What is it: A bill that calls for the establishment of a national commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence, a center of excellence for the study of violent radicalization and gomegrown terrorism in the United States,preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts,and protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.
When did it become law?: Passed on Oct. 23, 2007 in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.
What does it cost: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1955 would cost $22 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Is it intended to violate civil rights?: Not on the face. The bill states in SEC. 899F.
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.
`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.
Why are people freaking out?: The elements that are troubling to some are the definition of 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.
The argument is that the word "force" has many meanings including "one possessing or exercising power or influence or authority." This, for some, leads to the conclusion that people who protest may be arrested as "homegrown terrorists" if their actions lead to perceived or actual unrest.
“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Dennis Kucinich, one of the six dissenters of the bill, said back in November. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”
Kucinich referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill,” when he explained in a joking fashion that, “We have freedom of speech. Thoughts, sometimes, proceed speech. There is usually a unity in thought, word and deed.”
Noam Biale, a policy analyst and campaign organizer for the ACLU said "The ACLU continues to have serious concerns regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955). The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization."
What can I do?: Assuming that the courts aren't involved already, contacting your Congressional representatives with your concerns is a good start. Contributing tro the ACLU is good too.
Showing posts with label ACLU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACLU. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10
Friday, October 5
Hoyer Helps Republicans
From the Open Left
ACLU that a new and bad FISA bill is about to be unveiled today at 1:30pm by Steny Hoyer in a press-only briefing. Telecom immunity is not in the bill, but the Senate is pressing hard for that to be included.
The dynamic in the House is really odd. Hoyer and Emanuel seem to be pushing for a FISA capitulation to 'protect the freshmen', even though the freshmen understand their constituents don't want a FISA capitulation. No one will go on the record on any of this, and Emanuel and Hoyer aren't voting for the capitulation, only orchestrating its passage.
This is not a surprise, though it is amusing that Pelosi's promises to 'fix' the temporary FISA bill passed in August are as worthless as they appeared at the time.
What's weird is that no one wants this capitulation except Hoyer and Emanuel. The Bush Dogs are going to vote for it, since that's what they would do, but they would vote for a better bill. The freshmen don't feel politically threatened by a better bill, and know that standing up to Bush is popular. It's like the House is operating on conservative autopilot.
The progressive caucus is unified against the bill. If there's a way to beat this back, it's through the freshmen. I hope they start speaking out against it.
UPDATE: I should say that I don't have the specifics of the bill, which will be unveiled tomorrow. But it's telling the ACLU and civil liberties experts were cut out of the process.
ACLU that a new and bad FISA bill is about to be unveiled today at 1:30pm by Steny Hoyer in a press-only briefing. Telecom immunity is not in the bill, but the Senate is pressing hard for that to be included.
The dynamic in the House is really odd. Hoyer and Emanuel seem to be pushing for a FISA capitulation to 'protect the freshmen', even though the freshmen understand their constituents don't want a FISA capitulation. No one will go on the record on any of this, and Emanuel and Hoyer aren't voting for the capitulation, only orchestrating its passage.
This is not a surprise, though it is amusing that Pelosi's promises to 'fix' the temporary FISA bill passed in August are as worthless as they appeared at the time.
What's weird is that no one wants this capitulation except Hoyer and Emanuel. The Bush Dogs are going to vote for it, since that's what they would do, but they would vote for a better bill. The freshmen don't feel politically threatened by a better bill, and know that standing up to Bush is popular. It's like the House is operating on conservative autopilot.
The progressive caucus is unified against the bill. If there's a way to beat this back, it's through the freshmen. I hope they start speaking out against it.
UPDATE: I should say that I don't have the specifics of the bill, which will be unveiled tomorrow. But it's telling the ACLU and civil liberties experts were cut out of the process.
Sunday, September 9
Protecting America from the PAA
The ill-named Protect America Act of 2007, which justifies the warrantless interception of any international communications by U.S. persons without any restriction on the subsequent review and data mining of the metadata concerning those calls or the content of the communications themselves, is being considered for review by the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to once again delve into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and reinsert much needed privacy protections that were lacking in the last iteration.
Groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee have sent a letter requestint the following to Majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
1) No amendments to FISA should be made permanent until Congress and the public receive answers about what surveillance activities have been conducted over the last six years and the legal basis for those programs.
2) Any further legislation must reiterate that FISA is the exclusive means of intelligence gathering on U.S. soil, and the legislation must include automatic consequences for violating this exclusivity.
3) Interceptions of U.S. persons’ communications within the United States should continue to be included within, and, therefore, be protected by the definition of “electronic surveillance.”
4) Collection and isolation of the particular communications sought by the government should be conducted by the telecommunications industry itself – the government should not be given direct and unfettered access to telecommunications infrastructure.
5) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. First and foremost, interception of communications to and from the US should be authorized by the FISC. The Court must also have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected.
6) Under any new amendment to FISA established in your legislation, when the government intercepts a communication to which a person in the U.S. is a party, there should be a presumption requiring the NSA to immediately destroy that communication except in narrowly defined circumstances providing for judicial oversight.
7) Once the government has reason to believe that there is a substantial likelihood that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance of that account, person or facility. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons’ communications.
Go here to read the full letter.
Groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee have sent a letter requestint the following to Majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
1) No amendments to FISA should be made permanent until Congress and the public receive answers about what surveillance activities have been conducted over the last six years and the legal basis for those programs.
2) Any further legislation must reiterate that FISA is the exclusive means of intelligence gathering on U.S. soil, and the legislation must include automatic consequences for violating this exclusivity.
3) Interceptions of U.S. persons’ communications within the United States should continue to be included within, and, therefore, be protected by the definition of “electronic surveillance.”
4) Collection and isolation of the particular communications sought by the government should be conducted by the telecommunications industry itself – the government should not be given direct and unfettered access to telecommunications infrastructure.
5) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. First and foremost, interception of communications to and from the US should be authorized by the FISC. The Court must also have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected.
6) Under any new amendment to FISA established in your legislation, when the government intercepts a communication to which a person in the U.S. is a party, there should be a presumption requiring the NSA to immediately destroy that communication except in narrowly defined circumstances providing for judicial oversight.
7) Once the government has reason to believe that there is a substantial likelihood that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance of that account, person or facility. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons’ communications.
Go here to read the full letter.
Thursday, June 28
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)