Silly me and oh, a few (thousand) other bloggers tiredly hammering away at the keyboard... it turns out we have made a colossal mistake! H.R. 1955 / S. 1959 is doubleplusgood! Citizens should now refrain from writing letters to their Senators and rejoice in the glorious message that has been handed down from the Committee on Homeland Security, titled, Understanding H.R. 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Definitely do not, I repeat, do not sign this petition!

See, Dennis Kucinich just didn't understand, when he said, "...it was H.R. 1955? It probably should have been H.R. 1984. Because what they were doing... is they were trying to criminalize thought...", and former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi was just winging it when he wrote, "Language inserted in the act does partially define 'homegrown terrorism' as 'planning' or 'threatening' to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes 'violent radicalization' as the promotion of an 'extremist belief system' without attempting to define 'extremist.'" Then there are those whacked out crazies, over at the NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD AND SOCIETY OF AMERICAN LAW TEACHERS, who say, "This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment." Ron Paul puts the legislation in perspective, "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." (Even the normally indifferent Obama is waffling a bit on his position.)

Rep. Jane Harman and her pals at RAND apparently wonder why you, American Citizen, should be at all worried about being "studied" as a possible candidate for "violent radicalization" or "homegrown terrorism". As evidenced by the helpful guide to H.R. 1955 now front and center on the Committee's home page, you, thousands of lawyers, a couple Presidential Candidates, and thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens just don't understand.

Dummkopf!

The Orwellian character of H.R. 1955 is described well by OpEd News contributor, Robert Weitzel, but the bill is nothing compared to the little PDF pamphlet designed to help us "understand" the bill. Guide text in italics;

"The bipartisan Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed the House by a vote of 404-6. The bill received overwhelming support because it is a common sense approach to studying the unique threats of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States."

Actually, it's more likely that the bill received overwhelming support because, as Kucinich explained, "Most members don't read this legislation... people don't read these Bills. You get, everyday, a dozen Bills floating your way... some are a few pages, some are hundreds of pages, you have staff read 'em... and this came from a Democrat. This is a Democrat's Bill... and so, it comes from "your side", right? You don't read it... the Republicans are ready to pass anything like that... and so, people didn't read the Bill... and you look at the title, "Oh, yeah... we're against 'Homegrown Terrorism'..." ...people don't look at it... "Yeah, we're Patriots, we're for it... This is what we're faced with... so, when they come before you, to have to account for it {your vote} you see sometimes gymnastics, or balletics that are Olympian in their movement! But pathetic in their implications. And dangerous." Further, this bill was not subjected to a complete and open debate. Ron Paul says, "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.'"

"The purpose of H.R. 1955 is to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism using a method that has worked in the past: the establishment of a National Commission. This approach worked prior to September 11, 2001 with the National Commission on Terrorism, which set the stage for America’s counterterrorism strategy prior the September 11 attacks."

Pardon me, but it's pretty clear that the National Commission on Terrorism didn't exactly "work". Note the lack of the WTC in NYC. "America’s counterterrorism strategy" isn't working now either. There has been a steady increase in terrorist attacks following the Bush doctrine, so citing the good work of previous commissions doesn't exactly help the case, either.

I love the "Myths vs. Facts" section. Here, the doublespeak, is thick like oatmeal;

"There are no provisions seeking to change the criminal code or set up a “Big Brother” regime to put Americans under surveillance."

Clearly, "studying" Americans so they can be sorted into categories of "radicalization" is not "surveillance". Clearly.

"H.R. 1955 does NOT alienate any particular race, ethnicity or religious group."

Nope, ALL Americans will be under one "study", with liberty and surveillance for all.

"The protection of the Internet from government interference is in our national interest.

Can I get an amen?

"The arrests of U.S. citizens who were plotting attacks against the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey and JFK airport in New York earlier this year remind us that the threat in this country is real. And we must never forget that the most deadly act of terrorism perpetrated on American soil prior to September 11, 2001 was committed by American citizen Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for the death of over 180 people, including small children, in one day. These examples indicate that we need to be ahead of the curve."

But... "we" were ahead of the curve. The Fort Dix plot was foiled, and so was the JFK plot, "All the plots were apparently closely monitored by intelligence agencies, almost from their inception, and all were stopped long before they were capable of implementing them."

However, I am very glad that the Committee brought up OKC. Former deputy assistant director of the FBI, Danny Coulson has called for a new investigation of the OKC bombing, pointing to other conspirators involved with the plot, like foreign national Andreas Strassmeir. Further, Brigadier General Benton K. Partin released a report about the destructive power of McVeigh's truck bomb and concluded that the truck bomb alone was insufficient to cause the destruction seen at OKC;

"The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building. The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the “pit” area behind columns B4 and By. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3. It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage assessment was not made during the cleanup, before the building was demolished on May 23 and hundreds of truck loads of debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence. When the picture at Tab 4 was made, all evidence of demolition charges had been removed from the building site (i.e., the stubs of columns B3, A3, A5, A7 and the demolished junctures at the header with columns A3, A5 and A7. All ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementing demolition charges and the type of truck used could be quickly resolved if the FBI were required to release the surveillance camera coverage of this terribly tragic event."

There were multiple reports of other bombs besides the Ryder truck bomb;

Many experts say that the ANFO bomb just didn't have the jam to do what happened that day;

"The vast majority of the American people have never seen these quotes before, but they are important because each of these individuals are certified experts in their field. Why were none of them allowed to testify at McVeigh's trial in Denver?

Dr. Samuel Cohen, inventor of the neutron bomb and one of the last remaining scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project and has spent more than 50 years involved in scientific work stated: "I believe that demolition charges in the building placed inside at certain key concrete columns did the primary damage to the Murrah Federal Building." (June 1995) "It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil, no matter how much was used --to bring the building down." Contacted shortly after the third anniversary of the bombing, Dr. Cohen stated, "I have not been following the case closely, but it seems to me that the evidence has gotten much stronger in favor of internal charges, while the ammonium nitrate bomb theory has fallen apart."

Alvin Norberg is another expert in the field of explosives, construction and demolition. I gave a speech for the California Rifle & Pistol Association on June 11, 2001, the day McVeigh was executed and saw Mr. Norberg there. We had a discussion about the bombing and he told me to stay on the bombs in the building, they were the key. Norberg is a licensed professional engineer in Auburn, California with over 50 years of engineering experience on over 5,000 construction projects, writes that evidence from the ETS data:

"...verifies that the severe structural damage to the Murrah Building was not caused by a truck bomb outside the building," and that "the collapse of the Murrah Federal Building was the result of 'mechanically coupled devices' (bombs) placed locally within the structure adjacent to the critical columns."

Mike Smith, a civil engineer in Cartersville, Georgia, commissioned to review the Eglin Blast Effects Study, states:

"The results of the Blast Effect Test One on the Eglin Test Structure present strong evidence that a single Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil device of approximately 4800 lbs. placed inside a truck could not have caused the damage to the Murrah federal Building experienced on April 19, 1995.

"Even assuming that the building had structural deficiencies and that the ANFO device was constructed with racing fuel, the air-coupled blast produced from this 4800 lb. device would not have damaged the columns and beams of the Murrah Building enough to produce a catastrophic failure. "

Alexander B. Magnus, P.E., M.E. in letter to Warden Lappin at the Federal Penitentiary, Terra Haute, IN on June 10, 2001:

"Moreover, although a large number of top technical experts would have willingly testified at the McVeigh trial that the prosecutions version of the single truck bomb theory was physically impossible, these experts were never permitted to present such testimony. As a result, Timothy McVeigh was "convicted" of committing a physical impossibility.

"Consequently, I urge you not to proceed with the execution of Timothy McVeigh since critical exculpatory expert testimony was not presented to the McVeigh jury for consideration. The execution of Timothy McVeigh will constitute additional destruction of "evidence."*

Videos of ANFO car bombs seem to bear this out. The vehicle is nearly totally disintegrated, there is a big, distracting explosion, but no "huge crater". You can see some examples of ANFO car bombs in the documentary, Fool Me Twice.

Finally, (and entirely within the scope of this particular website), it sure is interesting that a bunch of the same cover-up-- I mean "investigators" were involved with OKC and 9/11;

Funny, I don't feel "radical".

-------------------------------------------------------------

(The Orwell playing card is from infinitejest.org - See the entire "AMERICAN CRUSADE 2001+" series here:
http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/cards.html )

* This long quote is © 2004 Devvy Kidd, originally posted at "News With Views": http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd31.htm , January 18, 2004.