The Saint Paul Pioneer Press printed a letter from Peter Erlinder, a professor of constitutional criminal law at William Mitchell Law School, on the Thought Crime bill, aka the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act of 2007. Personally, I'm glad to see this subject get a little press as Erlinder points out the dangers of this bill in a more cogent way than my rants. To recap, the Thought Crime's bill does two distinct things. First, it establishes a Thought Crimes Commission. This commission has broad powers to investigate, it can hold hearings as it is considered a Committee of the Senate and it will report back to the Senate. Secondly, it establishes a think tank to come up with ideas on how to better protect America from home-grown terrorists.
-- cross-posted from mnblue.com, home of the Norm Coleman Weasel Meter --
Promoted as a relatively innocuous public safety measure, the bill directs money to the Department of Homeland Security for research on homegrown terrorist-Americans in our midst. While this may seem to make sense, the way the bill describes the "hidden enemy," and the powers inherent in the 10-member investigative commission it establishes, should raise concerns among Americans who remember history, no matter what their political leanings.
According to the bill, "homegrown terrorists" can be anyone who "... intimidate(s) or coerce(s) the United States government, the civilian population ... or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social belief," a definition broad enough to include Americans who organize mass marches on Washington to "coerce" changes in government policy.
The bill defines "violent radicals" as Americans who "...promot(e) extremist belief system(s) for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change..." - in other words, Americans who have not yet done anything illegal but who, commissioners believe, have thoughts that might lead to violence.
(Pioneer Press)
Erlinder fails to mention two things in an otherwise sterling piece. First that our very own Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has written is a co-sponsor of the Senate version (S. 1959). Second, the word force is not explicitly defined by this bill. Force is always placed next to violence as in "...planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised..." Is force just being used as a synonym for violence or is this intentionally vague so that nefarious members of the Thought Crimes Commission can find more insidious interpretations?
Might non-violent civil disobedience by protesters at the Republican National Convention next August be considering using "force"? Does the moral force of angry peaceniks disturbing Republicans with non-violent civil disobedience during the Convention count? The Republicans have repeatedly abused the notion about who an enemy is. They have claimed that anyone not supporting the war as terrorist sympathizers and/or traitors. Why not just push the envelope of the Thought Crime Commission established by this bill to include people organizing protests of the RNC08? Why not harrass these people by dragging them before the Thought Crimes Commission.
Witnesses who refuse to testify can expect to be held in "contempt of Congress," as former members of the Bush administration like Harriet Myers have learned recently, and jailed. Witnesses who do testify but say things that commissioners or their staff think are not true can be charged with perjury, or lying to a federal official, as "Scooter" Libby found out. Either way, noncooperative witnesses can face up to a 10-year sentence.
Members of suspect political, religious and social groups, or Americans who might even know people the commission suspects - which certainly will include nonmainstream political parties, certain public advocacy groups, some churches and many mosques - can expect the "commissioners" will want to know ... "are you now, or have you ever been ... associated with extremists, violent radicals or homegrown terrorists?"
For those who do remember history, this should sound uncomfortably familiar. These are the kinds of questions Americans were compelled to answer when testifying before another "legislative commission" during the anti-communist McCarthy-era witch-hunts.
(Pioneer Press)