Imprès des de Indymedia Barcelona : http://barcelona.indymedia.org/
Independent Media Center
Comentari :: antifeixisme
Compare Text in 鈥淗itler鈥檚 Laws鈥? with Pending U.S. Senate Bill S.1959
14 jun 2008
U.S. Government Planned Disruption of Activities:
S.1959 states its university based study program will â渃onduct classified studiesâ? and make recommendations for â淒isruption.â? S.1959 completely fails to explain how U.S. Government might â渄isrupt Ideologically Based Violenceâ? when no crime has been committed.
It is absolutely striking how language in pending S.1959, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" appears to mirror some of Hitlerâ檚 Discriminatory Laws the Fuhrer signed in 1933.

Below this article are â淎dolf Hitlerâ檚 fascist laws: To compare any similarity of language found in â淗itlerâ檚 Lawsâ? with U.S. Senate bill S.1959, you may access:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959:

Hitlerâ檚 laws invoked fear in German Citizens. Outlawed free speech and banned any act of expression that might threaten the German Stateâ攁ccording to police. S.1959 is not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory laws that suspended the German Constitution, but like â淗itlerâ檚 Lawsâ?, Senate bill 1959 similarly threatens our Constitution, our right to free speech, free association and assembly.

S. 1959 if passed would create a new â済overnment commissionâ? that will investigate Americans, study ethnic groups and cultures to â渄etermineâ? which groups and individuals in the United States might be prone to violence or homegrown terrorism. Evidence and other information collected by this â淐ommissionâ檚â? may be used by the Government and law enforcement to label Americans as â減romotersâ? of homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence and violent radicalization. Because this information may be kept â渃lassifiedâ? lawful Americansâ攎ay never have the opportunity to refute terrorist accusations made against them. The â渘ew Commissionâ? will provide in reports, its findings and recommendationsâ? to Congress and the President.

Government Planned Disruption of Activities: S.1959 states it will establish university based study programs to find â渋mmediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violenceâ¦â? While that sounds positive, been committed. S.1959 also states that its study program will â渃onduct classified studiesâ? and make recommendations for â淒isruption.â? S.1959 completely fails to explain how the U.S. Government might â渄isrupt Ideologically Based Violenceâ? when no crime has been committed.

The text in S.1959â檚 B) ANNEX effectively statesâ攔eports submitted under subparagraph (A) may include a â渃lassified annexâ? with recommendations on the feasibility to be administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence if such a program is feasible.

Because S.1959 doesnâ檛 explain what â淒isruptâ? means, one canâ檛 help wonder if S.1959 Study Groups might serve a government COINTELPRO operation, like the Domestic Counter Intelligence Program that illegally targeted U.S. Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights during the 1960â檚 and 70â?s.

Ideologically Based Violence; Guilt by Association: Language in S.1959 is so vague the â淐ommissionâ? could â渞eportâ? that all persons at a â減lannedâ? demonstration where protestors fought with policeââ減romotedâ? by their presence â淚deologically Based Violence.â? â淭he Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Actâ? defines: â淚deologically Based Violenceâ? as â渢he use, planed 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.â? Under this S.1959 definition, theâ? Commissionâ? need only allege that an individual or organization thought about using force.

S.1959 never explains what kind of â淔orceâ? or â淰iolenceâ? promotes â淚deologically Based Violence.â? So any bodily act or activity by a group or individual may constitute â渦se of forceâ? or violence to â減romote a social objective.â? For example: demonstrators sometimes verbally taught and make body-gestures at police. Under S.1959 that would appear to constitute â済roup threatening.â? Protestors put up their arms to defend themselves from being hit by police and opposing factions at demonstrations: Defending yourself might be â渦se of forceâ? according to the vague language of S.1959. Demonstrators blocking traffic may constitute â減lanned use of force?â?

According to S.1959 â淔orceâ? may be anything that police want it to be to report someone to the â淪.1959 Commission.â? Lawful protestors that attend a demonstration may constitute â減lanned forceâ? by their presence to promoteâ? â淚deologically Based Violence.â? Persons who setup or attend lawful meetings, create websites, write or distribute emails announcing a future demonstration or activity may be labeled by the â淪.1959 Commissionâ? as â渇acilitatorsâ? or â減romotersâ? of Ideologically Based Violence; or promoting Homegrown Terrorismâ攊f violence occurs or is threatened at a planned activity.

S.1959 Definition IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE: - The term `ideologically based violence' means 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.

Homegrown Terrorism: S.1959 definition of `Homegrown Terrorism' doesnâ檛 state what kind of â淔orce or Violence constitutes Homegrown Terrorism. Common fistfights or property damage at an anti-war or labor demonstration might qualify as â渉omegrown terrorismâ? to threaten, intimidate or coerce the U.S. Government or its people. S.1959 never explains what kind of physical behavior may â渋ntimidate or coerceâ? the United States Government; the civilian population of the United States.

The presence of lawful demonstrators could be alleged by the â渘ew Commissionâ? to â渋ntimidate or coerceâ? a civilian population. S.1959 is so vague, any individual donating money to or attending a â減lannedâ? anti-war rally or political meeting could be reported to the â淐ommissionâ? for attempting to coerce the government or its people. Should this new â淪.1959 commissionâ? become corrupt, it could be used to target and report on Americans and groups that support any cause opposed by the U.S. Government.

S.1959 Definition HOMEGROWN TERRORISM: - The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States Government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION: S.1959â檚 never qualifies what is an â渆xtremist belief system.â? The â淐ommissionâ? may arbitrarily â渞eportâ? any belief is â渆xtremist.â? For example: â渞eportâ? Americans to the Federal Government that send money to refugees and non-profits in a country that opposes U.S. policies: Assertâ攖hose Americans by donating money have â渁dopted an extremist belief systemâ? for purposes of promoting â渋deologically based violenceâ? or Homegrown Terrorism in that country or in the United States.

S.1959 Definition VIOLENT RADICALIZATION: - 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.

ALERT! The U.S. Senate Amendmentâ擲ubtitle J--Prevention to S.1959â攚ill remove many Constitutional protections and civil rights for both permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens.
Access Senate Amendment at:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959:

Shown below is Senate â淪ubtitle J Amendment.â?
Please note the Senate has in Sec. 899b used the weak words â淪hould Notâ? violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. The words â淪hould Notâ? are not very binding on government and police.

The U.S. Senate would better protect the rights of permanent immigrants and U.S. Citizens if the Senate used stronger wordsâ攆or example â淪hall Notâ? violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

See below: `Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following:
`(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.

S.1959 is in the â淐ommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.â?

Compare Hitlerâ檚 Laws below with the language in pending U.S. Senate bill S.1959:


Hitler's signed Discriminatory Laws of February 28, 1933

ROBL. I 83

DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1

Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2

If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

Section 4

Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishableâ攊nsofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5

The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

Section 6

This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice

This work is in the public domain
Sindicat Terrassa