1987? Or 2007? A Second Look

Now that I've had some time to do some web browsing I have an update to my post of a couple days ago about the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act that passed the House with an overwhelming majority. There are, of course, differing views on what it all means.

From Dahlia Lithwick at Slate: No need to get alarmed, the bill is actually harmless. It doesn't allow the government to go after terrorists, it merely sets up commissions to study terrorists. In particular, how those with extreme ideas turn violent. Even more specific, the area if inquiry is how the internet is used to encourage those with extreme ideas to become violent and how to carry out that violence. On the good side the bill has sunset clauses. Well, yeah, the commission will propose new laws on how to curb terrorism and those might curb free speech, but we can fight those battles when the time comes. It is good for a change to see a government that is very good at throwing real power behind pretend problems (Iraq and Guantanemo) to throw pretend power at a pretend problem.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Naturally, others aren't convinced.

Amy Goodman at Democracy Now interviewed Jessica Lee of the Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Even for a course of study the definitions of violent terrorism are amazingly broad. Laws that come from the commission will also have broad definitions. The gov't can say "You threatened to use force and we don't like your ideas. You're a terrorist." Though the bill implies, and it's author's commentary states, the target would be Islamic jihadists, the bill is actually sponsored (if not written) by the Rand Corporation, in which the target is the anti-globalization crowd (who have shown willingness to use force). I'm sure there is special significance that the Rand Corp. is a driving force, though I don't know what that is. One of the recommendations of the commission is likely to be putting national filters onto Islamist terrorist sites as well as on sites the gov't doesn't approve of (one wonders how that could be accomplished, but that won't stop lawmakers from trying). Even if it is just a study there are practical and ethical concerns of studying a group so that when the study ends you know the best way to shut them down. In an 18 month study, even if you do get "inside" some of these organizations, how well do you really understand the complex issues?

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears

The source of the original posting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html