The historian Henry Steele Commager, denouncing President John Adams' suppression of free speech in the 1790s, argued that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government from dissenters but to provide a legal means for citizens to oppose a government they didn't trust.
URGENT: PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND URGE THEM TO “JUST SAY NO” AND ALSO TO PROMISE TO FILIBUSTER S. 1959, “TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL COMMISSON ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”.
WHAT “OTHER PURPOSES“??? THIS LEAVES QUITE A LOOPHOLE, MY FRIENDS.
Full PDF text of the bill:
Status of bill, sponsors:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
EVERYBODY FEAR YE, FEAR YE THINE AMERICAN NEIGHBOR! Perhaps one or two US-born terrorists have been found guilty of terrorism, and all the rest of the US-born “terrorists” are (drum roll….) activists, religious and peace groups! www.aclu.org/safefree/general/20073prs20050718.html
Even bird watchers are “terrorists” grilled by the FBI! http://www.rightsmatter.org/multimedia/
A) If we already have laws which enable the arrest of violent protestors, then why the need for a special bill just to crack down on them now?B) The bill defines “ideologically based violence” as “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”. By that definition which excludes violence by use of the word “OR“, “force” Could mean non-physical force, such as sending a grassroots hurl of faxes to a Congressperson’s office “to promote the group or individual’s political, religious or social beliefs”. And don’t ever tell a Congressperson that you will expose their wrong-doings to the public: The bill makes it a terrorist offense to “coerce the government” ie expose their wrong-doings or tell them that you will. FREE SPEECH AMERICA??? GOODBYE. Transparent government? Out the window.
C) Note the text in the bill concerning civil liberties: “Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States Citizens and lawful permanent residents”. Note that it did not say SHALL not, an undisputable imperative which is used throughout the bill specifically where protecting Congress is concerned. The bill also says it "should not" wrongly target by way of racial profiling: Check the bill and see for yourself: It’s in lay-friendly language.
E) When reading the text of the bill, note also the placement of “centers” in Universities, whose purpose is to study American psychology giving rise to such ingrown “terrorism“: Infiltration and spying on our students? Squelching of student dissent? No thank you. Considering how vocal students are, how strategic is the University placement of such study centers? Isn’t that proof of the intentions to squelch dissent and control American opinion, right there?
F) Last but not least, what are the legal implications of being dubbed a “terrorist”? Are such “terrorists” as Greenpeace, The American Friends Service Committee, Food not Bombs, et al deserving of the Guantanamo treatment?
G) Are “radical” ideas defined in this bill? Not at all. ANYBODY can be Dubbed “radical” and that can be tweaked to suit the agenda of the individual politician, FBI agent or police officer. (Under the Patriot Act, the FBI currently has power to arrest us at their whim without warrant or connection to wrong-doing, according to the ACLU and many other organizations including even the conservative Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm
It would be all too easy to send an FBI agent to our door at the request of any politician in response to his/her own determination of “radical ideology“. Getting rid of such “radical“ citizens is of course convenient for politicians. Especially when dissent is so squelched that never would anyone dare to utter a peep when it happens). “Other purposes” leaves the door wide open, too.H) Given the ACLU’s statistics of law-abiding citizens dubbed as terrorists, plus the overly-used invocation of “state secrets” (see the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/sibel ) then isn’t the use of the term “terrorism” itself suspect?
To further illustrate the point of “terrorism“ applying to innocent people and protestors specifically, here is a link to an actual FBI “terrorist” investigation document posted to the ACLU’s website: www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/28000res20060314.html
I) www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882_pf.html National Security Letters are FBI-issued subpoenas for internet, phone, medical and other records of suspected “terrorists”, carrying gag orders with 5-year jail sentences for disclosing receipt of an NSL. Former FBI agent Mike German wrote to ACLU members that between 2003-2005, 153,000 NSL’s were issued (that’s 993 per week), about 50% to American citizens, and only ONE terrorist was caught since 9-11 using these NSL's. Since NSL’s are being overly-used by the FBI, so much that even Congress and the ACLU don’t know the extent of the abuses, how can we trust that this bill would not be similarly misused/abused?
1 | 2