{"id":1616,"date":"2008-05-07T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-07T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp\/index.php\/2008\/05\/07\/coalition-memo-regarding-homegrown-terrorism\/"},"modified":"2016-12-13T07:51:40","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T07:51:40","slug":"coalition-memo-regarding-homegrown-terrorism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/2008\/05\/07\/coalition-memo-regarding-homegrown-terrorism\/","title":{"rendered":"Coalition Memo Regarding &#8220;Homegrown Terrorism&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span class=\"interiorHeadline\">Coalition Memo to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Regarding &quot;Homegrown Terrorism&quot;<!--EmailTitle End--><\/span> (5\/7\/2008)<\/p>\n<p>                     To: Members of  the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental  Affairs <\/p>\n<p>From: American Civil Liberties Union<br \/>Bill of Rights Defense  Committee<br \/>Center for Constitutional  Rights<br \/>Center for Democracy and  Technology<br \/>Congress Against Racism and  Corruption in Law Enforcement<br \/>Defending Dissent Foundation<br \/>DownsizeDC.org, Inc.<br \/>Equal Justice Alliance<br \/>Friends Committee on National  Legislation<br \/>International Association of  Whistleblowers<br \/>Liberty Coalition<br \/>National Judicial Conduct and  Disability Law Project, Inc<br \/>OMB Watch<br \/>Pain Relief Network<br \/>Republican Liberty Coalition<br \/>Rutherford Institute<br \/>The Multiracial Activist<br \/>United for Peace and Justice<br \/>U.S. Bill of  Rights Foundation<\/p>\n<p>Re:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Homegrown  Terrorism<\/p>\n<p>Governmental efforts to deal with the problem  of &ldquo;homegrown terrorism&rdquo; raise serious civil liberties concerns.&nbsp; House and Senate committees charged with  overseeing these efforts, the House Homeland Security Committee and the Senate  Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, have conducted a series  of hearings on the matter and received some troubling recommendations.&nbsp; Legislation to address the problem, the  Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955) passed  the House and companion legislation, S. 1959, is stalled in the Senate. We  understand that the Senate Committee plans to issue a report based on the  hearings. We encourage the committee to take the following concerns and issues  into consideration in writing that report.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>We must be clear; the need to prevent  criminal acts of violence is unquestionable. Studying and understanding the  origin of terrorism and what provokes violence is an important element of  prevention. But one of the greatest challenges to countering such movements is  drawing the line between advocacy of ideas, including violence, and taking  concrete steps toward carrying out a violent act.&nbsp; It is also important to  distinguish between violence that injures or kills people and minor acts of  vandalism that are part of an act of civil disobedience.&nbsp; Properly viewed, dissent can be an  antidote to terrorism, not a precursor to it.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defining the Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The first challenge policy makers face is to  define the problem that is to be addressed.&nbsp; It is critically important that the  articulation of the problem does not cause people merely exercising their First  Amendment rights to fear being swept into the net of suspicion.&nbsp; For example, any definition of the  problem must recognize that it is perfectly permissible for Americans to hold  and promote a system of beliefs that others might find &ldquo;extreme,&rdquo; and for those  who hold those beliefs to seek, without violence, political, religious and  social change based on those beliefs.&nbsp;  The reference in pending homegrown terrorism legislation to &ldquo;the process  for adopting an extremist belief system&rdquo; raises concern that advocacy of  particular beliefs would become the subject of study, instead of studying the  causes of violence that a person engages in, citing such beliefs.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>A second challenge is to determine whether  there even is an identifiable process that leads to terrorism.&nbsp; A statistically and methodologically  flawed study by the New York Police Department purports to identify a four-step  &ldquo;radicalization process&rdquo; that terrorists go through, but even the authors of the  study admit limitations to the application of their model,  namely: <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>that not all  individuals who begin the process pass through all the stages; <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>that many &ldquo;stop or  abandon this process at different points;&rdquo; and finally,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>that &ldquo;individuals  do not always follow a perfectly linear progression&rdquo; through the four  steps.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What is dangerous is that the four steps each  involve religious conduct, and the authors fail to note that millions of people  may progress through these &ldquo;stages&rdquo; and never commit an act of violence.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>The Government should not be in the business  of trying to thwart the adoption of belief systems to which some in government  object.&nbsp; And, when assessing whether  particular advocacy can be stifled &ndash; including objectionable advocacy of  violence &ndash; it is useful to recall that the Supreme Court set a high bar to  governmental prior restraint.&nbsp; Under  the&nbsp;Brandenburg v. Ohio incitement test, speech cannot be curtailed  unless it is intended to and has the effect of causing imminent lawless  conduct.&nbsp; Mere abstract advocacy of  violence, however objectionable, may not be barred. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Danger of Focusing on the  Internet<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Much of the discourse on homegrown terrorism  has singled out Internet communications in a troubling way.&nbsp; For example,  the pending homegrown terrorism legislation notes, &quot;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.&quot;  The truth of this statement lies in its universality: the simple fact is the  Internet has become an essential communications and research tool for  everyone. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Our concern is that this focus on the  Internet could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the  Internet.&nbsp; Indeed, some policy  makers have advocated shutting down objectionable websites.&nbsp; The Senate Homeland Security and  Government Affairs Committee heard testimony from a Dutch counterterrorism  official whose government monitors mosques and works to take &ldquo;the most radical&rdquo;  websites offline: &ldquo;Our message is clear: we do not allow them to preach  intolerance.&rdquo;&nbsp; This is not  consistent with American values of free speech or the First  Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, testimony at the hearings indicates  that such an approach not only fails muster under free speech principles, but is  unlikely to be effective.&nbsp; The  Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee also heard testimony  indicating that the content of many of the websites that are objectionable is  &ldquo;mirrored&rdquo; on other websites, and that as a result, shutting down one or two  will not make the information disappear.&nbsp;&nbsp; Lt. Col. Joseph Felter, Ph D.,  Director of the Combating  Terrorism Center at West Point,  testified to the Senate Committee that &ldquo;Attempts to shut down websites have  proven as fruitless as a game of whack-a-mole.&rdquo;&nbsp; It can even be counter-productive.&nbsp; Attempts to shut down websites often  draw attention to the very content that may be objectionable.  <\/p>\n<p>If the Internet is a focus of efforts to stop  &ldquo;homegrown terrorism&rdquo; it should be because it can be a tremendous tool for  dissemination of vast amounts of material that could counter the messages of the  terrorists.&nbsp; The Internet, and the  free speech it facilitates, can be an antidote to terrorism.  <\/p>\n<p><strong>The Counterproductive Focus on  Islam<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Much of the discourse about homegrown  terrorism in these hearings has focused on Muslims and Islam, even though  perpetrators of terrorism in the United States have had many religious  and ethnic backgrounds.&nbsp; Suggestions  have been made that Muslims need to be watched because any particular Muslim  might at any time become a homegrown terrorist.&nbsp; The Los Angeles Police Department, for  example, launched a program to &ldquo;map&rdquo; mosques in the Los Angeles area as part  of its efforts to counter homegrown terrorism.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>Focusing the discussion of homegrown  terrorism on Muslims may actually increase the potential for violent  radicalization in the United  States.&nbsp;  Many witnesses before the Committee spoke of the growth of Islamophobia  and the polarization of the Muslim community as risk factors that raise the  potential for extremist violence.&nbsp;  Unfairly focusing suspicion on a community tends to create the very  alienation these witnesses said could lead to homegrown terrorism.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>Moreover, there is not one monolithic Muslim  community in the United  States, according to Committee witness Farooq  Kathwari, who co-chaired the Task Force for Muslim American Civic and Political  Engagements.&nbsp;&nbsp; Muslim Americans  emigrated from many different countries across the globe, with many different  religious, ethnic and social traditions, while a significant number,  particularly African American Muslims, are not immigrants at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; A focus on Muslims can create an  impression that all adherents of Islam are suspect and lead to racial (or  religious) profiling.&nbsp;  <\/p>\n<p>Dr. Marc Sageman, who conducted research on  terrorists in Europe and the United States, suggested religion may  be less of a driving factor than local police actions: &ldquo;It is important to  realize that the terrorists are not &ndash; and I emphasize not &ndash; Islamic  scholars.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Discriminatory profiling is a  counterproductive anti-terrorism strategy.&nbsp;  It shifts the locus inquiry away from indicia of violence to  characteristics such as race and religion which are not predictors of  terrorism.&nbsp; Moreover, it can  contribute to feelings of alienation that can be preyed upon by those who intend  to do harm.&nbsp; <\/p>\n<p><strong>Learning from History<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A look back at U.S. history  shows that many major social change movements advocated ideas that were  considered radical at the time and used tactics that could fall into an  overbroad definition of homegrown terrorism. Any plan of action to address the  problem that suggests that &ldquo;extremist beliefs&rdquo; will become a subject of  suspicion will discourage people from advocating their beliefs and ideas in an  open and democratic process.&nbsp; That result would harm our society, not  protect it.&nbsp; Indeed the civil liberties of U.S. citizens  can be respected while protecting national  security.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, recent U.S. history is full of  discouraging examples of nonviolent groups being subjected to unwarranted  surveillance, even incarceration and deportation based not on any crime, but on  political beliefs or ethnic identity:&nbsp;  the Palmer raids, the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II,  and the FBI&rsquo;s counterintelligence program (Cointelpro) of the 1960&rsquo;s and  1970&rsquo;s.&nbsp; The legislative branch has  a history of using innuendo and guilt by association to ruin reputations and  silence dissent, from the New York legislature&rsquo;s Lusk Committee (which published  a report in 1920 entitled&nbsp; Revolutionary Radicalism)&nbsp; to the House Un-American Activities  Committee hearings of the 1940&rsquo;s, 50&rsquo;s and 60&rsquo;s.&nbsp; Most Americans agree that these  violations of civil liberties were more harmful than the threat from &lsquo;radical&rsquo;  groups.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Broad definitions of terrorism and  radicalization, coupled with the public&#39;s knowledge of surveillance of  nonviolent groups by the Justice Department, give cause to concern that  Americans&#39; ability to speak freely will be threatened by efforts to address  homegrown terrorism.&nbsp; &nbsp;We  believe that efforts to prevent people in the United States  from turning to terrorism can only succeed if we protect the free speech,  religious and associational rights of those against whom these efforts are  directed.&nbsp; We strongly urge policy  makers to tread lightly and carefully in this area, and to make every effort to  preserve free speech and association rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Coalition Memo to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Regarding &quot;Homegrown Terrorism&quot; (5\/7\/2008) To: Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs From: American Civil Liberties UnionBill of&#46;&#46;&#46;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":4169,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[60,9],"tags":[142],"class_list":["post-1616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-letters-to-government-agencies-signed-by-tma","category-advocacy-and-letters","tag-advocacy-letters"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-q4","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Advocacy-Work.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1616"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3965,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616\/revisions\/3965"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}