Democracy for Vancouver

You’ve probably already heard about the almost-reasonable-sounding House Resolution 1955 (a/k/a Senate Bill 1959): the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. We all want to prevent Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, don’t we? Anyone who doesn’t must want the terrorists to win! You freedom-hater, you!

Or so it must have seemed to the ALL BUT SIX congresspeople who voted for this very nasty piece of work, including every single congressperson from my home state (WA) and my work state (OR).

I don’t know what’s more depressing: that they all read the bill and didn’t realize the oppressive and dangerous potential therein, or that they only read the title and peed their respective pants before voting like a chorus of Frito Banditos.

Some choice parts of the House version read like something out of a George Orwell or Margaret Atwood nightmare:

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
…
`(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.

What is force? Was the assembly of 500,000 people on the National Mall to demand an end to the Viet Nam War the “threatened use of force” to “coerce the United States government”? Was the March on Washington by 250,000 primarily African American citizens in 1963 the “threatened use of force … to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs”?

Also in this radical bill, doing violence to our Constitution:

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

Other than Christian white guy Tim McVeigh? This is a bigger problem than, say, health care reform, which could save literally thousands of lives every year?

Back to the scary shit:

`(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.

So this is why my husband worries about me blogging.

… `(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.”

Really? Weren’t we supposed to have broken down all of those supposed barriers after 9/11, which changed everything?

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

But it’s a start.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Because “Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order.” And, “This government does not torture people. ”

Riiiight. Riiiight.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Because you’ve got to learn to fight fire with Five in the Noggin:

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday’s London attacks was a Brazilian electrician unconnected to the incidents.

The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.
…
Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: “For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.”

The Senate version has not been voted on yet. Please, please, please contact your Senators and tell them that our Constitutionally protected rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy, and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances do not condone such incursions, and that they must vote against it.
[emphasis added.]