The Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act shelved by the Senate, but what it reveals is still cause for concern

The Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act 2008 sounded innocent enough at first, but its implications and potential for abuse brought out a storm of protests from civil liberty groups and concerned citizens. The Senate has shelved the bill sponsored by Susan Collins's and Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) but only because opposition to it has been enormous. The bill passed the House in October 404-6 with strong bipartisan support. Reading the speeches of its supporters, it's obvious that our representatives in Congress are suffering from the same kind of fear that spawned the McCarthy era.

The problem with the Bill was partly due to its wording.

4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.--The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use (my emphasis) of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20071023-31&bill=h110-1955

This treads on very dangerous ground because it means anyone making an offhand statement about violent feelings toward the government could be labeled a terrorist, and we all know the shadowy process that takes place once people have been labeled that way. People deemed to be terrorists can simply disappear. It is happening today. These suspects have few rights, even when they are US citizens. Even though they might be innocent, it can take years to be charged and cleared.

How many times have you heard some young person suggest they would "take up arms" if the government trespassed on their rights? How many people are ranting mindlessly in blogs about violence toward groups of people? Racists, anti-Semites, civil libertarians, pro-life, anti-gay, all these ideologies enjoy free speech under our constitutoonal protections. As much as we might loathe what some people express in speech or writing, it is important to remember that they do have the right to say things. If they act however that is another story entirely. It is obvious that not every spoken or written threat is carried out, but H.R.1955 could potentially end up with everyone's emails, blogs, websites, and even snail mail being monitored to see who "might" be leaning toward or receiving information from "radical" organizations.

This article discusses more of the problems with H.R. 1955.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3388/examining_the_homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act/

One of the few people who voted against H.R. 1955 was John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican.