![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I wrote a letter to each of my senators today. It's not often that I do that; largely because they are both Republicans and usually couldn't give a flying flip what I think, me being a Democrat so I don't vote for them anyway. But I felt that action was definitely necessary today. In case you're interested, I'm referring to HR 1955 or the "Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sunfell for educating me and pointing me towards these links.
Dear Senator Bunning/McConnell:
It has come to my attention that HR 1955, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” is soon coming up for a vote. I am very disturbed and frightened by the lack of clear definitions in this act. The terms used in the act are very broadly defined allowing for a multitude of definitions without drawing clear boundaries that protect rights granted by the US Constitution.
The lack of a clear definition of the term “force” allows for a variety of peaceful protest methods, including letter writing should such an act become part of an organized objection where the response overwhelmed fax lines or government servers handling email, to become acts of terror and those wielding pens or signs “terrorists”. “Force” is a term that, without definitions in the act itself, could be abused to prevent sit-ins, because of their potential to block services or access to services, and other protest gatherings that provide a way for citizens to peacefully lodge complaints with the government and the public at large over laws and policies judged by the citizen
to be unethical or even un-American.
I strongly urge you to vote no on this act. My husband is currently fighting terrorism in Iraq and I ask that while he is protecting our nation’s interests he is not so clearly robbed of his civil rights. The ability to object and to protest the actions of our government, should we find them unacceptable, is one of the most important things that defines our democracy and robbing us of that right or limiting that right by passing laws with such vague definitions pushes us dangerously close to the despotism and tyranny we fight abroad.
Please sir, you were elected to protect all of the citizens of the United States from just this sort of action. You were elected to insure that every citizen has a voice. By allowing the government to potentially label those who dissent as terrorists and their actions, or even planned actions, an act of terrorism, you are creating an environment in which every citizen is muzzled and prevented from contributing to democracy. It is these very differences of opinion that are the strengths of democracy. If thoughts become regulated, how can we as a nation grow and change to face the demands of the future? Limiting the power of an act such as this is our moral imperative. Power, once given, is nearly always impossible to limit. We all know the consequences when good men are silent.
Sincerely,
eiblyn
Citizen of the Commonwealth of KY
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Thanks to
sunfell for educating me and pointing me towards these links.Dear Senator Bunning/McConnell:
It has come to my attention that HR 1955, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” is soon coming up for a vote. I am very disturbed and frightened by the lack of clear definitions in this act. The terms used in the act are very broadly defined allowing for a multitude of definitions without drawing clear boundaries that protect rights granted by the US Constitution.
The lack of a clear definition of the term “force” allows for a variety of peaceful protest methods, including letter writing should such an act become part of an organized objection where the response overwhelmed fax lines or government servers handling email, to become acts of terror and those wielding pens or signs “terrorists”. “Force” is a term that, without definitions in the act itself, could be abused to prevent sit-ins, because of their potential to block services or access to services, and other protest gatherings that provide a way for citizens to peacefully lodge complaints with the government and the public at large over laws and policies judged by the citizen
to be unethical or even un-American.
I strongly urge you to vote no on this act. My husband is currently fighting terrorism in Iraq and I ask that while he is protecting our nation’s interests he is not so clearly robbed of his civil rights. The ability to object and to protest the actions of our government, should we find them unacceptable, is one of the most important things that defines our democracy and robbing us of that right or limiting that right by passing laws with such vague definitions pushes us dangerously close to the despotism and tyranny we fight abroad.
Please sir, you were elected to protect all of the citizens of the United States from just this sort of action. You were elected to insure that every citizen has a voice. By allowing the government to potentially label those who dissent as terrorists and their actions, or even planned actions, an act of terrorism, you are creating an environment in which every citizen is muzzled and prevented from contributing to democracy. It is these very differences of opinion that are the strengths of democracy. If thoughts become regulated, how can we as a nation grow and change to face the demands of the future? Limiting the power of an act such as this is our moral imperative. Power, once given, is nearly always impossible to limit. We all know the consequences when good men are silent.
Sincerely,
eiblynCitizen of the Commonwealth of KY
