Topic: Crime and Punishment
Thought Crime Bill Part I in a series of III. Discussing legislation you can write home to mom about; H.R. 1955 Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Billby Gary R. Carter
(libertarian)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The aptly nicknamed "Thought Crime Bill", H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, was easily passed in the House last October 23 with a vote of 404-6, with 22 reps not present. Sponsored by California democrat Jane Harman, H.R. 1955 has since been read by Congress twice and was then referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Presumably, it is now being streamlined and fitted for mass consumption.
The shamelessly gratuitous title that graces this bill is befitting of the times, and at once beckons an Orwellian knee-jerk reaction, preceding even the actual reading of the bill. Though the title might lead one to immediately pass judgement on it, the fact that it was so warmly received in the House restores a little hope that the title is misleading. I certainly wouldn't expect the folks responsible for allocating our tax money to still buy into this whole terror business. They are supposed to be chosen based on their qualifications and merits. Propagating and maintaining a state of fear and using it to enforce tyrannical measures is not really the kind of quality I am looking for in representation. Lets dive into this bad boy and see if the title is just misleading in order to get our attention.
First and foremost, it seeks to establish a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Another work group paid for by taxpayers to investigate taxpayers. Next, it defines 'violent radicalization': The term 'Violent Radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facillitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change. Ok, so the problem here is that "extremist" is left vague and could mean just about anything, relative to some other thing. However, it seems that if this undefined extremist belief system does not facillitate violence, it is in the clear.
Next, 'homegrown terrorism' is defined: 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. Seems pretty straightforward here, though, one might wonder at what point an idea becomes a plan and at what point a suggestion becomes a threat.
Finally, 'ideologically based violence' is defined: 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 same questions apply here with respect to plans and threats.
Ol' 1955 then goes on to outline details such as committee assignments, compensation packages and so on. It also plans to establish a Center of Excellence for the study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, to be developed in a designated university and in cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officals. The bill itself is very short and fails to go into extensive detail concerning technicalities and operational techniques. The concern lies in the loose language of the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. It is these loose definitions that warrant the nickname. The previous wholesale abuses in intelligence and secruity departments under the War on Terror do not lend to a benefit of the doubt scenario with this little ditty of legislation, and it could all too easily be interpreted to further circumvent our individual liberties.
I have already written my congressman about my concerns with this bill. I hope I have encouraged at least one reader to do the same.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary R. Carter only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary R. Carter is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thanks for the alert on this particular bill. I think that if you expose every bill which seeks to impose criminatl penalties for unpopular thoughts you will need a great many more than three installments.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
