Login Here
In the threads the other night there were multiple requests for a front page post on The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This bill is the brainchild of Representative Jane Harmon.
She wrote in the following "finding"
(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.
In truth this bill was not even on my radar until I saw it in the threads (I would give proper hat tips, but I am totally tech freaked by the move to the new digs that I'm still not sure if this thing will get a picture, so trying to figure out how to get back on the old site, is way way beyond my skillz).
The bill provides for the creation of a Commission, allegedly patterned after the 9-11 Commission, to inquire into and report upon "violent radical" and "homegrown terrorists." The real problem of course lies in how they define these groups.
(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.
And the method the Commissioners will employ has a bit of a three ring circus thing going for it.
The act deals with the issue through the creation of a Congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists."
The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out.
Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country.
Over at the Left Coaster, Jeff Dinelli, plays out some of the scenarios that could come about if we head down this slippery slope.
Sigh, This is coming from a Dem and being voted into law by a Dem controlled Congress. Unfreakinbelievable!
Share This 
Spotlight
uno!
I’ll get the others…
LHP!
Hiya all. Fascinating morning at the Lake!
I’m finding Jane Harmon to be un-frickin’-believable…
Dinelli needs to take a chill pill. This POS is goin’ nowhere and will do nothing.
Somewhere I read that tree-huggers are considered a major internal terrorist threat to our country. Seriously. (for them it is all about private profits, and anything that impinges on that is to be attacked and controlled). Is this Harman’s payback to Pelosi? Stated another way, what is up with her on this?
So much for the meme that Jane Harmon’s primary challenge scared her out of her old neo-con ways.
The Communists are now infiltrating our own country! We must find them and root them out. Don’t worry, nobody innocent will be hurt.
Seen this movie before, don’t like the ending.
That aptly describes foxnews.com
I read Dinelli’s post the other day and the text of the bill. Lots more important stuff to be concerned with. Pee-Your-Britches hyperventilating that being a peaceful grassroots protester will make you a “terrorist” purusant to this bill is the kind of crap that the wingnuts love to use against the “left.”
OMG - every single thing in that bill is *so* wrong, and is *so* susceptible for “legalized” mis-use. Totally subjective, totally available for nut-job, paranoid, fear-mongering, publicity-seeking, evangelical, vengeance-seeking, authoritarian representatives to have a never-ending field day/picnic with.
That’s one scary piece of work.
I also read that the beef lobby and the restaurant lobby had animal rights activists listed as terror groups.
BobbyG,
I believe it has already passed the House by something like 404-6.
“tasked”
Nooooooooooo! I’m just sayin’.
When I said “goin’ nowhere” I meant in its practical effect. sorry.
Not a Dem, looseheadprop; Harman is a DINO with the ability to pander on a dime.
There is absolutely no need for this bill. There’s plenty of resources out there to tell our leaders and government what radicalizes people; hell, the current junta has become expert at doing so.
Why should we give them more money to migrate to a thought police state, when all that is really needed is good police work?
I saw that a couple of weeks ago..and I thought WTF?
The use of the word “coerce” in the definitions is pretty bloody scary. I wonder where exactly the line between “persuade” and “coerce” lies.
LHP, from your post:
Click on the “firedoglake home” button at the top. Scroll down for the posts in reverse order (i.e., newest first). At the bottom of that page is a “< <previous entries" link, and it takes you to the next previous list of posts, and at the bottom of that page is another "<<previous entries" link.</p>
I think with all of the confusion of the transition, nobody’s nose will be seriously out of joint if you don’t hat tip, but I thought folks would like to know how to go back in time.
Thought crimes; not good.
Looks like the Democrats are determined to follow the Republicans’ established anti-terra bona fides (however bogus and Media-created) and attempt to make some of their own Tough On Terra headlines. The Democrats are ignoring their base - ignoring the intellectual and the informed voters - and are pandering to the clueless Joe and Jane Sixpack with Me-Tooism. Jane Harmon-Kardon always was the Beltway Type. She needs to be replaced with a progressive candidate ASAP.
I think I’ll be staying on my side of that long northern border, thank you very much.
One post 9/11 response here in Nevada was legislation re-defining “terror” as “any activity” that “interfered” with “law enforcement.”
Yeah, that really went far too.
looseheadprop — tripped on this little tidbit, thought of you and emptywheel:
That was written in June of 2004.
So Jane Harmon essentially believes that we should close the doors to our hitherto relatively open society. Is she advocating jackbooted thugs go to internet coffee shops and grab people off the streets? I’m waiting for orders that you would have to pay a licensing fee just to access the internet, or worse yet, that our citizens could be restricted from viewing certain sites like they are in some countries. Isn’t China restricted from certain sites; the government basically blocks these sites out? So by extension, Jane Harmon wants our government to become more like that of China? Whatever made people think she would make a good Senator to begin with, one wonders?
I note how the authors of this thing seem to speak admiringly of Joe McCarthy and HUAC. Jeez
There are groups of people who would seriously like to terrorize. And they are home-grown. (Aryan Brotherhood and the like) They have been caught and convicted using our current law enforcement systems, and tried in our current judicial system. Why the need for change? It makes no sense. Is there an explanation Ms. Harmon has handy?
Egregious at 8: Yup. And sorry about this AM, I was actually laughing as I was writing…. And, as they say, the kids are using it as a “funny,” as in PALUEEEZE! meant as a jocular No Way! Alas, it is all in the inflection, and webs don’t do so well with inflections.
I was all over TIA from Day One.
When our government starts to use communist tactics “for our own protection,” it may be time to admit that “the communists” are us!
That poor disturbed guy who broke into the Hillary HQ the other day would fit perfectly under this bill under (3) ‘Homegrown Terrorism’. That is, if anyone considers the treatment of mental health issues a “social objective” anymore.
“You need mental health care? Sorry, but we have something else in mind for you.”
That’s what I first thought, but then realized that the HUAC comparison is being made by the author of the Huffington Post commentary, presumably disparagingly. It’s not part of the bill.
BobbyG December 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am 23
One post 9/11 response here in Nevada was legislation re-defining “terror” as “any activity” that “interfered” with “law enforcement.”
Yeah, that really went far too.
Jaywalking interferes with law enforcement. Ergo, jaywalkers are terrists.
Here is another analysis of HR 1955
HR 1955: Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism bill
LooHoo: Also the right wing Oklahoma bombers AND the Anthrax mailers (who were never caught because probably they are too closely linked to the Rethug government). By the way the latter would be a great book subject, the amount of money still wasted because of that set of mailings is major. To get a letter to Congress (or anyone in DC) in anything resembling reasonable time you need to do FedEx or the equivalant.
And the meme on “social change.” Um, I guess that is also terra. If one is advocating for it.
They are coming to take us away, they are coming to take us away.
Good Mornin’ All!
I hope all of you have eaten. The Ferragamo Queen has given The Comb Licker a job at State. How benevolent of her and Pimp Daddy Bush.
See Newsweek for the depressing news. Once again, the taxpayers are supporting Wolfowitz.
I wanna puke!
Paraphrasing Mencken: No one ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of American politicians. Not too long ago they held this swell Postal Commission thingy. One of the “Terrah-fighting” proposals coming out of it called for the implementation of sender and recipient ID for all first class mail.
Right.
Turns out that Pitney-Bowes essentially wrote that section of the Report. I found PB’s written “testimony” document down in the bowels of the hearings stuff (having no life, I tend to read a lot of fine print). The mail ID language in the final Commission report was lifted nearly verbatim from their proffer. Pitney-Bowes was salivating at getting the contract to do this particular piece of expensive mindless stupidity.
Expect more of similar mendacity.
BTW- not that I’m advocating complacency. Indeed, scrutinize and hound them every step of the way. But, let’s not go bonkers here.
I just skimmed this and the definitions made me gag.
going nowhere? it fucking passed in the house with a vote of 404 to 6.
here’s what the aclu says (via cqpolitics):
Whoa…I leave home for a few days and look what happens!
What I find astounding is the fact that someone of Jane Harmon’s political stature would think that we need such a bill in a country that already has the FBI spying on Quakers.
Yeah.
Or the line between subversive and dissident!
Sort of describes Republicans since Raygun.
just checking… was that snark? ‘cuz if not i’m about to get offended.
Oilfield at 45: extremist belief system: socialized medicine, hand gun control, abortion rights!
Whoa…I leave home for a few days and look what happens!
Why - has something changed?
We already know it’s “dangerous.” Like we need yet another congressional “finding.” Followed by more Quixotic unconstitutional legislation.
C’mon. Snark. Intended to be broadly stated. Not directed at you personally.
Or the line between……. We could do this all day really.
The whole thing is shit. It’s an embarassment. I mean a legislator should be embarrassed to have her name associated with this.
There were 3 Rs and 3 Ds that voted Nay
R: Flake, Rohrabacher, Duncan
D: Abercrombie, Costello, Kucinich
I ave seen on the web that Paul voted no..not true. He is one of 22 that didn’t vote.
I still say 404-6, WTF?
Dinelli is following the trajectory of this legislation. Even if it never gets that far, there is absolutley ZERO utility that I can see to this bill.
It would be like some 3 ring circus with people informing on their neighbors.
At best it’s a dumb waste of time and a distraction, at worst, it’s just creepy, at super worst it is followed by the kind of follow up legislation Dinelli envisions. Maybe Dinelli is Cassandra
Yeah. Look how far they’ve gotten restricting access to the arguably very real danger of ‘net porn.
You totally were, BobbyG.
Time to revisit it, do some extremely close reading.
The former, most likely.
OK, I repeat, from my 38:
BTW- not that I’m advocating complacency. Indeed, scrutinize and hound them every step of the way. But, let’s not go bonkers here.
BTW, the Beerfart ratings are in for MTP.
Webb gets one mug. Wasn’t that great but didn’t hide under the table when the impeachment word was mentioned. Tried to run away a little but ultimately didn’t.
Everybody on the Political Roundatable gets nothing. It just plain sucked. Anybody take notes during these shows? ’cause David Gregory said something especially stupid but I just can’t remember what. And I thought David Broder was gonna be on. He gets trashed so bad here, I actually feel sorry for him. Keep up the good work, guys.
Thanks. Read my ten year old grad thesis draft:
Change “war on drugs” to “war on terror” and nothing much has changed.
SCOTUS is going to rule on 2nd Amendment..If Roberts, Alito et al come out for “collective right”..It will be time to leave.
Pretty much all the incumbents do. Tell you what I’m getting increasingly afraid of is that we’ve all kind of assumed that when the Dems take power, they will put an end to the extreme abuses of power that have been taking place. Everything from the President’s usurpation of the Congress’ power through his signing statements to the politicization of the DOJ. Now I’m not so sure that they want to fix any of that, but may prefer to use the power they’ve inherited from the Rethugs by allowing precedents to be set.
BTW, BobbyG, what you got squirreled away on CALEA?
The answer is somewhere in all of this — the project formerly known as TIA, CALEA and purchase of commercially available data that companies like Choicepoint have been gathering on us by way of our purchases.
Repugs already use data like Choicepoint for their GOTV efforts; they just want the rest.
It’s illuminating to see that civil libertarian and presidential candidate Ron Paul couldn’t be bothered to vote against this atrocity.
You know…I don’t see the argument opposing this Act here. All the stuff cited by LeftCoaster as example of “force” were NOT. They were legally established Expressions of First Amendment Rights. It would be just as distorted an argument to assert that the activities were able to be redefined as “violence”.
The groups or individual would have to actually be advocating the use of force or violence against a ethnicity, religion, or political group.
Force is FORCE…Violence is VIOLENCE. Someone writing a letter that doesn’t threaten force or violence being used against a representative, or political or religious leader, or a practitioner or believer of a particular creed or ideology would not be subject to this law.
The groups that are likely to be subject to such a study group’s recommendations would be Neo-Nazi, Religious Extremists that advocate attacks against doctors or clinics, or Anti-Gay, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Black groups, militia groups marching around with guns outside of courtrooms, etc..
I just don’t get the uproar by those that claim to be interested in protecting Civil Liberties in regards to this Study? I’m willing to be swayed otherwise, but I’d like to hear some more reasonable examples of how established First Amendment acts can be construed as the advocating the use of “force” or “violence”??? And how studying the effects of those groups that do advocate such acts is inappropriate?
404-6! First of all, a whole lot of Progressive Caucus members need to explain themselves.
TIVO’d Stehanopoplopololoplos, so i’ll get back to you on that. But I gave Little Stweven two mugs in adavance.
Watched some of that CNN debacle. Beerfart will rate the host only. Howard Putz gets: Give back the mug & buy everyone on the panel a cuppa joe. I watched the self-flagellating first segment on the YouTube debate and switched.
http://www.forbes.com/business…..orida.html
I know this is OT, but lil’ bro may have stepped in it. Can anyone tell me how to paste it as a link?
Rayne - and remember that the Rethugs use that data to decide who they will approach for votes (and perhaps exclude for same). As in those who drink Scotch are more likely Rethug voters. Ditto Mercedes. Volvo people tend to be a bit leftie.
a sincere request - please don’t refer to my deep concern as going “bonkers” without providing a strong case for such a characterization. thank you.
Persuasion is the use of words and reason…coercion is the use or threat of force.
The groups that are likely to be subject to such a study group’s recommendations would be Neo-Nazi, Religious Extremists that advocate attacks against doctors or clinics, or Anti-Gay, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Black groups, militia groups marching around with guns outside of courtrooms, etc..
You’re more of a trusting soul than I am.
I see Anne Coulter’s attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy has worked. How can people not recoil in horror when someone says “Like Joe McCarthy and the HUAC” we’ll run around the country rooting out commies .. er I mean terra-ists?
Never mind, the site is obviously smarter than I am.
Yep. One of the benefits of “collaboratively” using the private sector (see my anti- TIA rant and thesis) is that the private sector is not bound by 4th Amendment constraint (in clear violation of Original Intent, though, as I wrote in my thesis).
Writer David Brin (“The Transparent Society”) argues that “if our salvation lies in blinding the powerful, we are lost.” Whil he’s probably right on that point, I don’t share his apparent sanguinity with respect to the likelihood of two-way transparency.
“As in those who drink Scotch are more likely Rethug voters.”
That must explain why I drink Jameson.
Steve-AR December 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am 52
There were 3 Rs and 3 Ds that voted Nay
R: Flake, Rohrabacher, Duncan
D: Abercrombie, Costello, Kucinich
I ave seen on the web that Paul voted no..not true. He is one of 22 that didn’t vote.
I still say 404-6, WTF?
Democrats believe this to be a winning issue - to take up their very own ant-terra legislation - giving them anti-terra street cred.
Its a big mistake to jump on that bandwagon. There are so many other issues - like human rights, progressive taxation, ending the war, securing the ports, safeguarding the public from phlalates…
This could shut down progressive blogs and still permit terra groups to function on the web. If any terrist act occurs - the Rethugs (the MSM) will blame it on the Dems new law that they effed up. The Dems really stepped in some sh*t on this one.
Your definition, yes? And a perfectly reasonable one at that. But can we be sure that the bill and its subsequent enactments will share this definition?
The HuffPo commentator made this comparison, and it was not meant to be laudatory.
And explains why the Irish don’t rule the world.
Yup, already aware of that…explains why they send me crap even though I’m a party official. My buying habits might be aligned with likely repug voters.
My spouse is unaffiliated, but as a gun and truck owner, he’s in the target demographic.
We’ve been studying the use of such demographic data on a local basis; there is one effective response to this, and that is to make sure we get to every single door of strong, leaning and indie voters three times with information about the candidates.
We have that data and we know it works. You want to win, Firepups? either knock doors or help people do that. Three times. Ask for the vote.
Y’know, you seem to be on a hair trigger today to being personally offended. “Bonkers” my reaction to the silly hyperventilating stuff of peeps like Dinelli and others who have and will pick up his Code Brown panic.
my bold
i think you make a good case… here’s why i’m concerned:
1) from my link above:
i don’t think the bill defines “violent radicalization” the same way you or i would.
2) i don’t like being made the target of a study (of national security risks) based on my political views… way too close to being made the target of an investigation.
SCOTUS is going to rule on 2nd Amendment..If Roberts, Alito et al come out for “collective right”..It will be time to leave.
I’m not familiar with the term “collective right”. Help me out here?
We have that data and we know it works. You want to win, Firepups? either knock doors or help people do that. Three times. Ask for the vote.
You are exactly correct, Rayne. Have you had the DNC training on this? I think it is excellent and would love to have FDL host those trainers one day. You know, the weakest link in the tubes is the shoe leather that is missing. It is where we will fall down, if we don’t go D-T-D.
State militias vs personal arms ownership.
State militias vs personal arms ownership.
Sorry, but maybe I’m especially dense this afternoon. Does “collective right” mean that there is indeed a right to own guns, despite the fact that there are no more state militias, well-regulated or otherwise?
just squeaking in with a reminder to DIGG this post and spotlight it, too. and don’t forget the links looseheadprop has given us, help get the word out!
and it is so not true that I get a penny a digg for these little reminders! :)
I think you are correct..but I think the better way now for the Dems to immunize themselves is to “push back” against the Bush cuts in “security and anti-terror” funding.
The question remains unsettled. Maybe the Supremes will dispositively clarify it for us, for better or worse.
thanks.
However - it’s Game Time! Go Colts!
I heard it was a dollar.
and the point, of continuing to provoke where you know the possibility of offense is present, would be?
…no need to answer, unless you wish - i’m going to back to spending a couple of hours putting together this week’s committee hearing list for everyone.
wiki
Look how far they’ve gotten restricting access to the soldiers in Iraq already. Do you think it can’t happen here? Only if we let it.
That’s defining something using the term needed to be defined. One still needs to define “violent radicalization”. And the ACLU has left off the latter part of the definition stated in the Bill that further defines the distinction between “radicalization” and violent radicalization…which IS about undertaking or planning violent activities.
The ACLU’s position appears to be that anything short of actual participation in these acts should be allowed. Things like the encouraging of others to commit murder of doctors or bomb abortion clinics would be protected speech since the ones actually operating such sites were not actually “aiding or abetting” the ACTUAL violent act. They could, presumably. provide the names and home addresses of doctors or nurses, present the plans of bombs, or the travel routes of staffmembers, and post “Wanted Dead or Aklive” Posters…and declaim…”But we never knew this person and certainly didn’t assist them…we were only giving out information”.
No more than the use of pamphlets, or radio, or TV being a “potent weapon.” But who would be restricted? Would this mean that providers would be asked to remove certain sites?
And remember, this is a study - it doesn’t undertake any actual regulations at all. It might make suggestions. But it also contains restrictions that any suggested regulatory recommendations to come from the Commission not restrict Constitutional Freedoms.
To my eyes this is only a Study Commission on recruitment by Violent Hate Groups. It could also look into talk radio, for that matter.
Wow:
I believe the first definition clearly covers the WH and neocon ideology to foment wars in the ME, including Iraq and Iran. There are plenty of quotes from National Review, Bush/Cheney, AEI and Joe Lieberman that would qualify.
The second definition clearly applies to the White House.
thanks!