Punishing Thought Crime: Would New Bill Make YOU a Terrorist?

[FlyingSquirrel]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/73991/

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2008.

(snip)

"If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest," Kucinich said. "This is the way our democracy, little by little, is being stripped away from us."

"It only creates a commission," reminded German. "It does not create any new criminal laws or impose any penalties." But that's the bright side. The dark side is as Orwellian as Paul and Kucinich believe.

(snip)

The most pressing liberty Ron Paul, the ACLU, Dennis Kucinich and pretty much most left- and right-leaning organizations fear outright is a restriction on the right of internet access, since the House Subcommittee hearings and text of the resolution seized upon it with almost draconian intent. "The Web as a Weapon?" The question begs another: How do you disarm that weapon?

(snip)

But it's not just race and religion: The perception of H.R. 1955 is so bad that Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security Bennie Thompson actually had to post a fact sheet in December arguing, among other hilarious things, that the resolution "does not legislate thought or protected political expression and free speech. There are no provisions seeking to change the criminal code or set up a 'Big Brother' regime to put Americans under surveillance."

Methinks the pol doth protest too much.

[gateley]

1. Jesus. K&R. nt

[silverojo]

3. I'll second that "Jesus". K&R - n/t

[Adsos Letter]

2. How can "thought" be a crime...

I thought that was limited to "action"...

[gateley]

4. We're living in Bush World -- it's not America any more. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Here's the thing that worries me...

The initial text of H.R. 1955 states its aim clearly enough before falling into obfuscation -- "to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes" -- a characteristic that could be argued to be its defining template. Speaking of definitions (or the lack thereof), H.R. 1955 defines "homegrown terrorism" and "violent radicalization" nebulously; the former is merely "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," while the latter 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." Ideologically based violence, in turn, is defined as "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."

Sounds fair enough, until you start crunching the language and come to the realization that practically anyone, on any given day, could fit the description. Which is vague on purpose, as one realizes the farther one digs.

--------

Now, none of us are likely to be advocating the use of "force or violence"... or are we? It depends on how vaguely they define "force". Does sending thousands of e-mails to Nancy Pelosi, jamming up their system or their phone lines, count as "force ... to promote the group or individual's political, religious or social beliefs"?

How exactly might they define "extremist"? Could it be argued that DU "promotes an extremist belief system"? The line they draw could be a very fine line. We might have to really watch our step. The mods might have to work overtime, or they could just decide to shut the whole thing down because they are worried about their liability.

"But we're not advocating any violence!"

You don't have to be... you only have to be 'facilitating' it. Whatever that might mean.

[stellanoir]

6. hmmmm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00247.htm

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. Great examples in there.

And good analysis. "Facilitating" is really the key word that opens it all up. "Adopting or promoting" don't help.

[kas125]

8. We HAVE to make sure we tell our senators about this thing.

There is a video of Waxman saying that congress didn't read it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wei_hJdwkxY) My congressman told a group of people that he didn't read it, too, which really infuriates me since I called and emailed his DC office several times before they voted on it.

We have to make sure that the Senate reads the thing and stops it dead in it's tracks!

[Hydra]

9. It's only a matter of time before they criminalize dissent

of course, they can throw you in jail without charge, anyway, so why are we worrying about this? Our rights are only what THEY say they are, at a given time.

[kas125]

10. In the Senate, it's S. 1959 and we have to stop it from passing if we can.

Phone calls, emails, carrier pigeons if that's what it takes. They haven't voted yet, so we still have time to try.

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. All it takes is one senator. Kerry? Kennedy? Leahy?

Senator Kucinich, anyone? Can you imagine a senate with him as a member?

Actually I guess these days it takes 41 senators to stop it.

[ixion]

12. the government considers We, the People terrorists

and this bill is proof of that. Whomever thinks it will stop here need only look back at the past several years.

[MasonJar]

13. 1984 and George Orwell can tell you how.

[Sam Ervin jret]

14. This sound very much like latter day McCarthyism. Like McCarthyism it was very popular with the

congress when it came out but it ultimately became one of their most shameful moments. We must do what we must to make sure this shame comes to light before the damage that was done in the 50's is done again.