Analysing S 1959 and Analysing You and Me, Pt. 3

Go here for part 1 and here for part 2 for the background.

FYI–S 1959 has been quietly making its way through Congress with little mass-stream coverage for awhile now, so this is the time when it’s important to contact the folks that ostensibly represent us to express your discontent about this bill. That is, if you–like I am–are highly suspicious of this vaguely-worded bill that could open the way to legitimizing the notion of Thought Crimes and squashing free assembly and free expression.

So…where were we? Ah, yes. We’re up to this section:

SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be used to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

Sounds reasonable enough, except that we’ve already seen that the definition they are using are dangerously elastic because they are so incredibly vague.  (See part 2).

Reading further (emphasis added):

(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(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.

Again, one issue here is what is meant by “terrorist-related propaganda.”  There’s another issue as well, if we recall the last time this document used the word “facilitating.”  It was in the definition of violent radicalization itself.  And, for those who don’t remember, here’s that definition again:

“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.”

So, if the internet is “facilitating” 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,” then, by its own definitions, this bill is accusing The Internet of homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence!  How is that?  Simple: because the definitions of the terms are made to bleed into each other, so that terrorism no longer means an actual action, but also “the use, planned use, or threatened use” of “force or violence.”  Likewise, ideologically-based violence isn’t confined to actual violence, but is made to include “planned use, or threatened use” of such violence.  And who gets to choose what constitutes planned or threatened use?  The ideologues behind this bill, maybe.  Probably not you and me (unless we are trained to have our definitions ape those of the crooks on charge of the jail house).

But wait, maybe I’ve spoken too soon.  The internet cannot be guilty of these crimes, since the bill states that only “a group or individual born, raised, or operating primarily” within the U.S.  or its possessions can be guilty of these things.  However, it still implies that The Internet as a whole (again, because it makes no distinctions between individual users or site holders) is a tool for such things.  This sets the ground for censoring and controlling the Internet.  With a corporation like Google having a monopoly on web searches and being all too eager to work with its right hand in government, doing so seems quite doable, technically.

Let’s go on:

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(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.

`(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.

`(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.

At first it may seem like this is good because it claims not to single out any individuals of a specific race, ethnicity  or religion.  However, this does not imply an end to profiling.  The idea is to identify possible future homegrown terrorists and radicals, utilizing State and local solutions.  What could that possibly mean?  One thing it could mean is that State and local institutions will be further brought into complicity and active participation of spying on and profiling the citizenry.  This would likely lead to making local governments and business “franchises” of the federal government, at the very least.  It would further require an increased bureaucracy of snitches, and an increase in the size of the Police State.  Is this what 100% employment of the population will look like?–everyone employed to spy on and suspect everyone else?  1984, anyone?

`(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 and lawful permanent residents.

But how could this possibly done?  Here’s one way.  By outsourcing all of these measures to businesses.  It couldn’t be limited to just private security firms and the like, though.  The shape of things to come, I believe, would be requiring that individuals sign away their constitutional and civil rights and liberties through the fine print of contracts that they sign with the different businesses and services they do business with–whether it be their internet provider, their employer, the local movie theatre,  you name it.  These private entities will not permit their potential customers to use their service or buy their goods without such an agreement.  Many people will not read the contracts and for those who do, it will be hard to just refuse to use the service if every company is required to have privacy violation agreements in their customer contracts.  Thus, it will seem that each individual still maintains these rights, because they have freely agreed to these contracts.  Yet, in reality, this would be a lie as every customer/citizen will have been contractually and economically coerced.  But don’t call that “force”!

Indeed, the collusion between private corporations and governments in spying upon you has been going on for quite some time.  This stuff is already happening.  But with this bill, it would be given the air of legal legitimacy and would likely increase, plus lead to a more open and integrated form of this snitch-based initiative between government and the so-called private sector arms of The Spectacle.

Maybe.  The above is certainly as speculative as we’re gonna get.  Perhaps others have other, less dire interpretations of how this identification of people vulnerable to “violent radicalization” would work.

Now, then:

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

Hmmm…research project, everyone!  What lessons have these countries learned about homegrown terrorism?  What do you suppose that means?  I seem to recall Canadian police trying to facilitate violence at an anti-North American Union rally a few months back.

But maybe that’s neither here nor there…

***

Next time we’ll examine SEC. 899C of this bill, which tells us what the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence would do.