The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passed the House of Representatives on Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6. The wide margin is indicative of a growing concern among U.S. authorities about the potential for so-called “homegrown terrorism” in the United States. “The impetus is that homegrown terror is something that we now see in Western Europe. It’s by… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesCome on, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but this is so transparent!
“Harman’s bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study “violent radicalization” (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”)
and “homegrown terrorism” (defined 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 […]
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”).”
This is obviously just a poorly disguised attempt to re-ignite support for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
Check the details in the description:
• 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
• adopted and adheres to an extremist belief system
• using ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change
• 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
His twisted version of Christianity has convinced him that God is directing his thoughts and actions. With that kind of super-human ability, who needs rational advice?
———————Seriously — This looks like an issue which any competent “protection” agency should be aware of already. We have the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence and have added Homeland Security to unify and direct their efforts. Another official entity is NOT NEEDED! (“Homeland Security” is already a bridge too far.)
Think tanks and ivory-towered intellectuals are too far removed from street life to be of any practical value. Just look at what they’ve done with our economy — Long Term Capital Management is a prime example and the current subprime mortgage debacle may top that.
Save time and money by just developing some catchy slogan or an emblem and let the current agencies do their jobs.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 1, 2007 at 12:28 PM Despite what folks quoted in the article say, it seems like most of the focus is on “Islamic” terrorism and not other forms. Moreover, to what degree is this going to look at rightwing terrorism? Traditionally, that has been ignored.
Posted by bemf on Nov 1, 2007 at 2:16 PM I think the language of the bill is very disturbing. “Violent radicalization” as defined in the bill has nothing to do with violence. It’s just the process of being persuaded that violence is acceptable to achieve some political, social or religious ends. Which means that FOX News and PNAC are among the leading agents of “violent radicalization” in the world today.
In practice, I agree that the threat of terrorism by self-professed followers of Islam is top-of-mind in Congress, the intelligence community, and at the DHS. Clinic bombers, anthrax mailers, and their ilk are not a top priority in the corridors of power. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be mission creep, as Chip Berlet calls it. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be mission creep towards the far right. If history is any guide, focus will expand to encompass lefties, peacenicks, trade unionists, uppity liberal clergy, and the like.
There are a lot of activists and scholars who are very concerned about racist/Christian identity/militia/anti-abortion political violence—some of this stuff is lethal enough to make the news as “terrorism,” but much of it is a chronic source of lower-intensity violence and intimidation in communities all across the country. These real threats aren’t getting as much attention as the hypothetical threat that the Internet might inspire largescale “jihadist” plots in America.
I talked to a lot of people who spend their lives studying and/or directly agitating against political violence, and they tend to be especially concerned about the potential for the government to violate civil rights in the name of protecting us from terrorists and other hateful ideologues.
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on Nov 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM There is no such thing as ‘Islamic’ terrorism. Bemf would be better off referring to ‘Islamist’ terrorism - which incidentally is as rightwing as you can get in its ideology (re its attitudes to women, homosexuals, science & reason, ‘progress’ - and its ‘top-down’ imposal of authority)
Posted by joeyC on Nov 3, 2007 at 8:25 PM There is no such thing as ‘imposal’ either. I meant imposition. Sorry
Posted by joeyC on Nov 3, 2007 at 11:21 PM “Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) voted against the bill because he objected to the government spending new money on this project when the House just passed a $37 billion appropriations bill for Homeland Security, Flake’s spokesman told In These Times…
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) issued a statement saying that the money could be better spend funding preexisting law-enforcement efforts, rather than funding another commission.”
Precisely!
There’s no need for an extra commission, or a new agency, or another amalgamation of bits and pieces into a patchwork executive department. Good police work and courts that rely on substantive evidence and that work to punish violent action will be enough.
They’re trying to keep everyone scared, because that way, we won’t be upset as they further erode freedom.
And, another thing we don’t need but now have, is a source of funding for unrevealed (illegal? immoral?)projects, paid for by the mushy accounting that will surely ensue.
“The bill’s broad language and loose definitions of “violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” also arouse the concerns of many civil libertarians.”
As well it ought to.
When the advice comes to keep track of your neighbors and report “any suspicious behavior”, don’t be surprised. Be alarmed and indignant, but not surprised.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians.
Read The Indypendent’s exclusive report on HR 1955/S 1959, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.”
Read Entire Article at: http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/19/homegrown-terrorism/
Read Nov. 27 Blog Update at: http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/27/homegrown-terrorism-update/
Posted by IndyNY on Nov 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lindsay Beyerstein
- Kiriakou and the Kite Runner
The CIA agent who just admitted to waterboarding a high-ranking al Qaeda operative has had an interesting retirement. - Anthropologists on the Front Lines
The Pentagon's new program to embed anthropologists with combat brigades raises many concerns - Rudy Guiliani: Criminal or Liar?
An investigation into Guiliani's claims of familiarity with "intensive questioning" techniques - Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
Harman doesn't believe homegrown terrorism is a major threat to U.S. security today, but that it is important to learn from experiences in other countries like Britain and Canada, where citizens have been inspired to commit terrorism at home by Islamic propagandists reaching out over the Internet - A Resolution Too Far?
U.S.-Turkish relations, already strained by the war in Iraq, are being tested further by the controversial congressional resolution recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians. - Merc is the New Crack
America's deadly dependence on private security contractors in Iraq
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
