Not only can you banned from entering the US for donating money to a Muslim charity a la the Muslim Martin Luther King Tariq Ramadan, but now you can be charged for "ideologically-based violence" in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The stuff of the fictionally-based Orwell political doomsday novel 1984, omnipresent big brother surveillance and thought-crime charges, is no longer contained in the realm of fantasy.
House Bill 1955, known on the hill as "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention" bill, and known in oppositional circles as the thought crime bill, amends the 2002 Homeland Security Act by adding the following provisions:
Enables the Secretary of Homeland Security to:The bill, sponsored and introduced by high-standing California Democrat Jane Harman on April 19, 2007, was passed this past October in the House, and now is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor.
(1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States.
(2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.
(3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
7 comments:
arrested for giving money to a charity? The charges are a lot more serious than that. This kind of glossing over the facts does nothing to promote honest and beneficial dialogue.
that's like saying a shoplifter was arrested simply for trying on a shirt. No context = no credibility
No, its like saying "arrested for giving money to a charity." Just about anyone who wants to give a donation to a charitable cause overseas worries if they send that money anywhere to the Middle East, especially to Palestine.
anonymous 6:08 -- you're either ignorant or trying avoid the harsh reality of accepting the fact that some charities are fronts for questionable activity conducted by groups deemed to be terrorist organizations.
Perhaps you need to do a little bit more research into the relevant cases that deal with this very issue.
Anon 7:52
His/her point is that people would like to be able to help people in the Middle East for a variety of reasons, mostly because they really need it, and we are scared to do it, because no matter what, the default assumption is that it is a bad charity. I've been investigated by the FBI because of being against the war in Lebanon on my MySpace page. It's not cool to be visited like that. I don't need some ignorant FBI guy arguing with me about Israel. I live in America! I can have my own damn opinions. If they were even bigger jerks, they could have made it worse for me. People just want to live their normal lives and also be able to help brothers and sisters around the world who are living in desperate conditions. Can you imagine being scared because you want to do that?
I fully support this bill, because it will help put an end to Zionism.
Maytha, I don't understand what your grievance against this bill is?
(1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States.
Do you see that word in bold? Advocation of violence has NEVER been considered protected speech! Seriously. It never has. This isn't something new, it's just a specific authorization. People have been arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for indoctrinating followers with violent ideologies for a very long time. Ask Fadi, he'll tell you.
And what is the problem you have with this, anyway? Disregarding whether the bill is legal - which is something for the Supreme Court to decide, not you or me. Why do you want people to be protected while they advocate violence against the innocent? What part of that seems like a Martha Stewart type "good thing", to you?
Post a Comment