Eight years ago, I never imagined the Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007 (referred to by the government as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007) as being possible in the United States of America. Unfortunately, it is here and it has already passed one of the branches of Congress with shocking and overwhelming approval. The Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007 passed the House of Representatives (as HR 1955) on October 23, 2007 with a vote of 404-6. The Senate version of the Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007, S. 1959, is now waiting for action.
The Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007 is how the Bush Administration government is laying the groundwork to make it a crime to be openly opposed to their agenda. It is designed to accomplish two main objectives. The first is the creation of a National Commission on the Prevention of Thought Crime1. The purpose of the Commission is to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of” thought crime1 in the United States, to “conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent” thought crime1, and to “build upon and bring together the work of other entities” by reviewing their “studies of, reviews of, and experiences with” thought crime1 (Sec. 899C, b).
The National Commission on the Prevention of Thought Crime1 will be made up of twelve members. If this bill were to be passed sometime in the next year, the Commission members will be put together by the following people (Sec. 899C, c):
2 members by George W. Bush (R), the President of the United States
2 members by Harry Reid (D), the majority leader of the Senate
1 member by Mitch McConnell (R), the minority leader of the Senate
2 members by Nancy Pelosi (D), the Speaker of the House,
1 member by John Boehner (R), the minority leader of the House of Representatives
1 member by Bennie Thompson (D), the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives
1 member by the Peter King (R), ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives
1 member by Joe Lieberman (I), the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
1 member by Susan Collins (R) (the Senate sponsor of this bill) the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
The Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007 places a limitation on the Commission, saying that “not more than 6 members of the Commission shall be from the same political party.” If you do the math, when put together by this group of people, the Commission would have 6 members appointed by Republicans, 5 members appointed by Democrats, and 1 member appointed by an Independent, therefore putting this composition in line with the limitation. However, Joe Lieberman the Independent is really a neo-conservative hawk on matters of “homeland security”, proven by his strong support for Bush’s “war on terror” policies and his cheerleading in support of a war with Iran. If Joe Lieberman is counted with the hawks on the Republican side, as he should be in regards to a bill like this one, the actual composition of the National Commission on the Prevention of Thought Crime1 will actually be 7 members appointed by Bush Administration friendly guys and 5 members appointed by non-Bush Administration friendly guys. Sneaky, sneaky.
The responsibilities of the National Commission on the Prevention of Thought Crime1 will be to first create a report (Sec. 899C, p) that would include “legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to” thought crime1 and “measures that can be taken to prevent” thought crime1 “from developing and spreading within the United States.” An interim version of the report must be submitted no more than 9 months after the bill is passed (which if passed anytime before April 2008, would put the Commission’s initial report out before a new president and Congress would take office). The report would take into account the “studies of, reviews of, and experiences with” thought crime1 experienced by Federal, State, local, tribal agencies, foreign nations, and the findings of the soon-to-be created Center of Excellence.
The creation of The Center of Excellence for the Study of Thought Crime1 in the United States (Sec. 899D) is the second objective of the Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007. The Center of Excellence will be established by The Secretary2 and will act as the main hub for “university-based centers for homeland security” (Sec. 899D, a). The purpose of the Center of Excellence and its subsidiaries will be to “study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of” thought crime1 “in the United States and methods that can be used by homeland security officials of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to mitigate” thought crime1 (Sec. 899D, b). The Center of Excellence and its university offices will, among other things, “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance, and professional resources to aid in combating” thought crime1 (Sec. 899D, c).
In other words, the Center of Excellence for the Study of Thought Crime1 will be the coordination center for Homeland Security thought crime police offices and acceptable reading material distribution centers, which will be set up in universities around the nation.
The Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007, as laid out in the Findings section (Sec. 899B), is apparently needed because “the promotion of” thought crime1 “exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security”. Does anyone believe that college students and professors pose a threat to national security? Doesn’t it seem to be more accurate that thinking people would pose a threat to the Homeland Security Department2, the Orwellian Bush Administration brain-child that this bill really seems designed to protect?
The Findings Section also says this bill is needed because “the internet has aided in facilitating” thought crime1 and the thought crime1 “process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens” (Sec. 899B, 3). If MoveOn.org is composed of “American insurgents”, as CNN has declared, then we must assume that ‘terrorist-related propaganda’ is not only referring to Osama bin-Laden videos. It’s referring to anyone that wants to join together in order to change what this government of ours has become. It refers to activist groups, journalists, bloggers, students, teachers, mothers, fathers, you, me… anyone that dares to say, “Let’s come together and make a change.” Anyone that dares to do things the American way.
Adolf Hitler once said, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”
How scary for us that our government is laying the groundwork to lock up the people that do.
Time to spread the word… while you still can.
(As a side note, it is worth mentioning that Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of only 6 Congressmen to vote against the Thought Crime1 Prevention Act of 2007.)
1 The terms ‘ideologically based violence’, ‘violent radicalization’, and ‘homegrown terrorism’, which can be found throughout the actual text of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, are misleading and have been changed throughout this post to ‘thought crime’. Here’s why:
According to the definitions section of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Sec. 899A), the term ‘ideologically based violence’ “means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence…to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.” Using this broad definition, a person would be guilty of ‘ideologically based violence’ if he or she were talking or even just thinking about using any kind of force to facilitate a change that is more in line with their beliefs. It’s also important to note that the ‘use of force’ does not require anyone to actually be physically violent. Political force would fit this definition as well. This definition of ‘ideologically based violence” makes the crime not the use of violent force, as the assumption would be from looking at the term, but the thinking and planning of it part. Since the crime is for the thoughts, the term ‘thought crime’ is more appropriate.
The term ‘violent radicalization”, according to the definitions section, is “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence thought crime to advance political, religious, or social change.” Once again, no actual violence, as the term ‘violence’ is commonly understood, would be required for a person to be considered guilty of “violent radicalization”. Since the crime of ‘violent radicalization’ is for the thought process behind the soon-to-be illegal thoughts, the term ‘thought crime’ is also appropriate.
The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ is defined as “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… 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.” This broad definition, like the others, makes a person who tries, plans to try, or threatens to try to use any kind of force, be it violent or political, in order to persuade and/or change the United States government guilty of ‘homegrown terrorism’. Since again, the crime is not actually carrying out a violent act, but thinking through how to force change in the United States government, this term is also describes a ‘thought crime’.
2 ‘The Department’ actually refers to the Department of Homeland Security and ‘The Secretary’ actually refers to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. While other government agencies, such as the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, are all referred to by their full names in Congressional documents, including this one, apparently the Department of Homeland Security is so big and so much more important than all other agencies, despite its ripe-old-age of 5 years, that now it is officially to be called the Department. No clarification will apparently be necessary any longer.
Loading ...
7 users commented in " S 1959: Thought Crime Prevention Act of 2007 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI’m a conservative, and I am also quite shocked at the vague and overly broad language the bill uses, to say nothing of the contemptible support from both parties. Both of us on the outer ends of the political spectrum agree, this is an outrageous bill that can be used to target political activists, which is why it is rather cunning, as it depends on the predictable apathy of the center.
My knee jerk reaction to it, being sponsored by Jane Harman, was, great more big government from the leftist control freaks, but as you point out, control freaks run rampant in both parties. I hope it dies.
Hank330
I’m scared. I’ve searched both the NYTimes and the Washington Post the last week for HR1955. Nothing found. A search of blogs for 1955 gives many, many links. Why the silence of two national daily newspapers? Have they been tipped off to remain silent so the only people speaking up are on blogs and can all be identified? Frightening, don’t you think? s/hank330
I’m just as scared as you guys. I don’t label myself conservative or liberal (I’ve often been accused of both, depending on the topic), but I don’t think this is an issue where it matters. We should all be afraid of any bill that takes away our right to free speech. It’s the destruction of our Constitution, and what kind of United States of America would we be without our Constitution?
And I think Stan is correct to point out that even though this bill has Bush Administration written all over it, a Democrat was the one who put this dreadful piece of garbage forth in the House of Representatives. The reason I could see Jane Harmon wanting a bill like this one is because of her undeniable connections to the military industrial complex, which are her true constituents (her district is home to the headquarters of Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and others). They have a lot to lose if the Department of Homeland Security, and its big-brother projects, are shut down.
It just goes to show that we need to stop looking at the ‘D’ or ‘R’ next to the politician’s names. They need to be judged as individuals, based on their actions and their votes. They are either with the Constitution or against it. Anyone involved in this bill is obviously on the wrong side.
This was brought to my attention from one of my clients today. What I have read this far is truly unbelievable. As a twenty year old now coming into society as a young independent man it has become very sad to me that the American Constitution is being destroyed. I am very scared of the fact that Americans today are being distracted watching reality tv while in the mean time their rights are being taken away and destroyed. It amazes me that blogs are the only place to really find this info and it is not found in the NYTimes or the Washington Post. I can say for myself that from hear on out I will become a lot more politically involved and ensure that my friends and family do the same. God help this country.
Comment from: Jeff Moore [Visitor]
If the authors of S.1959 were not condoning or turning a blind eye to torture, had not bombed and destroyed Iraq, and had not signed another Democratic bill S. 333 to encourage Bush to subject Iran to economic and other acts of war, I think we’d have nothing much to worry about.
But they have quite extreme and violent ideas and can’t be persuaded out of them, even by electoral results.
The fact that they behave as if lots of people in this world are “jealous of our freedoms”, and repeat mantras like “all options on the table”, should leave little doubt about their sanity and humane sensibilities.
Our homegrown extremists aren’t just expounding bipartisan agreement about the idea of violence: Lebanon, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela have all experienced extreme violence, threats of violence or coups against their goverments from this group within the last 6 years.
We, that is those of us who are not elected, need our own “commission” to begin to get a handle on the violence and corruption eminating from our federal system.
To continue imagining that our electeds are going to quit their savage ways and respond to the real environmental and human needs in this world is darkly amusing.
The City of Fallujah once had 300,000 people. Our “leaders” destroyed 80% of the homes and businesses in an seige that compares to Hiroshima. But of course it could be said that Japan had an army opposed to us at the time. Samara, Rhamadi, and parts of Bagdad have recieved some of the same treatment (collective punishment). They of course have no army, only people who are determined to throw off a brutally led occuppying army, more than half of which is mercenary.
Am I “radical”? Are our leaders radical, extreme, violent?
Who is this “Center for Excellence” that will inherit the work of this commission? Are they thinking of privatizing more of their radical ideas?
There is a nation-wide protest that is gaining momentum by the day against this Bill, and we need everyone to join in solidarity to make enough calls to the Senate and emails that it will effectively crash the system as it did when Joe Biden did when he called for calls to Washington on a different issue. There still isn’t any mention of this Bill on the MSM, and it appears there’s actually a press blackout - ordered by who I can’t prove, but no mainstream outlet will talk about it or even allow it to be discussed. This should be a wake-up call to America as a whole, and we must join in solidarity to defeat this unconscionable attack against the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law.
There’s A Press Blackout on S 1959, the Thought Crime Prevention Bill; Why?
http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=343
First, It Was War On Crime, Then Drugs, Next Terror, Now It’s War On Americans
http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=342
Today Is Critical, And We Must Join-in To Kill S 1959
http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=334
This movement is growing at a remarkable pace, and if we all join-in and pledge to make at least two (2) calls per day to the White House and Senate, we have a chance to kill this odious Bill before it gets out of committee.
Thanks You
William Cormier
We’re overlooking the fact that this bill criminalizes nothing. It simply establishes a commission to investigate radicalization, rather than attempting to ban it.
It does not say that this (which, by the way, will remain legal):
“(2) 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.”
Is this (which has always been illegal):
“(3) 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.”
S 1959 only investigates radicalization, it does not criminalize it. The commission’s purposes are:
“(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States…
(2) The Commission shall… conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.
(3) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of…”
It is not tasked with defining new crimes or prosecuting individuals, and in fact lacks the power to do so. When it submits its report, it could recommend a ban on “thought crime”, but this seems highly unlikely. How about saving the outrage for then?
We must continue to watch our representatives vigilantly, especially during an administration with a callous disregard for our liberties. But this particular bill does no direct harm. No new crimes, and certainly no thought crimes, are codified.
Leave A Reply