Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow Politic arrow Ron Paul on Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
Dec 07 2007
Ron Paul on Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act | Print |  E-mail
Political Views
By MWC NEWS   

Translation

Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955
By Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. Image

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.  Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies?  This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem.  Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.”  Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission?  Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed.  It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties.  It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/

This_Category
Category:: Political Views

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 1131

Comments (1)
RSS comments
1. 07-12-2007 17:14
Of course Ron Paul is correct! It is just more hot air from Congress that can have awful,and I hope, unintended consequences. The Constitution exists for a reason. I wish someone other than Ron Paul would read it occasionally in Washington DC. And while reading it, pay attention to the simple English meanings it clearly states (as taught to the baby boomers in 7th grade) WITHOUT twisting the meanings of common words. Just another reason to support Ron Paul! By the way the BLIMP will fly! For those of you unfamiliar with this, the meanings of these words are simple, non-confluented and not distorted with acronyms. The blimp for Ron Paul will fly. Just google it.
Guest

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Ron Paul Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Violent Radicalization HR 1955
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: