[NYTr] Here Come the Thought Police

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Ed Pearl

The Baltimore Sun - Nov 19, 2007
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thoughtpolice19nov19,0,2384977.story


Op-Ed:

Here come the thought police

By Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson

With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane
Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act" passed the House 404-6 late
last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's
Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage
appears certain.

Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so
threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The historian Henry Steele Commager, denouncing
President John Adams' suppression of free speech in the
1790s, argued that the Bill of Rights was not written
to protect government from dissenters but to provide a
legal means for citizens to oppose a government they
didn't trust. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of
Independence not only proclaimed the right to dissent
but declared it a people's duty, under certain
conditions, to alter or abolish their government.

In that vein, diverse groups vigorously oppose Ms.
Harman's effort to stifle dissent. Unfortunately, the
mainstream press and leading presidential candidates
remain silent.

Ms. Harman, a California Democrat, thinks it likely
that the United States will face a native brand of
terrorism in the immediate future and offers a plan to
deal with ideologically based violence.

But her plan is a greater danger to us than the threats
she fears. Her bill tramples constitutional rights by
creating a commission with sweeping investigative power
and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the
commission labels "homegrown terrorism."

The proposed commission is a menace through its power
to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths,
an authority granted to even individual members of the
commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the
country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of
authority will automatically accompany this
congressionally authorized mandate to expose native
terrorism.

Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the
Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with
"access to broad and constant streams of
terrorist-related propaganda," and legalizes an
insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The
misnamed "Center of Excellence," which would function
after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives
the semblance of intellectual research to what is
otherwise the suppression of dissent.

While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill
doesn't criminalize any specific conduct or contain
penalties. But the commission's findings will be cited
by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who
will demand enactment of criminal penalties that
further restrict free speech and other civil liberties.
Action contrary to the commission's findings will be
interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of
patriotism at the least.

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates
"thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as
"planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the
government or the people in the promotion of "political
or social objectives." That means that no force need
actually have occurred as long as the government
charges that the individual or group thought about
doing it.

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a
march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform -
amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v.
Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of
force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

The bill defines "violent radicalization" as promoting
an "extremist belief system." But American governments,
state and national, have a long history of interpreting
radical "belief systems" as inevitably leading to
violence to facilitate change.

Examples of the resulting crackdowns on such protests
include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied
to Chicago's 1886 Haymarket Riot. Hearings conducted by
the House Un-American Activities Committee for several
decades during the Cold War and the solo hearings by a
member of that committee's Senate counterpart, Joseph
McCarthy, demonstrate the dangers inherent in Ms.
Harman's legislation.

Ms. Harman denies that her bill is a threat to the
First Amendment. It clearly states that no measure to
prevent homegrown terrorism should violate
"constitutional rights, civil rights or civil
liberties."

But the present administration has demonstrated, in its
response to criticism regarding torture, that it can't
be trusted to honor those rights.

[Ralph E. Shaffer, professor emeritus of history at
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and R.
William Robinson, an elected director of a Southern
California water district, wrote this article for the
History News Service.]

Copyright (c) 2007, The Baltimore Sun