"Thought Crime" Bill Dies Silently

Note: I have posted a retraction of this post and encourage readers to ignore this posting as it turns out to have been not true.


From Hope Marston at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

Have you heard the news? The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is dead. And I think grassroots opposition killed it.

According to an obscure paragraph in CQ Politics on December 14, the Senate version of the bill "died a quiet death" in early December. What's amazing to me (or really, shouldn't be a surprise, I guess) is how well hidden this is. I could find no mention on Thomas, or anywhere else on the web (please help me if I've missed something). Thanks to our friends at the ACLU for alerting us to this obscure paragraph!

The wildfire of grassroots opposition to this "thought crime" bill, which apparently stopped it cold, is receiving no credit. And because this lone CQ article is the singular reference to the death of the bill, articles churning up opposition to HR 1955 and S 1959 continue to populate the Internet. In a case of odd timing, the Committee on Homeland Security issued a "Fact Sheet" declaring each point of opposition to the bill to be myth. The "Fact Sheet" was released (according to Atlantic Free Press) on December 17, though the bill had expired in the Senate earlier in December.

Here's the CQ Politics article. You'll have to dig deep to find the reference to Violent Radicalization, or use "Find" and search on "radical" to find it more easily.


For more information on the bill that is currently resting in peace, see BORDC's legislation page.


More news from this week, including a new film documenting U.S. sanctioned torture, Jose Padilla's $1 lawsuit against torture-enabler John Yoo, renewed opposition to REAL ID, CIA videotapes, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, and White House destruction of evidence (email backups) is available from the BORDC website and news page.

The Skinny on H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

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.