Governmental "feature creep"?

[Ducimus]

Warning: I might be making a Yubba post here.


So Recently a House Bill was brought to my attention, and it sounds somewhat innocent enough by itself. However, an argument was made that this bill, is one to really watch because it's going to label people and give the government the legal means they shouldn't have.

So I looked at what I think is the supporting evidence of this argument, and I think that they are either correct, or playing "connect the dots" a little bit too much.That said, i'm mostly convinced to think they are correct that this is a bill to watch, but I say that with some reservation of doubt. In fact with these things, i always keep the thought in the back of my mind, that things can be entirely read into too much. Reading too much into something, i think is how conspiracy theories and other misc forms of crackpottery are made. So I always keep that mental reservation.

So what is this bill?

H.R. 1584: Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Terrorism Act of 2013

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prevent terrorism, including terrorism associated with homegrown violent extremism and domestic violent extremism, and for other purposes.

Now, the keywords to be concerned with is "homegrown violent extremism".

The actual text from the bill defines the following.

SEC. 899K. DEFINITIONS.

‘In this subtitle:

‘(1) VIOLENT EXTREMISM- The term ‘violent extremism’ means supporting or committing ideologically motivated violence.

So to meet this criteria, you either support a an ideological motivated act of violence, OR you initiated the act yourself. Now, considering this is a violent act were talking about, it sounds fair enough, although the "supporting" bit sounds like a little bit of a slippery slope to me.


So why would this generally be of concern?

Rewind to 2009,
the DHS accidently released their now infamous "Domestic Extremism Lexicon". (hang onto your butts, were entering alex jones territory!)

The document itself (you can see an archive of it here ). In it there is a group of people that made the list of what is considered to be a domestic extremist.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 7 of 11
(U) patriot movement
A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.

Ok, so in other words, crazy dudes in montana wearing combat fatigues, talking to God on a two way radio. Alright, I can go along with that. This sounds like a group that should probably be on the list. No problem.

But then it goes on further and says:

(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist)

Whoooaaaa there! Stop the bus! The hell you say? If i believe in the Constitution I'm now a domestic extremist? Ok, so the DHS completely disavows this list and they say it was not ever in official use. Ok, so,for the sake of being fair, and not diving too far into the deep end of the crazy pool, i'll accept the government explanation for now. Though I have to wonder, if it was not ever an officially used document, then why does it exist? It certainly looks official.


So lets fast forward from 2009 to 2011.
This bit of news you'll find saturating your search engine results. This is the most credible article i could find, though even it smacks of Alex Jones.

Ridiculous DHS list: You might be a domestic terrorist if...
Sounds like the same DHS list i inked to from 2009 right?

An 18-year veteran in law enforcement warned to beware of Homeland Security training that is being pushed to local law enforcement. "You might be a Domestic Terrorist If" you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is NOT a joke.

The article then goes on about what the DHS defines as a domestic terrorist. The main source of the article seems to stem from a blog post made by someone who claims be an 18year law enforcement veteran.

Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An Insider
Said article, which I can't drill down and find a source past a blog post, is basically giving this list of how one becomes defined as being a "domestic terrorist".

These federal trainers describe the dangers of “extremists” and “militia groups” roaming the community and hiding in plain sight, ready to attack. Officers are instructed how to recognize these domestic terrorists by their behavior, views and common characteristics. State data bases are kept to track suspected domestic terrorists and officers are instructed on reporting procedures to state and federal agencies. The state I work in, like many others, have what is known as a “fusion center” that compiles a watch list of suspicious people.

So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
Homeschooling
Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Really? WOW. If this is true, then I am royally screwed. (edit: cause Im libertarian minded, a supporter of 2A, NRA member, have a CCW, and slightly worried about economic collapse. )
Ok back to reality, one of two things is going on here.

a.) This is either some prankster playing on the fears of the previously leaked DHS lexicon, which is entirely plausible and even likely, or
b.) this writer of the blog post is genuine. He does sound like an insider and a conscientious objector for lack of a better term.

The trouble here is, either decision as to authenticity is an assumption when you consider current events. Fast forward to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, and the whole indefinite detention of Americans without a trial bit. The law, it's interpretations, and controversy's are well documented. Fast forward another year, and now we have NSA scandal. A few months ago, PRISM was solidly in the realm of conspiracy theorists, but today is a fact.

What do you think? Governmental "power creep"? Too much "connect the dots"? Or something else entirely?


As an aside, i suspect I'm gonna regret making this post. Yubba jokes at my expense and all that.