could therefore again mean anything those in power want it to mean.
