But the bill's purpose goes beyond academic inquiry. In a Nov. 7 press release, Harman said, "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Commission “will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further, this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism.”
The Commission would be tasked with compiling information about what leads up to violent radicalization, and how to prevent or combat it with the intent to issue a final report with recommendations for both preventative and countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States.
At the end of its 18-month term, it would cede its work to one of the Homeland Security Department’s university-based Centers of Excellence. The bill also includes the creation of a new such center -- or the designation of an existing one --for the study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.
Implementing the bill would likely cost some $22 million over the 2008-2012 period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But critics point out that the bill would duplicate work already being done in and out of government.
For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already has a domestic terrorism unit; the U.S. intelligence community monitors the homegrown terrorists and overseas networks that might be reaching out to U.S. residents; and many universities and think-tanks are already specializing in studying the subject.
But Harman argues that a national commission on homegrown terrorism could benefit the country in much the same way as the 9/11 Commission, the Silberman/Robb Commission or other high-profile national security inquiries The bill 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.”
But groups like the CCR are asking, “What is an extremist belief system? The term is left undefined and open to many interpretations -- socialism, anarchism, communism, nationalism, liberalism, etc. -- that would serve to undermine expressions that don’t fit within the allowable areas of debate. A direct action led by any group that blocks traffic can be looked upon as being coercive.”
The bill says the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the U.S. by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to U.S. citizens.”
While civil liberties groups agree that focus on the internet is crucial, they fear it could set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions could mean penalties for a stance rather than a criminal act.
The bill also uses the term “ideologically-based violence, meaning the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.”
But the CCR and other groups ask, “What is force? Is civil disobedience covered under that, if arrested at a protest rally and charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration, or even assault, does that now open you up to possible terrorist charges in the future?”
Rep. Harman emphasizes that the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect the constitutional and civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
