Put it this way: When a family member of mine sat in a public cafe in then-Iron Curtain-controlled Budapest, she mentioned the word "government" and our friends immediately jumped all over her: "SSShhhhHHHH!" And this, my friends, came as a result of neighbor being recruited as spy against neighbor. That's a hint: "Fear Ye thy 'Terrorist' American Neighbor!"

::::::::

Put it this way: When a family member of mine sat in a public café in then-Iron Curtain-controlled Budapest, she mentioned the word “government” and our friends immediately jumped all over her: “SSShhhhHHHH!” And this, my friends, came as a result of neighbor being recruited as spy against neighbor. That’s a hint:

Eureka, I’ve got it! Now I know why they are trying to pass S 1959! The Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Act is dividing our country, already and even before being passed into law (fear ye thy “terrorist” American neighbor!)

Assumptions motivate or de-motivate, yielding activist pro-activity or non-activity. So it’s important to question assumptions:

How many protestors commit violent acts? The question will answer itself. Because after all, these so-called “homegrown terrorists” and “violent radicalists”, while they do exist, also occur so rarely that they are practically non-existent to begin with.

The obvious conclusion: The purpose of S. 1959 is to plant seeds of watchful suspicion. And there must be a clear purpose for that suspicion to be planted. What is it?

It’s already succeeding beautifully, before even being passed into law: S. 1959 already is pitting neighbor against neighbor. Not only will it result in us suspiciously eyeballing each other and uneducated people “turning each other in” for “coercing” the government----ie holding them accountable-----but (here’s the big “But“) :

IT WILL BREAK UP THE VERY POWERFUL GRASSROOTS ACTIVITY, AND ALREADY IS, BEFORE EVEN ONE CRIME OF “RADICAL VIOLENCE“ HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR EVEN BEEN PLANNED!

See the email I received to illustrate the interactive dynamics in living color:

First, by asking the activist organization below why they are not collecting email signatures to topple S. 1959, it was immediately assumed that I myself support violent activity. Not so! Instead, I know that we already have laws to quell violence, and that it is not necessary and is even suspicious to target activists and college students (very strategic) for such legislating.

Second, it was stated to me in vociferous terms that if I supported such violence (an assumption, once again) that I would be dropped from this grassroots organization’s email alerts!

See how the bill ALREADY is working to break up the grassroots membership and cause disharmony? Before it even has been passed into law? Could this be the entire purpose of S. 1959?

So in order not to repeat such mistakes in the future, please let’s learn from all the points stressed (and interactive scenarios illustrated) in this email below:

----- Original Message -----

From: The P.E.N.

To:

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:21 PM

Subject: Re: here's another holiday gift idea

dear Kathryn,
so nice to hear from you.

we have received a number of alarmed messages about this. but we are troubled as much as anything by the dangerous weakness of the arguments being made against it. and we should emphasize we have read the actual bill, word for word, and according to its plain language.

1) it expressly provides a safe harbor for the "constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents".

2) and it is pretty clearly limited to addressing, for example "use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs"

are you asking us to DEFEND the use of political force or violence? not only would we not do any such thing, if we ever receive a communication even suggesting any such thing that is a zero tolerance ground for immediate and permanent removal from our alert list. we categorically repudiate anything but peaceful democratic change. period.

now some have argued that if the bill is passed that the commission created will grossly abuse the plain language of its mandate, which after all is nothing more than to render suggestions in 18 months. if those recommendations are creepy, or if they start going off the deep in hearings, we will holler louder than anyone. but at this juncture, we need a strong argument than, for example (one we've heard), that people will get sent to concentration camps for sending faxes, as if that fell within the four corners of the definition for "force".

other than that it seems to us an appropriate target of interest might be abortion clinic bombers and the like. and why should we object to that?

if someone would like to suggest some amendment of the bill that would build in necessary protections not already there, we'll take up the fight. but we have heard no such suggestion. and in fact the exact language that we WOULD demand is already in there, see 1) above.

in the meantime we are looking at a 404-6 vote in the House to try to turn around, and we are not going to do it without some much stronger arguments which we are still waiting to hear.

thank you for your participation.

peace,

The PEN

See what I mean about the Great Divide of neighbor amongst neighbor? And how even our liberal compatriots could mistake us, ourselves, for violence-supporting “terrorists”?

Here’s the hope:

A) We have the power to alert others to the reality of the division already created by this bill

And to warn them not to fall into the trap

B) Last but not least, this S 1959-created division among the grassroots could be a very good topic to write about, right here on Opednews. I will be very interested to read your thoughts about how to effectively undercut the perhaps intentionally-created Great Divide.

Nobody can do anything TO us. We are the ones who ourselves engage in any given dynamic. Therefore, using the power of awareness, we can studiously observe the dynamics for what they are and consciously decide not to go down that path.

I must add though that I think The Pen makes some important points, and some of which we can learn from.

A) For example, our arguments must be based on sound fact, for credibility’s sake, as clearly asked for by The Pen‘s letter.

B) By saying that the bill provides for civil liberties protections, they are forgetting that the bill states that the government “should not” (a recommendation) crack down on civil liberties and “should not” target any one group (Even while the bill specifically plans to set up Government study centers on college campuses, an act of targeted discrimination itself. What is the purpose of that target, in that particular social cross-sector? That‘s a question to ask ourselves).

They also forget that the bill specifically protects the Government‘s best interest with the inarguable words “Shall not“ as imperative. IE the Commission to study violent radicalization “should not” (recommendation) crack down on civil liberties but the citizens “shall not” (imperative) “coerce” the government. A confession of intent, right there.

C) Finally, “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization” are so rare to begin with that there is no need for special legislation to “Protect” ---whom?? Not us! The GOVERNMENT---from them.

Last but not least, and let me point this out unequivocally:

There are “legal” (if not unconstitutional) loopholes opened up between the Patriot Act and S. 1959, acting together as a hand-and-glove pair. The overly-loose definition of “Terrorism” in the Patriot Act is such that it sweeps up religious and peace groups in its definition, according to so many organizations of every partisanship that to quote them all would be exhausting. www.aclu.org

Further, the Patriot Act grants the FBI the unilateral power to arrest us without warrant, probable cause, or connection to criminal activity at all. Former FBI agent Ted Gunderson calls it “a giant step toward a police state” www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/IntelligenceKnew/ (be sure to click on back-up file: The original has been removed from the Web). And look at what the ultra-conservative Gun Owners of America have to say about this: http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm

Even bird watchers are grilled as “terrorists” by the agenda-crazed FBI:

http://www.rightsmatter.org/multimedia/

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/17548prs20050518.html

"Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity?" asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights." See also: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/20073prs20050718.html

And here is a 25-page free speech report done recently by the ACLU, as if such a thing even needs to be done: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31878prs20070920.html

Even Representative Lynn Woolsey, D-CA,’s e-mailed auto-reply to Patriot Act inquiries states that religious and peace groups are being targeted as “terrorists” under the Patriot Act.

Clearly, the word “terrorism” is similarly being used in S.1959 almost as code language targeting activists. Because overwhelmingly and all over the ACLU’s website are endless examples of activists such as Greenpeace, the American Friends Service Committee, Common Cause, anti-war activists, and more being dubbed as “terrorists” by the Bush Administration itself.

The fact that the Red Cross estimates more than 70% of Guantanamo detainee “terrorists” to be innocent is yet one more proof of the farcical lie called the war on terror. Perhaps, more accurately, it may even be called the war OF terror. That may be something to think about.

Full PDF text if the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z

Status of the bill in the House and Senate:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959

Authors Bio:
This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activism:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement on human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves". --Paul Revere, House of Commons