Letters to the Editor
bostonMA
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 22
-
Speech & The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm hoping that this discussion of speech laws in Canada lays the groundwork for a broader discussion by Glenn on on HR 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which is a broad assault on speech within the United States under the guise of terrorism prevention. In following these threads, I also noticed that Salon participants Associative Individualist and DonMidwest have raised this bill in a similar context. The speech component of this law is directly relevant to the topic Glenn raises.
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 1955 and S-1959) is designed to combat "homegrown terrorism" and "ideologically based violence", including "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force ...to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives." This act seeks to widen the definition of terrorism to criminalize political activity and protest.
"Violent radicalization" in the act is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change."
The language also puts "Homegrown terrorism" into the context of "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 (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
The bill passed the House 404-6 under a suspension of the rules on Oct 23, 2007, and was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959. Dennis Kucinich has described HR 1955 as a "thought crime" bill and said: "If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest." Ron Paul asserts that non-violent anti-war protest groups may be among the very first singled out for scrutiny by the government under such a law. Bruce Fein wrote in the Washington Post: "The Act will inexorably culminate in a government listing of homegrown terrorists or terrorist organizations without due process; a complementary listing of books, videos, or ideas that ostensibly further 'violent radicalization' and a blacklisting of persons who have intersected with either list. Political discourse will be chilled and needed challenges to conventional wisdom will flag."
I urge those that are not familiar with the bill to evaluate it, and I would welcome Glenn's comments on this act, including how an assertive executive branch might interpret and implement such a law.
-
HR 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Several here have spoken out with skepticism to critics of the pending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. I would like to see a broader discussion of this legislation on Salon, but would add my condemnation of HR 1955 for several reasons:
- Hearings authorized under HR 1955 will be used to silence dissent through use of sweeping investigational power and hearings. Hearings will be a method to intimidate activists identified for appearance in front of investigative committees, with testimony likely magnified and legitimized by the media, and will quiet supporters of these activists.
- HR 1955 is a large step to creation of a new COINTELPRO (1956 - 1971) in 2008. In 1956, COINTELPRO was launched to address the threat of communism. It quickly expanded to include the Socialist Workers Party, the Nation of Islam, and eventually the anti-war community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro
- HR 1955 is designed to attack speech on the Internet, the last source of broad political discourse available to the public. How many folks sitting at home watching the evening news have heard criticism of this legislation? How many are even aware of this legislation? None. It's vital that political discussion on the Internet be entirely unrestrained, or we will surely wind up with an Internet as free as China's.
- HR 1955 blurs the line between thought and action, and uses broad terms and definitions in the tradition of other repressive government actions. HR 1955 is a significant shift towards criminalization of ideology. To believe that the government will not eventually equate ever more policy criticisms to an application of terrorist force is naive. See the bill for how the term "force" is used distinctly from "violence", in the context of "ideological" violence. This is how your government is defining the agenda, actionable or not in HR 1955.
This topic deserves further discussion as the bill now sits in Senate committee and may be acted upon quickly in 2008. A more exhaustive and articulate criticism can be found here:
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/19/homegrown-terrorism/
-
Patriotism, Religion, and Security
[Read the article: Holy Constitution!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it that policies set forth under claims of national security, religious conviction, patriotic values and democracy are not subject to the same criticism as independent policy proposals? Is it because these constructs remain extremely effective and highly repeatable insulators to open discourse? Policies put forth under these four umbrellas are packaged in this way just in order to silence dissenting views.
I hope that this candidacy is useful for many on the right to finally question the legitimacy of religious claims in setting public policy, especially now that Mike Huckabee may use such a construct to advance both a radical right social policy and a statist, large government economic agenda. Further, I hope that this candidacy allows all who still accept assertions that deities exist to see the fallacy and danger in such beliefs.