Stop S. 1959 or lose Internet free speech

I just emailed my Senators and hope others will as well. I hope this bill gets torn to pieces and the people responsible for it should listen: Americans are smarter than this, to think free speech causes terrorism. Put your head on correctly and fix our foreign policy before coming to us with this dribble.

"The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"
HR 1955 & S.1959

Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" is not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Reich Constitution, but it can bring America to the same place by trashing America’s civil liberties. Harman’s bill has the potential of driving lawful political and other activists underground into American cell groups. Perhaps expectantly creating the domestic terrorists the Bush Administration has said we need to be protected from.

The Nazis were dead serious when they outlawed specific types of dancing, singing, artwork; any act of expression the Government said "might" cause public unrest in the German State. German Citizens got arrested for dancing the Jitterbug. On February 28, 1933 Hitler signed the Discriminatory Decrees banning free association and speech that might cause public disturbance or adversely affect the peace and security of the German State—according to police. Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" when closely examined, defines "homegrown terrorism" as "any planned act" that might use force to coerce the U.S. Government or its people to promote or accomplish a "political or social objective." No actual force need occur. Government need only charge that an individual or group thought about doing it.

The Harman bill may extend to "planned acts" in America against foreign governments that are "U.S. alleys." See "planned acts" covered under Patriot Act. Under the Harman bill, environmental organizations in America are at risk when they coordinate activities with or support foreign activist groups in some countries. American environmental organizations can’t control what might happen overseas at a "planned" environmental demonstration or control the "planned acts" of foreign activists they network with.

Under the broad language of the Harman bill, anyone attending a "planned anti war rally" could be charged with trying to coerce a government and its people. Government need only charge that an individual in a group "thought about coercing a government or its people." Labor demonstrators that block or intimidate shoppers from entering a store could be charged with "coercing people" under Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act." The Nazi’s used similar provisions found in the Harman bill to charge labor leaders as communists.

Under the Harman bill, should violence breakout at a "planned" demonstration, the government can charge that everyone attending was "ideologically based toward violence." The individual activists who set up web sites promoting their "planned activities", wrote, emailed or handed out "flyers" promoting "that planned" demonstration could also be charged with Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism, depending on the violence that occurred at the demonstration. It is foreseeable that "information flyers" not intended by the author to be distributed at a particular event but were somehow distributed, could under the Harman bill open the door for government to charge the author with promoting "Violent Radicalization and/or Homegrown Terrorism, if that subsequently results. Such concerns by writers will crush free speech and written dissent.

The broad language of the Harman bill gives the government the power to bully and charge Americans with terrorism when Citizens exercise their Constitutional Right to Association. Lawful Americans that attend public meetings, demonstrations and other group public events should not be charged with Violent Radicalization, Homegrown Terrorism, or labeled "ideologically based toward violence" because of what another person said or did at a "planned" meeting. Of course, under such circumstances millions of Americans would become afraid to support or attend political and other public meetings out of concern someone might do something that violates Rep. Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act." Attendance by an American at a "political or environmentalist' meeting" could put a U.S. Citizen on the government's "no fly list."

Should the Jane Harman bill pass in its present form, the U.S. Government, federal and state police will have no difficulty legally terminating American Citizens and activist organizations that exercise their Constitutional Right to free association, free speech, expression, assembly and writings. Once the Harman bill passes, Police Provocateurs can easily destroy any anti-war group, person or organization that supports or attends a "planned" meeting or demonstration. Police Provocateurs need only join a crowd of protestors at a demonstration, then throw rocks toward uniformed police to criminalize an entire demonstration. Or covertly contact a group’s participants before, at or after a "planned" demonstration, then lie and claim the person(s) the Provocateur spoke with were ideologically bent toward violence; "Violent Radicalization; or Homegrown Terrorism.

Uneducated police provocateurs and informants, which there are many, are more apt to misinterpret intellectual discussion at a political meeting as being ideologically bent toward violence, "Violent Radicalization or Homegrown Terrorism.

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 less to condemn about just one more extreme idea of theirs.
S 1959 and Jane Harmon's (D) House bill 1955 should be set in a long littany of bills that attempt to criminalize and suppress dissent. They seem to consciously want to link dissent with violence and do away with the distiction. But who's actually behaving violently?
But both parties 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 respond with mantras like "all options on the table", should leave little doubt about their sanity and humane sensibilities. Isn't it clear that one of those "options" is nuclear weapons?

Our homegrown extremists aren't just expounding bipartisan agreement about the idea of violence: Lebanon, Haiti, Iraq, Colombia, Iran, and Venezuela have all experienced extreme violence or coups against their goverments from "our leaders" within the last 6 years.

We, those of us who are not elected, need our own "commission" to begin to get a handle on the violence and corruption emanating 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" with bipartisan ballyhoo, destroyed 80% of the homes and businesses in a seige that compares to Hiroshima. But of course Japan had an invasion capable 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.

Jane Harmon (D): author of this right wing garbage stipulates in the bill that after a short life the "commission"'s work should be handed off. but: Who is this "Center for Excellence" that will inherit the work of the commission? Are they thinking of privatizing more of their radical ideas?
Isn't Jane furthering the same line of line fear based law as the Neo-Cons? An "opposition party" whose one dissenter (Kucinich) urges his followers to vote for the pro-war Kerry, is more loyal than dissenting. They do not have dissenters capable of and atttempting to lead an opposition to win. That'll little chore will be accomplished at the expense of the Democratic Party not because of it.
They'll vote for S 1959 in the dark if they have too, short of a avalanche of critisism to it.

Our real strategy is to see how fast we can organize an opposition outside our usual system. Sure, I'll call my ruling idiots again as required in the moment, but organize independently. Backbone in these times is shown by leaving the other criminal party and taking risks, and their base, with me if I can.

Jeff Moore