The U.S. Senate is currently considering The "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (S. 1959), a problematic and unnecessary piece of legislation that could lead to censorship and persecution based on almost entirely on one's personal beliefs. While this is, arguably, simply another example of election year "Security Theatre" the threat to civil rights is very real.

More details on the bill follows below the fold, but you are urged to call your senators today and tell them to oppose this bill:

Schumer: (202) 224-6542 DC/ (212) 486-4430 NYC

Clinton: (202) 224-4451 DC / (212) 688-6262 NYC / 703-469-2008 campaign

Obama: (202) 224-2854 DC / (312) 886-3506 Chicago / (866) 675-2008 campaign (It's in his committee now chaired by Joe Lieberman!)

You might also consider calling the office of Sen. Harry Reid because he's the decider on if and when this bill comes to the Senate floor. His office number is (202) 224-3542.

The "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (H.R. 1955) was introduced in April by conservative California Democrat Jane Harmon (this should be your first warning sign) and passed the house on October 23 with an overwhelming 404-6 vote. Corresponding legislation was introduced in the Senate by Maine Republican Susan Collins (your second warning sign) and will probably be voted on before the holiday break. Rumor has it that there will be fatal opposition in the Senate, but we probably shouldn't count on it.

There are minor differences between the two bills, but their essential elements are the same...

First, these bills introduce a new term, "Violent radicalization," which is defined as: "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." There are two other terms, "Homegrown terrorism" and "Ideologically based violence," but the first one is the key.

Next, the bill claims that these three things are a "threat to homeland security," without a shred of evidence to back this claim up.

Third, the bill creates a national commission to "Examine and report upon the facts and causes" of these still-unproven items. While the commission must hold hearings, it is not specifically granted subpoena power nor any other method of compelling testimony. The commission must produce three reports, one every six months, with the third report being the final one. Then the commission expires.

Fourth, the bill creates a "university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" (apparently, there are already university-based centers established for other reasons). This "Center" is supposed to research how such things start, how they operate, and how to deal with them.

Fifth, the bill requires that we get information from other countries on how they deal with it (yeah, I know, I'm saying "it" without a referent -- that's intentional, since I don't know just what "it" is).

Finally, the bill says that nobody's civil or constitutional rights should be trampled on.

Tim Carpenter at Progressive Democrats of America wrote in an e-mail to members:

Why do we need this bill? We already have laws that allow the police to arrest perpetrators of violent crimes. Could the real purpose of Harman's bill be to create a commission to hold hearings and administer oaths for the purpose of taking testimony, and to cite for contempt anyone failing to testify?

In a press release dated November 27, the progressive National Lawyers Guild commented on HR 1955:

This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on "facts and causes" of "violent radicalism" and "extremist belief systems." It defines "violent radicalism" as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The term "extremist belief system" is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.

"Ideologically based violence" is defined in the bill as 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." Thus, "force" and "violence" are used interchangeably. If a group of people blocked the doorway of a corporation that manufactured weapons, or blocked a sidewalk during an anti-war demonstration, it might constitute the use of "force" to promote "political beliefs."

In commenting on the bill the ACLU said:

As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one's personal beliefs.

You can read the full text of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (S. 1959) HERE

And after reading, contact your Senator and help stop this from becoming law.