G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Maxine & Ted - Don't Call Us If You Call Us Terrorists!
By Linda Milazzo
Created Dec 19 2007 - 5:16am
On October 23rd, Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when
it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman,
Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland
terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory
democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under
assault:
H.R. 1955 DEFINITIONS:
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the
Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established
under section 899C.
(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.
Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the
House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 - rammed through by Jane Harman, under the
guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh [1]
Point of fact: In recent years, America's most horrific mass murderers have
primarily been teenagers - Columbine's Harris and Klebold, and the Omaha
mall shooter, Robert Hawkins, to name just a few. Virginia Tech 23 year old
college student, Seung Hui Cho, murdered 32. None of their "plans" would
have been detected and prevented if H.R. 1955, or its Senate clone, S. 1959,
had been in place at the time.
Among the 404 deluded Congress members who voted for H.R. 1955 was
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters - one of the few progressive heroes
in the House. Odd that Congresswoman Waters would support legislation laden
with such ambiguous language. The definitions in this bill are written so
broadly that nearly anyone can be accused of planning or threatening terror
if they disagree with their government and attempt to alter policy.
Considering Congresswoman Water's fabled advocacy for participatory
democracy, one might conclude she hadn't adequately read the bill before
voting for it.
Underscoring this contention was Congresswoman Waters' apparent lack of
understanding of the blow-back from this bill. In a December 10th interview
on Lila Garrett's KPFK Pacifica Radio talk show, "CONNECT THE DOTS," the
Congresswoman said the following:
"I do think that the American public, who have shown through the polls
that they want to end this war on Iraq, have not gotten angry enough and
they're not doing enough to force their elected officials to fight."
By imploring Americans to get angry and "force their elected officials to
fight," Congresswoman Waters is asking her "homegrown" supporters to carry
forth actions that H.R. 1955 characterizes as "terrorism." With H.R. 1955 in
place, if non-violent anti-war activists make a plan to force the
"furtherance of political or social objectives," they meet the bill's
criteria for "homegrown terrorists."
Tragically, Congresswoman Waters' support for H.R. 1955 has endangered the
rights of her supporters.
I'm a huge admirer of Congresswoman Waters. I know how seriously she values
free speech, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to petition the government
as ordained by the First Amendment. I was surprised and dismayed that she
supported this bill. When I called her office last Thursday to get a
statement as to why she had, I was told by a staffer that the Congresswoman
had asked to see the bill just moments before.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Congresswoman did revisit her support for the
bill after THE PEOPLE so vocally opposed it. She may have even instigated
the formal written defense of the bill issued by the House Majority Staff in
response to the public outrage.
http://homeland.house.gov/sitedocuments/hr1955factsheetpdf.pdf [2]
However, THE PEOPLE are so incensed by this bill that the "official" House
response has not allayed their concerns in the least. The language of the
bill has not been altered or improved upon and remains as inept as the
Homeland Security Department charged with overseeing it.
To be fair, there is legitimate rationale for vigilance in protecting the
nation. Violence of any kind is intolerable - which explains why millions of
Americans oppose the current Bush regime. It deems pro-peace groups
un-American and imprisons their members routinely. CODEPINK is a prime
example.
During one week in 2004, over 1800 non violent Americans were arrested and
jailed during the Republican National Convention. Some have been harassed
and arrested for T-shirts. Some for the bumper stickers on their cars.
Should it be any wonder why millions of Americans are suspicious that at the
very start of the 2008 Presidential election year, H.R. 1955 is born?
A nation that views its own people as enemies creates laws to suppress them.
A Congress that ignores the will of its people creates laws to redefine
them. Homegrown activists become homegrown terrorists. Per the vague
designations in H.R. 1955, activists and terrorists are the same.
The Senate version of H.R. 1955, S. 1959 is scheduled for vote this week.
Last week I called Senators Boxer, Feingold and Kennedy to see how they
would vote. I got a "we don't know yet" from Boxer's office. A staffer for
Feingold said his Senator would vote against it because it stifles free
speech. Since Feingold was the lone Senator to vote against the PATRIOT ACT,
I'm hopeful his staffer is correct.
My call to Senator Kennedy was prompted by the same rationale as my call to
Congresswoman Waters. On December 7th, in an article on the HuffingtonPost,
Senator Kennedy vented his anger over the CIA's destruction of the prisoner
interrogation tapes. According to Senator Kennedy:
Because these tapes constituted necessary evidence for the 9/11
Commission, their destruction was illegal under "Section 1512 of Title 18 of
the United States Code [which] makes it a felony to "corruptly alter,
destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object... with
the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an
official proceeding."
At the end of his article, Senator Kennedy made a pronouncement and a
request to supporters. He said:
"I'm headed to the floor to demand answers. I hope you will demand them as
well."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-edward-m-kennedy-/a-nation-of-laws-not-men_b_75809.html
[3]
If Americans respond to Senator Kennedy's plea to 'demand answers,' and
devise a plan to force the "furtherance of political or social objectives,"
they too, can be designated "homegrown terrorists" if S. 1959 is passed.
These dutiful patriots would be going forward at Senator Kennedy's behest,
employing acts he defined as "homegrown terrorism" if he votes this
legislation in place.
But this won't be the case if Senator Kennedy and his Senate colleagues vote
NO on S. 1959. If they vote it down, they earn the right to engage their
supporters to act on their behalf. If they vote for it, they forfeit the
right to put citizens at risk by requesting their help.
One can only hope that Senators Kennedy, Boxer and Feingold, and their 97
colleagues, won't make the same mistake in the Senate that Congresswoman
Waters and 403 of her colleagues made in the House. When Legislators place
Americans in the precarious circumstance of teetering between activist and
terrorist, they forego all claim to public support.
The current government, including the Homeland Security Department which
will oversee this bill, has been incompetent in intelligence gathering again
and again. Just last week, the domestic terrorism case against the so-called
"Liberty City Seven," ended in a mistrial. According to The Washington Post:
"Evidence presented at the trial portrayed the "Liberty City Seven" as a
group of somewhat hapless low-income laborers, and defense attorneys said
the men had become ensnared in what they characterized as an overzealous FBI
investigation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301758.html
[4]
If S. 1959 passes the Senate, unfounded cases like this will occur with
greater regularity. Whomever the government seeks to silence will be
subjected to reprisal, fomented by a purposely ambiguous law.
It takes just one Senator to put a HOLD on a bill to stop it indefinitely.
Right now it appears that Russ Feingold of Wisconsin may be the one Senator
who will do it. It would be particularly significant if the four Democratic
Senators running for President would come together to stop this bill.
Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd should demonstrate their leadership
by quelling this assault on dissent. Senator Dodd has already shown his
heroism by challenging retroactive immunity for telecom companies. He should
not be the only one! Senators Clinton and Obama should demonstrate respect
for THE PEOPLE by not voting against THE PEOPLE'S rights. Removing THE
PEOPLE'S freedoms is a symptom of fear - not valor.
Senator Kennedy uses his family tradition to ask Americans to participate in
their nation. With a belief in participatory democracy that deep, he should
stop this bill.
Senator Boxer, who regularly recruits activists to push through legislation,
should also stop this bill. According to Marcy Winograd, President of
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, who challenged Harman for Congress in
2006:
"Senator Boxer, one of our more courageous lawmakers, needs to put a hold
on this bill before we see a return of the McCarthy hearings, with
committees interrogating conscientious Americans who have spoken out against
the war and globalization. This legislation ostensibly targets those who
promote violence and extremist ideology, but if that were really the case
the lawmakers supporting this legislation would be impeaching and indicting
George Bush and Dick Cheney."
This First Amendment assault crosses party and ideological lines in the same
way as media consolidation. Progressives and conservatives alike deplore the
suppression of freedom. Even the ultra right wing John Birch Society opposes
H.R. 1955 and S. 1959. http://www.jbs.org/node/644 [5]
This week the Senate can support the First Amendment, or let the First
Amendment die. S. 1959 must NOT pass. Tell your Senators to vote NO on S.
1959.
Email them at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm [6]
Phone them at: (202) 224-3121
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Linda Milazzo
Created Dec 19 2007 - 5:16am
On October 23rd, Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when
it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman,
Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland
terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory
democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under
assault:
H.R. 1955 DEFINITIONS:
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the
Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established
under section 899C.
(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.
Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the
House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 - rammed through by Jane Harman, under the
guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh [1]
Point of fact: In recent years, America's most horrific mass murderers have
primarily been teenagers - Columbine's Harris and Klebold, and the Omaha
mall shooter, Robert Hawkins, to name just a few. Virginia Tech 23 year old
college student, Seung Hui Cho, murdered 32. None of their "plans" would
have been detected and prevented if H.R. 1955, or its Senate clone, S. 1959,
had been in place at the time.
Among the 404 deluded Congress members who voted for H.R. 1955 was
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters - one of the few progressive heroes
in the House. Odd that Congresswoman Waters would support legislation laden
with such ambiguous language. The definitions in this bill are written so
broadly that nearly anyone can be accused of planning or threatening terror
if they disagree with their government and attempt to alter policy.
Considering Congresswoman Water's fabled advocacy for participatory
democracy, one might conclude she hadn't adequately read the bill before
voting for it.
Underscoring this contention was Congresswoman Waters' apparent lack of
understanding of the blow-back from this bill. In a December 10th interview
on Lila Garrett's KPFK Pacifica Radio talk show, "CONNECT THE DOTS," the
Congresswoman said the following:
"I do think that the American public, who have shown through the polls
that they want to end this war on Iraq, have not gotten angry enough and
they're not doing enough to force their elected officials to fight."
By imploring Americans to get angry and "force their elected officials to
fight," Congresswoman Waters is asking her "homegrown" supporters to carry
forth actions that H.R. 1955 characterizes as "terrorism." With H.R. 1955 in
place, if non-violent anti-war activists make a plan to force the
"furtherance of political or social objectives," they meet the bill's
criteria for "homegrown terrorists."
Tragically, Congresswoman Waters' support for H.R. 1955 has endangered the
rights of her supporters.
I'm a huge admirer of Congresswoman Waters. I know how seriously she values
free speech, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to petition the government
as ordained by the First Amendment. I was surprised and dismayed that she
supported this bill. When I called her office last Thursday to get a
statement as to why she had, I was told by a staffer that the Congresswoman
had asked to see the bill just moments before.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Congresswoman did revisit her support for the
bill after THE PEOPLE so vocally opposed it. She may have even instigated
the formal written defense of the bill issued by the House Majority Staff in
response to the public outrage.
http://homeland.house.gov/sitedocuments/hr1955factsheetpdf.pdf [2]
However, THE PEOPLE are so incensed by this bill that the "official" House
response has not allayed their concerns in the least. The language of the
bill has not been altered or improved upon and remains as inept as the
Homeland Security Department charged with overseeing it.
To be fair, there is legitimate rationale for vigilance in protecting the
nation. Violence of any kind is intolerable - which explains why millions of
Americans oppose the current Bush regime. It deems pro-peace groups
un-American and imprisons their members routinely. CODEPINK is a prime
example.
During one week in 2004, over 1800 non violent Americans were arrested and
jailed during the Republican National Convention. Some have been harassed
and arrested for T-shirts. Some for the bumper stickers on their cars.
Should it be any wonder why millions of Americans are suspicious that at the
very start of the 2008 Presidential election year, H.R. 1955 is born?
A nation that views its own people as enemies creates laws to suppress them.
A Congress that ignores the will of its people creates laws to redefine
them. Homegrown activists become homegrown terrorists. Per the vague
designations in H.R. 1955, activists and terrorists are the same.
The Senate version of H.R. 1955, S. 1959 is scheduled for vote this week.
Last week I called Senators Boxer, Feingold and Kennedy to see how they
would vote. I got a "we don't know yet" from Boxer's office. A staffer for
Feingold said his Senator would vote against it because it stifles free
speech. Since Feingold was the lone Senator to vote against the PATRIOT ACT,
I'm hopeful his staffer is correct.
My call to Senator Kennedy was prompted by the same rationale as my call to
Congresswoman Waters. On December 7th, in an article on the HuffingtonPost,
Senator Kennedy vented his anger over the CIA's destruction of the prisoner
interrogation tapes. According to Senator Kennedy:
Because these tapes constituted necessary evidence for the 9/11
Commission, their destruction was illegal under "Section 1512 of Title 18 of
the United States Code [which] makes it a felony to "corruptly alter,
destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object... with
the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an
official proceeding."
At the end of his article, Senator Kennedy made a pronouncement and a
request to supporters. He said:
"I'm headed to the floor to demand answers. I hope you will demand them as
well."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-edward-m-kennedy-/a-nation-of-laws-not-men_b_75809.html
[3]
If Americans respond to Senator Kennedy's plea to 'demand answers,' and
devise a plan to force the "furtherance of political or social objectives,"
they too, can be designated "homegrown terrorists" if S. 1959 is passed.
These dutiful patriots would be going forward at Senator Kennedy's behest,
employing acts he defined as "homegrown terrorism" if he votes this
legislation in place.
But this won't be the case if Senator Kennedy and his Senate colleagues vote
NO on S. 1959. If they vote it down, they earn the right to engage their
supporters to act on their behalf. If they vote for it, they forfeit the
right to put citizens at risk by requesting their help.
One can only hope that Senators Kennedy, Boxer and Feingold, and their 97
colleagues, won't make the same mistake in the Senate that Congresswoman
Waters and 403 of her colleagues made in the House. When Legislators place
Americans in the precarious circumstance of teetering between activist and
terrorist, they forego all claim to public support.
The current government, including the Homeland Security Department which
will oversee this bill, has been incompetent in intelligence gathering again
and again. Just last week, the domestic terrorism case against the so-called
"Liberty City Seven," ended in a mistrial. According to The Washington Post:
"Evidence presented at the trial portrayed the "Liberty City Seven" as a
group of somewhat hapless low-income laborers, and defense attorneys said
the men had become ensnared in what they characterized as an overzealous FBI
investigation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301758.html
[4]
If S. 1959 passes the Senate, unfounded cases like this will occur with
greater regularity. Whomever the government seeks to silence will be
subjected to reprisal, fomented by a purposely ambiguous law.
It takes just one Senator to put a HOLD on a bill to stop it indefinitely.
Right now it appears that Russ Feingold of Wisconsin may be the one Senator
who will do it. It would be particularly significant if the four Democratic
Senators running for President would come together to stop this bill.
Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd should demonstrate their leadership
by quelling this assault on dissent. Senator Dodd has already shown his
heroism by challenging retroactive immunity for telecom companies. He should
not be the only one! Senators Clinton and Obama should demonstrate respect
for THE PEOPLE by not voting against THE PEOPLE'S rights. Removing THE
PEOPLE'S freedoms is a symptom of fear - not valor.
Senator Kennedy uses his family tradition to ask Americans to participate in
their nation. With a belief in participatory democracy that deep, he should
stop this bill.
Senator Boxer, who regularly recruits activists to push through legislation,
should also stop this bill. According to Marcy Winograd, President of
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, who challenged Harman for Congress in
2006:
"Senator Boxer, one of our more courageous lawmakers, needs to put a hold
on this bill before we see a return of the McCarthy hearings, with
committees interrogating conscientious Americans who have spoken out against
the war and globalization. This legislation ostensibly targets those who
promote violence and extremist ideology, but if that were really the case
the lawmakers supporting this legislation would be impeaching and indicting
George Bush and Dick Cheney."
This First Amendment assault crosses party and ideological lines in the same
way as media consolidation. Progressives and conservatives alike deplore the
suppression of freedom. Even the ultra right wing John Birch Society opposes
H.R. 1955 and S. 1959. http://www.jbs.org/node/644 [5]
This week the Senate can support the First Amendment, or let the First
Amendment die. S. 1959 must NOT pass. Tell your Senators to vote NO on S.
1959.
Email them at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm [6]
Phone them at: (202) 224-3121
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson