This is a response to the House Committee on Homeland Security Staff statement defending H.R. 1955, "http://tinyurl.com/26gj8m">Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007). Part 1 of this series described the threats of this legislation to political expression on the Internet. Part 2 below, is a critique of the Committee staff statement, which fails to address the real concerns about the bill. If you agree, you should consider contacting you two Senators to share your concerns Senate Contact Info. The members of the Senate Homeland Security are listed here Congress is working through Friday of this week and this is a hot item. The Senate is paying attention (see below) and you can make a difference.
Internet Thought Control Bill Under Fire
House Committee Dismisses Criticisms of Internet Thought Control Bill – H.R. 1995
On Monday, Dec. 17, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security posted this document in response to the many criticisms of House Resolution 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Part 1 of this series examined the dangers that this bill posed to citizens and political groups using the Internet.
Based on the bill contents and the witnesses called to elaborate on the supposed problem of "homegrown terrorism," it appears that House bill and the Senate look alike (S.1959) pose a significant threat to political expression and free speech, particularly on the Internet (see Thought Control on the Internet and this collection for more detail).
H.R. 1955 passed by a 404-6 margin on Oct 23, 2007. On Nov. 6, 2007, the on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment held a one hour plus hearing. Witnesses from "think tanks" elaborated on the need for the legislation. http://tinyurl.com/yv9gjd">(Full video) http://tinyurl.com/34gwca">Mark Weitzman was highly specific in portraying the Internet as a major source of violent radicalization. He showed slides of Internet web sites; he included some domestic political groups with very high visibility, and defined the threats as net-based communication and proselytizing. (Video of Weitzman testimony)
Image Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) wrote The Independent and said he has no position on S. 1959 (the Senate equivalent of H.R. 1955). This followed The Independent's story that his emails to constituents indicated support for the bill.
There was a huge reaction to this hearing by U.S. political groups across the political spectrum. The reaction was so strong that presidential candidate http://tinyurl.com/2g8vqq">Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) revised his apparent position of support as indicated in emails to constituents. In a recent email to The Independent the candidate's staff said that “Senator Obama has not taken a position on S. 1959. Should the bill be considered by the Homeland Security Committee, he will carefully evaluate it, as he does with all pieces of legislation,”
Committee on Homeland Security Staff Issues Response
Rep. Harman's subcommittee hearings sparked the controversy surrounding this legislation. Yet the main committee staff issued the three page response, not the subcommittee staff. The use of the committee staff may indicate some serious damage control. The Internet is not the third rail of U.S. politics but its heading in that direction.
On the first page of theirresponse, the committee staff stated:
This legislation in no way restricts thought or speech Both of these are legal activities that should be encouraged by all segments of our society and are welcomed in our system of open debate and dialogue. Radical thinking is not a crime and this legislation does not turn radical thinking into criminal behavior.
It's good to know that free thought and speech are still legal. However, there have been several extended periods in U.S. history where free thought and speech were seriously threatened. The most recent is the period dominated by McCarthyism from the late 1940's through the 1950's. http://tinyurl.com/jh8tm">McCarran Internal Security Act also enabled this period calling for "alien exclusion and deportation laws and allowing for the detention of dangerous, disloyal, or subversive persons in times of war or internal security emergency… "[br /> During this time, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) terrorized citizens by calling them as before congressional committees where they were accused of being disloyal to the United States. Victims included people who merely attended a rally deemed subversive; those who formerly sympathized with the left but were disillusioned; active leftists; and completely uninvolved citizens smeared through guilt by association.
Few prosecutions came of these hearings. But for years, the message was clear – "watch what you say, don’t be too critical, and be careful who you associate with or we'll defame you by simply calling you before either of these committees."
Now we're told, "Trust us." We're supposed to trust despite heavy self censorship by the corporate news media since 911. We're supposed to trust despite the rapidly expanding "legal" options for spying and surveillance by federal law enforcement. We're supposed to trust despite the smear tactics used against administration opponents.
"Myths and Facts" from the Committee Staff
The committee devoted a page to what they called "myths and facts" about H.R. 1955.
Here are their "myths" stated in the exact terms of the document. These are the errors by critics of the legislation and the committee. Through our flawed logic and the magic of the Internet, we've already created "myths" about major legislation passed at a time when the House was supposed to consider only routine bills.
"Myth: H.R. 1955 is a “thought crime” bill that attempts to legislate constitutionally-protected speech." Staff, Senate Committee on Homeland Security (Committee staff)
The criticism of the bill wasn't that it "attempts to legislate constitutionally-protected speech." Rather, the concerns expressed were that the legislation lays the foundation for subsequent laws to do just that. In the mean time, just the hearings put a chill on those who adamantly oppose the current administration. Another concern was that strong opposition to elected officials was not the same as opposition the "government" since many administration opponents believe strongly that those officials are subverting the government.
This myth is only in the minds of the committee staff since the bill consists of definitions, findings, and the creation of a commission and academic centers to define what constitutes violent radicalization.
"Myth: H.R. 1955 is a “thought crime” bill that attempts to legislate constitutionally-protected speech". Committee staff
Who said that? As with the first myth, the committee staff has created what's called a "straw man" – misstating an opponent's argument. By refuting what wasn't said, the committee staff raise suspicions that the fears expressed are valid; namely that this bill lays the foundation fur such legislation.
"Myth: H.R. 1955 discriminates against particular races, ethnicities and religions." Committee staff
This bill is an equal opportunity enabler of thought control and limitations on free speech. The key witness supporting the entire concept chose to mention those who doubt the veracity of official explanations for 911 and those who adamantly oppose the government's immigration and border policies. These two groups mentioned in slides presented by the witness, slides which just happened to be among others mentioning "pro Iraqi sympathizers. The guilt by association was no accident.
"Myth: H.R. 1955 will lead to Internet censorship." Committee staff
Correctly stated and very accurate! Both House and Senate bills define "violent radicalization" as a problem leading to "homegrown terrorism." The definitions section of H.R. 1955 is clear that simply "facilitating ideologically based violence" is a major threat to national security.
(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. http://tinyurl.com/26gj8m">H.R. 1955 SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS
What does "facilitating" mean? Posting strongly worded charges against elected officials can inflame terrorists who read the posts. The Internet poster doesn't need to know the individual or be affiliated in any way, by the bill's definition. It's the loosest possible standard allowing a purely arbitrary connection between those with strong views and those who commit violent acts. Who will make these judgments?
The Internet is a key part of the process.
(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. H.R. 1955 SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
If you define "facilitating" terrorism over a key medium, the Internet, what else will the bill do but result in restrictions, i.e., censorship? Are they going to study this, then say, "OK, the Internet allows these evil deeds to take place. Interesting isn't it." No, they're going to hold more hearings, have those doing the "facilitating" called to showcase their inflammatory political views, and then come up with legislation to stop the activity. They don't even need a law for these hearings. Investigation is sufficient cause to ruin a career or movement, as they tried with the 911 Truth movement.
Myth: H.R. 1955 is unnecessary because the threat of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism does not exist in the United States.
This is a cheap rhetorical trick. By using the double negative, the committee staff tries to corner critics of the legislation and label them as fools who think that there's no threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States. We've already seen defamation and guilt by association presented to an attentive Harman subcommittee for two domestic political groups mentioned at the hearing. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Video at 5:10) seeks to clear up the causes of the WTC towers collapse in order to understand who the true terrorists are. The anti immigration advocates who so strongly oppose current border policies are clear that one of their concerns in that porous borders are an opportunity that can be turned to the advantage of terrorists.
These groups don't have to be right to have the right to free speech. Their views don't need to be comforting to have the protection necessary to exercise that free speech. What the committee staff talking about? Who thinks that there's no threat from "homegrown" terrorist acts?
In Summary
The first, second, and last "myths" are examples of misstating an opponent's case by creating "a straw man," then responding to that misstatement. That leaves just two myths that might characterize the position of the critics.
The stated myth of discrimination against one group is one belied by the cross section of groups opposing the legislation. It's the fear that this bill will be universally applied that drives the opposition.
The claim that this is not "internet censorship" is myth propagated by the Committee, subcommittee, and their supporters. Right now, the bill creates a standard for "facilitating violent radicalization" that could include many individuals and groups on the Internet who simply despise the Bush – Cheney administration and hold Congress in extreme contempt.
On the one "myth" that the committee got straight, that of "Internet censorship," we're left with "Trust me." Isn't that what Bush and Cheney said when they convinced Congress to pass the Iraq War Resolution? Aren't we paying for that naïve trust right now? Won't the unjust costs continue for decades to come?
Trust has to be earned. The characterization of critics and their arguments was misleading as presented by the committee statement. The response to the one accurately stated criticism, internet censorship, amounts to nothing more than "Trust me." The nature of the dialog at this point is hardly encouraging given the response of the committee staff.
Efforts will continue to stop this legislation before it becomes yet another tool in the arsenal of those who wish to end dissent and reinstitute conformity and quiescence. This is not what's called for given the state of the nation and the world today.
If Congress is looking for the cause of "violent radicalization," it need look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and within its own chambers. Wasn't it the White House that proposed the Iraq War Resolution and the Congress that passed it? Are they not responsible for the incredible brutality of the war on Iraq, the clear cause of the severe hostility toward the United States?
7. We can chat on the veranda at the next island retreat - "Club Fed"
Why does everything have to be criminalized?
Their behavior in the Harman subcommittee hearings - defaming legitimate US activists groups by associating them with pro-Iraqi-insurgency groups was unforgivable, but they tipped their hand.
Somehow after 9-11, we got off track somewhere, we got to get back to the guarantees of rights in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution and to do that we have to end these wars; otherwise, they will respect nothing, stop at nothing to keep the omnipotent power they have.
14. Wonder what they were thinking when the let that testimony in
about the activist groups right next to "pro-Iraqi-insurgency" terrorist groups?
I'm not trying to control their thoughts, just the manifestation of those thoughts in lousy legislation.
The commission is supposed to be the equivalent of the 911 Commission. That's interesting since the House was not supposed to be considering major legislation at that time, which is why some opponents were absent. It's also a poor example to imitate. Good grief!
One of the lessons that we have learned from this recent era is that cowardice comes in small pieces, concessions that might seem insignificant at the time but that cumulatively have a devastating consequence. We believe, too, that courage also comes slowly at first, when individuals begin to stand up for what’s right -- and that courage, too, can gain a powerful momentum - The Consortium
We all know those Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are only a micro group of obviously undereducated "fringe" radicals, with no peer reviewed materials to back them up! :sarcasm:
Congress needs to be reminded that they are as vulnerable as those of us on the "left".
Time Warner Cable switched just a few channels around here last weekend, moving cspan 2 up to digital tier channel 186 from 'Lifeline" basic cable 13. I only have access now online. Many poor have none now. I thought cspan was a public service station. Why are they putting it out of reach of so many citizens, I wonder. Usually people that would spend enough on cable to have digital channel 186, aren't watching cspan2 that often. A caller to 'Washington Journal" even mentioned how disgusted he was about it, whereever he was calling from.
Every move is suspect from this regime.
Weizman :puke: claims that Jihadists put up all of those websites :rofl:, then starts in on the games. Violent games that teach kids to kill and hate; what the hell do those US military recruitment games involve again? The Left Behind Game?
How many will now avoid sites with truth out of fear of being labeled terrorists? I read various worldwide online newspapers, some in Venezuela, SA, Iran and the rest of the ME. According to the "Patriot" Act 2, news gathering is a potential terrorist act. Can't remember the section at this moment, but researched it quite a bit back then.
So Obama will "carefully evaluate it", I'm sure all of them will, just like the PA1 and 2. We the People are screaming because we have read it! How insulting and arrogant that most of the politicos believe they are so much "wiser" than the rest of us.
We have some brilliant researchers here, and @ many other sites, that know their stuff inside out and have much better memories for details than I do now. Too bad they end up treated so shabbily from some elements here at DU.
I know some, though not as many now as in the past, will jump in now to flame me hard for saying this, but after years of observing and studying this government, but all of this is 'simply' another use of their mind control programs. Insidious and subtle psyops.
You reinforce the value of our freedom of speech in, and with, this piece.
You hit the bulls eye with the example of c-span on pay per view. That's really unbelievable.
Maybe Brian Lamb could explain that.
They think they're intimidating but they're really motivating. Obama listened and backed off a bit.
Lieberman is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee handling this bill. We already know that he's a turn-coat but there are others who can take this on and hopefully stop it.
Keep it up and free cable for channels that exist only through citizen supported content.
It smelled immediately. How disturbing to have such a large number of people totally disenfranchised from any part of the political process that so deeply affects them.
As far as Lieberman goes; he's the one the Dems should have been/be furious with, not Ralph. Many voted for Ralph because of Lieberman. I did, though I liked Al very well, because I was completely fed up with both parties by the end of the Clinton era.
I wouldn't trust that sleaze to ever truly care about the will of We the People, ever. I seriously worried that 'they' would kill Al leaving us with Lieberman. :puke:
Ralph seems to be vindicated more each day with the lack of and institution of certain Congressional actions of the last year. HR 1955 fits one of those bills amazingly well. I've become totally sick of those that try to make others feel ashamed and stupid for wanting the country to change even back in 2000.
The 'blame Ralph' extremists discourage any fair development of a multi-party system through their viciousness. A multi-party republic would make the thought control programs much less effective, imho.
27. I believe that bill is as the nose of a camel under the tent.
Edited on Thu Dec-20-07 04:04 PM by Uncle Joe
It's just setting the stage, these people are addicted to power and they want total control of the American People, freedom and accountability scare the hell out of them. I believe they don't really want to represent the American People so much as just rule them like they would sheep. I also believe corporate control of the government is behind much of it, whether it's the prison industry wanting more customers, the media monopoly wanting less scathing criticism, the military industrial complex wanting more war spending without friction or objection, the insurance industry fighting against real health care reform, the oil and mining industry afraid of environmentalists, etc. etc. To me this is nothing but a warm and fuzzy alien and sedition act.
When was the last time, they ever passed a bill or law actually giving the American People more freedom and/or privacy instead of taking it away!?
I greatly appreciate your take on this. It certainly seems that way, in fact it jumps right out at you. One thing I didn't discuss is the bills reference to the 911 Commission and the intent to have this Commission play the same role - damn, this was a period in the House dedicated to routine legislation and they pulled a fast one.
That is in the spirit of your excellent analogy.
Won't work. Too many people found out too quickly...and it's all due to that Nov. 6 hearing, clearly used to intimidate. It ended up motivating instead - groups from left to right, in unison.
28. I'd be more comfortable if the bill was called "Criminal Radicalization."
Now they are trying to further blur the lines between legal and illegal conduct. The word "criminal" only occurs once in the bill, and only as reference to conduct to be studied which is conceded to be outside of the conduct that is covered by the bill.
The word "illegal" never appears in the bill.
They are trying to make all violence sound like a crime, and also trying to associate any political violence with terrorism.
This is disturbing to me because:
"Most societies recognize a right to violent defense of self and others."
30. They minxed a clearly nonviolent group with those who support Iraqi insurgency/resistance
This is the tip off - the bill passes late October, then early November, they have hearings.
A carefully selected witness testifies and includes slides about 911 Truth Engineers and Architects, and anti immigration groups along with the pro Iraqi resistance groups. Then the witness denies he intended to associate the domestic groups with the pro resistance groups...GIVE ME A BREAK! That was intentional. They'll do that even without the legislation - just like old Joe McCarthy did "back in the day."
No way and not here - plus the Engineers and Architects group consists of licensed professionals who list their names and locations. They are totally opposed to violence. Don't take a weatherman to tell which way this wind blows.
What does any of this stuff mean with regard to the "Violent Radicalization" bill? Don't they all sound more like targets of this act than the 9/11 truth movement.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.