“It’s clear that Europe has much more of a problem,” says Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who focused on domestic intelligence issues on the 9-11 Commission. “We don’t have the same kind of terrorist threat here in the U.S.”
Tellingly, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act follows the last August report of the New York Police Department (NYPD) titled "Radicalization in the West and the Homegrown Threat." The report warned of "radicalization" among otherwise unremarkable young Muslim men in the United States who grow disillusioned with life and sign on with jihadis.
The NYPD report also listed sites that were likely to be visited by any American Muslim as radicalization 'incubators.' The sites listed include mosques, cafes, cab driver hangouts, student associations, nongovernmental organizations, butcher shops, and book stores. The report also claimed that signs of radicalization include positive changes in personal behavior such as giving up smoking, drinking and gambling. It also made similar claims about those who wear Islamic attire or a religiously-recommended beard.
Muslim civil right groups were obviously concerned that the NYPD study contained sweeping generalizations which were likely to reinforce negative stereotypes and unwarranted suspicions about the seven-million strong American Muslim community. The report may also serve to further marginalize the community by labeling almost every American Muslim as a potential threat.
This discussion leads us to conclude that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act may prove a helping hand for the pro-Israeli Islamophobist David Yerushalmi’s efforts to banish Islam from the US by proving that Islam promotes violent change of government. Hence "adherence to Islam" should be punishable by 20 years in prison.
Vague and open-ended language
As we said earlier, the bill's language hides its true intent. The bill begins with an all embracing line: “An Act to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.” Under the guise of preventing “homegrown terrorism” the bill allows the government to call virtually any crime and any thought “radical” and consider it “terrorism.” The terms used will mean whatever the administration says they are.
The definitions for the phrases “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” as well as “ideologically based violence” are almost as interesting as the terminology “…for other purposes.”
First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.
The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. Violent Radicalization is defined in the bill as:
“The term 'violent radicalization' means 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 definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is:
“The term 'homegrown terrorism' means 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 or any possession of 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.”
Chilling effect on both free speech and thought
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act will have a substantial chilling effect on both free speech and free thought. At base, Jane Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on free speech. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph (the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired. Specifically, this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
