Baltimore Sun: "Here Come the Thought Police" - Re: Harman & HR 1955

[reprehensor]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thoughtpolice19nov19,0,2384977.story

By Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson
November 19, 2007

With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain.

Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The historian Henry Steele Commager, denouncing President John Adams' suppression of free speech in the 1790s, argued that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government from dissenters but to provide a legal means for citizens to oppose a government they didn't trust. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence not only proclaimed the right to dissent but declared it a people's duty, under certain conditions, to alter or abolish their government.

In that vein, diverse groups vigorously oppose Ms. Harman's effort to stifle dissent. Unfortunately, the mainstream press and leading presidential candidates remain silent...

Continued...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thoughtpolice19nov19,0,2384977.story

-------------------------------------

My Open Letter to Rep. Harman;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2303535&mesg_id=2303535

[99th_Monkey]

1. Does anyone know who cast the 6 Congressional "Nay" votes?

I'd really like to know. I'm assuming one of them was Kucinich, but would like to know for sure who the real patriots are.

[reprehensor]

2. Roll

Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff
Nay CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana
Nay HI-1 Abercrombie, Neil
Nay IL-12 Costello, Jerry
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993

[99th_Monkey]

5. how utterly depressing. Conyers, DeFazio, Sanders, et. al. all swallowed this piece of shit?

Now where did I put that barf bag??

:puke:

[KamaAina]

8. Sanders is in the Senate

assuming you mean Bernie Sanders (I-VT). We shall soon see whether he swallows this, as you so kindly put it, piece of shit.

[99th_Monkey]

11. oops. that's right. thanx.

so Ron Paul even voted for it?? how can that be?

[KamaAina]

13. Paul missed the vote

presumably for campaign-related reasons.

No Vote TX-14 Paul, Ronald (R)

[sss1977]

7. as Kucinich said at the most recent debate...

"Just imagine what it will be like to have a president of the United States who's right the first time. Just imagine."

[99th_Monkey]

27. That was one of his best lines that night. It had staying power,

due to the stinging truth of it, and there wasn't much anyone could say back to it..
.. except there was one lame attempt, the details of which escape me, but it was about some
vote he made for a some bill, years ago and changed his stance since... but it was pretty
lightweight considering how many times on the most vital issues he's been consistently
"right the first time".

[lonestarnot]

44. And who read the Patriot Act!

[peacetalksforall]

3. I remember reading about Republicans 'targeting' California - desiring

to rid it of its liberalism and conquer it.

Funny how three Dem female leaders from California are disappointing us.

(And, in some ways, Arnold seems to be disappointing the Republicans?).

I can't bear to think about Feinstein. I don't think I'll ever get over my disappointment where I will be able to raise her up again.

Harmon - second most diappointing.

Still hoping on Pelosi - I don't understand what's going on.

That feeling of being sold down the river is sickening.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Arnold did what he was installed to do:

Nix the Enron investigation.

Meathead's Republican handlers don't really care what kind of social agenda he has-- in fact, having a slightly liberal social agenda might bring in some more votes and keep him in office longer.

[crikkett]

53. Arnold has to play the moderate because he wants to be a senator I think

My women are indeed disappointing but it just goes to show that it isn't just an old-boys network anymore.

[DeSwiss]

4. Further into the article....

"Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed "Center of Excellence," which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent.

*snip*

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it."

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche



- And we take one more step into BIG BROTHER'S arms....

K&R

on edit: spelling

[99th_Monkey]

12. "threatened" use of force .. as in impeachment or anti-war protests. grim. n/t

[niyad]

6. just as a matter of curiousity, where were these two reporters when the rethugs

completely sold us out for six years? did they protest the first patriot act? or any of the other pieces of repuke sponsored legislation that shredded our constitution?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. I thought this was a pretty good bill addressing hatred towards identifiable people, not government.

Which part of that bill stifles dissent against the government?

:shrug:

I'm confused.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. What the hell?

What was that about? :shrug:

[Trillo]

17. The bill doesn't define "force" in the logically exclusive phrase "force or violence"

and it doesn't necessarily mean according to the law dictionary what you think it might.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

19. ???

The intent is clear and I am pretty sure the southern poverty center supported this bill but I will check.

[Trillo]

22. How can the intent be clear

when the word "force" has multiple meanings?

From Random House Webster's V3.0

3. strength; energy; power; intensity: a personality of great force.
4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
5. Law. unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.
6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. HATE CRIMES HAVE INCREASED!!!!

This administration has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THAT (along with increased poverty and debt and prison population).

This bill is intended to address HATE CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE! This administration advocates against such legislation because it fucking THRIVES OFF HATRED.

This bill does NOT concern dissent against the government. THIS BILL ADDRESSES HATRED AGAINST MINORITIES!

What part about this bill's purpose is confusing to you?

The right-wing has planted a FEAR PILL precisely because the right-wing fascist machine would be endangered by this bill.

Those of us who seek to oppose the government ARE NOT ENDANGERED BY THIS BILL!!!

Edited to add :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Trillo]

10. It's about crushing political dissent.

Glad the reporter picked up on that:

"...Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

[99th_Monkey]

15. exactly. the wording is so vague it could easily be interpreted that way by anyone, but ..

.. esp. by the paranoid megalomaniacs in the WH.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. It was proffered by those interested in protecting people from HATE.

I am honestly confused by the level of paranoia expressed about a bill specifically enacted TO PROTECT PEOPLE from HATE and oppressive actions.

This is so weird.

[Didereaux]

14. posted this on the Globe site...for all the good that will do!

You know who really should fear any serious threats to their well being? Not the Repugnants, for they do what they do...no it is the Democratic Senators and Congressmen who should shiver and shake in the dark of the night. It is THEY who enable the Repug/NeoCONS.

Yes, Democratic 'leaders', Democratic representatives of the people, quake and quiver for when the knocks on the doors begin it is YOUR doors that will be visited first.

Has there been such a time of traitorous snivilers before in our history? Perhaps the ealiest years of the revolution, but for the life of me I can find no other era that comes close to this one.

[treestar]

20. Terra, terra, terra

There is so much focus these days on things that are not that likely. When will these morans understand that it's the economy and getting out of the war and people have education and healthcare that matter? Terra does not need to be studied. It is a bad thing. We know that. But it is rare.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

24. This bill is intended to PROTECT OTHERS FROM HATRED. The paranoia over it,...

,...can only be explained as a right-wing SEED injected for purposes of protecting the HATRED which has served the right-wing so damn well.

Laws PROTECTING the 'lessor' among us ARE NOT BAD!

What the hell is the matter with you people? Have you been completely POSSESSED by the insanity of the right-wing?

damn

[dailykoff]

25. Wrong. It's to protect the Halliburton crowd from prosecution for treason.

Yes TREASON, lots of treason, starting with a certain well-known stunt in lower Manhattan. And that's what it's all been about since that certain well-known day.

[dailykoff]

29. And that's just ONE skeleton they'd rather keep in the closet.

These jackals have been having a field day ever since November 22, 1963.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

32. OHHHH!!! THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO PROTECT HALLIBURTON!!!!

:rofl:

OMFG!!! :wow:

Talk about inserting conspiracy-theory TOTALLY PSYCHOTIC weirdness!!!!

Okay.

I AM SO SORRY for being,...confrontative on your assertion

BUT, please,...tell me precisely HOW this bill *AHEM* protects the Halliburton crowd.
:rofl:

I mean, :rofl: I do not mean to BE mean,...but, :wtf: are you talking about?

[dailykoff]

33. Wait til they roll out the actual laws

which I expect should be just before midnight on December 24 or 31 or maybe the day before Easter. But don't feel bad if you miss the announcement because there might not be one.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

37. When a bill intended to PROTECT THE PEOPLE is ATTACKED,...

,...I know betrayal is at hand.

[dailykoff]

39. It will only protect the "people" committing the worst atrocities since WWII.

I really think you need to read the legislation carefully. Here's a link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

43. AHHHH!!! WWII. Another faux assertion. AGAIN.

I really think YOU should read the legislation CAREFULLY!

IT PROTECTS PEOPLE!!!!

What part do you NOT GET about this legislation,...protecting PEOPLE FROM OPPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES?

Y'ALL are REacting in fear and willing to sacrifice protection of our most vulnerable.

THEY HAVE WON,...AGAINST YOU!!!

I really thing YOU NEED TO READ THE LEGISLATION,...CAREFULLY.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Squatch]

34. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Get a grip.

Answer this: WHO, my friend, do YOU consider to be "lessor" Americans?

[Junkdrawer]

57. Yep...The Center for Constitutional Rights is a well-know RW seed org...

You nailed it. :eyes:

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007

On Edit:
I started a thread on this CCR fact sheet here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2317141&mesg_id=2317141

[Hydra]

26. This part scares me:

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.

Do we just take the government's word for it when they accuse someone of "planned use" like Jose Padilla? This is also directed without any apology at US citizens. Also:

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.

That cover enough bases for everyone?

Seasick pointed out about this part:

Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Sounds pretty, doesn't it? That would be if we forget the primary rule: "Terrorists" don't have those rights.

So, the gov't says you planned a violent attack on the easter bunny. You are deemed to be a "terrorist" and an "unlawful enemy combatant." You're sent off to Gitmo or one of the other secret sites, never to be heard from again.

Sound like fun to anyone else? BOOGA! Fear the brown people and eco-terrorists!!! Love your emperor. for he keeps you safe!!!

[H2O Man]

28. Nominated.

Very important. Thank you, and keep up your good work!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

47. I am glad you nominated this thread. eom

[lunatica]

30. The bill clearly defines just PLANS against the US government...

as acts of homegrown terrorism. What you say or plan to do can be construed as intimidating the government. Read the definition written into H.R. 1955 for HOMEGROWN TERRORISM. They are protecting the government. There are already existing laws that protect people.

H.R.1955, titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act of 2007, it is an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jane Harmon and overwhelming approved by the House on 23 October by a 404 to 6 vote.

Check out the Bill’s definitions of the terms in it.

“COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.”

“VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - The term ‘violent radicalization’ means 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.”

Read the Resolution. There’s more vague language in it, and the internet is mentioned.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Check out number 3 to see what Jane Harmon says about the internet.

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(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.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) 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.

`(7) 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.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(9) 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.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

35. It is intended to protect people and preserve protections GUARANTEED by our Constitution.

The only ones "threatened" by this piece of legislation are those who are profiteering off hate-mongering.

This legislation is about PROTECTION PER OUR OWN CONSTITUTION.

Actually, there are some POTENT insertions AGAINST those who are presently abusing our rights, AND I AM SURE "THEY" are actively discrediting this piece of legislation PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SHUT DOWN.

Ever heard the saying about how a "little" knowledge can be dangerous?

This piece of legislation ENDANGERS the WORST among this 'republic', not the best.

Take a breath and read it. IT PROTECTS PEOPLE AND PRESERVES OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK.

Sheez.

[dailykoff]

36. It will basically criminalize internet discussion boards the WH doesn't like.

I wouldn't call that protecting anybody but the guys who need it least.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. HOW? DAMN!!!! Are you ASSUMING the WH HOLDS ALL POWER?

In that case, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

YOU LIVE IN TYRANNY!!!!

:nuke:
:spank:
:spray:

[dailykoff]

41. "SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!" is exactly the point of this legislation.

Now I see why you're excited about it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

45. PROTECT PEOPLE!!!!! PROTECT PEOPLE FROM OPPRESSION is the POINT!!!!

Now I see why you're excited about it.

[donkeyotay]

38. This is the thought police act. These vague definitions include anyone they want.

“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.” end

It definitely includes most of DU and the reichwing can hardly wait. They've complained about it for years. Now they will have their own Homeland Office for the thought police. It's passing under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism - that's why the lopsided vote for it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

42. NOPE!!!! This legislation THREATENS limpballs and coultergiest and savage.

It doesn't threaten us, at all.

Goodness gracious!!! I can't believe you would assert "the guise of fighting anti-Semitism".

Only the "crazies" assert the "anti-semitism" shit,...and I am sick and tired of that shit.

[Jade Fox]

31. Is it just me, or does this paragraph sound like....us......

'While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.'

How easy would it be to decide that protesters like those in Olympia WA are "using force to coerce the government in the promotion of political or social objectives"? Also, how is net neutrality supposed to last with laws like this around?

The Democrats have lost it. They really have.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. Yup. You are being so paranoid that a bill PROTECTING US is interpreted as,...

,...THREATENING US.

Good lord.

THEY ARE WINNING!!!! THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT FREEDOM TO OPPRESS US AND DESTROY OUR PROTECTIONS AGAINST OPPRESSION,....

,...are WINNING!

What the fuck is wrong with the human minds in this country,...on this board?

[Jade Fox]

49. Would you care to explain.....

how you come to your conclusions? They make no sense to me. How does this bill protect us?

The bill seems quite vague to me.

[OnyxCollie]

52. It's a bill protecting THEM, not YOU.

It's a bill covering their ass should the full truth be revealed about their crimes. Maybe you aren't aware of this, but in 2000 a coup occurred and a dictator was installed as the leader of this country. Those who believe the government still represents the will of the people are DELUSIONAL. Those who want the government to stop their agenda and represent the will of the people are considered threats to power. It's legislation like this, combined with the loss of habeas corpus and posse comitatus that will set the foundation for the police state this country will soon become.

No one understands you because that can't believe you are really that naive.

[TalkingDog]

55. Got just 3 words for you: Martin Luther King.

"...use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives."


Read this snippet of the bill and think about the implications to Mr. King and his movement had this law been enacted in 1960.

Vague laws are like guns: They can be used in the "protection" of the common citizen, but in the hands of men with bad intentions, they can only be used to harm.

My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[nashville_brook]

60. SNT -- are you sure you've read this right?

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

i'm confused. clearly, this bill threatens to create a whole new class of criminal from those who would speak out against the government.

the way i read this, if a bunch of hunky labor unionists *threaten* anyone with their (hunky) demands for healthcare or higher wages, they'd fall under the definition of "homegrown terrorist."

[wildbilln864]

50. kick! n/t

[Kurovski]

51. K&R. (nt)

[mmonk]

54. Badly written law. Democracies aren't in the business of status crimes

or "precrime". But I'm one of those that realizes we are in an elective dictatorship which differs from a representative democracy.

[Junkdrawer]

56. DemocracyNow is covering this right now....Senate hearings this week...

http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl

[Perry Logan]

58. The ACLU thinks it's "wrongheaded," but they're not freaking out about it.

"Mike German, policy counsel for the ACLU...calls the legislation “wrongheaded” because it focuses on ideology, rather than criminal activity. The bill calls for heightened scrutiny of people who believe, or might come to believe, in a violent ideology. German wants the government to focus on people who are actually committing crimes, rather than those who are merely entertaining violent ideas, something perfectly legal.

"Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3388/examining_the_homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act/

[Javaman]

59. All in all it's just another brick in the wall. nt

[wildbilln864]

61. and kick..

again. :hi: