[Infowarrior] - Œ Homegrown ¹ Suppression of Dissent

[Richard Forno]

 Published on Friday, November 30, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
ŒHomegrown¹ Suppression of Dissent
by Jules Boykoff

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/15/30/5526/

Last month the U.S. House of Representatives flew a stealth mission under
the mainstream media¹s radar, passing startling legislation that targets
constitutionally protected political speech and paves a path for the
government¹s suppression of dissent.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
would establish a ten-member National Commission on the Prevention of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism primarily comprised of
Congress members. It would also give the Department of Homeland Security the
power to create ³a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism² to ³study the social,
criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots² of U.S.-based
radicalization and terrorism.

Despite its overwhelming support in the House­where it passed 404 to 6­this
law is severely problematic in three main ways.

First of all, it¹s superfluous. We don¹t need more laws against ³violent
radicalization² and ³homegrown terrorism.² We already have plenty of
legislation outlawing murder, conspiracy, arson, and other crimes that the
government often associates with terrorism, not to mention wide-reaching
terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act, and the Military Commissions Act, all of which can be applied to U.S.
citizens.

As such, the bill is less an honest effort to combat actual terrorism than
it is ideology-drenched window dressing designed to win political points and
electoral votes.

Second, the measure takes aim at political speech that is protected under
the First Amendment of the Constitution. Groups and individuals trying to
further ³political or social objectives² are explicitly the focus of the
act, which brings up questions around the freedom of assembly.

>From a judicial perspective, this bill is a constitutional challenge waiting
to happen.

Sure the bill claims, ³Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization,
homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violenceŠshould not violate the
constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States
citizens or lawful permanent residents.²

But given the actual text of the bill and the Bush administration¹s penchant
to engage in warrantless surveillance, this flimsy caveat assuring that
dissent will not be suppressed is tantamount to saying ³I don¹t do cocaine,
I just like the way it smells.²

Third, too often the bill employs alarmingly over-broad definitions. The
bill states that ³ideologically based violence² is ³the use, planned use, or
threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the
group or individual¹s political, religious, or social beliefs.²

It doesn¹t take the imagination of an avant-garde poet to envision scenarios
in which radical political dissidents could get sucked into the
wide-swirling vortex of ³ideologically based violence.²

What if protesters use their bodies during a direct action to take over an
intersection or to block traffic, as anti-war activists in Olympia,
Washington have done recently? Can this seriously be dubbed ³homegrown
terrorism²?

What about an anarchist who hurls a brick through a corporate window to make
a political statement? Is this vandalism really ³violent radicalization² or
³homegrown terrorism²?

The bill also defines ³violent radicalization² in part as ³adopting or
promoting an extremist belief system,² but what exactly is ³an extremist
belief system²? Anti-capitalism? Socialism? Anarchism? Neo-conservatism?

Even a cursory look backward through U.S. history reveals heroic figures who
could be dubbed ³violent radicals² or ³homegrown terrorists² under the
proposed bill, from U.S. revolutionaries like Sam Adams to gun-toting
slavery abolitionists like John Brown to militant civil-rights organizers
like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Shortly after the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787, ³What
country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time
to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?² The Senate,
which is currently considering a virtually identical version of the bill,
would do well to resurrect ³the spirit of resistance² and finally say no to
the Bush administration¹s persistent whittling of our civil liberties.

The House roll call vote demonstrates that this is not a partisan issue. The
bill¹s supporters were obviously bi-partisan, but it¹s important to note
that opposition to the bill was also bi-partisan, with three Democrats and
three Republicans voting against it.

Unlike the media­who have performed a mums-the-word blackout on the
bill­concerned citizens from the left, right, and center must oppose this
legislation before the Senate slots it into law. We need a nonpartisan
groundswell to stand up to this newest onslaught against our civil
liberties, before it¹s too late.

Jules Boykoff is the author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in
the United States (AK Press, 2007). He teaches political science at Pacific
University in Oregon.