Tuesday, December 4, 2007

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.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Senator Sherrod Brown's reply:

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Thank you for expressing your concerns about H.R.1955 and S.1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

H.R.1955 and S.1959 amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of terrorism by those born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States.

The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish a grant program to help prevent homegrown terrorism and the use of extremist belief systems to facilitate ideologically-based violence. It would also establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States and conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents.

H.R.1955 passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6. Should S.1959 reach the Senate floor, I will keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown

Anonymous said...

Senator George Voinovich's reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing your views on this issue.

Congress is taking an active role in overseeing the U.S. campaign against Al Qaeda and the threats posed by terrorism both domestically and abroad. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has worked through many hearings and legislation, to support this fight. While the United States remains a nation at risk, it is no accident that we have not been attacked on our homeland in six years. It is my belief that we owe a debt of gratitude to our national security professionals.

As you are aware, on August 2, 2007, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. S. 1959 acknowledges that the United States is at significant risk from domestic terrorism and that increased federal, state and local cooperation is our best hope for safety. S. 1959 also calls for the establishment of a Commission to understand the causes of homegrown terrorism through cases studies, hearings, and partnerships with foreign governments.

Throughout the 18-month Commission, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will be tasked with auditing and overseeing the Commission and ensuring that citizens are not unduly impacted. With the release of the formal report, the Commission will also establish or designate a Center of Excellence to continue studying domestic terrorism and facilitate federal, state and local efforts in combating violent radicalization.

On August 3, 2007, I authored language in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/l1 Commission Act of 2007 to establish best practices. The United States is engaged in a struggle against transnational terrorism and the threat of domestic terrorism cannot be ignored. Similarly, I feel that terrorism cannot be countered merely through intelligence and law enforcement initiatives. The United States must engage in broad avenues of outreach with community leaders of all races, religions and ethnicities to help build trust and cooperation.

Currently, S. 1959 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. As a member of this committee, I am afforded the unique opportunity to carefully review this legislation before it is considered by the full Senate. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as the committee reviews this bill.

Thank you for contacting me. As a fellow Ohioan, I genuinely appreciate hearing from you. Please feel free to contact me again regarding this or any other issue that concerns you.