[Infowarrior] - Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

[Richard Forno]

    The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
    By Matt Renner
    t r u t h o u t | Report

    Thursday 29 November 2007

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907J.shtml

    A month ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation that
targets Americans with radical ideologies for research. The bill has
received little media attention and has almost unanimous support in the
House. However, civil liberties groups see the bill as a threat to the
constitutionally protected freedoms of expression, privacy and protest.

    HR 1955, "The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2007", apparently intended to assess "homegrown" terrorism threats and
causes is on a fast-track through Congress. Proponents claim the bill would
centralize information about the formation of domestic terrorists and would
not impinge on constitutional rights.

    On October 23, the bill passed the House of Representatives by a 404-6
margin with 23 members not voting. If passed in the Senate and signed into
law by George W. Bush, the act would establish a ten-member National
Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism, to study and propose legislation to address the threat of
possible "radicalization" of people legally residing in the US.

    Despite being written by a Democrat, the current version of the act
would probably set up a Commission dominated by Republicans. By allowing
Bush and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to each appoint one
member of the Commission, and splitting the appointment of the other eight
positions equally between Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the
Commission would consist of six Republican appointees and four Democratic
ones.

    The Commission would be tasked with collecting information on
domestically spawned terrorism from a variety of sources, including foreign
governments and previous domestic studies. The Commission would then report
to Congress and recommend policy changes to address the threat. There is no
opposition to this consolidation or research. However, the Commission would
be given broad authority to hold hearings and collect evidence, powers that
raise red flags for civil liberties groups.

    Civil liberties activists have criticized the bill, some comparing the
Commission it would establish to the McCarthy Commission that investigated
Americans for possible associations with Communist groups, casting suspicion
on law-abiding citizens and ruining their reputations. The Commission would
be empowered to "hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places,
take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the
Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties."

    Odette Wilkens, the executive director of the Equal Justice Alliance, a
constitutional watchdog group, compared the legislation to the McCarthy
Commission and to the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which
infiltrated, undermined and spied on civil rights and antiwar groups during
the 1950s and 60s.

    "The commission would have very broad powers. It could investigate
anyone. It would create a public perception that whoever is being
investigated by the Commission must be involved in subversive or illegal
activities. It would give the appearance that whoever they are investigating
is potentially a traitor or disloyal or a terrorist, even if all they were
doing was advocating lawful views," Wilkens said.

    In a speech on the floor of the House before the vote, Congresswoman
Jane Harman (D-California), the chair of the House Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Intelligence and author of the bill said, "Free speech,
espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution - but
violent behavior is not. Our plan must be to intervene before a person
crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior, to
understand the forces at work on the individual and the community, to create
an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, that
instills in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future."

    In the same speech, Harman explained why "homegrown" terrorists are a
threat to the US. She offered the explanation that adolescents who might be
susceptible to recruitment by gangs might also be potential terrorists.

    "Combine that personal adolescent upheaval with the explosion of
information technologies and communications tools - tools which American
kids are using to broadcast messages from al-Qaeda - and there is a road map
to terror, a 'retail outlet' for anger and warped aspirations. Link that
intent with a trained terrorist operative who has actual capability, and a
'Made in the USA' suicide bomber is born," Harman said.

    The bill specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of
radicalization. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent
radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism
process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant
streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

    In a press release, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington
American Civil Liberties Union legislative office, took issue with this
characterization. "If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then the
ACLU will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment
activities. Why go down that road?" Fredrickson asked in a press release.

    The ALCU has "serious concerns" about the bill. Fredrickson said, "Law
enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the
people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that
the government may consider to be extreme."

    According to Wilkens, the bill, in its current form, lacks specific
definitions. which would give the Commission expansive and possibly
dangerous powers. The Committee would be set up to address the process of
"violent radicalization," which the bill defines as "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." According to Wilkens, the bill does not adequately define "an
extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse.

    "An 'extremist belief system' can be whatever anyone on the commission
says it is. Back in the 60s, civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters
were considered radicals. They weren't committing violence but they were
considered radicals because of their belief system," Wilkens said.

    The bill would also create a "Center of Excellence for the Study of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States," on an
unspecified University campus. Unlike other Centers of Excellence
university-based government research centers created by the Department of
Homeland Security, the Center established by this bill could have a chilling
effect on political activity on campus because of its specific mission to
"assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through
training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and
homegrown terrorism," according to Wilkens.

    "If you are on campus and the thought police are on campus are you going
to want to join a political group?" Wilkens asked.

    Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was one
of three Democrats who voted against the bill, but he has given no public
explanation for his opposition and his office did not respond to a call for
comment as of this writing.

    Neither the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) nor
Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan), the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, voted on the bill.

    The bill has been referred to the Senate Homeland Security Committee,
chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut). With overwhelming support
from the House, it is likely to pass quickly through the Senate.

    Matt Renner is an assistant editor and Washington reporter for Truthout.