LaShawn Parker, The A&T Register
Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008 Updated: Sunday, December 21, 2008
What's your best line of communication? Your phone, the Internet, mail, word of mouth? However you communicate with those near and dear just think for a minute if that was taken away.
While the internet allows people to communicate easily through instant messaging, chat, blogs or spread a message to people, junior Kambale Musavuli had those privileges on one site revoked.
Musavuli, a native of Congo, was using the online community to spread the word about the war going on in his homeland.
The civil engineering major was able to connect the situation to people here in America. As a result, he was kicked off the social networking site, Facebook. Musavuli started his Facebook account in 2004 and the people behind Facebook involuntarily terminated his account in January.
He had created an event about a cell phone boycott he was promoting to help raise awareness about the situation in Africa After reading an International Rescue Committee special report released in 2008, that reported 5.4 million people had died because of war related causes in war in his country since 1998 due to illegal mining. "How can that many people die without receiving any media coverage," Musavuli asked himself.
"If that same situation happened on A&T's campus with those same numbers everyone on our campus would be dead within a week." This situation is very similar to the one depicted in the movie "Blood Diamond." The culprit Musavuli set his sights on wasn't a precious gem but a mineral called Colton.
"Coltan, a mineral used in computers, cell phones, DVD players, pacemakers and many other electronic devices is one of the many minerals illegally extracted and deported from the mines in Africa," said Musavuli. The United Nations reported $25 million mineral profit was made from illegal extractions from Congo.
After reviewing the figures and mortality rates, Musavuli concluded there were more deaths as a result of this war than those of World War II and the Jewish Holocaust. Musavuli felt an obligation to inform others of this terrible situation, especially since the crisis was relevant and relatable to all but hadn't received the appropriate media coverage.
Thus the creation of the Facebook event and the plea for participation. Participation in the boycott would require cell phones to be turned off for a maximum of six hours and participants to tell the story of the situation in Africa on their voice mails to spread the word.
Within 24 hours of creating the event, Musavuli's account had been disabled due to a violation of Facebook's terms of use. The reason? Facebook felt Musavuli had harassed other users by posting the event on his friend's walls. After corresponding through email with Facebook's technical support throughout the month of February, Musavuli concluded that Facebook would not reactivate his account and created another one.
He also discovered that he could not join the A&T network as before and his event was also deleted. When another supporter of the boycott publicized the event she was also kicked out.
"Facebook kept giving me indirect answers. They didn't handle the issue properly," said Musavuli.
Musavuli also discovered a connection between Facebook and Nokia and its $15 billion stock in Facebook. After more research he discovered the role Nokia had in the war in Congo, which gave the company bad publicity and may have resulted in a conflict of interest which would explain why Facebook terminated Musavuli's account. "Corporations and media are creating illusions to help distract the public while they are stealing resources for their own profit," said Musavuli.
Those who have agreed to participate in the boycott had no prior knowledge of the current situation in Africa however, they have agreed to promote the boycott and explain its importance as well.
The boycott will take place on March 26 from Noon until 6 p.m. Musavuli hopes that this boycott will at least inspire others to take some form of action in response to this situation.
Although this boycott has received criticism he still feels it is important for people to be aware.
For more information on the war situation in Congo visit www.friendsofcongo.org or Google search "Coltan".
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Bill seeks 'to stop dissent at its earliest point'
Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Act
WW interview by Greg Butterfield, Workers World, March 6, 2008
New York- With little publicity and overwhelming bipartisan support, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 passed in the House of Representatives last Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6. The bill is now before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee.
Budgeted at $22 million over four years, the legislation would establish a national commission “to examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence in the United States.” The commission would have the power to convene hearings, issue reports, establish a university-based “center of excellence” and recommend new laws.
Workers World spoke with attorney Kamau Franklin about the real agenda behind the bill. Franklin is the Racial Justice Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and a leading organizer of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. He’s been in the forefront of alerting the people’s movement about this legislation.
Workers World: What are some provisions of the Violent Radicalization Act that activists need to be aware of?
Kamau Franklin: The thing that strikes me most is its broad definition of ideology, radicalism and the confluence of force and violence as almost the same thing. This has really strong meaning for activists because it’s a way of targeting dissent and radical behavior and potentially scaring people off from participating in activities meant to influence or change the government by putting everything in the box of “terrorism.”
Another part of the bill that’s scary is its focus on the Internet, which has been labeled a sort of free speech zone. They are targeting Internet sites that advocate different economic and social structures, or advocate beliefs that differ from the standard paradigms of U.S. democracy and capitalism. If the government and corporate contractors are allowed to start regulating Internet content, that could be extremely troubling for activists.
Finally, although not spelled out in the legislation, the goal of setting up commissions, conducting studies and issuing reports is to lead to enacting laws or extensions of existing laws to criminalize radical action and thought—for example, by attempting to federalize protest laws.
Under existing local laws, if I engage in a protest to advocate for my beliefs, if I engage in civil disobedience action, I might be charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration—relatively minor charges. In a federalized system, you could potentially be labeled with committing terrorist acts for these same activities, because they say you’re using force to influence government policy—that’s how broad the bill’s language is.
WW:Some moderate NGOs and nonprofits have spoken in favor of the legislation, saying that at least now the government is talking about studying the roots of terrorism. How do you respond?
KF:I don’t believe that’s the function of the government or what it is intending to do. If the Congress wanted to study U.S. foreign policy and what effect it has on making people anti-U.S., then that’s what they should do. But they’re not looking at that in that framework. They’re trying to individualize every action, as though people couldn’t possibly be reacting to U.S. policy. “We have no idea where these things are coming from, so let’s study these individuals and find out why they’re so crazy.”
Even if you disagree with the tactics used by groups like the Taliban or so-called Al-Qaida, you can still trace a historical pattern in which their beliefs and tactics developed. A lot of it came out of joint actions with the CIA to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
These calls for looking into things miss the point, because a lot of it is based on U.S. policies in the Middle East, such as their undaunted support for Israeli killings and theft of land from the Palestinians and their support for dictatorial regimes.
WW:It seems like the legislation’s focus on “ideologically-based violence” is an extension into the domestic arena of labeling international revolutionary movements as terrorist organizations. Besides protesters, this language could also bring the terrorist label against anyone espousing mass action to overthrow capitalism or Malcolm X’s doctrine of “by any means necessary” and armed self-defense.
KF:That’s the gist of where they’re headed. Make it so that folks are scared of any talk, any ideology, any thinking or theoretical belief system that says capitalism is not the way to benefit the most people over the longest time. They are trying to root out any conversations about the role of the capitalist government and military in other people’s countries.
I don’t think it has anything to do with stopping terrorism; it has to do with stopping dissent at its earliest point, to muzzle views that could make people think that another world is possible, that if we work collectively, we can make changes.
They want a situation where you can’t debate whether Hamas or Hezbollah, for example, are not simply “terrorist organizations” that want to blow everything up, that these organizations have historical roots in their own societies, that they have the backing of millions, that they have an ideology that goes far beyond destroying Israel and is rooted in their belief in self-determination and against the land-grab by people who are not indigenous to the population.
We’ve been though a period when the U.S. didn’t feel militarily restricted. Now, because of the international backlash, the struggle is about what period are we going to go into next. Are they going to continue to dominate the political conversation on terrorism and military intervention, or are other forces going to find a way to create the ideological space again to start talking about the different factors, about the role of U.S. imperialism, and receive attention from the public.
WW:What is CCR doing to oppose the bill?
KF:We’ve generated a good analysis of why people should oppose it, because it’s not just a commission, it’s a commission with powers to make recommendations. Because it’s based in Congress, those recommendations can easily become laws.
We are now building a coalition to develop strategies to kill the bill by making sure it never leaves the Senate committee. We want to craft actions to target senators who are on the fence or who support it. Even if they don’t share a broad view that this is bad for dissent, if they have the view that this is bad because the resources should be directed elsewhere, that’s good enough.
For more background, read the fact sheet, “Here Come the Thought Police: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” at ccrjustice.org.
WW interview by Greg Butterfield, Workers World, March 6, 2008
New York- With little publicity and overwhelming bipartisan support, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 passed in the House of Representatives last Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6. The bill is now before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee.
Budgeted at $22 million over four years, the legislation would establish a national commission “to examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence in the United States.” The commission would have the power to convene hearings, issue reports, establish a university-based “center of excellence” and recommend new laws.
Workers World spoke with attorney Kamau Franklin about the real agenda behind the bill. Franklin is the Racial Justice Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and a leading organizer of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. He’s been in the forefront of alerting the people’s movement about this legislation.
Workers World: What are some provisions of the Violent Radicalization Act that activists need to be aware of?
Kamau Franklin: The thing that strikes me most is its broad definition of ideology, radicalism and the confluence of force and violence as almost the same thing. This has really strong meaning for activists because it’s a way of targeting dissent and radical behavior and potentially scaring people off from participating in activities meant to influence or change the government by putting everything in the box of “terrorism.”
Another part of the bill that’s scary is its focus on the Internet, which has been labeled a sort of free speech zone. They are targeting Internet sites that advocate different economic and social structures, or advocate beliefs that differ from the standard paradigms of U.S. democracy and capitalism. If the government and corporate contractors are allowed to start regulating Internet content, that could be extremely troubling for activists.
Finally, although not spelled out in the legislation, the goal of setting up commissions, conducting studies and issuing reports is to lead to enacting laws or extensions of existing laws to criminalize radical action and thought—for example, by attempting to federalize protest laws.
Under existing local laws, if I engage in a protest to advocate for my beliefs, if I engage in civil disobedience action, I might be charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration—relatively minor charges. In a federalized system, you could potentially be labeled with committing terrorist acts for these same activities, because they say you’re using force to influence government policy—that’s how broad the bill’s language is.
WW:Some moderate NGOs and nonprofits have spoken in favor of the legislation, saying that at least now the government is talking about studying the roots of terrorism. How do you respond?
KF:I don’t believe that’s the function of the government or what it is intending to do. If the Congress wanted to study U.S. foreign policy and what effect it has on making people anti-U.S., then that’s what they should do. But they’re not looking at that in that framework. They’re trying to individualize every action, as though people couldn’t possibly be reacting to U.S. policy. “We have no idea where these things are coming from, so let’s study these individuals and find out why they’re so crazy.”
Even if you disagree with the tactics used by groups like the Taliban or so-called Al-Qaida, you can still trace a historical pattern in which their beliefs and tactics developed. A lot of it came out of joint actions with the CIA to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
These calls for looking into things miss the point, because a lot of it is based on U.S. policies in the Middle East, such as their undaunted support for Israeli killings and theft of land from the Palestinians and their support for dictatorial regimes.
WW:It seems like the legislation’s focus on “ideologically-based violence” is an extension into the domestic arena of labeling international revolutionary movements as terrorist organizations. Besides protesters, this language could also bring the terrorist label against anyone espousing mass action to overthrow capitalism or Malcolm X’s doctrine of “by any means necessary” and armed self-defense.
KF:That’s the gist of where they’re headed. Make it so that folks are scared of any talk, any ideology, any thinking or theoretical belief system that says capitalism is not the way to benefit the most people over the longest time. They are trying to root out any conversations about the role of the capitalist government and military in other people’s countries.
I don’t think it has anything to do with stopping terrorism; it has to do with stopping dissent at its earliest point, to muzzle views that could make people think that another world is possible, that if we work collectively, we can make changes.
They want a situation where you can’t debate whether Hamas or Hezbollah, for example, are not simply “terrorist organizations” that want to blow everything up, that these organizations have historical roots in their own societies, that they have the backing of millions, that they have an ideology that goes far beyond destroying Israel and is rooted in their belief in self-determination and against the land-grab by people who are not indigenous to the population.
We’ve been though a period when the U.S. didn’t feel militarily restricted. Now, because of the international backlash, the struggle is about what period are we going to go into next. Are they going to continue to dominate the political conversation on terrorism and military intervention, or are other forces going to find a way to create the ideological space again to start talking about the different factors, about the role of U.S. imperialism, and receive attention from the public.
WW:What is CCR doing to oppose the bill?
KF:We’ve generated a good analysis of why people should oppose it, because it’s not just a commission, it’s a commission with powers to make recommendations. Because it’s based in Congress, those recommendations can easily become laws.
We are now building a coalition to develop strategies to kill the bill by making sure it never leaves the Senate committee. We want to craft actions to target senators who are on the fence or who support it. Even if they don’t share a broad view that this is bad for dissent, if they have the view that this is bad because the resources should be directed elsewhere, that’s good enough.
For more background, read the fact sheet, “Here Come the Thought Police: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” at ccrjustice.org.
Here Come the Thought Police: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Center For Constitutional Rights
Could Rosa Parks, who was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 for violating segregation laws by sitting in the white-only section of a bus and refusing to move, be considered a “homegrown terrorist” by the U.S. government today? Under the terms defined in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act she just might be.
Summary
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 (S.1959 / H.R.1955), with an estimated budget of $22 million over four years, would establish a national bipartisan commission to “[e]xamine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States” through convening hearings and issuing reports and would establish a university-based “center of excellence” that would bring together academic specialists to recommend laws and other measures to combat homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization. The bill would also broadly define “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically-based violence.” The intent and language of S.1959, its resulting commission, and its “center of excellence” will undoubtedly erode civil liberties. It poses a serious threat for the following reasons:
Bill Status
The bill, which was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives with a vote of 404 to 6 on October 23, 2007, is currently before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The Senate version is under construction by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Bill Origin & History
In the House, the bill was sponsored by Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The bill, which had broad bipartisan support, was co-sponsored by Representative David G. Reichert (R-WA). The bill was introduced on April 19, 2007. According to Harman’s office, terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, a reported 2005 plot to bomb synagogues in Los Angeles, and the foiled car bomb plot at Los Angeles International airport inspired the legislation.
In its original draft, as introduced in the House in April, the bill would create a grant program to prevent homegrown terrorism through educational initiatives, community outreach, and social services. By the time the next draft was reported to the House, in October, the grant program had been replaced with the national commission described above.
The bill’s co-sponsor, Representative Reichert, stated that the commission would “focus exclusively on homegrown terrorism” and become “a gathering point” for knowledge gleaned from both government agencies and academia. Reichert also said the commission will look at white power groups, new-Nazis and other extremists as well. “We don’t want to focus on any one group or leave anybody out,” he said.
Harman has worked closely with the Rand Corporation, a government-affiliated think tank based near Harman’s district in Southern California, and Rand appears to have influenced the drafting of Harman’s bill. Two weeks prior to the bill’s introduction, Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior advisor at Rand, delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s congressional subcommittee. In 2005, Rand published a book by Jenkins that included a chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats.” In that chapter, Jenkins posits that “[i]n their international campaign, the jihadists will seek common grounds with leftist, anti-American, and anti-globalization forces, who will in turn see, in radical Islam, comrades against a mutual foe.” He also mentions that the government should pay special attention to environmentalists, anti-globalization activists, and anarchists. Additionally, in his congressional testimony, Jenkins recognized that domestic anti-terror cases have succeeded thanks, in part, to laws being “interpreted broadly” by the courts.
The bill passed in the House almost unanimously (with only six dissenting votes) and with virtually no discussion. Although the subcommittee did hear ample testimony on the issues, there was virtually no debate on the bill itself within the House, and it was rushed through under “Suspension of the Rules.” Suspension of the Rules is generally applied for bills deemed uncontroversial and not needing extra debate.
In August 2007, while the grant program was being edited out of the House bill, the New York Police Department released a report called “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” which argues that the United States faces an immediate threat of homegrown terror. The report describes a four-step process of radicalization that leads people to “participate in jihad.” It refers to the “subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization” and goes on to suggest that the Internet, mosques, social justice organizations, NGOs, bookstores, prisons, student associations, and youth clubs are all potential sites of indoctrination and radicalization. The report casts a broad net, describing potential homegrown terror threats as coming from all walks of life; having “little, if any, criminal history; and appearing “as ‘ordinary’ citizens, who look, act, talk, and walk like everyone around them” in their “enclaves of ethnic, Muslim communities—communities that are dominated by Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian cultures.”
While it is unclear what, if any, direct impact the NYPD report had on the editing of the bill, it received considerable positive attention from legislators. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who chairs the Senate committee where the bill currently resides, called the NYPD report a “breakthrough” in homeland security efforts.
CCR's Recommendations to Congress
The Center for Constitutional Rights believes that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 should not be passed in any form. The proposed commission and “center for excellence” will not effectively combat terrorism; instead, they continue the trend of post-9/11 legislation and government action that encourage surveillance of constitutionally protected political activity and create a chilling effect on free speech. The Center for Constitutional Rights instead recommends:
Government Opposition
Get Involved
Help CCR make sure this bill dies in the Senate Committee and doesn’t become law. If you live in one of the following Senators’ states, please call their offices and let them know how S.1959 could hurt you and our constitutional freedoms. Try and set up a meeting with your Senator to discuss your concerns at length.
Check out "What your Senator needs to know about S.1959" below for a list of talking points to use in your discussion with your Senator.
Democrats
Joe Lieberman, Chair (CT)
Daniel Akaka (HI)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Carl Levin (MI)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Barack Obama (IL)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Jon Tester (MT)
Republicans
Susan Collins, Ranking Member (ME)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Ted Stevens (AK)
George Voinovich (OH)
John Warner (VA)
Attached Files
* What your Senator needs to know about S.1959
Could Rosa Parks, who was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 for violating segregation laws by sitting in the white-only section of a bus and refusing to move, be considered a “homegrown terrorist” by the U.S. government today? Under the terms defined in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act she just might be.
Summary
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 (S.1959 / H.R.1955), with an estimated budget of $22 million over four years, would establish a national bipartisan commission to “[e]xamine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States” through convening hearings and issuing reports and would establish a university-based “center of excellence” that would bring together academic specialists to recommend laws and other measures to combat homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization. The bill would also broadly define “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically-based violence.” The intent and language of S.1959, its resulting commission, and its “center of excellence” will undoubtedly erode civil liberties. It poses a serious threat for the following reasons:
1. S.1959’s focus on ideology rather than criminal behavior threatens First Amendment-protected activity. Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), the author of the bill, said, “Our plan must be to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior.” It is precisely that line and that activity that the First Amendment protects, as the Supreme Court has made clear in the landmark decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
2. S. 1959 jeopardizes the Internet as a critical free speech zone. In a unanimous decision in Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court recognized the Internet as a free speech zone to be afforded no less First Amendment protection than books, newspapers, and magazines. This bill specifically targets the Internet for investigative scrutiny and, in doing so, will undermine the existing protections afforded to the Internet.
3. Rather than protecting civil liberties, S.1959 erodes them by misstating existing protections. Subparagraph a) of the bill’s section on civil liberties excludes undocumented resident aliens from protection. In doing so, this bill actually denies undocumented resident aliens entitlements to equal protection and due process that they are afforded under the Constitution. Subparagraph b) states that “rational basis” is the standard of protection to be extended in the application of this bill. “Rational basis” means that the government need only show that the targeting of a specific group of people is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. This standard is weaker than the constitutional standard of “strict scrutiny,” which protects people discriminated against based on race, religion, and national origin.
4. The overly broad definitions included in S.1959 open the door for investigation and surveillance of constitutionally protected political activity. The definitions of “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence” provided in S.1959 are so broad that they could be used by the commission to investigate movements and activists in violation of their constitutional rights. This concern is augmented by the ways in which the crime of “domestic terrorism” as defined in the USA PATRIOT Act has been misread and abused by law enforcement agencies thus far. A Justice Department report published in March 2007, for example, found widespread abuse and criticized the FBI for improperly and, in some cases, illegally using the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States.
5. The resulting commission’s membership qualifications suggest that Muslims and Arabs will be unfairly targeted. The bill specifically states a preference that members of the proposed commission have security clearance and expertise in, among other areas, Islam. This indicates that Muslim and Arab communities are likely to be targets of the investigation, yet the security clearance provision for membership will exclude most potential allies from the groups being studied by the commission.
6. S.1959 opens the door to preventive detention. The shameful history of the preventive detention of Japanese Americans during World War II should be reminder enough of the problems these types of policies engender. More recently, in the months after 9/11, law enforcement agencies called in 93,000 foreign nationals who came from predominantly Arab or Muslim countries for fingerprinting, photographing, and special registration, with some being interviewed by the FBI and others placed under preventive detention. The few, mostly minor criminal convictions that have resulted from these broad sweeps do not justify the cost to civil liberties.
7. The bill’s $22 million estimated budget creates unnecessary bureaucracy and wastes public funds. The Department of Homeland Security already has eight centers at academic institutions across the country. The existence of these eight centers raises the question of why an additional center is necessary.
8. Previous commissions, legislation, and surveillance have been grossly abused throughout American history. The Alien and Sedition Acts in the early 1900s, the HUAC investigations in the 1950s, and the illegal FBI counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) in the 1960s and 1970s ruined the lives of countless politically-engaged Americans, as the government abused the powers established through these previous commissions and laws. Fomenting fear, scapegoating, or recreating McCarthyism is not going to make America safer.
9. Policies recommended by the commission are likely to be enacted and negatively impact constitutional protections. Other similar commissions, such as the Gilmore Commission, have had the overwhelming majority of their policy suggestions implemented as law. Considering the overwhelming threat to civil liberties that exists in this bill’s definitions and research methods, the policy suggestions which originate from the bill’s commission and “center of excellence” will most likely undermine the constitutional rights of the American people.
Bill Status
The bill, which was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives with a vote of 404 to 6 on October 23, 2007, is currently before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The Senate version is under construction by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Bill Origin & History
In the House, the bill was sponsored by Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The bill, which had broad bipartisan support, was co-sponsored by Representative David G. Reichert (R-WA). The bill was introduced on April 19, 2007. According to Harman’s office, terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, a reported 2005 plot to bomb synagogues in Los Angeles, and the foiled car bomb plot at Los Angeles International airport inspired the legislation.
In its original draft, as introduced in the House in April, the bill would create a grant program to prevent homegrown terrorism through educational initiatives, community outreach, and social services. By the time the next draft was reported to the House, in October, the grant program had been replaced with the national commission described above.
The bill’s co-sponsor, Representative Reichert, stated that the commission would “focus exclusively on homegrown terrorism” and become “a gathering point” for knowledge gleaned from both government agencies and academia. Reichert also said the commission will look at white power groups, new-Nazis and other extremists as well. “We don’t want to focus on any one group or leave anybody out,” he said.
Harman has worked closely with the Rand Corporation, a government-affiliated think tank based near Harman’s district in Southern California, and Rand appears to have influenced the drafting of Harman’s bill. Two weeks prior to the bill’s introduction, Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior advisor at Rand, delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s congressional subcommittee. In 2005, Rand published a book by Jenkins that included a chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats.” In that chapter, Jenkins posits that “[i]n their international campaign, the jihadists will seek common grounds with leftist, anti-American, and anti-globalization forces, who will in turn see, in radical Islam, comrades against a mutual foe.” He also mentions that the government should pay special attention to environmentalists, anti-globalization activists, and anarchists. Additionally, in his congressional testimony, Jenkins recognized that domestic anti-terror cases have succeeded thanks, in part, to laws being “interpreted broadly” by the courts.
The bill passed in the House almost unanimously (with only six dissenting votes) and with virtually no discussion. Although the subcommittee did hear ample testimony on the issues, there was virtually no debate on the bill itself within the House, and it was rushed through under “Suspension of the Rules.” Suspension of the Rules is generally applied for bills deemed uncontroversial and not needing extra debate.
In August 2007, while the grant program was being edited out of the House bill, the New York Police Department released a report called “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” which argues that the United States faces an immediate threat of homegrown terror. The report describes a four-step process of radicalization that leads people to “participate in jihad.” It refers to the “subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization” and goes on to suggest that the Internet, mosques, social justice organizations, NGOs, bookstores, prisons, student associations, and youth clubs are all potential sites of indoctrination and radicalization. The report casts a broad net, describing potential homegrown terror threats as coming from all walks of life; having “little, if any, criminal history; and appearing “as ‘ordinary’ citizens, who look, act, talk, and walk like everyone around them” in their “enclaves of ethnic, Muslim communities—communities that are dominated by Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian cultures.”
While it is unclear what, if any, direct impact the NYPD report had on the editing of the bill, it received considerable positive attention from legislators. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who chairs the Senate committee where the bill currently resides, called the NYPD report a “breakthrough” in homeland security efforts.
CCR's Recommendations to Congress
The Center for Constitutional Rights believes that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 should not be passed in any form. The proposed commission and “center for excellence” will not effectively combat terrorism; instead, they continue the trend of post-9/11 legislation and government action that encourage surveillance of constitutionally protected political activity and create a chilling effect on free speech. The Center for Constitutional Rights instead recommends:
* Congress should narrow the definition of terrorism to protect the American public from law enforcement abuse and unlawful targeting, while simultaneously encouraging the most effective use of limited resources. Terrorism is a word that has been exploited by the Executive branch repeatedly since 9/11 to provide rationale for going to war, unlawfully wiretapping U.S. citizens, and indefinitely detaining and torturing non-U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution and international law. In doing so, the Executive has redirected the American people’s tax dollars away from critical domestic problems – such as healthcare, education, and truly preventing terrorism through safeguarding nuclear material or improving airport screening. In addition, it has encouraged law enforcement agencies to abuse their powers both domestically and internationally, through targeting, torturing and detaining political activists and Muslim and Arab individuals and communities.
The broad definitions of “domestic terrorism” established in the USA PATRIOT Act and “animal enterprise terrorism” established in the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) have not effectively combated terrorism. They have, however, led to widespread abuse by the Executive and law enforcement agencies, which have used these policies as justification to investigate politically motivated activities that do not resemble terrorism in any way.
These definitions have also created a “chilling effect” on free speech. When people fear that their legal activity may be prosecuted as “terrorism” under these laws, they will often cease to engage in protected, legal activity. This often results in silencing minority or unpopular opinions that may be well placed to shed light on the nature of the threats we face. It is not only those people or groups directly silenced by this “chilling effect” that suffer but also America as a whole because of the erosion of basic constitutional rights.
Rather than continue to expand the definition of terrorism as S.1959 would do, the Center for Constitutional Rights recommends that Congress enact policies that protect the American public from abuse by the Executive and law enforcement agencies. The Executive has demonstrated its willingness time and again to exploit and abuse the powers given to it to combat terrorism. Congress should not encourage such abuse. Instead, Congress must prioritize counter-terrorism legislation that carves out a new direction to protect the American people: a direction where constitutionally protected political expression and activity can in no way be mislabeled “terrorism” and, thus, threatened by law enforcement abuse.
* Congress must aggressively promote constitutional rights and international standards in counter-terrorism policy. The Executive has a record of combating terrorism by undermining constitutional rights and international standards. In the name of the “war on terror,” the Executive has actively tortured and abused non-U.S. citizens, has refused non-U.S. citizens the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, has unlawfully wiretapped Americans’ phones, and has reinterpreted the Geneva Conventions and international law to the detriment of the American public. These actions have not protected the American people from terrorism. Rather, they have damaged the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-U.S. citizens and have tarnished the United States’ moral reputation in the global arena.
The U.S. Constitution, domestic criminal law, and international law already provide the government with a plethora of effective tools to investigate potential threats and protect its citizens against terrorism. The deficiencies that contributed to the failure to thwart previous acts of homegrown terrorism were not deficiencies in legal authority, but rather in the ways that the existing authority responded to intelligence information. There is no rationale, then, for Congress or the Executive to pursue unconstitutional avenues such as preventive and indefinite detention, torture and abuse, and unlawful surveillance to combat terrorism.
Instead of encouraging the further unnecessary surveillance and investigation of individuals with radical viewpoints as S.1959 does, Congress should prioritize counter-terrorism legislation that points the United States in a new direction: a direction where constitutional rights and international standards are not just acknowledged but are restored, where loopholes for Executive abuse of constitutional rights and international standards are closed, and where avenues for accountability for prior government abuse of these rights are increased. The American people do not need Congress to acquiesce to the Executive’s misuse of its authority and damaging, ineffective counter-terrorism policies. Rather, the American people need Congress to restore habeas corpus, prohibit torture and abuse of detainees, close legally suspect detention centers, and create mechanisms for accountability when laws are violated. These are dangerous and inexcusable results of the Executive’s counter-terrorism policy, and they must be reversed. It is imperative that Congress take action to reverse the Executive’s destruction of the United State’s moral reputation by aggressively promoting constitutional rights and international standards.
Government Opposition
* Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) on the Senate committee that will consider the legislation has expressed his concern, writing with regard to S.1959: “Intruding on the lives and freedom of average Americans does not make us any safer.”
* Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has expressed his concern with the bill.
* Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) lambasted the legislation noting that it was rushed through under suspension of rules and saying, “This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem.”
* The Green Party of Washington State has called the bill “unconstitutional and a direct threat to our freedom.”
Get Involved
Help CCR make sure this bill dies in the Senate Committee and doesn’t become law. If you live in one of the following Senators’ states, please call their offices and let them know how S.1959 could hurt you and our constitutional freedoms. Try and set up a meeting with your Senator to discuss your concerns at length.
Check out "What your Senator needs to know about S.1959" below for a list of talking points to use in your discussion with your Senator.
Democrats
Joe Lieberman, Chair (CT)
Daniel Akaka (HI)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Carl Levin (MI)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Barack Obama (IL)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Jon Tester (MT)
Republicans
Susan Collins, Ranking Member (ME)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Ted Stevens (AK)
George Voinovich (OH)
John Warner (VA)
Attached Files
* What your Senator needs to know about S.1959
A Book on Hold
Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, Sept. 11, 2007
Many university presses in the United States distribute books for publishers from other countries — and vice versa. The University of Michigan has recently discovered that such an arrangement can land a university in the middle of a controversy over a book neither written by one of its professors nor published by its press.
The University of Michigan Press last month halted distribution of Overcoming Zionism, which argues that the creation of Israel was a mistake and urges adoption of the “one state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country, without a Jewish character. The book was written by Joel Kovel, distinguished professor of social studies at Bard College. The publisher is Pluto Press, a British outfit that describes itself as having a left-wing focus and that publishes books by and for scholars in the social sciences. The University of Michigan Press is the American distributor for Pluto.
Michigan halted distribution last month after “serious questions” were raised about the book by “members of the university community,” according to Kelly Cunningham, a university spokeswoman. Cunningham said that the faculty committee that oversees the press has been reviewing the matter, as well as the relationship between the press and Pluto. An announcement will be forthcoming, perhaps this week, she said. Cunningham stressed that “the expression of diverse points of view on this and other issues is one of the most deeply held values is the university.”
There are signs that Michigan may be getting ready to resume distribution of the book. The author and a senior official at Pluto said that they had been informed that the review of the book had concluded and that distribution would resume. Phil Pochoda, director of the press, declined to comment. But when asked what would happen if someone called the press to try to order the book, he said that while it wouldn’t be shipped immediately, an order would be taken. Cunningham said that the university was not prepared to announce whether the book would again be distributed.
The controversy comes at a time of intense debate on many campuses in the United States about the Middle East and professors’ views about Israel.
Several pro-Israel blogs have been publishing criticism of Overcoming Zionism, calling it full of “hate speech,” and questioning why the University of Michigan would have any role in its distribution. The Michigan chapter of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel group, has issued a statement calling the book an “unscholarly propaganda text” and complaining that it could not get press officials to say why it was being distributed.
A blog sympathetic to Kovel — Dissident Veteran for Peace — has printed what it says is an e-mail from Pochoda, the press director, to Kovel, explaining why distribution was halted. Pochoda declined to comment on the e-mail, but Kovel said it was accurate. The e-mail reads: “Because it is a distributed title for Pluto Press, no one at UMP had read Overcoming Zionism prior to the Stand/With/Us diatribe. I and others read it after that assault, and had fully expected to gear up for, at least, a free speech defense. Though I had no trouble with the one-state solution your book proposes nor with a Zionist critique, per se ... I (and faculty members I asked to read the book, as well) were apalled [sic] by your reckless, viscious [sic], and unmodulated attack on Zionism and all Zionists.
“For us, the issue raised by the book is not free speech but hate speech. Perhaps such vituperative and aggressive rhetoric works for the barricades, but it cannot be countenanced or underwritten by the university or the university press, even in this peripheral, distributed capacity. Even worse for me, as a result of your book, the university is in the process of reassessing our relation as a whole to Pluto (and that has been a four year relationship that I have cherished, both personally and professionally). While that review goes on (and I am only marginally involved), we have ceased shipping Overcoming Zionism.“
In an interview, Kovel called his work “a very carefully reasoned book” and said it was “most certainly not hate speech.” He said that the ideas he supports are “not part of the American discourse, but are much discussed around the world.” To get a flavor of Kovel’s language in talking about Israel, this is a Q&A he did with Briarpatch Magazine about his new book (an interview Kovel said was reflective of his views).
He said things like this: “There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be on the left and also Zionists. It is a contradiction, however, to advocate the cause of universal justice while still supporting the Zionist project of conquest. This is an untenable position that must be ideologically and politically combated because it weakens both the overall struggles of the left and the struggle against Zionism.” And this: “I understand the desire to smash Zionism, for after all, Israel is an abomination and has caused endless suffering to innocent people. I believe, however, that humanity is capable of escaping these endless cycles of violence. The desire to lash out against those who have oppressed us is understandable, but it is a dead end.”
Anne Beech, managing director of Pluto Press, defended the book and its publication, saying “he’s a scholar of standing — not a ranting madman.”
In Britain, Beech said the book has received some criticism and some praise, but has not been the source of major controversy. “To be honest, the cultural differences between the U.K. and the U.S. are so profound that we’ve been astonished at the intemperate criticism of this book. You don’t have to accept the argument in full, but I would unreservedly support Joel ’s right to express his carefully thought out opinions,” she said.
She noted that she was at a conference over the weekend where some American scholars were on a panel discussing the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and they remarked about how it was “so nice to be able to discuss this issue without being shouted down,” as they said would have been the case in the United States. “I feel sorry for publishing colleagues and academics who have to contend with this manic pressure.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group, has also called on Michigan to resume distribution. In a letter sent last week to Mary Sue Coleman, the university’s president, the center questioned why a review “based upon the content of the writing” of Kovel’s book would take place when the press had agreed to distribute Pluto’s works. “We are sure you appreciate the gravity of such a decision for one of the most prestigious publishing houses in the country, particularly at this juncture in our history when outside pressures threaten a full and open discussion of one of the major foreign policy issues of our day.”
Laurie A. Brand, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who heads the academic freedom committee of the Middle East Studies Association, said she had not read Kovel’s book but had recently been informed that Michigan had suspended distribution. “It does sound very disturbing,” she said.
Whether the book is good or bad, she said, “let him publish it and let people talk about it,” and if people condemn it or ignore it or praise it, that would be their choice, Brand said. “But what we should not do is to try to prevent its arrival on the market.”
Jonathan Schwartz is a blogger who has been urging people to demand that Michigan stop distributing the book. A Michigan alumnus, Schwartz publishes Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses. In an interview, Schwartz rejected the idea that he was encouraging censorship. “I’m a free speech advocate. People can say whatever they want to, and I’m not saying that nobody should distribute it or that it should be banned from libraries,” he said.
“But for the University of Michigan to be associated with racist hate speech is not a good idea,” he said, adding that he would feel the same way about anti-black or anti-Asian books. He stressed that while Kovel had a right to be published, the university didn’t need to help him in any way.
“It seems like the university did not know what it was distributing,” Schwartz said. “I personally have my opinion about the book, but what’s most telling is the letter from the director of the university press. So why, if after reading it, would he distribute it? The university is not obligated to distribute a book like that. Look at the director’s own words.”
Many university presses in the United States distribute books for publishers from other countries — and vice versa. The University of Michigan has recently discovered that such an arrangement can land a university in the middle of a controversy over a book neither written by one of its professors nor published by its press.
The University of Michigan Press last month halted distribution of Overcoming Zionism, which argues that the creation of Israel was a mistake and urges adoption of the “one state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country, without a Jewish character. The book was written by Joel Kovel, distinguished professor of social studies at Bard College. The publisher is Pluto Press, a British outfit that describes itself as having a left-wing focus and that publishes books by and for scholars in the social sciences. The University of Michigan Press is the American distributor for Pluto.
Michigan halted distribution last month after “serious questions” were raised about the book by “members of the university community,” according to Kelly Cunningham, a university spokeswoman. Cunningham said that the faculty committee that oversees the press has been reviewing the matter, as well as the relationship between the press and Pluto. An announcement will be forthcoming, perhaps this week, she said. Cunningham stressed that “the expression of diverse points of view on this and other issues is one of the most deeply held values is the university.”
There are signs that Michigan may be getting ready to resume distribution of the book. The author and a senior official at Pluto said that they had been informed that the review of the book had concluded and that distribution would resume. Phil Pochoda, director of the press, declined to comment. But when asked what would happen if someone called the press to try to order the book, he said that while it wouldn’t be shipped immediately, an order would be taken. Cunningham said that the university was not prepared to announce whether the book would again be distributed.
The controversy comes at a time of intense debate on many campuses in the United States about the Middle East and professors’ views about Israel.
Several pro-Israel blogs have been publishing criticism of Overcoming Zionism, calling it full of “hate speech,” and questioning why the University of Michigan would have any role in its distribution. The Michigan chapter of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel group, has issued a statement calling the book an “unscholarly propaganda text” and complaining that it could not get press officials to say why it was being distributed.
A blog sympathetic to Kovel — Dissident Veteran for Peace — has printed what it says is an e-mail from Pochoda, the press director, to Kovel, explaining why distribution was halted. Pochoda declined to comment on the e-mail, but Kovel said it was accurate. The e-mail reads: “Because it is a distributed title for Pluto Press, no one at UMP had read Overcoming Zionism prior to the Stand/With/Us diatribe. I and others read it after that assault, and had fully expected to gear up for, at least, a free speech defense. Though I had no trouble with the one-state solution your book proposes nor with a Zionist critique, per se ... I (and faculty members I asked to read the book, as well) were apalled [sic] by your reckless, viscious [sic], and unmodulated attack on Zionism and all Zionists.
“For us, the issue raised by the book is not free speech but hate speech. Perhaps such vituperative and aggressive rhetoric works for the barricades, but it cannot be countenanced or underwritten by the university or the university press, even in this peripheral, distributed capacity. Even worse for me, as a result of your book, the university is in the process of reassessing our relation as a whole to Pluto (and that has been a four year relationship that I have cherished, both personally and professionally). While that review goes on (and I am only marginally involved), we have ceased shipping Overcoming Zionism.“
In an interview, Kovel called his work “a very carefully reasoned book” and said it was “most certainly not hate speech.” He said that the ideas he supports are “not part of the American discourse, but are much discussed around the world.” To get a flavor of Kovel’s language in talking about Israel, this is a Q&A he did with Briarpatch Magazine about his new book (an interview Kovel said was reflective of his views).
He said things like this: “There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be on the left and also Zionists. It is a contradiction, however, to advocate the cause of universal justice while still supporting the Zionist project of conquest. This is an untenable position that must be ideologically and politically combated because it weakens both the overall struggles of the left and the struggle against Zionism.” And this: “I understand the desire to smash Zionism, for after all, Israel is an abomination and has caused endless suffering to innocent people. I believe, however, that humanity is capable of escaping these endless cycles of violence. The desire to lash out against those who have oppressed us is understandable, but it is a dead end.”
Anne Beech, managing director of Pluto Press, defended the book and its publication, saying “he’s a scholar of standing — not a ranting madman.”
In Britain, Beech said the book has received some criticism and some praise, but has not been the source of major controversy. “To be honest, the cultural differences between the U.K. and the U.S. are so profound that we’ve been astonished at the intemperate criticism of this book. You don’t have to accept the argument in full, but I would unreservedly support Joel ’s right to express his carefully thought out opinions,” she said.
She noted that she was at a conference over the weekend where some American scholars were on a panel discussing the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and they remarked about how it was “so nice to be able to discuss this issue without being shouted down,” as they said would have been the case in the United States. “I feel sorry for publishing colleagues and academics who have to contend with this manic pressure.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group, has also called on Michigan to resume distribution. In a letter sent last week to Mary Sue Coleman, the university’s president, the center questioned why a review “based upon the content of the writing” of Kovel’s book would take place when the press had agreed to distribute Pluto’s works. “We are sure you appreciate the gravity of such a decision for one of the most prestigious publishing houses in the country, particularly at this juncture in our history when outside pressures threaten a full and open discussion of one of the major foreign policy issues of our day.”
Laurie A. Brand, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who heads the academic freedom committee of the Middle East Studies Association, said she had not read Kovel’s book but had recently been informed that Michigan had suspended distribution. “It does sound very disturbing,” she said.
Whether the book is good or bad, she said, “let him publish it and let people talk about it,” and if people condemn it or ignore it or praise it, that would be their choice, Brand said. “But what we should not do is to try to prevent its arrival on the market.”
Jonathan Schwartz is a blogger who has been urging people to demand that Michigan stop distributing the book. A Michigan alumnus, Schwartz publishes Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses. In an interview, Schwartz rejected the idea that he was encouraging censorship. “I’m a free speech advocate. People can say whatever they want to, and I’m not saying that nobody should distribute it or that it should be banned from libraries,” he said.
“But for the University of Michigan to be associated with racist hate speech is not a good idea,” he said, adding that he would feel the same way about anti-black or anti-Asian books. He stressed that while Kovel had a right to be published, the university didn’t need to help him in any way.
“It seems like the university did not know what it was distributing,” Schwartz said. “I personally have my opinion about the book, but what’s most telling is the letter from the director of the university press. So why, if after reading it, would he distribute it? The university is not obligated to distribute a book like that. Look at the director’s own words.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)