This is just a forwarding of the latest bill restricting our rights to free speech and thought. The Patriot Act almost pales in comparison to HR 1955. The vote was cast on October 23rd this year, and passed overwhelmingly, 404-6.
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
The bill was introduced by Jane Harman, a California Democrat. The bill essentially says that a commission will be created to find homegrown terrorists. From The Peoples' Voice:
The proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.
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.
What's the problem with that, you ask? We hate terrorists! They suck! The problem is the way they define terrorists (which is currently undefined, scary). Also, from the same article,
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.
Any social or economic reform is fair game. 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.
If that isn't clear enough as to what a "terrorist" is, or what "violent radicalization" is, or what "ideological violence" is, or, or... Then we'll look at the bill contents itself:
`(2) 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.
`(3) 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.
`(4) 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 emphasis in the quote was mine, of course. The point is, this is an attack on ideas, not on acts. Sure, I don't like terrorists. They're bad people, and I bet they don't shower either!! But then again,
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.
Finally, the roll call shows that one of the six (just SIX, mind you) people that voted against this House bill was Dennis Kucinich.