Jane Harman's proposed thought-police law

[dajoki]

It's the Thought That Counts
posted: 8:46 AM, December 5, 2007 by Harkavy
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/bushbeat/archives/2007/12/its_the_thought.php

An "ideologically based" witchhunt law from an ideologically based congresswoman.

Jane Harman's proposed thought-police law, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr384): is no surprise. The measure, aimed at "preventing ideologically based violence," comes from a Democratic congresswoman who herself is ideologically based.

The biggest clump of her campaign contributions since the late '80s — $1.5 million — has come from the ideology/single-issue sector, according to the crack site opensecrets.org. http://www.opensecrets.org/ And a big chunk of that has come from the pro-Israel lobby. Harman has been probed for sleazy lobbying links to AIPAC, as Time reported in October 2006.

The only thing that's even remotely amusing about the chilling attempt to silence dissent is that Harman's husband, Sidney, is the hugely wealthy founder of sound-blasting audio giant Harman Kardon. http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4103/

I take that back. Another funny part of the Thought Police Act is its call for the establishment of a "Center Of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp110&sid=cp110qbUqc&refer=&r_n=hr384p1.110&item=&sel=TOC_21823& But that would be only after we have a "national commission" — with subpoena powers — study the issue and scare the shit out of lefty professors who dare to mention Palestinians in their classrooms. Broadly, such a wack-HUAC law would of course chill all sorts of dissenting views on all sorts of subjects.

Trying to make up for the lack of mainstream coverage of this creepy law is Philip Giraldi, who noted the other day:

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.
No surprise that the hard-line pro-Israel Lieberman is involved. The only federal campaign contributions made by Sidney Harman, Jane's 89-year-old hubby, in the past three years have been to Lieberman.

It's also no shock that such a Draconian law would come from a Democrat. The Smith Act of 1940 was introduced by a Democrat and passed under FDR in an attempt to ferret out pro-Nazis and other right-wingers. After the war, of course, it became a handy tool with which to hound lefties — not just Commies, but Socialists, trade unionists, and other left-leaners as well. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm

[EVDebs]

1. It violates the Hughes-Ryan Act and criminalizes legitimate dissent/behavior

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2410187&mesg_id=2410204

It makes it easier to lock up troublemakers like Martin Luther King, Jr. with laws like this. Where's the ACLU ? Business will be picking up for them...

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. When did MLK advocate violence? n/t

[EVDebs]

7. He didn't, that's the point, THIS bill would criminalize non-violent dissenters

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679

"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “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.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’

It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence. Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also THINKING ABOUT and/or threatening to use not only violence, but whatever else they can interpret as a type of force as well.

The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include non-violent forms of civil disobedience or direct action because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. Please don't pretend we can't distinguish between violence and non-violence

The bill is obviously aimed at the former and I don't see how anyone can advocate otherwise.

[sandnsea]

9. What about hate groups?

How come we have never enacted laws targeted at groups that express the desire for racist violence, but now we can enact these laws targeted at all kinds of groups. We don't have anything that would shut down the KKK, yet you want to pass laws that could shut down all kinds of groups, if just one person in that groups threatens some kind of violent act.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. Where do you get this nonsense? Read the bill. There's nothing

in there about shutting down anybody.

[EVDebs]

11. The intentionally vague definition of 'ideologically based violence'

which includes all the non-violent forms of dissent we've been talking about IS indeed in the bill. This IS about shutting down legitimate dissent in the US during 'wartime', if you will, so really read the bill. Then read between the lines.

You could be put on a terrorist listing, for example, for agreeing that 9-11 needs reexamination and not supporting the current 9-11 Commission Report's findings. In fact this has recently been floated with a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held in early November, and broadcast on C-Span, featuring a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.

The hearing was chaired by Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, and ranking Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert. It was supposed to focus on the use of the internet by "home grown terrorist recruiters" yet in a shocking move it blatantly related the 9/11 truth movement with so called radical "jihadists".

Got the picture now, Fredda ? Better yet, watch it yourself here:

Use of the internet by terrorists
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202123-1

[Fredda Weinberg]

13. Yes, I saw the panel discussion when it first aired ... as much as it

deserved. The made serious points about a technology I've worked with for decades - and was always aware of the perils. I did bad things to C-Span for a good cause with no guilt, but it was a calculated risk.

I've also read the bill. Now, show me language that should cause me concern or stop referring to it. There's no there there.

Finally, you can't seem to distinguish between violence and civil disobedience. I remember the 60's ... got a shoe in the head the day MLK died and don't want to see those times again.

[EVDebs]

14. Already did show you. Re-read the VAGUE definition again. nt

[EVDebs]

12. LOL ! The Quakers got spied on by NSA for what ? DoD can't distinguish very well

And Greens, put on terror 'no-fly-lists' along with a guy named Ted Kennedy. This is about repression of legitimate political dissenters. There is no oversight by congress and no 'findings' as required by the Hughes-Ryan Act. This is a a ruse to allow for more of the Bush martial law in America project.

[dajoki]

4. Kucinich is absolutely correct...

“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Kucinich referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill,” when he explained in a joking fashion that, “We have freedom of speech. Thoughts, sometimes, proceed speech. There is usually a unity in thought, word and deed.”

But did you see the overwhelming 405 to 6 House vote supporting the bill(hr384)? What is wrong with these people?

[katty]

2. of course, Draconian, Orwellian, etal--they want a police state

these are the ONLY ideas coming out of D.C....nothing new, creative, life affirming, progressive and substantive change....just their mantra: 'control, control, control'

[dajoki]

6. And they are succeeding n/t

[Carrieyazel]

5. Jane's a nanny stater. I'm not surprised in the least.