Ren commented a bit earlier about S.1959, otherwise titled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007“. Her point is has elements in common with those that I like many with a “keep the government out of my life” view have asked before.
“You know, this is rather disturbing. I mean, is there a concrete set of guidelines for what constitutes “radical homegrown terrorism”? Also, I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the constitution that it said people had a right to band together and oppose, even overthrow, a government within the US they found to be oppressive and totalitarian? Hummm….” – Ren
I’ll take the second part first and the answer is no. There is no constitutionally protected right to overthrow the government of the United States. There is not the Supreme Court has decided even a constitutionally protected right to conspire to do so. There is a big gray area around free speech when one is discussing “revolution” (in whatever form) so long as you are not working to incite it directly.
Nor, to be honest, would such a right make any sense. Frankly, if it gets that far then whether or not the government was granting us the “right” to overthrow it would be irrelevant. Further, such a right would by it’s very nature mean that the government would be incapable of protecting itself in any fashion from a totalitarian sect or foreign power who wanted to destroy the nation. Do you actually want the country to be constantly wracked by running gun battles as factions tried almost daily to occupy the seat of government and control our nation? You are thinking in terms of “last ditch” efforts and a bad government – but the right to openly attempt armed revolution would be open to anyone who was a citizen. The chaos would start instantly. Think about every far right splinter militia, every far left communist sect, the violent tree huggers and even the “Radical Feminists”. They might all see our society as “oppressive and totalitarian”.
What the founding fathers provided us was a fail safe in the second amendment. If all else fails and the government is totally gone to hell, then an armed citizenry is capable of revolution. This is why all attempts to prevent private gun ownership (criminals aside) are dangerous in the extreme.
Personally, I think S.1959 is not a bad idea… though I will need more detail to be sure. I think there is a legitimate role for security and intelligence sources to investigate and hinder the actions of groups who use violence to force their views on others. This includes the “weather underground” types as well as the idiots who bomb abortion clinics. It would cover the scum who “spike” trees and vandalize construction equipment. It would have covered the actions of the old KKK “cross burning” asshats and more. These things cross the line from “civil disobedience” to terrorism and as it becomes more and more clear they are often influenced by external forces it is even more critical to control them.
A society for and of the people cannot function if it is under constant armed attack and legally powerless to protect itself. Granting a constitutional right protecting the overthrow of the government would mean no legal consequences for a whole range of violent, terrorist acts. Someone could truck bomb the Senate building and walk away without jail time (because you cannot, by definition, be punished for a protected act). It would be open season.
I know none of that is what you were intending to advocate but that is the thing about the law – a wide range of interlocking consequences flow from small changes to it. An interpretation of a constitutional issue has huge ripples.
The first part of Ren’s question (“I mean, is there a concrete set of guidelines for what constitutes “radical homegrown terrorism”?” ) is also complex. The answer is that there certainly is specific language -but like much in law the words still depend on open interpretations but judges and juries. When is someone just a violent asshole and when are they a domestic terrorist? That is something that juries decide in the end.
As we learn more about the bill, I am sure my thoughts will evolve.
No comments yet.