COMMENTS: 8
Let's Hope the Rumors About Jane Harman in an Obama Admin Aren't Serious
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The most egregious example of Harman's disregard for participatory democracy is HR 1955 -- the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" -- a frightening bill she slipped in the House for passage just over a year ago. HR 1955 is very anti-dissent, very anti-freedom and so McCarthy-like in its establishment of citizen review Commissions. Fortunately, its Senate clone, S 1959, has not yet come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Mrs. Harman was so covert when sneaking in "1955" that no citizens could lobby to stop it in the House.
Here is a passage from an article I wrote on "1955" which describes Jane Harman's assault on our freedoms::
"On October 23rd [2007], Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman, Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under assault:There is ample proof Jane Harman intentionally slid this undemocratic legislation past her Congressional colleagues to conceal from them how extreme an assault on freedom it would be. According to her colleague, Henry Waxman, Harman's bill had been placed on the "suspension calendar for non-controversial bills." In other words, Mrs. Harman casually slipped in a bill that could declare anyone in America a terrorist based on the vaguest definitions and then she just asked everyone to sign on. Even activist-friendly Maxine Waters signed the bill before she ever read it.
H.R. 1955 DEFINITIONS:
(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. Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 -- rammed through by Jane Harman, under the guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh."
Below is a youtube of Rep. Henry Waxman being confronted at a Los Angeles Town Hall on December 26, 2007, and challenged for his support of "1955:"
It's hard to fathom why Jane Harman would feel the need to suppress Americans' freedom so severely that she'd author and advance such a vague and oppressive bill. It's even harder to fathom why President-elect Obama would consider Mrs. Harman for a key role in the Homeland Security Department or the CIA considering how little regard she has for participatory democracy, how wrong she was about the war in Iraq and the existence of WMDs.
Regarding S 1959, there is the slight possibility that President-elect Obama is unaware that it exists. However, this is doubtful since it's currently under review in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, of which Mr. Obama is a member. One would hope President-elect Obama would be just as offended by this bill as are we in The Public. Even the ultra conservative John Birch Society opposes the police state/thought police mentality of the House and Senate versions of Mrs. Harman's bill.
As I said in my article last December,
"A nation that views its own people as enemies creates laws to suppress them. A Congress that ignores the will of its people creates laws to redefine them. Homegrown activists become homegrown terrorists. Per the vague designations in H.R. 1955 [and S 1959], activists and terrorists are the same."We the people need to inform President-elect Obama of our opposition to his proposed high level appointment of Congresswoman Harman, and of our opposition to S 1959 and HR 1955. We need to let him know that its HIS job to safeguard our freedoms as he has promised, and NOT to weaken or remove them. We can start by contacting the website the President-elect created to gather our opinions.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: diony505 on Nov 11, 2008 1:00 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HR 1995 info
Isn't Obomber a constitutional law scholar? If he's so intelligent why does he seem to have so little understanding of the Bill of Rights? He seems to consistently vote against it's tenets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 11, 2008 1:50 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES, WE CAN... take away all your civil liberties, suckers!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't Sarah Palin a leading example of that? Isn't that what the Secret Service said? Her dishonest rhetoric is said to have led to a spike in hate speech and even death threats - if the bill had passed, I bet she could be charged - at least some of her supporters could be.
That kind of radical right-wing jargon was seen back in the 90s, and served to provide the ideological motivation for our #1 Homegrown Terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. The guy's favorite movie? Red Dawn, in which Patrick Swayze leads a band of rebels after the Soviets invade California. Do we really need to fuel that kind of thing again with radical hate speech?
Of course, the thing about bills such as this one is that while they may look like a good idea in some cases, they always end up being selectively enforced for political purposes.
The FBI obsession with eco-terrorism and staged political protests in the summer of 2001, for example, was not matched by similar investigations into Saudi nationals traveling in the United States - the FBI was even told to "back off" the Saudis, at Bush's request, which really had to do with the close relationship between the Saudi Royals and the Bush family - the Big Oil nexus in action.
Second, the whole intelligence apparatus has been privatized to a remarkable degree. Whoever Obama appoints should focus on limiting and reversing that process - because private firms doing surveillance work under contract to the U.S. government is a very shady legal area.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Danaverner on Nov 11, 2008 7:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
in fact, a good portion of the bill deals with understanding of causes of terrorism. exactly should have been done in the first place.
thats my problem with the left AND the right, worrying about being right before doing right.
it really is an open, mature bills. all legal writing is on rubber, and if you don't know what that means, i'm sorry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redroadtraveler on Nov 12, 2008 7:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socrates2 on Nov 12, 2008 10:01 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
W's 8 year government was truly a revolution in so many ways. Loyalty was the criterion by which it selected heads of critical governmental institutions, not competence. His followers set about altering the structure of these institutions in order to implement their agenda and control access to power. Domestic spying--under cover of exposing terrorism--for political purposes was another move, as was the practice of secret detention and rendition of suspected "enemy combatants." And the legalization of torture. The list goes on.
And it was done under Constitutional cover. Wasn't this the way Hitler succeeded?
Harman can remain as the loyal opposition, but she certainly has no place in the Obama-led government.
Harman's stealth move to enact this dangerous legislation to outlaw dissent and critical thinking for political purposes demonstrates a complete contempt for our open, Constitutional form of government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Nov 13, 2008 7:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wrong! Anytime someone proposes radical solutions there is always the possibility that someone far less peaceful will act on these proposals in a violent manner and endanger innocent civilians. They could detain me forever as one who "incites others to violence" and even if I am let out early enough I would have this stain to discredit my ideas. From then on, I would be known as a "violent radical" - despite any incidences of violence by myself or even anyone citing me as inspirational. Osama and I would be "soul mates" in the eyes of our esteemed media.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




