Police in thought pursuit

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/COMMENTARY02/620257774/1012/COMMENTARY

The Pope had his Index of Forbidden Books. Japan had its Thought Police against subversive or dangerous ideologies. And the United States Congress and President Bush have learned nothing from those examples.

Congress is perched to enact the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 20007 (Act)," probably the greatest assault on free speech and association in the United States since the 1938 creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat, the bill passed the House of Representatives on Oct. 23 by a 404-6 vote under a rule suspension that curtailed debate. To borrow from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, the First Amendment should not distract Congress from doing important business. The Senate companion bill (S. 1959), sponsored by Susan Collins, Maine Republican, has encountered little opposition. Especially in an election year, senators crave every opportunity to appear tough on terrorism. Few if any care about or understand either freedom of expression or the Thought Police dangers of S. 1959. Former President John Quincy Adams presciently lamented: "Democracy has no forefathers, it looks to no posterity, it is swallowed up in the present and thinks of nothing but itself."

Denuded of euphemisms and code words, the Act aims to identify and stigmatize persons and groups who hold thoughts the government decrees correlate with homegrown terrorism, for example, opposition to the Patriot Act or the suspension of the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

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. There are no better examples of sinister congressional folly.

The Act inflates the danger of homegrown terrorism manifold to justify creating a marquee National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence (Commission) in the legislative branch. Since September 11, 2001, no American has died from homegrown terrorism, while about 120,000 have been murdered.

In the so-called post-September 11 "war" against international terrorism, Mr. Bush has detained only two citizens as enemy combatants. One was voluntarily deported to Saudi Arabia; the other was indicted, tried and convicted in a civilian court of providing material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. And employing customary law enforcement tools, the United States has successfully prosecuted several pre-embryonic terrorism conspiracies amidst numerous false starts.

Prior to September 11, homegrown terrorism consisted largely of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the Unibomber and the D.C. Metropolitan area snipers. The Act, nevertheless, counterfactually finds "homegrown terrorism ... poses a threat to domestic security" that "cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts."

Twelve members of the commission will be appointed by the president and leaders in the House and Senate. They will predictably serve the political needs of their political masters.

The commission's Big Brother task is to discover ideas and political associations, including connections to non-U.S. persons and networks, that promote "violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States." And "violent radicalization" is defined as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."

Under the Act, William Lloyd Garrison would have been guilty of promoting "violent radicalization" for publishing the anti-slavery Liberator in 1831, which "facilitated" John Brown. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have been condemned for assailing laws disenfranchising women and creating an intellectual atmosphere receptive to violence. And Martin Luther King, Jr. would have fallen under the Act's suspicion for denouncing Jim Crow and practicing civil disobedience, which "facilitated" H. Rap Brown.

The commission will certainly hold choreographed public hearings. Witnesses will testify that non-Christian ideas or vocal challenges to the status quo promote "an extremist belief system" that facilitates ideologically based violence. Internet communications, the media, schools, religious institutions and home life will be scrutinized for promoting pernicious thoughts.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Gitlow v. New York (1925): "Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result."

Lengthy lists of persons, organizations and thoughts to be shunned will be compiled. Portions of the Holy Koran are likely to be taboo. The lives of countless innocent citizens will be shattered. That is the lesson of HUAC and every prior government enterprise to identify "dangerous" people or ideas — for example, the 120,000 innocent Japanese-Americans herded into concentration camps during World War II.

The ideological persecutions invited by the Act will do more to create than to deter homegrown terrorism. Mark Anthony's words in "Julius Caesar" are a fitting commentary on what Congress is prepared to enact: "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason."

YOU can help resist

HR 1933 is now being considered in the US Senate as S. 1959. YOU can call your Senators and voice your objections. I helped to begin an internet campaign against this bill when many were considering it a "done deal." Now organizations like the ACLU are voicing opposition to this bill.

Here is a letter of reply from my gate keeper Democratic Senator Ron Wyden:

RON WYDEN

United States Senate
WASHINGTON. DC 20510 3703 December 7, 2007

COMMITTEES:
i GMMIT'U: ON I'MF Kl.'UGLT
. OMMITHT. ON F.MJ AND NA~MRAI R:>OURCF
si'Hi s.iMMi'iThL CiN Pi 'H1JC LANDi AM-) :'()Rt.v P SPr.ClAl r()MM:T"FJ-ON AGING
OTJ.I.T c OMNirrnj. ON IN ri:u int-Nci.
GOMM;TTL!. ON :':NANC'L

Dear Mr.
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, in October 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 1955. This legislation would establish a temporary commission to examine the issue of ideologically based violence in the United States. In addition, this bill would establish a university-based center to help homeland security officials with training, education, and research on preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. The bill would also require that any actions taken under the bill do not violate the constitutional rights or civil liberties of Americans. Now that the House has passed H.R. 1955, it awaits further consideration before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
I want you to know that I believe security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive, and that they should be approached in tandem when crafting legislation. In fact, the promotion of American security and the protection of Americans' rights and freedoms should reinforce each other. Please rest assured that should this bill or similar legislation come before me in the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of your views. If I can be of any further assistance to you on this or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ron Wyden
United States Senator

HTTP WYDHN 8HNATF < «V
RW/bw

Sounds like he needs more persuasion.

Target of S1959=dissent

"I want you to know that I believe security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive..."

I would say if it were an honest government more persuasion would seem a plausible course for Sen. Wyden! Unfortunately, I don't believe this is the case. The article points out clearly, there's been little homegrown terror citing the few examples.

It's only too obvious the object of S1959 is to destroy dissent. These measures make me certainly uneasy and the reason I've become more active. The United States is in the midst of a transformation into a full Security State.

...don't believe them!

FBI probe of Harman and AIPAC

I don't know where this finally led. Given the circumstances, it seems worth exploring.

Probe of Harman's AIPAC Ties Confirmed
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page A06

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group, but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

The inquiry focused on whether Harman had made promises to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for its support of her desire to become chairman of the House intelligence committee if Democrats take control of the House, several law enforcement sources said.
...

Harman -- who has hired prominent GOP lawyer Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general -- told Time that the allegations were "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous."

She also had lunch with Paul Bremer on September 10th, 2001. By itself, that doesn't say much, but given her role in undermining the Constitution in the name of "The War on Terror" and Bremer's very conspicuous behavior on 9/11/01, it seems worth noting for possible future reference.

GOOGLE VIDEO RADICALIZATION MACHINE

http://video.google.com/videorankings?type=viewed&cr=usa

Google Video's Top 100 for the US has no less than 12 "Truth" related videos
listed in their TOP 100.

ZEITGEIST (three versions),
LC2E (third),
LCFinal Cut
Freedom to Fascism,
ENDGAME,
TERRORSTORM,
MONEYMASTERS,
MONEY as DEBT,
Century of the Self,

I am curious

because this article appeared in the Wa Times... My impression of the Wa Times over the years has not been one that would lead me to expect an article like this. As one who tends to see conspiracies within conspiracies (having learned from experience and my studies since 9/11) I cannot help but see anomalies and wonder. Anybody know or have any thoughts on this. E.g., does Moon still own this rag and does it have links to CIA/CFR etc. like WAPO?

Obviously, regarding the legislation, I am scared - somewhat more than 'uneasy'. But I am also pissed off and that emotion is stronger than the former. Since I wonder that I might be on 'their' list, it is no great risk to admit that I (and everybody on Blogger, of course) can fit a definition of 'homegrown terrorist ' implied in this bill. If it passes, while knowing that what I think is basically irrelevant or at least insignificant, I nevertheless denounce it and refuse to acknowledge its jurisdiction over me if it is passed. 'F' the kind of government that would pass such anti-freedom legislation and which clearly represents fascist and authoritarian intent. It is also one of the last nails, if not the last nail in the Republic's coffin.

btw, this goes for all the other bs laws passed since 9/11, the other nails as it were, e.g., Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warner's Defense Authorization, PD 51, etc., etc.

I guess in many ways, I no longer acknowledge the U.S. government as legitimate. I have always felt patriotic.... but to the ideals represented in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Being at KSU in 70 was an eye-opener. When a government loses its legitimacy,

[by committing terrible acts, atrocities, murder, drug running, false flag operations and undermining the rule of law itself and perverting the law for its own ends irrespective of the people's views, committing torture, committing the supreme international war crime of international aggression to steal resources, stealing from its own citizenry, and on and on.]

how can one, in good conscience, even pay lip service to it.

Should we pay homage to what we want it to be or wish that it were. Yes. But the reality is a quite hideous deformation of what I pledged allegiance to all those many years ago.

Further, the mostly false, and well-propagandized illusion of combatting parties and ideologies in government, serves to mesmerize by creating the belief that that is where the contest lies. It does not. It used to perhaps, long before 9/11, Most here understand that. Both parties have supported this and other odious laws usurping the rule of the Constitution. Both support hegemonic goals. They are both 'middle management ' for the arrogant, wannabe rulers of the world.

The war is between those who would seek to enslave us versus we who will not be enslaved.

pardon my slightly drunken rant.

==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

The Harman - AIPAC investigation really happened

There are numerous news outlets which covered the FBI investigation into Harman's dealings with AIPAC. There are a lot of forces converging right now. It is beyond doubt that 9/11 was part of a much larger effort to destabilize the US and undermine the Constitution. The Internet certainly has the potential to counter these designs by democratizing the exchange of information. On the other hand it could also facilitate the tracking of dissidents, and the mining of data useful in the manipulation of public opinion.

I'm at something of a loss regarding these new thought-crime measures since being a thought criminal is nothing new to me. As a mater of fact, I dare not say what I really mean by that statement. There is so much I would like to say, but I simply cannot.

S. 1959

Looks like a death knell for all sites such as this, and for those that enjoy the banter that ensues.