In Newspeak, it’s called “crimethink”….

The Patriot Act has been the most widely known add-on to the general powers of law enforcement in the United States, the most touted amongst said law enforcement as well as government, and the most panned by the majority.

What’s coming is far more frightening.

Bill H.R. 1955, entitled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ has passed it’s vote in the House, and is now on its way to a vote in the Senate. Given that it passed in the House by a vote of 404-6, it seems it’s now in the express lane to being signed into law by George himself. Here are the definitions as expressed in the bill:

(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.

From the very beginning of this bill, the language set out is extremely vague. According to these definitions, if I lived in the US, I believed strongly in something and joked with you at the local pub that I was going to kill you if you didn’t believe the same thing….well, same kind of idea as joking about bombs in an airport–they’re going to take you extremely seriously if they hear it. The definition of “homegrown terrorism” is similarily broad, but a little more frightening–all you have to do is start sounding like you’re getting passionate about a belief and it qualifies.

The premise is simple: the first thought that comes to mind when I consider the phrase “homegrown terrorist” is a US-born citizen, living in the US, stockpiling weapons in his basement in order to carry out direct acts of violence. The media outlets in the US focus on religious extremism, because that is in essence what the main focus of the so-called “war on terrorism” is about, at least on the surface. Break down the literal semantics of the language used, and it paints a different picture. A US citizen can be deemed to be a “homegrown terrorist” for literally any strong belief. What is the measuring stick by which the United States government will determine that they’re being “intimidated” or “coerced” by a particular belief system?

Quite simple: if they say they are.

By this language, I could say that the American government is corrupt, they could turn around and say that the belief system I’ve adopted is meant to intimidate the government and/or civilian population. It’s as simple as that. No clearly defined measuring stick leaves things wide open for just about anything to be defined as violent radicalization or homegrown terrorism, and there is no measuring stick anywhere in the bill so far as I’ve been able to decipher.

The findings of Congress are also interesting. Particularly of note:

(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

Align this with the purpose of the bill as stated on the title page:

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Can we assume, then, that the American government considers the Internet a threat not only because of how easy it is to access real terrorist propaganda, but also because of how easily it is to publicize dissenting viewpoints on a broader scale? So far, “terrorist related-propaganda” as logically deduced from the various definitions in the bill so far could include any blog that contradicts the will of the American government. Guess I’m a terrorist–not a homegrown one because I am a Canadian citizen….but, I’m sure our government will fall in line all too quickly.

(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

So, we need to understand what motivates dissent. What’s causing those of us who are pissed off enough at the status quo to speak out or act out about it to reach that point, and why are we brought to the level we’re at?

(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

Translation: We can’t keep track of everyone who is a dissenting factor by already-established means, so we have to create a new model in order to eradicate the threat.

(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Okay, I admit–I find this one more humourous than threatening. The US government has been saying for years that Canada is the #1 major exporter of terrorists to the United States, and yet they haven’t invaded or even threatened us. Their solution–make ‘em get passports. Interesting that we get named, and that the US government says internally that they could learn from us, while badmouthing us in the press. Comic relief at its best.

The rest of the bill can be broken down to a few simple premises: that they intend to form a national commission to look at ways to combat the threat, get some university studies going to find out where it all comes from, and make recommendations. The fact that all of this will fall under the Department of Homeland Security is when we know that something is up.

The effect this would have on American society is somewhat clear. At this point, terrorist groups are no longer the prime target–it shows that the US government now wishes to target individuals, anyone who crosses the imaginary line into radical thought. We’ve gone beyond wiretaps for security purposes and into the realm of ideology–personal belief systems, thought. While the bill says any measures must be constitutional, every bill says this–however, there are enough loopholes in the US Constitution when it comes to threats to the State that the gesture is worthless. In a country that has already screwed up the lives of non-US citizens in the name of terrorism (such as Mr. Arar), where there is direct proof that the US is using torture with prisoners who can be held indefinitely for no stated reason in the name of terrorism, American citizens, and the rest of the world, should be incredibly worried about this one.

One small step for homeland security, one larger step towards martial law, the criminalization of free speech and thought, and dictatorship.

 Further reading:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 — The full text of the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

~ by jason m norwood on October 26, 2007.