Homegrown terrorism passes; more on this later!!

US House passes Democrat-crafted “homegrown terrorism prevention”
legislation  By Naomi Spencer
1 December 2007  A month ago, the US House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved passage of legislation that would set up a commission
targeting domestic “radicalization” as a threat to so-called homeland
security. Although it has received little media attention, civil liberties
groups have expressed concerns for the future of public protest and
other forms of constitutionally protected speech.
 The bill, H.R. 1955, “The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism
Act of 2007,” was crafted and sponsored by Democrat Jane Harman of
California and approved by the House by a margin of 404-6. A mere three
Democrats and three Republicans voted against the bill.
 Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. The bill
is currently pending approval in the Senate and is widely anticipated
to pass by a similar proportion before the end of the session.
 Introduced in April as an amendment to the 2002 Homeland Security
Act, the legislation adds provisions for the establishment of a 10-member
commission to collect data on radicalization. Evoking the memory of the
anticommunist House Committee on Un-American Activities headed by
Joseph McCarthy, the anti-radicalization commission would be granted
authority 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.”
 As Equal Justice Alliance director Odette Wilkens pointed out, the
commission would be empowered to subpoena and investigate anyone, and
would “create a public perception that whoever is being investigated by
the Commission must be involved in subversive or illegal activities.”
Wilkens noted to Truthout.org reporter Matt Renner, in an article
published November 29, “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.”
 The commission would be composed of appointees, one chosen each
respectively by Bush, Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, the
Senate and House majority and minority leaders, and by the ranking majority
and minority members of the two congressional homeland security
committees. Such a selection process would certainly result in an extremely
right-wing panel.
 The language of the bill is very broad and includes in its
designations of terrorist activity a category of intent. For example,
“ideologically based violence” is defined as “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.” No force or
violence need have occurred; the government commission needs only
charge, without the burden of evidence, that an individual or group thought
about violence.
 Similarly, the term “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.” The definition of “an extremist belief
system” is not specified, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the
commission.
 “Homegrown terrorism” is defined by the bill as “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.”
 The implications of this definition of terrorism are far-reaching.
Participants in protests against US policy, for instance, could be
designated as terrorists if the conduct—or intent—of any individual were
alleged by police to be violent.
 Under the legislation, after 18 months the anti-radicalization
commission would report to Congress on its findings, then establish a
university-based organization, the “Center of Excellence for the Study of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.”
 The Center’s mission would not be limited to research, but also would
include a mandate to “contribute to the establishment of training,
written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional
resources to aid in combating violent radicalism and homegrown terrorism”
in coordination with federal, state and local homeland security
officials. This could have a definite chilling effect on the political
activity and exercise of free speech on campuses because of the virtual
enlistment of students and academics into the campaigns of the government’s
intelligence apparatus.
 The legislation specifically singles out the Internet as a “weapon”
for domestic radicalization. In remarks introducing the legislation
November 6 to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Congresswoman
Harman said, “There can be no doubt: the Internet is increasingly being
used as a tool to reach and radicalize Americans and legal residents.” The
web, Harman said, allowed Americans “to become indoctrinated by
extremists and to learn how to kill their neighbors ... from the comfort of
their own living rooms.”
 In the same speech, Harman portrayed American youth in a thoroughly
contemptuous manner. “Combine ... personal adolescent upheaval with the
explosion of information technologies and communications tools,” she
said, “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.”
 Even more absurdly, she added, “How we address violent
radicalization—while respecting the Constitution in the process—is not easy. There is
no magic pill or rulebook or law that will fix this.”
 It is already clear that not the slightest attempt will be made, by
legislators or by the empanelled commission, to actually explain the
social origins of unrest, let alone the political aggravators of
extremism.
 Both the bill’s content and its landslide congressional support
underscore the fact that the entire “war on terror” is geared toward
quashing political opposition and dissent and dismantling constitutional
protections, not fighting a supposed terrorist threat. While targeting the
civil liberties of the population as a whole, it poses a particular
threat to workers’ and students’ organizations as well as left-wing and
socialist parties.
 As with the bill’s predecessors since 2001—including the Patriot Act,
the Homeland Security Act, and the Military Commissions Act—the
Democrats are working to actively undermine free speech and protections
against government surveillance in their role as the nominal opposition in
Congress.