Compare Language in “Hitler’s Laws” with Pending U.S. Senate Bill S.1959
Dan Scott | 06.06.2008 02:16 | Repression | World
It is absolutely striking how language in pending S.1959, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" appears to mirror some of Hitler’s Discriminatory Laws the Fuhrer signed in 1933.
Below this article are “Adolf Hitler’s fascist laws: To compare any similarity of language found in “Hitler’s Laws” with U.S. Senate bill S.1959, you may access:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959:
Hitler’s laws invoked fear in German Citizens. Outlawed free speech and banned any act of expression that might threaten the German State—according to police. S.1959 is not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory laws that suspended the German Constitution, but like “Hitler’s Laws”, Senate bill 1959 similarly threatens our Constitution, our right to free speech, free association and assembly.
S. 1959 if passed would create a new “government commission” that will investigate Americans, study ethnic groups and cultures to “determine” which groups and individuals in the United States might be prone to violence or homegrown terrorism. Evidence and other information collected by this “Commission’s” may be used by the Government and law enforcement to label Americans as “promoters” of homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence and violent radicalization. Because this information may be kept “classified” lawful Americans—may never have the opportunity to refute terrorist accusations made against them. The “new Commission” will provide in reports, its findings and recommendations” to Congress and the President.
Government Planned Disruption of Activities: S.1959 states it will establish university based study programs to find “immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence…” While that sounds positive, S.1959 also states that its study program will “conduct classified” studies and make recommendations for “Disruption of ” ”S.1959 completely fails to explain how the U.S. Government might “disrupt Ideologically Based Violence” when no crime has been committed.
The text in S.1959’s B) ANNEX effectively states—reports submitted under subparagraph (A) may include a “classified annex” 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 doesn’t explain what “Disrupt” means, one can’t help wonder if S.1959 Study Groups might serve a government COINTELPRO type operation, like the Domestic Counter Intelligence Program that illegally targeted U.S. Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights during the 1960’s and 70”s.
Ideologically Based Violence; Guilt by Association: Language in S.1959 is so vague the “Commission” could “report” that all persons at a “planned” demonstration where protestors fought with police—“promoted” by their presence “Ideologically Based Violence.” The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act defines: “Ideologically Based Violence” as “the 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.” Under this S.1959 definition, the” Commission” need only allege that an individual or organization thought about using force.
S.1959 never explains what kind of “Force” or “Violence” promotes “Ideologically Based Violence.” So any bodily act or activity by a group or individual may constitute “use of force” or violence to “promote a social objective.” For example: demonstrators sometimes verbally taught and make body-gestures at police. Under S.1959 that would appear to constitute “group threatening.” Protestors put up their arms to defend themselves from being hit by police and opposing factions at demonstrations: Defending yourself might be “use of force” according to the vague language of S.1959. Demonstrators blocking traffic may constitute “planned use of force?”
According to S.1959 “Force” may be anything that police want it to be to report anyone to the “S.1959 Commission.” Lawful protestors that attend a demonstration may constitute “planned force” by their presence to promote” “Ideologically Based Violence.” Persons who setup or attend lawful meetings, create websites, write or distribute emails announcing a future demonstration or activity may be labeled by the “S.1959 Commission” as “facilitators” or “promoters” of Ideologically Based Violence; or promoting Homegrown Terrorism—if 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' doesn’t state what kind of “Force or Violence constitutes Homegrown Terrorism. Common Fistfights or property damage at an anti-war or labor demonstration might qualify as “homegrown terrorism” to threaten, intimidate or coerce the U.S. Government or its people. S.1959 never explains what kind of physical behavior may “intimidate or coerce” the United States Government, the civilian population of the United States.
The presence of lawful demonstrators could be alleged by the “new Commission” to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population. S.1959 is so vague, any individual donating money to or attending a “planned” anti-war rally or political meeting could be reported to the “Commission” for attempting to coerce the government or its people. Should this new “S.1959 commission” 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.1959’s never qualifies what is an “extremist belief system.” The “Commission” may arbitrarily “report” any belief is “extremist.” For example: “report” Americans to the Federal Government that send money to refugees and non-profits in a country that opposes U.S. policies: Assert those Americans by donating money have “adopted an extremist belief system” for purposes of promoting “ideologically based violence” 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 words “should not” in Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Sec. 899b will do little to protect our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties. So why did the Senate elected not to use “Shall Not” violate the constitutional rights….”
S1959: Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Sec. 899b: 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 “Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.”
Compare Hitler’s Laws below with the language in pending 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 punishable—insofar 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
Below this article are “Adolf Hitler’s fascist laws: To compare any similarity of language found in “Hitler’s Laws” with U.S. Senate bill S.1959, you may access:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1959: Hitler’s laws invoked fear in German Citizens. Outlawed free speech and banned any act of expression that might threaten the German State—according to police. S.1959 is not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory laws that suspended the German Constitution, but like “Hitler’s Laws”, Senate bill 1959 similarly threatens our Constitution, our right to free speech, free association and assembly.
S. 1959 if passed would create a new “government commission” that will investigate Americans, study ethnic groups and cultures to “determine” which groups and individuals in the United States might be prone to violence or homegrown terrorism. Evidence and other information collected by this “Commission’s” may be used by the Government and law enforcement to label Americans as “promoters” of homegrown terrorism, ideologically based violence and violent radicalization. Because this information may be kept “classified” lawful Americans—may never have the opportunity to refute terrorist accusations made against them. The “new Commission” will provide in reports, its findings and recommendations” to Congress and the President.
Government Planned Disruption of Activities: S.1959 states it will establish university based study programs to find “immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence…” While that sounds positive, S.1959 also states that its study program will “conduct classified” studies and make recommendations for “Disruption of ” ”S.1959 completely fails to explain how the U.S. Government might “disrupt Ideologically Based Violence” when no crime has been committed.
The text in S.1959’s B) ANNEX effectively states—reports submitted under subparagraph (A) may include a “classified annex” 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 doesn’t explain what “Disrupt” means, one can’t help wonder if S.1959 Study Groups might serve a government COINTELPRO type operation, like the Domestic Counter Intelligence Program that illegally targeted U.S. Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights during the 1960’s and 70”s.
Ideologically Based Violence; Guilt by Association: Language in S.1959 is so vague the “Commission” could “report” that all persons at a “planned” demonstration where protestors fought with police—“promoted” by their presence “Ideologically Based Violence.” The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act defines: “Ideologically Based Violence” as “the 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.” Under this S.1959 definition, the” Commission” need only allege that an individual or organization thought about using force.
S.1959 never explains what kind of “Force” or “Violence” promotes “Ideologically Based Violence.” So any bodily act or activity by a group or individual may constitute “use of force” or violence to “promote a social objective.” For example: demonstrators sometimes verbally taught and make body-gestures at police. Under S.1959 that would appear to constitute “group threatening.” Protestors put up their arms to defend themselves from being hit by police and opposing factions at demonstrations: Defending yourself might be “use of force” according to the vague language of S.1959. Demonstrators blocking traffic may constitute “planned use of force?”
According to S.1959 “Force” may be anything that police want it to be to report anyone to the “S.1959 Commission.” Lawful protestors that attend a demonstration may constitute “planned force” by their presence to promote” “Ideologically Based Violence.” Persons who setup or attend lawful meetings, create websites, write or distribute emails announcing a future demonstration or activity may be labeled by the “S.1959 Commission” as “facilitators” or “promoters” of Ideologically Based Violence; or promoting Homegrown Terrorism—if 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' doesn’t state what kind of “Force or Violence constitutes Homegrown Terrorism. Common Fistfights or property damage at an anti-war or labor demonstration might qualify as “homegrown terrorism” to threaten, intimidate or coerce the U.S. Government or its people. S.1959 never explains what kind of physical behavior may “intimidate or coerce” the United States Government, the civilian population of the United States.
The presence of lawful demonstrators could be alleged by the “new Commission” to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population. S.1959 is so vague, any individual donating money to or attending a “planned” anti-war rally or political meeting could be reported to the “Commission” for attempting to coerce the government or its people. Should this new “S.1959 commission” 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.1959’s never qualifies what is an “extremist belief system.” The “Commission” may arbitrarily “report” any belief is “extremist.” For example: “report” Americans to the Federal Government that send money to refugees and non-profits in a country that opposes U.S. policies: Assert those Americans by donating money have “adopted an extremist belief system” for purposes of promoting “ideologically based violence” 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 words “should not” in Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Sec. 899b will do little to protect our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties. So why did the Senate elected not to use “Shall Not” violate the constitutional rights….”
S1959: Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Sec. 899b: 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 “Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.”
Compare Hitler’s Laws below with the language in pending 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 punishable—insofar 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
Dan Scott
Comments
Display the following comment