Dear
Senator Collins:
I
have just had occasion to take another look at the text of the bill you and
Senator Coleman submitted last August, S1959, The Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, and I feel I must write to you
and ask you to clarify some very important matters for me, if you would be so
kind. Since many of my previous communications have not been answered in
recent years, and because of the importance of this matter, I am sending this
by registered mail.
Although you have language that gives at least a
superficial caveat [SEC. 899B. (FINDINGS), Clause 8] toward
the protection of constitutional guarantees of civil liberty, I feel you have
neglected to include in the text of the bill language to make the
implementation thereof certain to be free of unintended, and frankly
unconstitutional, enforcement measures.
You
would be doing the bill's presumed good and proper intentions a great service
if you would provide clear and exact language that separates "prohibited"
from "protected" speech, publication, public demonstration,
and communication via existing or expectable new media.
Furthermore, it is essential that you remove the cloud
of doubt hanging over the expression, "should not" in SEC. 899B.
(FINDINGS), Clause 8:
"Any measure taken to prevent
violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence
and homegrown terrorism in the
Forgive me my paranoia, but "should not" is insufficiently strong
language in this dark day and age, Senator. The Director of Central
Intelligence telling a reporter, on camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM)
that the Fourth Amendment doesn't require probable cause is like the smell of
smoke in an old house to the nose of this old firedog, given that Justice
Potter Stewart famously said for the 7-1 majority in Katz,
. . . that searches conducted
outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate,
are per se unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically
established and well delineated exceptions. " [Katz
v.
With
a gang of constitutional hackers like John Yoo on their team, ready and willing
to pursue the most strained and, excuse me, but let me quote one of this bill's
favorite words, "extremist" interpretations in order
to, by any and all means, remove the protections against tyranny from the Bill
of Rights, (in addition to the 4th, also the 5th
Amendment protection against forcible extraction of self incrimination, i.e.,
torture, including, in Yoo's words, to the genitals of young boys with pliers
in front of their parents; 6th Amendment protection against
peremptory dismissal of the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront
one's accusers, sc. being declared an "Unlawful Enemy
Combatant", a calumny in the power of any general, colonel, major,
captain, &c. whom the president or Sec'y of Defense shall so designate, as
you well know, Senator, per the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
which you voted for, and from which you, Sen. Snowe, and one other presumed
and much touted moderate could have extracted the poisonous language
destructive of the precious Writ of Habeas Corpus, that right without which no
other right is of any value, via the Specter Amendment, but refused to do so.
That
bill utterly violates the rights not only of citizens, but of
"persons" unspecified. ["No person shall be held to
answer ...", "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy ..., &c. There is no mention of citizenship being
required in these contexts.] To counter that Habeas is reserved for
citizens ignores the elephant in the room, doesn’t it? — that citizenship
can be suspended with the stroke of a pen by these aforementioned subalterns,
and a “former citizen” (admit it: it could be me, or even you —
admit it, or give me hard law that says otherwise, dear Senator) in such a case
would have greatly benefited from the continued inclusion of the Writ. I
find it unpalatable to leave my life and fortune at the whim of such as these:
I want Law protecting me — not the tender mercies of torturers.
The reason that secrecy for these
draconian measures is coveted by this regime, and you know it, is that quoted
by Sen. Ervin as chair during Watergate:
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [John 3:19]
Just
as the excuse for first use of the State Secrets Privilege (United States v.
Reynolds (345 U.S. 1)) was revealed fifty years later to be a cover-up, not of
secret weapons, but of malfeasance on the part of the Air Force, ie., shoddy
maintenance leading to the deaths of the airmen, and as the Watergate cover-up
had to do only with crimes of the Executive, and as the oh! so secret Pentagon
Papers revealed only that the military had lied, not only to the people but to
the Congress, about war successes, the "plausible deniability" of
Reagan and the claims of Poppy Bush being "out of the loop" on
Iran/Contra, not to mention the sudden lobotomy of Bill Casey right before his
testimony, &c., &c. — in like manner, the darkness of Bush's prisons
and rendition sites does not protect the secrets of the Republic, but those of
his own wrongdoings. To quote
"For the king knoweth of these things, before
whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are
hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner."
[Acts 26:26]
Don't
let your good name and your posterity be entangled with these crimes,
Senator. Let this, what may turn out to be your signature bill, be
pristine and utterly clean of all loopholes, thru which unscrupulous
individuals would drive their Mack trucks.
——————————ťšœ›——————————
Now,
as to specifics, we read in your bill [SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.,
clause 2]:
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.
This
is strong, explosive language, but is the construction of the bore equal to the
explosive force of the charge? The word "extremist" occurs only
once in the bill, providing no triangulation or context whereby future officers
of the court or the executive, however well-meaning, may be able to refine
their understanding of your intent.
For example, consider this inflammatory language, so dear to my heart:
|
|
Is
this extremist rhetoric? Is it subversive?
More
importantly, is it extremist to make reference to this
document in a context of teaching and of exhortation to participation in public
affairs? Does this document offer a guarantee?
Another
example: The Boston "Tea Party". The most noteworthy example of
resistance to, and rejection of, wrongful and abusive treatment of the general
populace by government in favor of a crony capitalist, viz., the first
Multinational Corporation, the British East India Company, whose inferior tea
was exempt from the king's Tea Act, where the middle class businessmen, most
notably John Hancock, whose ship the Liberty was seized for violation,
were subject to the tax.
"What
is your question, Mr. Publius?" I'm getting to that. My
question is, what language in your bill, Senator, prevents it from being used
to persecute people who forthrightly protest equally egregious offenses of the
present "King George" (or by any of his successors, who are no more
trustworthy, in my opinion, looking at the potential winners), protestors who
might for example make reference to this, in my school days, hallowed event,
even protestors who themselves take no part in some incidental illegal
activity that might be construed to have been inspired by the protest?
The
First Amendment used to be enough to protect such persons. I greatly fear
your bill has enticed the John Yoos and the Alberto Gonzaleses, and the Jay
Bybees of Washington to take it as carte blanche, to say, "well,
granted the bill says we 'should' make allowances for the First Amendment, but
it doesn't say we 'have to', and where this guy in the Indian costume is so
scary, we just have no choice, really, but to seize all his computers and all
the computers of everyone mentioned in his computer, and everyone mentioned in
their computers, &c., &c., because, after all, TERROR, TERROR, TERROR,
bin Ladin, bin Ladin, bin Ladin, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 . . . .”
I
had to smile when Sen. Biden summarized all of Giuliani's sentences as, "A
noun, a verb, and 9/11". And I was put in mind of Tom Ridge's famous
confession that he often disagreed with the admin's moves to raise threat level
color codes, although he always ducked direct questions about direct linkages,
say, the 10/30/04 press conference questions about the convenience of the
imminent election and the "bin Ladin" video that both candidates
acknowledge turned the vote — you remember, the "Grecian Formula" bin
Ladin?
So
in summary, Senator, I am asking you to consider remachining the bore of this
weapon, so that it will hit the target you intended, and not, like a sawed-off
shotgun, a broad range of innocent "collateral damage" targets.
Come
out on the side of "dice with spots on 'em", unlike the famous ones
used by Nick the Greek, in the final act of Guys and Dolls, where he
reassures a little hood down on the floor with him, "dat's OK — I remember
where da spots are".
Let
us be a NATION OF LAWS, NOT OF PERSONS. Let our laws be clear and
unambiguous.
Many
thanks for your time, your attention, and your expected reply.
Sincerely,
your constituent,