Defeat this bill!

HR 1955, or "The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007", passed the House last month almost unanimously. Congressman Dennis Kucinichwas among one of 6 representatives who voted against this legislation.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California,  introduced the bill that some are now referring to as the "thought police bill".

Here is a link to the text of the bill.

From an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, by two concerned citizens, Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson:

Ms. Harman, a California Democrat, thinks it likely that the United States will face a native brand of terrorism in the immediate future and offers a plan to deal with ideologically based violence.

But her plan is a greater danger to us than the threats she fears. Her bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels “homegrown terrorism.”

The proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.

The internet, for its open sharing of information and ideas, is also under attack with this legislation. From the Center on Constitutional Rights:

"SEC. 899B. (3) 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.”

The focus on the internet is crucial, it can set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions can mean penalties for your stance rather than any criminal act.

Here is a You Tube interview by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now with
Jessica Lee of The Indypendent, which is the newspaper of the New York City Independent Media Center, and Kamau Karl Franklin with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Jessica Lee has also written an article on the relationship between Rep. Jane Harman and the Rand Corporation, and their role in crafting HR 1955.  A representative of the Rand Corporation, Brian Michael Jenkins testified at the Congressional Hearing on this legislation. From the Lee article:

The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND … and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.

Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.

In his testimony, Jenkins admitted convictions in these cases — in Lackawanna, N.Y., Northern Virginia, New York City, Portland, Ore., and elsewhere — relied on charges being “interpreted broadly” by the courts.

There has been significant criticism of how government officials have hyped many of these cases as mass terror attacks thwarted in the nick of time despite a lack of any actual plans or means to commit a violent act on the part of the defendants. It’s also been noted that in numerous instances the government employed informants who goaded the suspects into committing the illegal acts for which they were arrested.

Chris Anderson of The Indypendent has also written an article on the Rand Corporation's authorship of "studies" for the government:

But RAND does more than just push thought-crime legislation through Congress. Indeed, a report released today by the City of New York shows just how long the reach of the RAND Corporation is. According to the New York Times:

Whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on the street in New York City. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people — or to use force against them — according to a study released yesterday.

The study [was commissioned] by the Rand Corporation in March after it was revealed that the police stopped 508,540 people on the street last year.

Most importantly, the study “found no evidence of racial profiling,” writes the New York Sun:

A long-awaited independent review of half a million reports by the New York Police Department of stop, question, and frisk encounters with civilians was hailed yesterday by police officials, who said the review found no pattern of racial profiling.

The study, by the Rand Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif., found that black pedestrians were stopped by police “at a rate that is 20 to 30% lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.

The reason for the seemingly contradictory results? RAND’s methodology, critics argue:

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the report “hugely flawed,” saying that the document was more striking for what it did not say than for what it said. She said the report relied on “inappropriate benchmarks” to reach its findings.

I have strong concerns, as do others, that HR 1955 could also be interpreted broadly to encompass mass movements in this country that are a thorn in the side to those in power, including the anti-globalization movement. From that same Jessica Lee article:

TARGET ‘ANTI-GLOBALISTS’

Islamic militants are not the only threat on the government’s radar.

“A chief problem is radical forms of Islam, but we’re not only studying radical Islam,” Harman told In These Times, a Chicago-based newsmagazine. “We’re studying the phenomenon of people with radical beliefs who turn into people who would use violence.”

In 2004, the FBI named “eco-terrorism,” a broad term that includes property destruction, the top domestic threat. The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that “special interest groups” were also likely to cause small-scale violent attacks.

These “special interest groups” were outlined in a 2005 RAND report, “Trends in Terrorism.” One chapter was devoted to a non-Muslim “homegrown terrorist” threat — anti-globalists. “Anti-globalists directly challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures and individual welfare,” stated the report. The report identifies rightwing movements such as neo-Nazis as threats and states there should be a focus on anarchist and radical environmental groups, citing anarchists involved in civil disobedience during the 2004 National Republican Contention in New York City and millions of dollars in property damage by the Earth Liberation Front in the last decade.

And by the way, folks, contained within this legislation, under Section 899F is an item that directs Homeland Security to monitor any violations to civil liberties of U.S. citizens that might occur. In my view, this is asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

According to Jessica Lee, in the You Tube interview, the rules were suspended in order to speed up passage of this legislation. This type of manuver is usually reserved for "non-controversial" legislation, according to Lee.

Keep in mind folks, that almost all of the information I gathered here for this diary is from independent sources, linked to through the internet. The internet is our best weapon against homegrown, anti-democratic forces that have taken root in our traditional institutions.

This is anything but non-controversial legislation.

This bill now sits in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and I for one intend to contact my senator, and reps, and demand this bill be defeated. There are laws already on the books to investigate and prosecute terrorists. This law, in my view, would serve to intimidate dissenters, and would not serve the healthy promotion of democracy.