S
Sarcastic American!
Guest
Home
Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism: A bi-partisan attack
on civil liberties.
As California burns to the ground, and S-CHIP goes on the defensive,
the United States House of Representatives slipped one by us. The
House passed a bill with dangerously vague language and eerie
implications, not to mention it being a fundamental challenge to the
First Amendment, supported by a majority of Democrats, and introduced
by a Democrat. You remember that Party we elected to at least try to
replenish our civil liberties and get the troops home, so at least to
partly reverse the surly fatal course upon which the administration of
George W. Bush has set the United States of America?
One of their "Blue Dogs," Jane Harman of California, introduced H.R.
1955 with 14 co-sponsors, including only four Republicans. The bill
raced through two committees in the House and was brought to a vote on
Tuesday, October 23, passing 404 to six. Three Republicans and three
Democrats, including Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio,
are the only Congresspersons to vote "nay."
Why is this alarming? Well the bill, otherwise known as the "Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,"
includes some vague definitions that could be interpreted to define
people, who are currently protected by the First Amendment,
essentially as thought criminals so that they would no longer be
protected by quite possibly the most popular of all Constitutional
Amendments. The Act does not make certain forms of thought a crime
itself, however, it does mean that a commission would be established,
as well as a broad network of academics and researchers, specifically
for the purpose of identifying ideologies that somehow can be
considered to be a cause of terrorism, a premise accepted as fact by
the language of the bill. This is "pre-crime" and "thoughtcrime" all
packed into a predetermination set by this bill to bias any research
done for and accepted by the commission created by the bill, which
could logically lead to changes in interpretations of legalese and
possibly more legislation that would directly criminalize ideologies
that can be considered by whoever ends up doing the research as
terrorism prone. It is a small but dangerous step toward a terrifying
Orwellian scenario becoming reality.
The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title VIII (6
U.S.A 361 et seq.) by adding "Subtitle J." This would create a
"National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism" under section 899C, and a "Center of Excellence"
under section 899D, which is anticipated to be based in universities
around the U.S., utilizing the social sciences found on any university
as well as other researchers to make data and research findings
available to the commission, who will file a "Final Report" 18 months
after the commission is created to the President and Congress. The
report will provide "recommendations," rooting whatever decisions are
made to prevent this vaguely defined dissent in scientific research,
in order that the President and Congress may have a clearer
understanding of what "measures...can be taken to prevent" these forms
of dissent. In other words, they are establishing a network of
supposed experts to tell them how far they can make inroads on the
First Amendment, amongst other legal protections more than likely.
Another way of putting it; they want to know how much criminalizing of
dissent they can get away with under the guise of Bush's war on
terrorism, presumably to mitigate the prospective challenges by civil
liberties advocates.
The stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' is "to study the
social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of"
these vaguely defined forms of dissent, "and methods that can be
utilized by" all levels, including "tribal," of "homeland security
officials to mitigate" these forms of dissent. The 'Center's' duties
will include contributing "to the establishment of training, written
materials, information, analytical assistance and professional
resources to aid in combating" these forms of dissent. So, to be
clear, this 'Center' is not to be established in order to identify and
properly define these forms of dissent, rather these definitions have
already been made in the minds of those supporting this legislation,
and this 'Center' is to base these definitions in science, giving them
a solid concrete position in public opinion, the science industry, the
legal profession, etc., so that authorities can have the perceived
full support of society when they attack domestic political
dissidents. This is essentially the creation of a vast mystical supply
of argumentative material for prosecutors who open cases against
dissidents, simply for being dissidents. This is the type of
phenomenon that will likely change American cultural norms regarding
liberty to the extent that people can be politically persecuted
without a hint of opposition. It would allow the government to cut a
portion out of the population we think of as "us," so they can create
a "them" for 'us' to fear so much that we will instinctively condone
their persecution. Deeply rooting such concepts in what appears to be
science and law can add a great deal of credibility to them in the
minds of many people.
You may think I'm overreacting, like many of the other critics of this
bill with their "New World Order" conspiracy theories and
exaggerations, and you may be thinking that I'm off the mark because
the bill clearly protects civil liberties in section 899F. Well, why
don't you read section 899F and see if you can identify the flaw? Ok,
I can only assume you've read it now, so let's talk about the flaw.
The protections of civil liberties included in this bill are extremely
weak, and they don't even take all those currently protected by the
Constitution into consideration. Furthermore, the guarantee of
protection is an "Auditing Mechanism" that is to be created and
implemented by a Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) official,
which is only required to provide audits annually (in 18 months it may
end up being only once). So, we are supposed to trust an internal
auditor that is not independent by definition to keep that person's
own employer in check in the name of civil liberties. As far as whose
civil liberties would be protected by the language of this bill, and
Immigrants' Rights groups ought to be in a fury over this, only two
categories of people are included in the bill's language; "citizens"
and "lawful permanent residents." Those who know little about the
United States immigration system may think those two categories cover
everyone, but they don't. These are both specifically defined legal
categories, and they are only two of many categories defining people's
legal status in the United States. So, with those two groups being
identified as the only ones protected, those who will be denied
protection includes everyone but those two groups, such as people
living in the U.S.A. on either work or student visas, certain
indigenous groups, temporary workers, and logically all other "non-
immigrants" (people living in, or visiting, the United States who are
not "permanent residents," which are green card holders, or
"citizens").
Keeping in mind whose civil liberties are not protected by this bill,
now consider the real danger of the bill, which is not that it
directly creates a definition of 'thoughtcrime' (as defined by George
Orwell, in his famous book "1984," in the first chapter), but that it
lays the groundwork for such to be created more elaborately in the
future. The bill sets up a commission and a network of academic
researchers to define certain ideologies as 'thoughtcrime'
essentially, and it encompasses the concept of 'pre-crime' (remember
the movie "Minority Report?") in that the point of the bill is to
identify 'thoughtcrime' in order to take preemptive action against
those the State deems criminal due to their ideology. The scientific
research will provide the basis for certain ideologies to be
considered criminal. So it should be clear that this bill does not
make it a crime to believe in this or that ideology, however, it
creates a research effort nationwide to provide the pretext for
criminalizing ideologies. The social sciences already do research on
the subjects of terrorism and political violence, and there are still
debates over how to properly define terms like violence, terrorism,
genocide, force, coercion, radical etc., and one can be sure they
haven't hammered out those definitions to the extent that we already
have scientific proof that "Violent Radicalization" and "Homegrown
Terrorism" are existing and identifiable phenomena. The bill thus
biases any research done by the 'Center of Excellence' intellectuals
by the stated task of providing material useful in fighting the
overall phenomenon of terrorism, and by the accepted definitions of
phenomena that social sciences have yet to acutely define.
Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the
'vaguely defined forms of dissent.' At this point you may be wondering
to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to
look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now
talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill's title are
defined. 'Violent Radicalization' is defined 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." This 'process' is based on a fallacy to
begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief
system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that
one has yet to adopt. If you don't believe in the 'ideologically based
violence' your 'belief system' dictates then you can't be said to have
that as your motive to adopt the 'belief system.' You haven't adopted
the 'belief system' that guided you to commit the violence if the
violence is the motive for 'adopting' the 'belief system,' it isn't
logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the
phrase 'for the purpose of.' It is impossible for the violence to lead
to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the
premise that the beliefs lead to the violence. Fallacies aside, the
real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines
'ideologically based violence.' This type of violence, given its
definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as
violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence,
but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence,
but whatever else they can interpret as a type of force as well. The
vague language includes "planned use" and "threatened use, of force or
violence." This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the
definition of 'violence' to include non-violent forms of civil
disobedience or direct action because they are seen as forceful. The
bill doesn't say that force and violence must both be present in order
to define it as 'ideologically based violence,' rather it uses the
conjunction "or," leaving open the possibility of defining either
'force' or actual 'violence' as 'ideologically based violence,' and
"Homegrown Terrorism" if it is done by "a group or individual born,
raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,"
including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, "to
intimidate or coerce," according to the similarly vague definition of
'homegrown terrorism' on the same page.
Civil disobedience methods utilized by certain environmentalists,
including "tree-sitting," could be considered terrorism because of
their minimally coercive essence. In fact, believing in an ideology or
religion seen as too different, and too opposed to the one to which
leaders of the U.S.A. adhere, could be defined as terrorism. Any
belief system can be defined as an 'extremist belief system.' Don't be
alarmed, it is not as though your right to be a communist or a
libertarian with radical leanings, or a devoutly religious Muslim,
will be illegal as soon as Bush or the next President signs this bill
into law, so don't find this a reason to pack up guns, ammo and canned
food, and start heading for the hills to hide out, but this should be
alarming enough to motivate people to contact their Senators and voice
their opposition to this fundamental attack on political freedom. The
bill, as I have reiterated, is to establish a scientifically backed
framework for creating further legislation that will amount to
criminalizing thought. It is possible that intellectuals will ignore
the stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' and actually conduct
valid research, but not if their funding is tied to the biased goal of
trying to identify certain ideologies as criminal. They would have to
be able to change the definitions in the bill in order that they match
the scientific definitions of those concepts. Clearly any scientist
would recognize the semantic ploy in the language of the bill, and
would be aware that research based on the premise set by the bill
would be inherently biased. So, it is a matter of finding science
researchers with poor ethics perhaps, however, that is no reason to
assume the likelihood of the bill's success is nil. Scientists can be
greedy and egocentric like anyone else, however, there is still hope
in the Senate and the Courts.
This bill may have been ignored by the mainstream corporate press, but
those of us who use the Internet to contribute to what's left of the
independent media to inform the public of issues such as this one need
to be more and more motivated by the explicit threat to our freedom of
speech included in the bill under section 899B, and this is an even
more alarming aspect of this legislation. Amongst the elements of the
premise that I argue will bias any research at any 'Center of
Excellence' is the "Findings" section. This section is where the
broadly defined forms of dissent are accepted as identified existing
phenomena, and it specifically blames the Internet for their
existence. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent
radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown
terrorism process...by providing access to broad and constant streams of
terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens," says the
third 'finding' in section 899B. This is a threat to freedom online in
a nutshell, perhaps the most immediately threatened aspect of our
freedom in this supposedly "free country" (these quotation marks are
only for context and do not denote a specific remark) posed by this
legislation. This means they will probably be looking for academic and
intellectual research-based support for censoring the Internet without
the elite-perceived roadblock of civil liberties getting in their way,
first and foremost. At least that is the impression I get after
reading this bill.
One may be wondering by now, after all of these long words you've just
toiled through, how can they accept these definitions and these
findings without some research on which to base it all. Well, this is
true, but consider here the low standards of evidence held by most
politicians when it comes to scientific and/or academic research. In
order for a theory to be accepted as a fact by the science community,
and this is also the case for social scientists, the theory must be
not only replicable to some extent but it must also be accepted on
consensus as such. If there is not a consensus on whether 'violent
radicalization' exists then it is not fact, and thus should definitely
not be included in legislative language and/or legalese. So where do
they get these terms? Jane Harman, the conservative 'Blue Dog'
Democrat that introduced the bill, cites the National Intelligence
Estimate (N.I.E.) report released in July of 2007 as that which
requires that they find links between various forms of thought and
terrorism. The N.I.E. merely reinforces the notion of a threat from Al
Qaeda, which is not a domestic terrorism threat per se, however, it is
the ideology of that group (if that is what they are) that concerns
our Representatives. They clearly fear that the supposed ideology of
those who carried out the attacks in London, who were all English but
their religion and ideology were seen as foreign by authorities, and
that of those who almost carried out a similar attack in Toronto, may
come popping up in the United States. That is why they are using the
term 'homegrown terrorism,' which is a term taken from an issue
government officials began discussing directly in response to those
attacks according to the Boston Globe article; "Home-grown terrorism,"
published in 2006.
Apparently Jane Harman, not a social scientist, doesn't need a
consensus to conclude that such phenomena exist in reality. All she
needed was a government stamp of approval in the form of an N.I.E.
report. This legislation clearly stems from the debate over radical
Islamic beliefs immediately following the attacks described above, and
this conclusion I make comes from the fact that the terms used in the
bill are the same as those introduced to the public dialogue following
those attacks (see "Getting to the root of 'homegrown terrorism'" by
Munira Mirza). Harman and friends may also be basing this rhetoric on
what they see as scientifically valid, though I strongly beg to
differ, in the 2007 report on the subject by an explicitly biased and
definitively non-scientific institution, the New York City Police
Department (see "New York City Police Report Explores Homegrown
Terrorism" by Al Baker, NYTimes). Also it is possible they are basing
this legislation on a similar Federal Bureau of Investigations
(F.B.I.) report from 2006. Okay, so the rhetoric is not adequately
backed by science, and thus should not be accepted as such by
scientists at the proposed 'Center of Excellence,' however, these
origins of such rhetoric are useful to us information consumers in
that they are revealing not of the evidence to back up Harman's
semantic references, but of who her type has in mind when they are
referring to 'homegrown terrorism' and 'violent radicalization.' There
is evidence of the root of this rhetoric being Europe (see "Commission
programme for the prevention of and response to violent
radicalisation"), and they speak of certain groups in Europe and the
United States that may fall under these vague definitions. As for the
United States these definitions could include anyone the status quo
doesn't appear to accept. A USA Today article from 2004 lumps every
perceived dissident into one group they call "domestic terrorists."
Though past news publications can provide some insight on who may be
the targets of this legislation, the identity of the obvious targets
is implicit in the bills language on the requisite qualifications for
gaining a position on the commission. Amongst the many fields of study
mentioned as desired qualifications is "professional qualifications,
achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in...Islam and
other world religions." Why is the right-wing fringe making such a
fuss about this bill, they are clearly not the targets, right? Well,
who really knows? The language is so vague that it could include right-
wing Christians as well, however, that word is not included in the
language of the bill, and is merely implied by the phrase '...and other
world religions.' The lack of civil liberties protection and the
naming of one religion only, "Islam," makes it rather obvious who the
initial targets are to be, however, the language is still ambiguous to
the extent that it could be stretched to include blatant terrorist
threats like Tim McVeigh, as well as those whose apparently violent
acts could be construed as terrorism, such as the Earth Liberation
Front's vandalism of corporate property.
Perhaps the far right is alarmed because the bill was introduced by a
Democrat, their old foe from the 1990s (Waco), but those who are
confirmable extremists on the right-wing have enjoyed a disparity in
treatment by mostly Republicans in power for many years. Even when
Oklahoma City endured the terror of the bombing of a federal building
Republicans immediately speculated and accused Osama bin Laden of
being responsible, though it turned out to be a white male Christian.
The only name of any religion included in the bill's text is 'Islam.'
According to a report from Radio Free Europe the United States still
tends to ignore domestic terror threats like McVeigh to focus on
foreign threats like bin Laden (see "U.S.: Ten Years After Oklahoma
Bombing, Is Homegrown Terrorism Ignored?" by Andrew Tully). Thus this
legislation could threaten the far right, far left, or really anyone
at odds with the current regime, however, it is obvious who the first
targets will be. They will be 'non-immigrant' Muslim youths on the
Internet, possibly including those with a similar profile who sit in
prison, which the bill and the F.B.I. report imply is some sort of
terrorism breeding ground.
The likelihood that they will target young Muslims is an assumption
based on logic, so I'll willfully stand corrected if they target
someone else first. Regardless of who is targeted, the bill intends to
fundamentally undermine the principle of free association. My
intention is not frighten people with creepy tales of a future
absolutist America, however, I definitely seek a basic reaction of
shock at not only the fact that so many Representatives voted for this
bill but that a slim majority of them were Democrats. This type of
legislation would be no surprise coming from Republicans, but from
Democrats it is not only a surprise to those freedom-enduring social
liberals who lay faith in the Democratic Party every election,
specifically under the premise of a desire to protect these very
liberties from being attacked by Republicans, but should come as a
shock to any supporter of civil liberties that the bill received
overwhelming bi-partisan support. This will someday, probably near the
election, become another one of the Democratic Party's dirty little
secrets exposed too late. 219 Democrats voted for this bill in the
House, and the only Democrats who voted "nay" were; Neil Abercrombie
of the 1st District of Hawaii, Jerry Costello of the 12th District of
Illinois, and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of the 10th
District of Ohio. 22 Representatives skipped the vote, including
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul of the 14th District of
Texas, whose supporters have been making the most noise about this
issue in the blogosphere. Thus far the only Presidential Candidate to
vote against this bill is Kucinich. The bill flew through the House,
only passing through two subcommittees, neither of which were the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties or
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, both of which would have been more
than relevant, and the bill was streamlined by Bennie Thompson's (2nd
District of Mississippi) motion to "suspend the rules" to cut the
debate short.
As I am a registered Democrat, though hardly a Party loyal, in the
State of Colorado I find it necessary to reveal that which ought to be
a provocation of outrage on the part of Colorado voters, which is the
fact that all of our Democrats voted for this bill. Ed Perlmutter of
the 7th District not only supported the bill, he was also one of the
14 co-sponsors. Not only did Perlmutter support it, so did John
Salazar (no surprise), and most alarmingly Diana DeGette of District
One, and Mark Udall of District Two. Udall and DeGette, the two most
prominent liberals! Every single Colorado Representative on both sides
of the isle supported this legislation. Democrats, one might think,
would hesitate to attack civil liberties in such a way in Colorado
especially, given that Denver is the location chosen for the next
Democratic National Convention. I'm not surprised because I have never
had any real faith in the Democratic Party, however, there are those
who share my sentiments in favor of civil liberties who do put their
faith in this Party every election, and it is about time pro-Dem
voters start paying attention to the Party's disgraceful hypocrisy. If
anything this is an opportunity for people to see this side of their
praised Representatives. This bill's bi-partisan support is a pretty
clear depiction of this hypocrisy, which proves in my opinion that the
Democrats are no solution to the Republicans. They are not a lesser
evil than the Republican Party, as was the argument in previous
elections.
What can we average folks do? Well, the bill may have passed the House
but it has yet to pass the Senate, and has yet to land on the
President's desk. There is clearly no hope in the President, who will
likely sign the bill into law without hesitation, however, there are
several Democratic Presidential Candidates in the Senate, including
the two latest superstars of the electoral spectacle: Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. The bill entered the Senate, was read a couple of
times, and was sent to committee. It now sits in the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Chaired by Connecticut
Democrat Joe Lieberman. Obama is also a member of this committee. The
bill is now S. 1959 according to the website "govtrack.us," though I
haven't been able to find it in the Library of Congress website to
confirm this. We do still have time to sway the Senate with letters
and phone calls, if that ever works, and there is the chance that the
Supreme Court will strike the bill down as unconstitutional. So don't
worry so much, but don't ignore the issue. We need to tell our
Senators to vote the bill down, and we have our work cut out for us
there, but it is a chance that we should not pass up. So far critics
of the bill include the more radical pundits and intellectuals, such
as Alex Jones and Ward Churchill, but that alone is not enough to
discredit legitimate concerns the population should logically have
over any such legislation compromising such a fundamental freedom in
any democracy. That means we all need to speak up on this issue, not
only so as not to leave the only dissenting views as those anyone
would expect to criticize such legislation, but to show the widespread
opposition to this type of bill among the population of constituents
in society. In a phrase: Spread the word as far and fast as you can.
Senators are no more responsive to the will of voters than
Representatives, in fact they are usually less so, thus we have to
hound them as much as possible. The Parties have shown that they won't
protect us when they our free from our attention, so what we need to
do is make them know that they will suffer in future elections if they
don't protect us now.
The same article with links to sources and further information is
posted on my blog at the following web address:
http://blog.myspace.com/antidotepii
Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism: A bi-partisan attack
on civil liberties.
As California burns to the ground, and S-CHIP goes on the defensive,
the United States House of Representatives slipped one by us. The
House passed a bill with dangerously vague language and eerie
implications, not to mention it being a fundamental challenge to the
First Amendment, supported by a majority of Democrats, and introduced
by a Democrat. You remember that Party we elected to at least try to
replenish our civil liberties and get the troops home, so at least to
partly reverse the surly fatal course upon which the administration of
George W. Bush has set the United States of America?
One of their "Blue Dogs," Jane Harman of California, introduced H.R.
1955 with 14 co-sponsors, including only four Republicans. The bill
raced through two committees in the House and was brought to a vote on
Tuesday, October 23, passing 404 to six. Three Republicans and three
Democrats, including Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio,
are the only Congresspersons to vote "nay."
Why is this alarming? Well the bill, otherwise known as the "Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,"
includes some vague definitions that could be interpreted to define
people, who are currently protected by the First Amendment,
essentially as thought criminals so that they would no longer be
protected by quite possibly the most popular of all Constitutional
Amendments. The Act does not make certain forms of thought a crime
itself, however, it does mean that a commission would be established,
as well as a broad network of academics and researchers, specifically
for the purpose of identifying ideologies that somehow can be
considered to be a cause of terrorism, a premise accepted as fact by
the language of the bill. This is "pre-crime" and "thoughtcrime" all
packed into a predetermination set by this bill to bias any research
done for and accepted by the commission created by the bill, which
could logically lead to changes in interpretations of legalese and
possibly more legislation that would directly criminalize ideologies
that can be considered by whoever ends up doing the research as
terrorism prone. It is a small but dangerous step toward a terrifying
Orwellian scenario becoming reality.
The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title VIII (6
U.S.A 361 et seq.) by adding "Subtitle J." This would create a
"National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism" under section 899C, and a "Center of Excellence"
under section 899D, which is anticipated to be based in universities
around the U.S., utilizing the social sciences found on any university
as well as other researchers to make data and research findings
available to the commission, who will file a "Final Report" 18 months
after the commission is created to the President and Congress. The
report will provide "recommendations," rooting whatever decisions are
made to prevent this vaguely defined dissent in scientific research,
in order that the President and Congress may have a clearer
understanding of what "measures...can be taken to prevent" these forms
of dissent. In other words, they are establishing a network of
supposed experts to tell them how far they can make inroads on the
First Amendment, amongst other legal protections more than likely.
Another way of putting it; they want to know how much criminalizing of
dissent they can get away with under the guise of Bush's war on
terrorism, presumably to mitigate the prospective challenges by civil
liberties advocates.
The stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' is "to study the
social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of"
these vaguely defined forms of dissent, "and methods that can be
utilized by" all levels, including "tribal," of "homeland security
officials to mitigate" these forms of dissent. The 'Center's' duties
will include contributing "to the establishment of training, written
materials, information, analytical assistance and professional
resources to aid in combating" these forms of dissent. So, to be
clear, this 'Center' is not to be established in order to identify and
properly define these forms of dissent, rather these definitions have
already been made in the minds of those supporting this legislation,
and this 'Center' is to base these definitions in science, giving them
a solid concrete position in public opinion, the science industry, the
legal profession, etc., so that authorities can have the perceived
full support of society when they attack domestic political
dissidents. This is essentially the creation of a vast mystical supply
of argumentative material for prosecutors who open cases against
dissidents, simply for being dissidents. This is the type of
phenomenon that will likely change American cultural norms regarding
liberty to the extent that people can be politically persecuted
without a hint of opposition. It would allow the government to cut a
portion out of the population we think of as "us," so they can create
a "them" for 'us' to fear so much that we will instinctively condone
their persecution. Deeply rooting such concepts in what appears to be
science and law can add a great deal of credibility to them in the
minds of many people.
You may think I'm overreacting, like many of the other critics of this
bill with their "New World Order" conspiracy theories and
exaggerations, and you may be thinking that I'm off the mark because
the bill clearly protects civil liberties in section 899F. Well, why
don't you read section 899F and see if you can identify the flaw? Ok,
I can only assume you've read it now, so let's talk about the flaw.
The protections of civil liberties included in this bill are extremely
weak, and they don't even take all those currently protected by the
Constitution into consideration. Furthermore, the guarantee of
protection is an "Auditing Mechanism" that is to be created and
implemented by a Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) official,
which is only required to provide audits annually (in 18 months it may
end up being only once). So, we are supposed to trust an internal
auditor that is not independent by definition to keep that person's
own employer in check in the name of civil liberties. As far as whose
civil liberties would be protected by the language of this bill, and
Immigrants' Rights groups ought to be in a fury over this, only two
categories of people are included in the bill's language; "citizens"
and "lawful permanent residents." Those who know little about the
United States immigration system may think those two categories cover
everyone, but they don't. These are both specifically defined legal
categories, and they are only two of many categories defining people's
legal status in the United States. So, with those two groups being
identified as the only ones protected, those who will be denied
protection includes everyone but those two groups, such as people
living in the U.S.A. on either work or student visas, certain
indigenous groups, temporary workers, and logically all other "non-
immigrants" (people living in, or visiting, the United States who are
not "permanent residents," which are green card holders, or
"citizens").
Keeping in mind whose civil liberties are not protected by this bill,
now consider the real danger of the bill, which is not that it
directly creates a definition of 'thoughtcrime' (as defined by George
Orwell, in his famous book "1984," in the first chapter), but that it
lays the groundwork for such to be created more elaborately in the
future. The bill sets up a commission and a network of academic
researchers to define certain ideologies as 'thoughtcrime'
essentially, and it encompasses the concept of 'pre-crime' (remember
the movie "Minority Report?") in that the point of the bill is to
identify 'thoughtcrime' in order to take preemptive action against
those the State deems criminal due to their ideology. The scientific
research will provide the basis for certain ideologies to be
considered criminal. So it should be clear that this bill does not
make it a crime to believe in this or that ideology, however, it
creates a research effort nationwide to provide the pretext for
criminalizing ideologies. The social sciences already do research on
the subjects of terrorism and political violence, and there are still
debates over how to properly define terms like violence, terrorism,
genocide, force, coercion, radical etc., and one can be sure they
haven't hammered out those definitions to the extent that we already
have scientific proof that "Violent Radicalization" and "Homegrown
Terrorism" are existing and identifiable phenomena. The bill thus
biases any research done by the 'Center of Excellence' intellectuals
by the stated task of providing material useful in fighting the
overall phenomenon of terrorism, and by the accepted definitions of
phenomena that social sciences have yet to acutely define.
Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the
'vaguely defined forms of dissent.' At this point you may be wondering
to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to
look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now
talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill's title are
defined. 'Violent Radicalization' is defined 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." This 'process' is based on a fallacy to
begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief
system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that
one has yet to adopt. If you don't believe in the 'ideologically based
violence' your 'belief system' dictates then you can't be said to have
that as your motive to adopt the 'belief system.' You haven't adopted
the 'belief system' that guided you to commit the violence if the
violence is the motive for 'adopting' the 'belief system,' it isn't
logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the
phrase 'for the purpose of.' It is impossible for the violence to lead
to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the
premise that the beliefs lead to the violence. Fallacies aside, the
real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines
'ideologically based violence.' This type of violence, given its
definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as
violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence,
but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence,
but whatever else they can interpret as a type of force as well. The
vague language includes "planned use" and "threatened use, of force or
violence." This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the
definition of 'violence' to include non-violent forms of civil
disobedience or direct action because they are seen as forceful. The
bill doesn't say that force and violence must both be present in order
to define it as 'ideologically based violence,' rather it uses the
conjunction "or," leaving open the possibility of defining either
'force' or actual 'violence' as 'ideologically based violence,' and
"Homegrown Terrorism" if it is done by "a group or individual born,
raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,"
including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, "to
intimidate or coerce," according to the similarly vague definition of
'homegrown terrorism' on the same page.
Civil disobedience methods utilized by certain environmentalists,
including "tree-sitting," could be considered terrorism because of
their minimally coercive essence. In fact, believing in an ideology or
religion seen as too different, and too opposed to the one to which
leaders of the U.S.A. adhere, could be defined as terrorism. Any
belief system can be defined as an 'extremist belief system.' Don't be
alarmed, it is not as though your right to be a communist or a
libertarian with radical leanings, or a devoutly religious Muslim,
will be illegal as soon as Bush or the next President signs this bill
into law, so don't find this a reason to pack up guns, ammo and canned
food, and start heading for the hills to hide out, but this should be
alarming enough to motivate people to contact their Senators and voice
their opposition to this fundamental attack on political freedom. The
bill, as I have reiterated, is to establish a scientifically backed
framework for creating further legislation that will amount to
criminalizing thought. It is possible that intellectuals will ignore
the stated purpose of the 'Center of Excellence' and actually conduct
valid research, but not if their funding is tied to the biased goal of
trying to identify certain ideologies as criminal. They would have to
be able to change the definitions in the bill in order that they match
the scientific definitions of those concepts. Clearly any scientist
would recognize the semantic ploy in the language of the bill, and
would be aware that research based on the premise set by the bill
would be inherently biased. So, it is a matter of finding science
researchers with poor ethics perhaps, however, that is no reason to
assume the likelihood of the bill's success is nil. Scientists can be
greedy and egocentric like anyone else, however, there is still hope
in the Senate and the Courts.
This bill may have been ignored by the mainstream corporate press, but
those of us who use the Internet to contribute to what's left of the
independent media to inform the public of issues such as this one need
to be more and more motivated by the explicit threat to our freedom of
speech included in the bill under section 899B, and this is an even
more alarming aspect of this legislation. Amongst the elements of the
premise that I argue will bias any research at any 'Center of
Excellence' is the "Findings" section. This section is where the
broadly defined forms of dissent are accepted as identified existing
phenomena, and it specifically blames the Internet for their
existence. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent
radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown
terrorism process...by providing access to broad and constant streams of
terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens," says the
third 'finding' in section 899B. This is a threat to freedom online in
a nutshell, perhaps the most immediately threatened aspect of our
freedom in this supposedly "free country" (these quotation marks are
only for context and do not denote a specific remark) posed by this
legislation. This means they will probably be looking for academic and
intellectual research-based support for censoring the Internet without
the elite-perceived roadblock of civil liberties getting in their way,
first and foremost. At least that is the impression I get after
reading this bill.
One may be wondering by now, after all of these long words you've just
toiled through, how can they accept these definitions and these
findings without some research on which to base it all. Well, this is
true, but consider here the low standards of evidence held by most
politicians when it comes to scientific and/or academic research. In
order for a theory to be accepted as a fact by the science community,
and this is also the case for social scientists, the theory must be
not only replicable to some extent but it must also be accepted on
consensus as such. If there is not a consensus on whether 'violent
radicalization' exists then it is not fact, and thus should definitely
not be included in legislative language and/or legalese. So where do
they get these terms? Jane Harman, the conservative 'Blue Dog'
Democrat that introduced the bill, cites the National Intelligence
Estimate (N.I.E.) report released in July of 2007 as that which
requires that they find links between various forms of thought and
terrorism. The N.I.E. merely reinforces the notion of a threat from Al
Qaeda, which is not a domestic terrorism threat per se, however, it is
the ideology of that group (if that is what they are) that concerns
our Representatives. They clearly fear that the supposed ideology of
those who carried out the attacks in London, who were all English but
their religion and ideology were seen as foreign by authorities, and
that of those who almost carried out a similar attack in Toronto, may
come popping up in the United States. That is why they are using the
term 'homegrown terrorism,' which is a term taken from an issue
government officials began discussing directly in response to those
attacks according to the Boston Globe article; "Home-grown terrorism,"
published in 2006.
Apparently Jane Harman, not a social scientist, doesn't need a
consensus to conclude that such phenomena exist in reality. All she
needed was a government stamp of approval in the form of an N.I.E.
report. This legislation clearly stems from the debate over radical
Islamic beliefs immediately following the attacks described above, and
this conclusion I make comes from the fact that the terms used in the
bill are the same as those introduced to the public dialogue following
those attacks (see "Getting to the root of 'homegrown terrorism'" by
Munira Mirza). Harman and friends may also be basing this rhetoric on
what they see as scientifically valid, though I strongly beg to
differ, in the 2007 report on the subject by an explicitly biased and
definitively non-scientific institution, the New York City Police
Department (see "New York City Police Report Explores Homegrown
Terrorism" by Al Baker, NYTimes). Also it is possible they are basing
this legislation on a similar Federal Bureau of Investigations
(F.B.I.) report from 2006. Okay, so the rhetoric is not adequately
backed by science, and thus should not be accepted as such by
scientists at the proposed 'Center of Excellence,' however, these
origins of such rhetoric are useful to us information consumers in
that they are revealing not of the evidence to back up Harman's
semantic references, but of who her type has in mind when they are
referring to 'homegrown terrorism' and 'violent radicalization.' There
is evidence of the root of this rhetoric being Europe (see "Commission
programme for the prevention of and response to violent
radicalisation"), and they speak of certain groups in Europe and the
United States that may fall under these vague definitions. As for the
United States these definitions could include anyone the status quo
doesn't appear to accept. A USA Today article from 2004 lumps every
perceived dissident into one group they call "domestic terrorists."
Though past news publications can provide some insight on who may be
the targets of this legislation, the identity of the obvious targets
is implicit in the bills language on the requisite qualifications for
gaining a position on the commission. Amongst the many fields of study
mentioned as desired qualifications is "professional qualifications,
achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in...Islam and
other world religions." Why is the right-wing fringe making such a
fuss about this bill, they are clearly not the targets, right? Well,
who really knows? The language is so vague that it could include right-
wing Christians as well, however, that word is not included in the
language of the bill, and is merely implied by the phrase '...and other
world religions.' The lack of civil liberties protection and the
naming of one religion only, "Islam," makes it rather obvious who the
initial targets are to be, however, the language is still ambiguous to
the extent that it could be stretched to include blatant terrorist
threats like Tim McVeigh, as well as those whose apparently violent
acts could be construed as terrorism, such as the Earth Liberation
Front's vandalism of corporate property.
Perhaps the far right is alarmed because the bill was introduced by a
Democrat, their old foe from the 1990s (Waco), but those who are
confirmable extremists on the right-wing have enjoyed a disparity in
treatment by mostly Republicans in power for many years. Even when
Oklahoma City endured the terror of the bombing of a federal building
Republicans immediately speculated and accused Osama bin Laden of
being responsible, though it turned out to be a white male Christian.
The only name of any religion included in the bill's text is 'Islam.'
According to a report from Radio Free Europe the United States still
tends to ignore domestic terror threats like McVeigh to focus on
foreign threats like bin Laden (see "U.S.: Ten Years After Oklahoma
Bombing, Is Homegrown Terrorism Ignored?" by Andrew Tully). Thus this
legislation could threaten the far right, far left, or really anyone
at odds with the current regime, however, it is obvious who the first
targets will be. They will be 'non-immigrant' Muslim youths on the
Internet, possibly including those with a similar profile who sit in
prison, which the bill and the F.B.I. report imply is some sort of
terrorism breeding ground.
The likelihood that they will target young Muslims is an assumption
based on logic, so I'll willfully stand corrected if they target
someone else first. Regardless of who is targeted, the bill intends to
fundamentally undermine the principle of free association. My
intention is not frighten people with creepy tales of a future
absolutist America, however, I definitely seek a basic reaction of
shock at not only the fact that so many Representatives voted for this
bill but that a slim majority of them were Democrats. This type of
legislation would be no surprise coming from Republicans, but from
Democrats it is not only a surprise to those freedom-enduring social
liberals who lay faith in the Democratic Party every election,
specifically under the premise of a desire to protect these very
liberties from being attacked by Republicans, but should come as a
shock to any supporter of civil liberties that the bill received
overwhelming bi-partisan support. This will someday, probably near the
election, become another one of the Democratic Party's dirty little
secrets exposed too late. 219 Democrats voted for this bill in the
House, and the only Democrats who voted "nay" were; Neil Abercrombie
of the 1st District of Hawaii, Jerry Costello of the 12th District of
Illinois, and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich of the 10th
District of Ohio. 22 Representatives skipped the vote, including
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul of the 14th District of
Texas, whose supporters have been making the most noise about this
issue in the blogosphere. Thus far the only Presidential Candidate to
vote against this bill is Kucinich. The bill flew through the House,
only passing through two subcommittees, neither of which were the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties or
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, both of which would have been more
than relevant, and the bill was streamlined by Bennie Thompson's (2nd
District of Mississippi) motion to "suspend the rules" to cut the
debate short.
As I am a registered Democrat, though hardly a Party loyal, in the
State of Colorado I find it necessary to reveal that which ought to be
a provocation of outrage on the part of Colorado voters, which is the
fact that all of our Democrats voted for this bill. Ed Perlmutter of
the 7th District not only supported the bill, he was also one of the
14 co-sponsors. Not only did Perlmutter support it, so did John
Salazar (no surprise), and most alarmingly Diana DeGette of District
One, and Mark Udall of District Two. Udall and DeGette, the two most
prominent liberals! Every single Colorado Representative on both sides
of the isle supported this legislation. Democrats, one might think,
would hesitate to attack civil liberties in such a way in Colorado
especially, given that Denver is the location chosen for the next
Democratic National Convention. I'm not surprised because I have never
had any real faith in the Democratic Party, however, there are those
who share my sentiments in favor of civil liberties who do put their
faith in this Party every election, and it is about time pro-Dem
voters start paying attention to the Party's disgraceful hypocrisy. If
anything this is an opportunity for people to see this side of their
praised Representatives. This bill's bi-partisan support is a pretty
clear depiction of this hypocrisy, which proves in my opinion that the
Democrats are no solution to the Republicans. They are not a lesser
evil than the Republican Party, as was the argument in previous
elections.
What can we average folks do? Well, the bill may have passed the House
but it has yet to pass the Senate, and has yet to land on the
President's desk. There is clearly no hope in the President, who will
likely sign the bill into law without hesitation, however, there are
several Democratic Presidential Candidates in the Senate, including
the two latest superstars of the electoral spectacle: Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. The bill entered the Senate, was read a couple of
times, and was sent to committee. It now sits in the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Chaired by Connecticut
Democrat Joe Lieberman. Obama is also a member of this committee. The
bill is now S. 1959 according to the website "govtrack.us," though I
haven't been able to find it in the Library of Congress website to
confirm this. We do still have time to sway the Senate with letters
and phone calls, if that ever works, and there is the chance that the
Supreme Court will strike the bill down as unconstitutional. So don't
worry so much, but don't ignore the issue. We need to tell our
Senators to vote the bill down, and we have our work cut out for us
there, but it is a chance that we should not pass up. So far critics
of the bill include the more radical pundits and intellectuals, such
as Alex Jones and Ward Churchill, but that alone is not enough to
discredit legitimate concerns the population should logically have
over any such legislation compromising such a fundamental freedom in
any democracy. That means we all need to speak up on this issue, not
only so as not to leave the only dissenting views as those anyone
would expect to criticize such legislation, but to show the widespread
opposition to this type of bill among the population of constituents
in society. In a phrase: Spread the word as far and fast as you can.
Senators are no more responsive to the will of voters than
Representatives, in fact they are usually less so, thus we have to
hound them as much as possible. The Parties have shown that they won't
protect us when they our free from our attention, so what we need to
do is make them know that they will suffer in future elections if they
don't protect us now.
The same article with links to sources and further information is
posted on my blog at the following web address:
http://blog.myspace.com/antidotepii