Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.
The bill defines "violent radicalization" as promoting an "extremist belief system." But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical "belief systems" as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.
The commission the bill creates determines what is radical. The last time we saw something in place like this was Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). That was a blot on American history that is still felt at times.
The United States was founded on violent radicalization - known as the American Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers decreed that it was necessary to use violence to overthrow a legitimate British government. Though to us it does not seem radical, for the time - late 18th century - it was extremist and progressive. King George III was a legal head of state. The outcome of the Revolutionary War even had repercussions in Great Britain when Parliament then began limiting the king's powers.
Another construction of S.B. 1959 creates is little Joe McCarthy's:
The proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.
If you think about it, this is taking the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to the next level. S. 1959 creates public tribunals just like the military ones.
There are a lot of questions. Who is going to police the commissions? Does this replace the judicial branch of government? What guarantees of the Bill of Rights become restricted? Are there constitutional issues? How far would the Bush/Cheney Supreme Court go in upholding the bill, if it passes?
In the question of passage,
With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain.
Where is the mainstream media on this? Why haven't Olbermann, Matthews, and others been screaming loudly about this? Why is this a Democrat-sponsored piece of legislation? Why are the Republicans being so quiet about it? Is there some sort of behind-the-scenes deal-making going on?
This smacks of Naomi Wolf's Step 4. Set up an internal surveillance system & Step 9. Dissent equals treason in her article Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
there are too many questions and too many suspect parallels about this entire thing that need to be answered and explained...
No comments:
Post a Comment