Let's try pulling the clowns back from the precipice

[nancylebov]

The third Patriot Act?

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=568

The above was snagged from rinku.

A site for contacting Congress--this was the first one that came up in google. I don't know if there's a better one.

And, "Center of Excellence"? In addition to the frightening power grab, these people are completely tone-deaf.

Mood: weird, but vaguely socially responsible

Comments

[twistedchick]

To contact your Congressperson: http://www.house.gov, look up your representative's page.

To contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov, look up your senator's page.

At each of the pages there should be links for constitutents to send messages by email, which are reviewed and read and tallied by the Congressperson's/Senator's staff. Originally worded ones get more attention than mass mailings, which tend to be checked over only to get a count of how many there are.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm looking into it further, but I'm not automatically opposed to it.

There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

Given that this description fits a whole lot of dangerous, heavily armed (and vastly racist) nutcases, including the folks who committed the Oklahoma City bombing. I'm honestly considerably more worried about those people than I am about foreign terrorists.

[shack-a-nerd.livejournal.com]

I'm with you.

`(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.

By all means -- if this section concerns you, write your Senator. (I am.) But unless the "growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution" is advocating the use of violence, I don't think they're being "targeted". And if they're advocating the use of violence, then I'm not 100% opposed to targeting them.

The National Expositor's article is hardly an inspiring example of journalism. Fortunately the bill itself is pretty readable:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Ethan

[madfilkentist]

If you think that supporting the Constitution makes one a "heavily-armed" "racist" "nutcase," you probably aren't amenable to reason. I'll simply note that that's a transparent smear tactic.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

IME, someone who is loudly in favor of "a return to constitutional government" or anything similar is most interested in some combination of the right to bear arms (which I strongly oppose), some twisted vision of the US as a white (and usually Christian) nation, and possibly an objection to income taxes. I lived in the midwest for more than a decade and got to see some of the vileness of the "patriot movement" and to be honest, those people scare me a whole lot more than Al Queda. This bill looks specifically designed to focus on them, and that's fine by me.

They've been fairly quiet recently, because they're chosen savoir and knucklehead in chief is president. But in a bit over a year, when (as looks very much to be the case) either a woman or a black man is president, I'm betting they will crawl forth from their well-armed bunkers and cause trouble.

Also, if you will note, this bill is specifically focused on violent opposition to the government: "(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."

I don't know about you, but I oppose this too.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The bill looks like an attempt to blur the recognized distinction between abstract advocacy and incitement to violence (see Brandenberg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)).

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Brandenburg v. Ohio is IMHO definitely a grey area and I am fairly suspicious anyone advocating violence, for any reason. I'm not certain of how the proposed law would be implimented, but I can definitely see it not being a bad thing. I cannot think of a single case in the post WWII era when advocating violence against the government or other citizens of the US was ever a positive act.

[redbird]

I am also suspicious of people advocating violence. But it's funny how those policies are never used against Republicans--like, say, the not-so-obscure commenter who said the New York Times should be bombed.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Actually, anything specifically aimed at members of "the patriot movement" is aimed specifically at the most wingnut fringe of Republicans, which is one reason this bill doesn't particularly bother me.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"Brandenburg v. Ohio is IMHO definitely a grey area"

Fortunately, it is a bright-line area, settled in a way that makes the proper distinction between abstract opinions and actual criminal behavior, in the opinion of the people who consider the legal ramifications and make policy.