An appeal to Ohio's Senators against HR 1955

Following is the text of an e-mail message I sent to Ohio's Senators in opposition to the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act:

I am writing to you today to express my opposition to H.R. 1955 (The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act) in its present form, particularly in its provisions relating to “violent radicalizaton,” and the creation of the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.

The Act defines violent radicalization 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.”

I note that two provisions of the Act are intended to protect the Constitutional rights of American citizens in their exercise of free speech (Sections 899B(8) and 899F(c)). However, history has shown that such rights can be trampled upon when the Congress or the nation is fearful of a terrorist attack – a fear that can easily be whipped up by less scrupulous politicians and media in support of a political end. I have no doubt that the sponsors of H.R. 1955 intend for the Commission to act in an ethical fashion – but I feel it is unwise to write an Act that assumes that they will do so. Given the opportunity, and especially if the auditing mechanism envisioned in 899F(c) is slow, unpublicized, or otherwise ineffective, it is safer to expect that the Commission will abuse its power.

The First Amendment can be effectively invalidated without passing any legislation directly attacking its provisions, as was proven during the investigations of the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Joseph McCarthy, between 1950 and 1954.

Let me remind you of the impact of those investigations, in a few words quoted from
http://www.answers.com/topic/mccarthyism (the site also gives original sources for its statements):

“The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC [the House Un-American Activities Committee] or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.”

By defining violent radicalization as the “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 Act is criminalizing an opinion, rather than a behavior.
I hold a political opinion that many people find distasteful, and I have repeatedly stated my opposition to the use of any violence whatsoever. But if someone takes my philosophy and forms a violent movement in its support, where does that leave me? In all likelihood, according to the language of this act, I have committed “violent radicalization.” If this Act were in effect in the early 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King could have been held responsible for the actions of the Black Panthers.

I am totally in favor of erecting defenses against violence for any reason. I agree that we need to understand the potential for terrorist actions within the United States. Anyone who commits a violent act should be vigorously prosecuted and severely punished according to law; but we must confine the legal process to dealing with the action, not the philosophy that is allegedly behind it. As President Harry Truman wrote in his unsuccessful veto of the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, “In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have.”

Finally, I appeal to you to consider these words from Edward R. Murrow, in a final comment on McCarthyism:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.”

If you cannot oppose H.R. 1955, I urge you to at least support amendments that will better protect the Constitutional rights of dissent.