Ruby ridge, the 1996 Atlanta games, Oklahoma City, the Montana Freeman. These are the headlines of the 1990s which brought Homegrown Domestic Terrorism (or "Bubbas" as the FBI likes to call them) into the public eye. Timothy McVeigh was the face of a white militia, young, arrogant and dangerous, his slightly crazed stare was surely a sign of mental illness. Congressional panels on militias brought forth groups with legitimate, if a bit strident viewpoints, but unless you watch C-Span (snore) the papers covered only those groups who believed that the government controlled weather through Tesla technology or similar views. Time passed, and these incidents faded from the short attention span of the American people. After all what was the concept of a bunch of wacko hillbillies plotting the overthrow of the government when compared to a stained dress and the debate on oral sex?
Since 2001 the only terrorist who have gotten any play on the media were Muslim fundamentalist, and then this little gem comes out. Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, is a bipartisan bill which passed the house 404 to 6 (Ron Paul abstained I checked). Here is the summary of the bill from Bill Track
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
That seems ok on the surface, I think to myself. I open the full text of the bill and there are a couple of scary passages. This starts with the findings section
The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The 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.
This seems like a precursor to a net nanny bill or outright censorship in the future, but I can see their point. Terrorist have email addresses after all, and WoW is a hotbed of radicalism. But seriously it's a tough case of privacy vs protection which I don't envy.
What I find a little more concerning is the establishment of a new commission on the Prevention of violent radicalization and ideological based violence. Not that the commission exist, because after all the government is there to protect you, but that it has the ability to convene hearings which may or may not be in the public eye. The term used by the bill is where appropriate. Once hearings start behind the curtains, your hackles should raise up.
There is a provision in the bill for the protection of Civil Liberties. We have the DHS's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer (Daniel Sutherland) who is instructed to do the following
….shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.
In Dan we must trust. Is US citizen considered an ethnic group? For those who are interested, the report for 2005-2006 is available on the DHS website. Personally I would feel far more comfortable if these types of audits were handled outside the DHS since they are a major piece of what is being audited. Certainly that is not acceptable practice in the business world, why would be acceptable here.
What I find also scary, is this bill got little play in the media. If there is a legitimate need for this bill, where is the journalist looking for the background story which necessitates it? Surely they can't all be wrapped up in OJ mark 2?
