Is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as Bad as Scoble Says it is?
December 28, 2007
A bunch of bloggers have taken Robert Scoble to task for not speaking out against S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The problem is that until they took him to task, Robert wasn’t aware of the legislation.
After looking through information on the subject, Scoble writes that it’s “really horrible stuff.” But is it?
After reading the text of the legislation I understand it to be a call for a commission — much like the one that issued recommendations in the wake of 9-11 — to investigate the issue of homegrown ideology-driven violence in America. Some people are calling it “thought crime” legislation, but the bill does not make it illegal to do anything, it simply appropriates funds and resources for a study group.
The only thing that struck me as odd about the legislation is that it singles out Islam as a particular area of expertise required for committee members. But it is also very careful to mention that neither race nor religion are a factor in the study group’s inquiry. Extremism knows no racial or religious bounds. This group will focus on people who bomb abortion clinics just as much as it will on Islamic militancy.
I’m as skeptical of this administration’s intentions as the next person. But if we cry fascism every time something like this comes up, nobody will listen to us when our government does real fascist things — as I’m sure they’ll continue to do under Christian Nationalist influence.
We have to pick our battles, and unless someone can explain to me why a study group is “thought crime legislation,” I don’t think this is one of them.
Odd, but you sound more afraid of “Christian nationalists” (whatever that means) than you are of real people who kill other real people with real terrifying stuff.
Jonn: My use of the term “Christian nationalism” refers to the group of Christians in today’s America who are attempting to break down the barrier between church and state by advocating policies specifically because they believe they will bring about “end times.”
And I am afraid of people who kill people with real terrifying stuff, but not irrationally so. I’m much more likely to die prematurely in a car wreck or a rock climbing accident than from a terrorist attack. Obviously I believe our national security is terribly important — if you notice, I’m backing the formation of this commission — but I don’t rank it higher on my priorities list than repairing our economy, our national debt or our stunningly incompetent foreign policy.
An incompetent foreign policy? The foreign policy that has influenced people in other nations to elect more pro-US governments? Nations like Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Greece. How is that incompetent?
I’m pretty sure that your “christian nationalists” boogeymen are very few and far between - not much of a threat, except as a bloodyshirt to wave at the Leftist masses.
See, I keep coming back here because you wrote that you’re conservative, but I’ve yet to see anything conservative written here.
I would like to see the evidence that directly supports the statement that our foriegn policy has encouraged european nations to elect pro-us governments. For the record, I’m not really afraid of people who kill other people, but simply despise them as killers. This list would include most heads of government, promeniently our own, osama and his ilk, gangsters ect. On the formation of a study group, I am uncertain that it means anything much at all. So far the current executives inclination is to ignore most suggestions from the studies he requests.
Ian: Read Charlie Wilson’s war. It documents a lot of cases where the US has encouraged nations, even in European, to elect pro-us governments clandestinely.
However, even if you ignore the somewhat clandestine or subversive things, the Marshall Plan was a blatant (and I would argue, necessary) example of the US trying very hard to make Europe elect pro-us governments. Which was kind of important give what had just happened in WWII.
Jonn wrote, “See, I keep coming back here because you wrote that you’re conservative, but I’ve yet to see anything conservative written here.”
That’s because Teresa is far more liberal than conservative IMVHO. She’s actually bi-conceptual, but that term seems to cause you grief.
But where Teresa deserves credit is the fact she is hardly a mindless conservative or liberal drone unlike too many people. She’s intelligently exploring and trying to understand all sides of the issues, and where her conservative tendencies fit in with all that, and in so doing gives us things to think about just as she’s digesting them herself.
At least that’s how I see it. Feel free to put me in my place if I’m way off base Teresa.