… and a terrorist reads it. That terrorist subsequently commits a violent act. You don't know the person. You're not affiliated with him or her in any way. You don't advocate violence in your post nor do you approve of violence to achieve political goals.
None of that matters. You can be accused of facilitating "violent radicalization," which this bill specifically implies can be an outcome of flagrant opposition to the administration, even though you really just oppose the current or any future office holders. You're busted!
The scenario just mentioned is an outcome of H.R. 1955 and the yet-to-be-passed equivalent Senate Resolution 1959.
Rep. Harman's House committee just released a commentary on H.R. 1955, apparently to stem concerns about their intentions. On the opening page, the report states:
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.
The next article on this topic will consider the full report. This language and today's report are no more convincing than the section of the bill on preserving civil rights. The actual language and evidence used to justify it are the critical concerns. The report does nothing to change those concerns other than to heighten concerns recalling Queen Gertrude's line in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Congressional hearing: "…these are conspiracy theories…" and apparently "extremist belief systems."
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) is the chair of the House subcommittee that held hearings on H. R. 1955 (Full video) on Nov. 6, 2007. The bill had already passed in the House by a lopsided vote of 404 to 6 on Oct. 23, 2007. The committee met for just over an hour to consider this complex subject. During the testimony, "think tank" activists portrayed the Internet as a vehicle capable of whipping domestic extremists into a violent frenzy.
Mark Weitzman (right), of the Simon Wiesenthal Center lumped those who question official doctrine on post-2000 foul-ups with "pro-Iraqi" insurgents, a remarkable claim not supported by any evidence. That's right, by heavy-handed inference, those who seriously doubt the official explanation of 911 and speak up may be part of the domestic groups guilty of "adopting and promoting and extremist belief system." The witness said
Some of these are conspiracy theories that present a closed view of the world, such as blaming 9/11 as an "outside job" or blaming outside groups such as the U.S. government, or er the Jews etc.; some of these are pro-Iraqi insurgency videos, some of them are media portals that people can enter into, ones that you saw earlier with the flags -- the U.S. flags show that thy were based on U.S. servers..." (Video at 1:20)
Weitzman's testimony was disorganized and not at all persuasive. However, by his words, he associated "pro-Iraqi insurgency" with those who question the official story of 911. Weitzman then showed slides referencing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Video at 5:10) among slides noting real terrorist groups.
The architects and engineers are professionals who list their names and locations on the Web site referenced above. The group seeks scientific inquiry and investigation. The only conflict that they advocate is an open debate on the science of the official 911 story.
Weitzman failed to mention growing public opinion indicating that 45% of citizens want 911 reinvestigated and that nearly as many, 42%, doubt the official version explaining the events of 911.
Political activists with strong stands against the administration and Congress understood what this attack on an activist group might mean to their efforts. This resulted in immediate outrage on both right and left.
The Senate version of this bill was the subject of a committee hearing chaired by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in April. This barely caused a stir. But Harman's maladroit witness created a major controversy in October of this year.
H.R. 1955 authorizes structure to study "homegrown terrorism" and report back to Congress. Aside from the brief "definitions" and "findings" sections, just a few lines, the bill focuses on creating a commission which will, in turn, establish centers of "excellence" to study the supposed phenomenon. Reading the title then the timelines for reporting raises a serious question. If this is such a serious problem, how can Congress wait the 18 months the commission has to make its report?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
