Recently, some strong criticism has been voiced about a Congressional proposal entitled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.” While some valid points are being made, the fervor and attention being given the bill is disproportionate in light of greater and more urgent threats to civil liberties. Moreover, there is actually a good intent behind the bill: to study the potential problem of homegrown terrorism and develop a rational response. The bill would create a study commission. Rather than opposing the bill, civil liberties advocates should work to improve it and then, if it becomes law, to show the Commission and the public why dissent is an antidote to terrorism, not a precursor to it.

Summary of the Violent Radicalization Bill
The bill that is drawing attention is H.R. 1955, written by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who happens to be one of the most thoughtful and approachable Members of Congress on issues of national security and civil liberties. The bill passed the House on October 23, 2007, by a vote of 404 to 6. A companion bill in the Senate is S. 1959, introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), another respected and responsible lawmaker.

The House version would do two things: It would establish a National Commission, variously called the “National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” or the “National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.” And it would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center for Excellence “to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.”

The criticism of the bill has been hypothetical and hyperbolic: Activists have warned of dire consequences that could result. Essentially, they fear the bill could lead to suppression of speech and activism.

There is nothing in the bill itself that would directly harm civil liberties. Neither the Commission nor the Center of Excellence would have any subpoena powers. They couldn’t conduct wiretaps. They wouldn’t be taking photographs at demonstrations or writing down license plate numbers of cars parked around mosques. Their “investigations” would be limited to hearings, public source research, and – to be sure – briefings, some of them classified, by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. (If there is something to be worried about in terms of targeting and surveillance, it is what the agencies themselves are doing; if anything, the Commission might shine some light of practices of concern.) The bill creates no new crimes. Its definitions are for the purpose of the bill alone.

Perspective and Prioritization
Such a bill is clearly not as big a threat as legislation to be voted on soon by the Senate to amend and possibly weaken the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the privacy risks posed by the planned implementation of the REAL ID Act, and the proliferation of uncoordinated and poorly regulated domestic intelligence databases and state and local “fusion” centers.

The Value in Studying Terrorism’s Causes
I see in the bill an intent to study something that is real and that merits study: ideologically-motivated violence, its causes and the proper response. You can argue about the problem’s scope and you can argue that it has been exaggerated, but you cannot deny that we are experiencing the phenomenon around the world that some (a very few) people, based on religious or other ideologies, think it is good or necessary to kill innocent people. Moreover, I think it is undeniable that responding to this problem – the problem of terrorism – has dominated (some would say perverted) American foreign and domestic policy since September 11, 2001. Worse, the US and the rest of the world have done a very poor job in responding. Some of America’s actions have made things worse, fueling the violence. I think it is clear that our policymakers don’t understand terrorism, and are never going to effectively deal with this problem until they do understand it better. Finally, we face a very troublesome possibility: that immigrants or citizens inside the US–whether they admire Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh–could turn to violence after having been indoctrinated with the view that a certain ideology favors violent action. I think we have seen that happen in the UK.

Addressing the problem of ideologically motivated violence poses a vexing challenge because ideas, even radical ideas, are protected under our Constitution. Indeed, we want people to be “radicalized,” if that means getting fired up about an issue and doing something about it – so long as they don’t use violence. The conundrum is even more difficult because some people use ideas to prompt other people to commit violence. So the challenge is how do we protect angry, “extreme” speech and ideology while preventing violence? If persons in positions of respect – religious leaders, for example — are saying to impressionable adherents that their religion demands or condones violent action – statements that are constitutionally protected – is there nothing the government can do unless someone acts violently? Are the government’s only options to ignore the rhetoric or to use the tools of secret intelligence and law enforcement (before or after a violent act occurs)?

Along comes HR 1955. The goal of the bill is to develop a better understanding of how people move from ideology to violence and to use this understanding as a guide for policy and action, for more law enforcement, more surveillance, and limits on First Amendment activity will not stop ideologically-motivated violence.

I think progressives should welcome a bill that says let’s study the problem of terrorism before we round up another 5,000 people like we did after 9/11 or start “mapping” entire ethnic or religious groups as the Los Angeles Police Department recently proposed. Progressives should welcome a bill that says let’s examine the root causes of ideologically-motivated violence and provide policymakers with a better understanding of terrorism so they can distinguish between ideology, even radical ideology, and violence. They should welcome an inquiry into the difference, if any, between the ideologically-motivated violence of the 21st century and the kind we have seen throughout history, in the US and worldwide. Further, activists should not be arguing that there is a blurry line between ideology and violence; instead, they should be arguing that there is a bright line and working to ensure that the distinction is central to this bill, any resulting Commission, and the government’s response to terrorism, whether this bill passes or not.

The Risks in Creating a Commission to Study Radicalization
I agree, however, with critics of the bill that the undertaking here is risky: the Commission may repeat our nation’s long-standing error of conflating radical ideas with violent action and come up with some terrible recommendations aimed at radical speech, which may carry weight with the next Administration and Congress.

The problem boils down to this: Do we trust a Commission to recognize and advance the principle that there are ways to break the link between ideology and violence without suppressing ideology? One who worries that a government-sponsored Commission will end up in the wrong place is Chip Berlet, who has been a one-man Center of Excellence on violence and ideology for over 25 years. I disagree with Chip’s conclusions – I don’t think, for example, that the bill “could easily turn into another privatized federally-funded giant slush fund for politically-connected hacks” – but he is forthcoming in saying that his fears for the bill are not direct and he has done a good job of explaining his concerns based on a fear of repeating the mistakes of the past.

He’s right on the history: Too often in America’s past, we have conflated radical ideas with violence and sought to disrupt, discredit and neutralize those with the ideas. David Cole and I wrote a book on this, Terrorism and the Constitution, tracing the FBI’s long history of using ideology as a proxy for violence.

However, I come to a different conclusion than Chip on whether the Commission is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. I think civil libertarians should welcome the opportunity to take the issue of ideologically-motivated violence out of the secret confines of the FBI and the CIA and let a Commission examine it with public hearings and an unclassified report.

Improving the Legislation
Undoubtedly, the bill deserves to be improved so as to limit the possibility that its inquiry and findings will be more damaging than helpful. H.R. 1955 has already passed the House. Therefore, efforts to improve the bill should focus on the Senate. Rep. Harman, the House sponsor, has been very open in offering to work with concerned parties and the Senate to revise the bill to make it clear that it is not intended to focus on ideology. If improvements are not made, then it may be time to oppose the bill.

Here are CDT’s suggestions for improving the bill and for working with the Commission if it is created.

–First, a lot of the criticism has focused on the bill’s definitions, which use terms like “radicalization,” “ideologically,” and “extremist.” Note, however, that those words are always combined with “violence.” For example, “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.”

However, the term “radicalization” is probably too ambiguous to be used even in the charge to a study commission, even when directly linked to the word “violent.” Here’s one positive suggestion: drop “radicalization” entirely - the term “ideologically-motivated violence” is better.

–The purpose of the Commission could be clarified. Front and center on the Commission’s agenda should be questions like: How should a pluralistic and democratic society respond to terrorism without using ideology as a proxy for violent intent? How can government break the link between radical ides and violent action?

–The Commission should be expressly directed to focus on responses to homegrown terrorism that do not depend on intelligence and law enforcement powers – measures that seek to overcome the feelings of humiliation and alienation that probably fuel terrorism. Likewise, the Commission should address the danger that misguided government actions – especially actions that seem to demonize certain religions or ethnic groups - can stimulate ideologically-motivated.

–The Commission should be expressly directed to look at methods for fighting hateful speech with more speech, creating more effective means for civic participation, and building inclusion rather than exclusion for the disaffected and marginalized.

–Finally, the bill should be amended to de-emphasize reliance on classified information and staff with security clearances (i.e., staff likely to come from the intelligence and law enforcement perspective) and should specify that all hearings of the Commission should be public to the maximum extent possible and that, if there is a classified session, an unclassified summary should be published.

The Kind of Thinking that Should Guide the Commission
The House held public hearing on this legislation. Particularly interesting was the June 14 hearing, especially the testimony of Salam Al-Marayati, Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. He was not offended by the term “violent radicalization.” Instead, he seemed to recognize it as a legitimate concern and stated: “In conclusion, to the mainstream Muslim American community, Islam is the antidote to violent radicalization.” That’s the kind of person we want on this Commission.

H.R. 1955 and the Internet
As an organization focused on the Internet, CDT is especially concerned about how the Commission might view the Internet. The bill includes a “finding” stating, “[t]he Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.” That may be true, but it is equally true that the Internet is a powerful tool for the democratization, political dialogue, free inquiry, and self-empowerment that may be the best antidotes to terrorism. The bill should direct the Commission not to look at ways of controlling the Internet but rather to figure out how to better use the Internet to promote tolerance, diversity, and economic development.

On the question of the Internet, I found very apt the comments of Frank Cilluffo, a supporter of the Harman legislation:

The extremists’ compelling “call to action” based partly on myths and falsehoods begs for the development of an effective counter-narrative that forcefully refutes and responds to the extremists’ own. One wonders how it is that the nation that gave rise to Silicon Valley and the Internet itself, came to be outplayed in this realm. Irrespective of the reason, it is clear that the U.S. needs to catch up in this cyber-battle of words and ideas.

Unfortunately, in the very next paragraph, Cilluffo went over the cliff, saying: “Granted, where appropriate we should seek to deny or disrupt extremist access to and extremist efforts through the Internet via legal and technical means and covert action.” This is far too broad. I assume Cilluffo was talking about attacking the websites of terrorists who disseminate photos of the beheadings they commit. In responding to a violent enterprise located overseas, it may be tempting to disrupt their communications. Such efforts, however, would be totally inappropriate inside the US, and that needs to be made clear. Even overseas, disruption of communications (outside of a conventional battlefield) is not a tactic we should adopt, for it sets a terrible and uncontrollable precedent: There are plenty of countries that would like to block or disrupt access to content hosted in the US. We should not be encouraging those efforts, and have to set a good example.

Instead, Cilluffo had it right when he highlighted “the need to offer an alternative to those who feel alienated and marginalized” and to “foster intra- and cross-cultural dialogue and understanding to strengthen the ties that bind together communities at the local, national and international levels.” This is precisely what the Internet can do best – it is imperative for governments and non-profits, including religious leaders, to use the Internet to build inclusion and opportunity. The Commission should be directed to focus on such positive measures.

This entry was posted on Friday, December 14th, 2007 at 12:36 pm and is filed under CDT, Free Expression, Security & Freedom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.