ACTION ITEM: Thought Crimes Bill Now in Senate [ H.R.1955 --> S.1959 ]

[FrankRep]

ACTION ITEM: Thought Crimes Bill Now in Senate



H.R.1955 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01955:) - The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is now in the Senate as S.1959 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01959:):


A bill to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.

According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it."

Critics of both pieces of legislation allege that the act is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bills' vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.

Bill Status:

H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on August 2, 2007. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

JBS Position:

The John Birch Society opposes the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as a terribly drafted and badly misnamed bill that is a dangerous assault on both free speech and thought. The Senate should reject the measure.

Among the many problems with this legislation are the definitions, such as these below, which could be applied to criminalize the speech of not only, for example, violent jihadists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who advocate suicide bombing, but also to jail and/or silence American patriots who write or speak out forcefully against a host of issues abortion, gun control, police-state surveillance, illegal immigration, or the Iraq War:

(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.

In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "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."

The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights."

ACTION NEEDED:

Contact your Senators to express your concern over this bill.


Find your Senate Representatives.

http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/dbq/officials/


SAMPLE LETTER:

H.R. 1955 (passed by the House on October 23, 2007) and S. 1959 are of great concern to me. If passed, the ominous language in the bill could attack my rights protected by the First Amendment. Specifically, the unspoken threat in both pieces of legislation is a passage where it is implied that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 would have a substantial chilling effect on both free speech and thought. The Senate should reject H.R. 1955 and S. 1959 when they come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

[ItsTime]

Does anyone have a link or list of the senators email addresses?

[FrankRep]

Does anyone have a link or list of the senators email addresses?


Here's a search form:

Find your Congress and Senate Representatives.

http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/dbq/officials/


..

[ItsTime]

Thank you I will attach that to my email going out to my mailing lists.


Here's a search form:

Find elected officials
http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/dbq/officials/

[FrankRep]

Reply if you sent an email to your Senate Representative!

[TastyWheat]

This kind of thing doesn't really scare me. It's just a research group. However, the FBI already has a "homegrown terrorism" department. This is a huge waste of taxpayer funds.

[devil21]

Sent emails to both NC Senators a couple months ago when the House passed it.

It's not just a research group. Its written so vaguely that anything can be called "terrorism".

[Slutter McGee]

Today's federal government would have already thrown the founding fathers in guantanamo.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[MrKoffee]

Just the fact this bill even EXISTS makes my blood BOIL as an American. Is anyone else as PISSED OFF and OUTRAGED as I am at this bill? What just adds salt to the wound is how it was nearly unanimously passed in the house. Scary times we live in indeed. Is there anyone besides the Dr. and possibly a few other outspoken critics in the government that represent WE the people anymore? Seriously, are we all alone?

[dsentell]

Today's federal government would have already thrown the founding fathers in guantanamo.




QFT

[TruthAtLast]

Today's federal government would have already thrown the founding fathers in guantanamo.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

QFT

[TruthAtLast]

(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.



Ummmm, being they don't define "violence" and include the "planned use" of force or violence, it sounds like many people in this forum and many Ron Paul supporters (including Ron Paul himself) could be headed to FEMA camps. I wonder if they have Internet Access.

[LibertyIn08]

Ron didn't vote on it.

[grayangel]

I'm really surprised (and concerned) that there hasn't been more forum discussion on this bill. For those in doubt that it is a very SERIOUS threat to Liberty, there is a great article in Republic Magazine Issue #3 (Taking Back the Media) entitled “Constitutional Red Alert: House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill” which outlines the dangers of this legislation. (And for those of you who may be wondering if I’m a “planted advertiser” for the magazine – I’m not! Just a loyal subscriber who happens to have learned a LOT from its pages!)

Anyway, the article can be read online here: http://www.republicmagazine.com/view-magazines/2.html (pages 25-27)

As stated, the House has already PASSED its version of the bill. It has not yet been scheduled for debate in the Senate, so there is STILL TIME to stop it. I’m not entirely convinced that simply e-mailing our Senators is going to be enough, either. At the very least, we need to snail mail thoughtful letters to both our State Senators AND the members of the Committee to which it has been assigned, the Federal Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Following is a list of the Senators on the Committee, which can be accessed here: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership

From here you can click each individual member’s name, where you will be taken to their personal Senate page. Most of the individual Senate pages have a ‘Contact Me’ or ‘Contact Info’ link where you can access their office addresses. (It’s always handy to have a database of these for future reference – mine is ever-expanding and does not yet contain all of the following Senators’ addresses; otherwise I’d be happy to list them all for you.)

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Members
1. Chairman Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT)
2. Ranking Member Senator Susan Collins (ME)
3. Senator Daniel Akaka (HI)
4. Senator Thomas Carper (DE)
5. Senator Thomas Coburn (OK)
6. Senator Norm Coleman (MN)
7. Senator Pete Domenici (NM)
8. Senator Mary Landrieu (LA)
9. Senator Carl Levin (MI)
10. Senator Claire McCaskill (MO)
11. Senator Barack Obama (IL)
12. Senator Mark Pryor (AR)
13. Senator Ted Stevens (AK)
14. Senator John Sununu (NH)
15. Senator Jon Tester (MT)
16. Senator George Voinovich (OH)
17. Senator John Warner (VA)

Hope that's helpful. I invite and encourage further discussion on this legislation as well as other strategies in which to combat it. It really is an outrageous bill which seriously threatens EVERY one of us (here especially!)

[grayangel]

Well, I finished looking up all the Committee members' addresses (& phone & fax numbers), so I thought I'd save someone else the trouble.

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Chairman:
1. Senator Joseph Lieberman
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice
(202) 224-9750 Fax

Ranking member:
2. Senator Susan Collins
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-2523
Fax: (202) 224-2693

3. Senator Daniel Akaka
141 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Tel: (202) 224-6361
Fax: (202) 224-2126

4. Senator Thomas Carper
United States Senate
513 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2441
Fax: (202) 228-2190

5. Senator Thomas Coburn
172 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008

6. Senator Norm Coleman
320 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-5641
Fax: 202-224-1152

7. Senator Pete Domenici
328 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6621
(202) 228-3261 Fax

8. Senator Mary Landrieu
724 Hart Senate Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5824
Fax: 202-224-9735

9. Senator Carl Levin
269 Russell Office Building
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2202
Phone (202) 224-6221
Fax (202) 224-1388

10. Senator Claire McCaskill
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building, SH-717
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-6154
FAX (202) 228-6326

11. Senator Barack Obama
SDB 40B Dirksen Senate Office Building
(temporary location until April 19th)
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2854
(202) 228-4260 fax

12. Senator Mark Pryor
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908

13. Senator Ted Stevens
522 Hart Senate Office
Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3004
Fax: (202) 224-2354

14. Senator John Sununu
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
FAX (202) 228-4131

15. Senator Jon Tester
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2604
(202) 224-2644
(202) 224-8594 (fax)

16. Senator George Voinovich
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-3353

17. Senator John Warner
225 Senate Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-2023
Fax: (202) 224-6295

[TruthAtLast]

any more news on this? Any idea when this will be scheduled for debate? We we thinking 2 weeks or 2 months?

[OptionsTrader]

Today's federal government would have already thrown the founding fathers in guantanamo.


I need to order a coffee mug with that line...

http://i28.tinypic.com/14ctttz.jpg

[Mr. White]

Ummmm, being they don't define "violence" and include the "planned use" of force or violence, it sounds like many people in this forum and many Ron Paul supporters (including Ron Paul himself) could be headed to FEMA camps. I wonder if they have Internet Access.

Just to make you aware, the planned use of force or violence can already get you thrown in jail.

[Cinderella]

honestly i dont want to sound like a downer but i feel its impossible to do anything about this....look at the patriot act....or habeas corpus (i think i spelled it ok)....i would have never in my life thought things like that would come to pass in our gov...it doesnt surprise me that now they want to jail us for "thought crimes" its bullshit....excuse my language...im so pissed off......the only way to win back our country is to take back the gov....i hope it would happen before we are destroyed......i wish we could sue all the mother**** in gov who have been phucking us for far too long....throw them in jail....use their fema camps on them see how they like it

[garrettwombat]

i have reviewed this bill over and over and no where in the bill does it give anyone the right to perform action upon any citizen...

it is a study on how homegrown terrorism forms and acts... nothing more...

let them learn.

[OptionsTrader]

I recommend an exchange program. Release 10 nonviolent prisoners in the prison system and replace them with one corrupt constitution ignoring traiterous politician and one war salesman media shill. Repeat as necessary.

[TruthAtLast]

Just to make you aware, the planned use of force or violence can already get you thrown in jail.

You're right. But how about the planned resistance to Government without force? If someone says "screw the Government, I hate them and wish they were dead", would that be enough to throw someone in jail? I'm not sure where the line is or if there IS a line.

Would the "potential" of violence based on one's beliefs and resistance to the status quo get you jailed?

[grayangel]

i have reviewed this bill over and over and no where in the bill does it give anyone the right to perform action upon any citizen...

it is a study on how homegrown terrorism forms and acts... nothing more...

let them learn.

You truly have no problem with the language and definitions in this bill? WHO is it that you think they will be studying? And what do you think they will do with these conclusions? I've read it over and over as well, and what really concerns me are the implications. Suppose they form this study group and determine that WE are indeed homegrown terrorists (which is almost inevitable with the definitions that are used). What then? The "study" is a precursor to taking action against these individuals. They need to compile data to develop a plan. A plan which stifles and punishes free thought and free speech. It's a very dire and dangerous situation, in my opinion -- and I, for one, will not stand around in silence and give MY lawmakers the power to determine whose IDEAS and BELIEFS warrant further investigation, and eventually, PUNISHMENT.

I'm not angry with you, by the way -- just angry with the bill and concerned that many of my peers don't see this as the threat that I (and many others) truly believe it is.

[michaelwise]

I would like to see them introduce a bill that would force law enforcement officials to use common sense, in an effort to maximize personal individual freedoms, and allow law abiding citizens to to go about their business without threat of harassment.

[grayangel]

I would like to see them introduce a bill that would force law enforcement officials to use common sense, in an effort to maximize personal individual freedoms, and allow law abiding citizens to to go about their business without threat of harassment.

Seeing as how they have so much difficulty "defining terms," I doubt the definition of "common sense" would come out pretty, either! ;)

But seriously, some law enforcement have taken this idea to heart. Take, for example, L.E.A.P. When a group of cops devote significant time, money, and effort to making it known that the drug war is a complete and utterly devastating failure, it's difficult for lawmakers NOT to take notice, especially as these organizations continue to grow. The guys that are PAID to enforce these laws, and put their LIVES on the line to do so, SHOULD have more input, imo. Unfortunately, this opinion is not shared by John McCain . . . :mad:

http://www.leap.cc/link/124

[Mr. White]

You're right. But how about the planned resistance to Government without force? If someone says "screw the Government, I hate them and wish they were dead", would that be enough to throw someone in jail? I'm not sure where the line is or if there IS a line.

Would the "potential" of violence based on one's beliefs and resistance to the status quo get you jailed?

No, that wouldn't be enough to throw someone in jail. It would take "I'm going to shoot X", you would then have to prepare to carry out that act by accumulating supplies, and then take a significant step towards accomplishing that end, such as driving to X's residence. This is called 'attempt'.

Alternatively, they could probably get you if you were speaking with someone else and said "You and I should kill X" and that individual turned you in. You've effectively just 'solicited' someone to commit a crime or join you in doing so. This is typically a lesser crime than an 'attempt.' If the two of you began working together to take the steps above, it would be conspiracy as well as attempt.

I understand the disgust with the idea of them researching radicals. They've been doing it for over half a centruy. It started with the KKK, moved onto the Commies (who I'll remind the John Birchers YOUR group was all for monitoring) then it was the counterculture, then drugs, now it's terrorists.

They're researching you, monitoring you and if you do something which is ACTUALLY illegal, they'll arrest you. Paranoia is healthy, but some of the folks around here get a bit carried away.

[american.swan]

Does anyone have a link or list of the senators email addresses?

Waste of time....CALL THEM!!!

[sluggo]

They say the best time to get your Rep to listen to you is after they've voted on a bill. so here you go..........

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993

[sluggo]

Ron Paul on HR 1955:


Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955
by Ron Paul

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization" – a claim for which there is no evidence – there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization." Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, anti-war, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[thuja]

i sent and telephoned.