SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(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.
`(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.
`(4) 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.
Now, stop. Think carefully. Read the definitions again. Slowly...
According to these definitions the following men would be guilty of inducing ideas that would be in conflict with the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Hancock, Samuel Adams ...
Now, compare the above to this:
SECTION I. Punishes combinations against United States government.
1. Definition of offence:
Unlawfully to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States, &c. This section was not complained of.
2. Grade of offence:
A high misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $5000, and imprisonment six months to five years.
SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings.
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.
If you are a student of history, especially Constitutional History, you will immediately identify the second as the Sedition Act of 1789. Actually, it was not a single piece of legislation. It is known in tandem as the Alien Acts of 1789. Combined, the two
...empowered President Adams to arrest, detain, and deport any non-citizen he found to be a danger to the security of the nation. The individual was given no right to a hearing and no right to present evidence in his defense. The Republicans objected that this was unconstitutional; the Federalists responded that aliens had no rights under the United States Constitution because they were not part of "We the People." The Sedition Act effectively made it a crime for any person to criticize the President, the Congress or the Government of the United States. The Republicans vehemently object that the Act violated the First Amendment; the Federalists argued that in time of war it was essential to stifle criticism of the government because if the People lost confidence in the government they would not make the sacrifices war demands. Lessig.org
The Sedition Act was pointedly used against the Republican party of the time. It took 50 years but the act was declared unconstitutional and the courts have used it as an example again and again as an argument citing both the First and Tenth Amendments.
I think that you're starting to get the picture.
Lessig.org has this as a final point:
There are (at least) two lessons we can learn fro [sic] this episode: First, clever politicians will often take advantage of a wartime atmosphere to enact policies that will serve their partisan ends. Second, it will often fall to the People themselves to protect their civil lliberties. They cannot always rely on elected officials or judges to protect them for them.
Do you think any of this is relevant to the present?
We need to keep our eyes on this. So far, it has been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. That in itself is scary.
This is just one more thing that makes me fear what could happen in the next 13 months...
you can keep tabs on development at OpEdNews,com. i am...
No comments:
Post a Comment