[Infowarrior] - The Politics of Paranoia

[Richard Forno]

Jane Harman's War on the First Amendment
The Politics of Paranoia

By Col. DAN SMITH

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10252007.html

Congresswoman Jane Harman has introduced legislation--H.R. 1955: "Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"--that is expected to be referred to
the House Rules Committee for assignment of floor time for debate by the
House. This is a bill that is unneeded, unwise, and unfortunately will pass
and be signed into law as it purports to be part of the response to 9/11 and
the global war on terror.

At base, Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment
rights. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph
(the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired.
Specifically, this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the
Internet:

"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."

Moreover, Harman is telling the American public, citizens and permanent
residents, that they are too dumb to recognize hate speech, demonizing
rhetoric, and propaganda, and are so morally immature that they are not
capable of knowing when to "blow off" terrorists and their messages designed
to incite large scale insurrection

One also gets the impression that Harman believes that terrorist criminality
has become so wide and the number of people who mentally entertain thoughts
of non-compliance with authority so numerous that the country is about to
teeter into chaos

But looking at the FBI's major violent crime trend lines over the past 20
years reveals, if not the opposite situation, at least a wash on violent
crime frequency. I've chosen three reference points: 1987, before
"terrorism" became an issue; 2001 (with September 11th fatalities not
included in the murder rate); and 2006.

- In 1987, the U.S. population was 242.3 million; in 2001 285.3 million; and
in 2006 299.4 million.

- In 1987, an estimated 1.484 million violent crimes were committed in the
U.S.; in 2001, the total was 1.438 million; and in 2006, 1.418 million.

- In 1987, the violent crime rate per 100,000 was 612.5; in 2001 504.5; and
in 2006 473.5. The 2006 rate was the000 third lowest in this 20 year
comparison. violent crime in the U.S. rose 1.9% between 2005 and 2006, the
second consecutive year the rate went up.

About the only statistic that has really gone wild is the number of people
sent to jail in the U.S. As of June 30, 2006, U.S. prisons held 776,010
inmates, an increase of 2.5% over the previous June 30, 2005.
I am a bit surprised that more defenders of the constitution have not
started a groundswell to ensure the legislation never gets to the floor of
the House for discussion. I have already pointed out the First Amendment.
There is more. To get to this "more," it's necessary to reproduce three
definitions contained in the bill.

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- 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.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or
violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating
primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to
intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population
of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- the use, planned use, or threatened use of
force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or
individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

The key is in the last definition. The history of democracy is that over
time, government encroaches so much into the lives of its people that
government itself becomes the problem. Consider that in the 1770s, had the
U.S. been a country with a law that criminalized the "threatened use of
violence," every one of the Founding Fathers who participated in the Boston
Tea Party organized into the Minute Men detachments or refused to accede to
the British soldiers foraging on private property would have been guilty of
"violent radicalization" and of promoting "ideologically based violence."

What has become an "extremist belief" in some circles within the government
is democracy. Look again at the three definitions. Do they not directly
challenge one of the most fundamental rights that many in the U.S. trace
back to time immemorial: the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms"?
Again, a people who have access to firearms inherently pose a "threat" to
any government, even one with a standing army at its beck and call. And the
more centralized the power of the ruler (e.g., the unitary presidency), the
greater the temptation to seize the weapons--and the rights--of its
citizens.

In fact, as she was drafting the legislation, Congresswoman Harman must have
realized that she was, at best, on a slippery slope and at worst, in
quicksand up to her neck and no solid footing play. In the eighth "where as"
section, the proposed legislation reads:

"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism,
and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United
States
should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil
liberties of
United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" (emphasis added).

When it comes to safeguarding rights and liberties, I much prefer "will" to
"should"--and so ought every member of Congress.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether foreign-inspired or homegrown, and is not
acceptable. Congresswomen Harman has not made the case for distinguishing
between "homegrown" and "foreign" ideologically-based terror, and there is
no logical, moral, or legal reason to divide them; both are violations of
morality and of law. But just as important is the point that to try to
criminalize "radical thinking" is to deny the opportunity to citizens to
re-invigorate democracy so that it does not descend into tyranny.

In this legislation as drafted, the underlying unacknowledged assumption is
that "radicalized thought" can lead to only one outcome: an attempt to
overthrow government by violence. One need only recall that it is through
the airing of opinion that the falsehoods and lies become exposed and
defused--which is what makes the British institution of "Speakers' Corner"
in London's Hyde Park a model for democratic practice the world over. To
which can be added Edward R. Murrow's most succinct observation: "We must
not confuse dissent with disloyalty."

Col. Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus , a
retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military affairs at the
Friends Committee on National Legislation. Email at dan at fcnl.org.