Page 1 of 1 pages
Come on, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but this is so transparent!
“Harman
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 1, 2007 at 5:28 AM
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 7:16 AM
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.
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 1:25 PM
There is no such thing as ‘imposal’ either. I meant imposition. Sorry
Posted by joeyC on Nov 3, 2007 at 4:21 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 2:56 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 3:43 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Come on, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but this is so transparent!
“Harman
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.
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.
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)
There is no such thing as ‘imposal’ either. I meant imposition. Sorry
“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.
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/
register a new account »Posting Security