Shades of 1984

On October 23, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed by a vote of 404 to 6 the Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, HR 1955. The bill includes a number of definitions excerpted below.

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.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means 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.

These definitions are broadly worded so the final definition becomes whatever the administration chooses that definition to be. The bill targets American citizens as a specific group. To date the mainstream media has been silent as to the intent or purpose of this bill and its implications for every American. The bill is an extension of past bills brought forth in reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

Under the vague, open ended, and broad based definitions of this bill any person offering criticism of the government may find themselves in violation. One may argue the bill included language that says one must be violent in intent. But violence is not defined by any measure whatever. Is the suggestion the President should be impeached a violation? Is encouraging other people to think the same or to act toward impeachment a violation? Is a sit-in on the streets of Washington, DC, acceptable or is such peaceful protest to be considered illegal now? What protest actions may be found acceptable these days?

The bill aims in specific detail at the internet saying

The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

Once this bill gains final approval and is signed by the President no person using the internet for any purpose may any longer be assured of freedom of speech. Big Brother will be watching under the legal auspices of HR 1955.

This bill is an addition to the already established domestic programs of the FBI. In addition there are intelligence agencies already monitoring the connection of foreign and domestic nationals. Even farther the Justice Department has a wide range of laws and Presidential signing orders which are being broadly applied to domestic affairs.

This bill was put forward by Jane Harman, Democrat, CA-36 and passed by a Democratic controlled House. This bill has not yet passed the Senate. We must act and act now to insure failure in that august body lest we see more of our dear freedoms erased forever. If we continue to see bills of this order coming from our supposed liberal base we as a nation are in deep trouble. I fear for our nation's future.

Peace to one and all.