Sinclair Lewis said,
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."While wrapping themselves in the flag and 9-11, our nation sinks deeper into repression, to wit, a draconian provision included in a bill authored by Democrat Jane Harmon (D-CA). Here's who supported this bill. That's right ALL the Virginia delegation. Did they read the entire bill? Did they know how loosely it defines its terms?
That's right, every single Democrat in Virginia's Congressional delegation voted for it. Read it here.
It's called H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. And you won't believe the loose language of one provision! Here goes?
"(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."
Meanwhile, on a separate track, the labeling of who is "extremist" gets ratcheted further right every passing year. Just recently a few people here outright misrepresented and mis-labeled MoveOn.org as "radical." Duh! MoveOn supported Bill Clinton from impeachment, and later, Al Gore. "Extremist?" They opposed the war just like us here at RK. Oh, yeh, they ran one "bad, bad" ad. MoveOn.org is not radical or "extremist" any more than Hillary or Al Gore are, which is to say, not at all.
To those who want to continue down this dangerous relabeling track, I ask: Do you really want to do this? Do you really want to redefine what is "extremist?" Do you want to sit by while our "leaders" blindly try to legislate "belief systems?" If you do, before long, you will have yourself labeled into extinction because next year, the O'Reilys et all will be after YOU!
If you are not concerned about this, you should be. Rather than spend time going after Move-On, we should unite in tackling this kind of absurd and outrageous encroachment into free thought and speech. This definition in this provision permits mischievous supposition about intent or purpose. Even we peaceful, law-abiding citizens can be recast by the stroke of a pen. Night after night the O'Reillys and Hannitys call for the rounding up of law-abiding Americans. John McCain called for the deportation (saying they should be kicked out of the country) of American citizens, MoveOn's membership.
One legislative act (censure) layered upon another (this bill) could have complex and disastrous consequences for our Constitution. Please contact your Congressional representative and ask what gives. We can only hope that some court strikes the ridiculous wording of this one passage. God help us concerning other paragraphs appended to bills that we don't know about. More on that later.
We all want to be safe. And we all applaud sincere, thoughtful efforts to make us safer. But stupid, knee-jerk reactions, carelessly crafted, provide tools to the mischievous. And God knows we have some mischievous folks in the White House.
For example, I would support the right-to-lifers right of free speech. But when they call for harassing 17 year old kids looking for an abortion, block the sidewalks of clinics or even bomb the clinics, at that point they should be prosecuted.
I would also jail those who hid or egged Eric Rudolph on; those people ARE guilty of crimes and the proposed law you refer to seems merely a reiteration of what's on the books.
Finally, the problems here for any prosecutor would seem to be the impossibility of proving in court (not Alberto's or Ashcroft's court, thank heaven) that a group's aims fit the definition of extremist, and that their purpose was to "facilitate ideologically based violence...." Seeing how didicult it is to prove criminal conspiracy in the courts, this one seems to be impossible to prove, when you dissect the language.
So without going any further, and in full recognition of the meanness, incivility and corruptness of the Administration, I wouldn't worry--they are going away. Too bad there's not a 10th circle of hell for them for what they've done.
You said:
"Finally, the problems here for any prosecutor would seem to be the impossibility of proving in court (not Alberto's or Ashcroft's court, thank heaven) that a group's aims fit the definition of extremist, and that their purpose was to "facilitate ideologically based violence...."
I think that's probably an overly optimistic view. You assume the climate won't become even more hostile for those who think differently from the administration. The question is how easily could they lay out a false case of "intent" or "purpose"?
Many here weren't alive in the 1950s. I was very young, but I watched some of the McCarthy hearings on TV. I will never forget what I saw of our own country falling for guilt by association, and false imputation of intent to commit violence.
My personal view is that we have the laws we need to round up people for conspiracy to commit violent acts against our country. I agree with those harboring Rudolf. But should the government know who protected him, they already have the ability to charge them.