A bill (here) was recently passed in the House which allows our benevolent leaders to form a committee to quell ideologically motivated violence, a.k.a. "rebellion". It is an amendment to the Homeland Security Act entitled "H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".
Their definition of terms is of course open to interpretation. Violent Radicalization is defined as follows:
"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."
Idealogically based violence is further defined
"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."
While I don't agree we should kill one another for different beliefs, I fail to see how amending the already disgustingly perverse Patriot Act to create a quorum for passing judgement upon thought and speech crimes "committed" by our own citizenry can be consistent with individual freedom. The belief system itself comes under the jurisdiction of this law, and outsiders of that system of faith who presumably don't understand the faith will be passing judgement upon whether or not the faith is "peaceful". Under this provision, entire belief systems may be ruled "illegal" if that belief system is judged extremist and instigative. Those who harbor such beliefs could get the full treatment as prescribed by the rest of the Patriot Act, including the removal of citizenship, suspension of habeus corpus, and execution.
Egads, people. What country do I live in? How does this bullshit make it past the House? I prefer my belief systems to be violent and difficult to follow, thank you very much. Burn the witches and stone the homosexuals! Says so in God's book in Deuterwhatzits...
Sure, the Westboro people are freaks, but I don't want them to be deported to Gitmo. Where else would I get entertaining reading from weirdos like Fred Phelps telling me how I'm going to burn in hell for thinking for myself?
I'd really be interested in what Central Scrutinizer thinks about this crap. He has a keen eye, and a strong wit.
8 comments:
hmm lots to say, friend.
a. i'm just a lowly american history teacher (cof) but that sort of goes against everything the country was started for. and believe you me (what the hell does that mean anyway) i teach quite the controversial version of american history...
b. that picture hurts me. really. considering myself a follower of Christ...i always wonder how they forget the greatest commandment was to love another... period.
Sigh.
Just, sigh.
I just... man, this country is a sad sad place sometimes.
What is it they say? In humor there is truth? Well, H and I joke often about moving to the Vaterland, but lately those jokey comments become less and less about the humor and more about the truth. While I seriously doubt I could comfortably live in Germany since I don't speak the language, I have to wonder.
I've never been one of those "love it or leave it" kind of thinkers, but it is getting to the point where I feel like I and my future progeny would have a much better quality of life being raised Germans. I do truly love the liberties I have here in the states. I definitely prefer our tax rates to those of Germany, but what you get for the money, in terms of what those taxes pay for, well- that's not so bad. And seeing as the liberties that I so appreciate are being eroded by the hour, it is, for the first time, a truly serious consideration to move back to Germany.
Ladies, your comments are appreciated, and believe me, I echo your sentiments. Europe is looking better and better, but I am planning on staying in my mother country as long as possible, to hopefully perhaps help be part of the change this country so desperately needs. I'm not fooling myself, though. I know my own contribution to change can only be a drop in the vast ocean that needs to wash over us. Maybe I can inject a little bit of my own brand of happy chaos into the mix in Austin, and inspire others to do the same. A pipe dream, perhaps, but get big enough pipes, and you can move a lot of sewage.
I think we should all move to Hawaii and get away from the motherland, I mean the mainland.... my theory is that if all this goes down, Hawaii will be too far away for them to be concerned about us. Then we can join the Hawaiian secession movement and be instrumental in liberating the Hawaiian peoples from the tyrannical oppression of US, Inc. They'll love us, herald us as Gods, and we'll have several months of parties to celebrate. Spirits and poi for everyone!
That was a really interesting analysis John. I joke when I'm scared. This stuff scares me. I saw a video the other day that said all US passports are now made with that tracking chip inside?
Yeah, Samantha, this stuff scares me as well. As well it should, as it's pretty scary stuff.
Proponents of this kind of crap defend it on the basis that the laws aren't meant to take away our civil liberties. In fact, this law has a provision for checks and balances to prevent civil liberties from being violated. My main problem with that concept is that those checks and balances are human. If you get the right people appointed to the right positions, those checks and balances mean nothing. Look at the hooplah surrounding Supreme Court Justice appointments, and the damage that government body can do to our civil liberties, and you'll see what I mean.
In my haste to put the blog up, I erroniously placed the PATRIOT Act in place of the Homeland Security Act. This bill has nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
My apologies. I just caught that. Next time, I'll type a little slower.
I'm not Scrutinzer (no, really, I'm not. No matter what anyone says) but my degree does study terrorism and terrorist groups in some depth, so here is my 2 cents.
On one hand, almost all areas of terroism study are incredibly underfunded. Until the 1980s, only the military even considered terrorism worth studying, meaning a lot of smart people and the social sciences were excluded from the analysis. As such, the social reasons why terrorism emerges as a response to political policy is poorly understood, though there are a couple of theories.
On the other hand, extremist beliefs themselves do not cause terrorism. In the UK, the single most useful resource for the intelligence services are non-violent Islamists, whose views are pretty extreme by anyone's standards (sharia law in the UK essentially) and what we do know about the radicalization process is that peoples views often do not become extreme until after they have been in long contact with members of terrorist organizations. So the views are not the problem, its the people holding them, and a social mechanism whereby violence becomes a legitimate response.
Futhermore, to turn NeoCon philosophy on its head, we have to take into account "the nature of the regime". Under Bush and co, certain 3 letter intelligence agencies have become very cocky indeed, spying on such dangerous subversives as the Quakers, for their anti-war activities. Futhermore, as we all know, the War on Drugs and terrorism are both excuses to collect as much information on the American population as possible. This would seem to be a legitimization of that viewpoint. If anything, it sounds like the building blocks for a modern COINTELPRO. It also solidifies Neoliberalism and NeoConservatism as centrist policies within American political discourse, when nothing could be further from the truth. Sooner or later, people are going to get sick of these 2 ideologies (both of which, ironically, promote violence in some circumstances) and turn to another. If you can tar and feather it before people start looking towards it, with the "subversive/terrorist" label, its effectively neutralized.
Thanks for your input.
I am in complete agreement with you about there not being a direct correlation between the cause of terrorism and an individual person's beliefs, even if those beliefs tend towards extremism. It is refreshing to hear a specific real life example to use as a premise to support that conclusion, because using myself as a counterpoint usually gets me a few raised eyebrows: a.k.a. my beliefs are pretty extreme, and you don't see me strapping dynamite to myself before going for a stroll in the mall.
Scrutinizer seems to have the potential to be a wily bastard, and you appear to be one as well. That doesn't necessarily make you the same person, does it? So that I may revel in pointless e-drama, I'll not publish any conclusions I come to regarding CS's identity, even if those conclusions are fed to me by his alter-ego. (When's his next blog get published, btw? Can I get a sneak peak? I won't leak anything, I promise.)
Post a Comment