This is a follow-up on my last blog entry and matching IMC article on this subject.


Image from the matching article on Colorado Indymedia

Is the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) turning its focus toward American citizens? After reading the latest legislative assault on civil liberties, as well as all the discussion surrounding it in the press and on the Internet, one may have the impression that is exactly the case. Research organizations, Senators, Representatives, heads of law enforcement and many others have been shooting off their mouths about the threats of domestic terrorism and the need to address it, especially its views and beliefs being available on the Internet, which to Representatives like Jane Harman (D-CA) and Dave Reichert (R-WA), et al., constitutes a type of recruitment on behalf of an ambiguous myriad of terrorist groups, thus obviously including Al Qaeda. In fact, rhetoric leading up to the recent legislation, H.R. 1955 and S. 1959, has been spouted much from the viewpoint that sees little or no difference between any form of Islam and terrorism. The question that ought to be asked is "why?" The answers I believe would be numerous, however, there are implications in the shared use of language online by groups with common interests, lots of money, and not great but certainly popular credentials, with members of Congress, that there are certainly some disturbing apparent reasons associated with profit, as usual.


On October 23rd, 2007, while America's attention was elsewhere, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of 404-6. A matching bill was introduced in the United States Senate on August 2nd, 2007, according to the Library of Congress website "THOMAS," which now presumably is passing through the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Chaired by former Democrat Joe Lieberman (ID-CT). The Senate bill's sponsor, Susan Collins (R-ME), is the Ranking Member of the Committee.



Lieberman and Collins, image from committee website linked above.

The bill's language has raised a great deal of alarm among civil libertarians, political dissidents, free speech activists, as well as online communities and blogs. The "mainstream" (quotes for context) press has ignored the bill entirely from what I can tell, however, the independent press has produced further information as this bill sails through Congress like a paper airplane.

The bill defines three phenomena vaguely identified by social sciences perhaps, some if not all accounts not even qualifying as scientific, which the bill mandates to be the subject of intense research by a Commission, and an established or new Center of Excellence (COE), to build evidence for concrete action that can be taken by the United States government against the spread of dissident ideologies they see as constituting a terrorist threat to the United States.

Section 899A of S. 1959 defines the Commission and the three phenomena of which it is to study, amongst other research, such as that which is set forth in the following section of the bill, where the Internet is made a target. The phenomena defined, though perhaps not supported by sound research and evidence, are "violent radicalization," which "means 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." First of all there is a problem with the logic of this definition. How could someone who has yet to adopt an ideology that is the cause of violence adopt it for the reason of committing the act of violence? What came first, the ideology that promotes the violence or the intent to commit violence?

Furthermore the phrase 'extremist belief system' is alarmingly vague, as has been echoed throughout the independent press and civil liberties groups. Included in this definition is the naming of another phenomenon the bill defines, 'ideologically based violence', which "means 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." This definition would create a dilemma of hypocrisy in any non-corrupt government. What about the government's 'use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence…to promote [the government's] political, religious, or social beliefs'? This is an important question because of the invasion of Iraq, and the supposed reasons for it before and after it was established that there was no proof of an intention to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) on the part of Saddam Hussein. There was much hypocritical raving by the Bush regime about Saddam's atrocities against Kurds, and corporate media regularly portrayed Saddam as an ideological enemy of democracy, especially religious freedom, etc., which he may have been. However, was our invasion and subsequent occupation not then a case of the U.S. using force and violence for political, social, ideological, and even to some extent religious purposes?

Nevertheless defining simple 'force', or even merely the threat of using it, as 'violence', has dangerous implications for legalese. This, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), is broad enough to include civil disobedience and other forms of non-violent resistance. Imagine getting arrested blocking the front door of some military contractor as a form of protest and getting terrorism charges for it.

'Homegrown terrorism' is another one of the three disturbingly defined concepts, which along with 'violent radicalization' is a term that has been echoed through some implicative political circles, some of whom we'll go over in a moment. The semantic ploy, 'homegrown terrorism', is defined as "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

I find the use of the conjunction 'or' between 'force' and 'violence' as well as 'intimidate' and 'coerce' rather alarming in the definition of a type of 'violence' and a type of 'terrorism'. This conjunction allows for the language to be interpreted as meaning that a type of 'force' that is separate from, in a word "not," actual violence can be interpreted as not only 'violence' but 'terrorism' as well.

The bill also goes further, outlining more of what will be among the areas of interest by the Commission and subsequent COE in Section 899B, under the title "Findings." Among these nine 'findings' is one that blames the Internet for the spread of terrorism:

"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."

The bill's language also lists in Section 899C who will appoint members of the National Commission, which includes under 899C(c)(6-9) the Chair and Ranking Member of both House and Senate Committees whose Chairs and Ranking Members supported and introduced the House and Senate versions of the bill respectively. The bill also includes an explanation of requirements for who should be chosen, that is, requirements of 'expertise'. Among the desired skills of those eligible for appointment to the commission is "expertise in…Islam and other world religions." If they are serious about studying the problem of terrorism, why then do they need to focus more on Islam, and if they intend not to focus on it why mention it in the language of the bill while omitting the names of all other 'world religions'?

Proponents of the bill stress that it contains adequate civil liberties protections, however, civil libertarians are among the many who disagree. Lindsay Beyerstein quotes Mike German, a former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agent who is now with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in her In These Times article, as saying in regards to the "Auditing Mechanism" that the bill places in the control of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer: "Nobody should be fooled that such an office would have authority to address policies that are approved at a high level of the administration." According to the article German "says that an internal civil liberties and privacy review is no substitute for independent oversight."

Aside from that weak aspect of Section 899E there is also no protection for the civil liberties of non-immigrants, though citizens and permanent residents are said to be the focus points. Considering the rhetoric, charging momentum for this legislation, being so vague in covering Islam and terrorism in the same breath, and adding that to the fact that the bill would not even take the civil liberties of people living in the United States on student visas into consideration, as if such consideration were worth much of anything, one winds up logically with the conclusion that students in the United States on visas for school who come from majority Muslim countries will be easy targets of any action stemming about from this legislation.

The "National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" will "[e]xamine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States," and "conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations" in order to "submit to the President and Congress a final report including" actual "recommendations" and short and long term "countermeasures" that can be taken. The Commission of ten (H.R. 1955), or twelve (S. 1959), members will provide this "Final Report" only eighteen months following the Commission's inception, with "Interim Reports" every six months. Either during or after this time ('during' if the Commission wants to utilize the COE's work) the bill will also establish either a new COE specifically to focus on 'homegrown terrorism', 'violent radicalization', and 'ideologically based violence', or a combination of existing COEs to carry out the mandated task. The task is to work closely with DHS and other agencies, as well as all levels of governments and law enforcement, foreign governments, and logically the private sector as well, in "training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States." This COE, if it becomes a ninth to the eight already existing, would be the "Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States," under Section 899D(a)(1).

The COEs were created for the intended purpose of research to create and support "homeland security solutions," according to the DHS website. In fact, as Jessica Lee pointed out in her article in the Indypendent, there are already eight currently functioning.



Image from U.S. Department of Justice website.

There is the "Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE)" at the University of Southern California. There is the "National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD)," at the University of Minnesota, the "National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense (FAZD Center)" at Texas A & M, and there's the "National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)" at the University of Maryland. START is arguably already what the legislation discussed here is proposing to create. There is also the "National Center for the Study of Preparedness and Catastrophic Event Response (PACER)" at Johns Hopkins University, the "Center for Advancing Microbial Risk Assessment (CAMRA)" at Michigan State University, and two that have combined locations; "The Homeland Security Center for Dynamic Data Analysis (DyDAn)," which is a collaboration of several universities led by Rutgers University, the University of Southern California, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Pittsburg in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Institute for Discrete Sciences (IDS), which they call "University Affiliate Centers to the Institute for Discrete Sciences (IDS-UACs)"; and the "Regional/National Visualization and Analytics Centers (RVACs/NVACs)."


Consistent with the purpose of the proposed COE, as is logically the case with all of them in my opinion, is the lack of legal and academic independent review. These are research centers that produce findings utilized by security and intelligence bureaus and agencies, thus they have an inherent bias. They are doing research for the purpose of assisting those who do investigations, intelligence gathering, and execution of laws and policies in the area of security, however the current regime happens to define security. This is why I'm not surprised that there is nothing in the legislative mandate assuring that there will be some kind of "peer review," however we should all be alarmed as Political Research Associates (PRA) "senior policy analyst" Chip Berlet certainly is. He argues that a large body of research and researchers "already exists," and he notes that the importance of 'peer review' is not considered in the bill, again according to Beyerstein's article.

Essentially, I believe, we are looking at a reckless and irresponsible attack on our civil liberties as human beings on the soil of the supposed beacon of democracy on Earth, of course in the name of security. Two questions remain pungent in my thoughts; 1) where did this bill, and its semantically sophisticated (broad enough to apply to anyone and civil liberties window-dressing) language and definitions, originate? And, 2) what is the real purpose, that is, what is the need for the Commission and the COE?

On March 26th, 2007, Representative Dave Reichert introduced the "Preventing Radicalism by Exploring and Vetting its Emergence as a National Threat (PREVENT) Act" (H.R. 1695), with Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA) cosponsoring, which also would have created this type of commission, and would have utilized the CREATE COE rather than create a whole new COE. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on April 20th and has not moved forward. Reichert mentioned this legislation in his statement on the floor on October 23rd arguing for H.R. 1955. According to the statement of H.R. 1955's sponsor, Rep. Jane Harman, her and Reichert "carefully constructed" the bill, which is on the Congressional Record (available online at govtrack.us). The bill passed with thirteen other cosponsors: Christopher Carney (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Charles Dent (R-PA), Norman Dicks (D-WA), Al Green (D-TX), James Langevin (D-RI), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Daniel Lungren (R-CA), Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), and Virgin Islands Delegate and Democrat, Donna Christensen.

There have been a few hearings on this bill and related subjects, and many testimonies have been heard, though apparently few were questioned in any substantive way, in the House and the Senate. Two weeks prior to the introduction of H.R. 1955 to the House, the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment held a hearing entitled "Radicalization, Information Sharing and Community Outreach: Protecting the Homeland from Homegrown Terror." Several "experts" testified, some being or representing the same interests in other hearings. Among the several representatives of law enforcement at the April hearing (Torrance Police Chief John Neu, FBI Special Agent in-Charge (SAC) for the Los Angeles Field Office Janice Fedarcyk, LA County Sheriff Deputy Sergeant Larry Mead, and Assistant Director of the Correctional Programs Division of the Federal Bureau of Prisons John Vanyur) was none other than former New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner and current Chief of Police in Los Angeles, California, William J. Bratton. Along with David Gersten, the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Programs Director for DHS, Brian M. Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, and Sireen Sawaf of Southern California Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), two panels of 'experts' preached to the choir for a couple of hours, framing the issue at their leisure, with the mild exception of MPAC perhaps.

One of the major concerns brought about in these hearings is the possibility that terrorist ideology is being spread through the prison system, implied by what may have been a foiled terror plot in Torrance, California, for which some of the targets could have been in Harman's district, that is said to have originated in Folsom State Prison. However, judging by some of the comments made in testimonies at these hearings one may conclude that there is no need for any new legislation to engage the prison 'radicalization' phenomenon, after all the plot was successfully prevented – assuming there really was a plot. Prison authorities have hardly neglected the matter. "Over the last several years, our agency has taken a number of significant measures, and we are actively engaged in several ongoing initiatives to ensure that inmates in Federal prison are not recruited to support radical organizations or terrorist groups," said the written statement of John Vanyur. Even the notion that terrorism is not inherently related to Islam, a notion apparently difficult for Reichert and Harman to grasp, is expressed over and over again, however such appeals seemed too weak to sway the group from its focus, Islamic Radicalization in prisons.

Such appeals, of theoretically humanitarian attitudes balanced with heavy scrutiny of Islam, logically produces a window of opportunity for "Broken Windows." Having authorities work closely, even at a personal level, with those groups deemed suspicious by the State Department, Collins, Harman and Reichert, and their legal and scientific justification craftsmen (their preferred experts), can produce an environment of perceived security. But if you don't pay attention to the spread of Islamic ideas, be they anti-American or not, then it shows that you don't care, which may be seen as inviting to bigger terrorists. Perhaps that is the narrative in the mind of William Bratton, I presume by merely applying George Kelling's 'Broken Windows' theory of dealing with urban crime to the concept of 'homegrown terrorism', given that his his background is his experience implementing police policy based on the 'broken windows' theory.


The following documentary contains interviews with Bratton and Kelling, as well as information about the 'broken windows' thesis:

[Documentary] Giuliani Time

This documentary examines Giuliani's rise to power, his policies and his so-called turnaround of New York City. Interviewing journalists, activists, legal experts, and many of the city's poor, "Giuliani Time" reveals that while the Mayor touted his Broken Windows, Quality of Life and Zero Tolerance policies, the reality on the streets was police brutality, violations of the First Amendment and racist actions. Then 9/11 happened and Giuliani's actions endeared him forever to Americans. Should we allow that to overshadow the darker moments of his administration?

"In building effective relationships with those groups that the current terrorist operative is likely to exploit, we are learning that it is best to concentrate on shared goals such as public safety and quality of life issues," Bratton says. The idea being to subvert the potential support base and/or safe haven of, in New York's case bigger criminals, and in the GWOT context, bigger terrorists. Seems logical enough, however, what resulted from 'broken windows' policing in New York, was it a drop in the crime rate? No, there is to this day no evidence that the controversial policy coming from the Manhattan Institute had any actual impact on crime rates, though it certainly cleared space in the city for gentrification. One aspect of that policy that jumped out at most freedom loving observers was the sharp rise in complaints about police misconduct. The policy increased the likelihood of civil liberties violations, if it did anything. The theory, translated to policy, places responsibility – virtually blame – on the smallest of law violators, i.e. panhandlers, prostitutes, petty drug users, vagrants, and those such as New York's infamous squeegee-men, for all the larger more heinous crimes committed in society, thus making the target for police attention more legible and clearing the appearance of poverty from a neighborhood in a way that makes it look more safe, though even Kelling admitted that it only creates the illusion of safety.



William Bratton, image from BBC News.

So apply that to the notion of 'homegrown terrorism' and what do you have? The larger terrorists have safe haven in areas where political dissent by Muslims goes unchecked? Are we to blame ethno-religious enclaves in the United States for the problem of terrorism, justifying our need to work closely with them and keep them in check? What do you suppose Bratton means by 'public safety and quality of life'? He means to create the illusion of security of course. The very idea of taking testimony from a man who thinks this way on such a serious issue is not only fundamentally dangerous, it is also indicative of the lack of regard for sound policy and academic research, not to mention human rights, on the parts of Harman and Reichert et al.



Hearing named below, image from C-SPAN.

Disregard for the civil and political rights of people in the United States is evident in the language of Senators and Representatives, as well as 'experts', regardless of the lip service paid to the notion of respect for religious freedom and civil liberties, specifically by the insolence one easily detects in their comments. They consistently link terrorism to Islam over and over, seemingly in contradiction to their appeals to protect religious freedom. Reichert said, for example, in a hearing entitled "Use of the Internet by Terrorists" held after H.R. 1955 had already passed the House, by the same Subcommittee, that "most Islamic websites are hosted on servers based in the West, taking advantage of the very same freedoms they wish to destroy." He is blatantly implying in this statement that Islam somehow seeks to destroy our freedoms, regurgitating George W. Bush's ideological delusions that impudently link Islam to terrorism.

Committee Chair Bennie Thompson also said in his prepared statement at the April 5th hearing:

"To ascribe secret terrorist intentions to practicing Muslims in this country – just because they are Muslim – would be unjust, unfair, and un-American. One need only recall the actions of Timothy McVeigh – himself a 'radicalized' American citizen – who took the lives of some 168 Americans fourteen years ago this month. No one foresaw that a white, Roman Catholic, U.S. Army Bronze Star Medal honoree would take up arms against his own countrymen."

Thompson was also present at the November 6th hearing in which Reichert made the offensive comments mentioned above, and one of the 'experts' there to testify was none other than Rita Katz, an untrained self-proclaimed "Terrorist Hunter" who is the director of her private company, "Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute" (SITE), professing itself as an alternative to the FBI and CIA in terms of intelligence gathering on terrorists online for $2,500 per year memberships to its e-mail list. Katz got into the pseudo-spying business with the help of her former employer Steven Emerson of Investigative Project, a similar company. Emerson is the one who famously made the claim that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Osama bin Laden, and it turned out to be McVeigh (see the New Yorker article linked below). I didn't notice Thompson taking issue with either Katz's shady background or Reichert's explicitly ignorant comments about Islam. He spoke favorably of the bill as much as anyone else.

Iraqi-born Rita, regardless of whether she may or may not have the same exact assumptions about Islam as those hearing her testimony, has shown a personal prejudice towards Arabs, who are not all Islamic, but then neither are terrorists. "When you grow up in a place like Iraq, you understand maybe a little bit about how Arabs think, and also what they are capable of," she said in an interview with Benjamin Wallace-Wells of The New Yorker. Is she attributing the potentiality of terrorist sentiments to Arab ethnicity? Her father was executed by the Baath government in Iraq back in the 1960s, and The New Yorker quotes her as saying "I know that the people who killed my father aren't the same as the jihadis, but obviously I would never have got interested in the politics of this part of the world if it weren't for his execution." I don't see how she is involved in the politics of that part of the world. Terrorism is a phenomenon everywhere, why would her hunting terrorists be considered involvement in Middle Eastern politics as opposed to the southern states of the U.S., Northern Ireland, or for that matter Sri Lanka? She talks like she's aware that prejudice is ignorant, but she acts like prejudice is profitable.

Jane Harman, in the April 5th hearing, illuminated ignorance like that of Reichert while attempting to express her understanding that terrorism is not related to Islam more than any other religion or ideology, all in one breath. She paraphrased a Washington Post article in saying; "police in Western Europe are arresting 'significant numbers of women, teenagers, white-skinned suspects and people baptized as Christians' – people who until now were not on the radar screen as radicals prone to violence." The Washington Post article, entitled "Terrorists Proving Harder to Profile" by Craig Whitlock, said:

"With new plots surfacing every month, police across Europe are arresting significant numbers of women, teenagers, white-skinned suspects and people baptized as Christians – groups that in the past were considered among the least likely to embrace Islamic radicalism."

She clearly assumes a link between Islam and terrorism to be more logical than between terrorism and any other identity. So just remember, regardless of the reassurances that religious freedom will be protected, these are people who do see Islam as the culprit of terrorism around the world. Why would Harman think that because someone is white and was baptized as a Christian they would be any less likely to be 'radicals prone to violence'? The Washington Post article explains that such people are not likely to become Islamic radicals, which is a realistic assumption, it does not say they are not likely to be 'prone to violence'.

The only religion mentioned by name in Harman's bill is Islam, which coupled with the fundamentally weak civil liberties protections, shows a consistency between this generally ignorant rhetoric regarding terrorism and Islam and the language of the bill itself.

One 'expert' shows real implications as to the origins of the bill's language, the RAND Corporation's terrorism 'expert', Brian Michael Jenkins. Frustrating as scientific research and subsequent legal action can be, if you can call his work 'scientific', Jenkins specifically takes issue with what he quite possibly sees as an obstacle to his perceived success as a researcher, which would surely be eminent with the success of U.S. policy against terrorism being based on his work, the obstacle being namely the Constitution. "Radicalization makes little noise. It occurs in an area protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. It takes place over a long period of time. It therefore does not lend itself to a traditional criminal investigations approach," his statement reads. Of course, by definition 'traditional criminal investigations' would respect 'the First and Fourth Amendments'. So, what is he proposing here?



Brian Michael Jenkins, image from the above link under his name.

Later in this written report he suggests a few "possible angles of approach," one of which is a pretty blatant challenge to the First Amendment, and it is an indirect encouragement for the creation of fundamentally anti-democratic institutions to conduct counterintelligence activity:

"Blocking The Message. Is exhortation to violence free speech protected by the First Amendment, or does it fall into the category of conduct that can be legally prohibited? Can Internet content be controlled? European governments argue that it can be. Clearly, the Internet is a new battlefield in the jihadist campaign, and the U.S. Army is reportedly preparing an assault on jihadist websites. But does the United States need a new information service to wage an information war? A new United States Information Agency? If so, where should it be located within our government?"

Then, all conveniently in the form of innocent questions, he goes on to compare apples and oranges by arguing for the active distribution of "anti-jihadist messages" by at least collaborators of DHS if not the government itself and comparing it to public service campaigns in schools and in media against drunk driving, domestic violence, using drugs or dropping out of school, as a justification. He is arguing for tactics similar to the Counter Intelligence Programs (COINTELPRO) of the 1960s and 70s, it is obvious, and he is not the only one who embraces such an idea. Frank Cilluffo, former advisor to Tom Ridge at what was then the Office of Homeland Security, and for a time holding senior positions at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), currently with the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI), also calls for COINTELPRO-like tactics and his statements imply an influence on the bill's language like Jenkins.

At a hearing by the same subcommittee on June 14th, 2007, Cilluffo says; "where appropriate we should seek to deny or disrupt extremist access to and extremist efforts through the Internet via legal and technical means and covert action." He also speaks of "the need to offer an alternative to" those whom they may believe to be convinced easily by dissident views. In his verbal testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security hearing entitled "The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism," held on May 3rd, 2007, he links activists to terrorists by assuming there to be a fine line between "protected speech [and] illegal acts of violence" indicated by violent sounding speech. Cilluffo also encouraged COINTELPRO-like tactics at this hearing. I get the impression that he has had some level of influence on this bill's design by his statement, which helps to substantiate my suspicion that the National Commission and COE are designed to create evidence that appears to be backed by science and academic research to be used in shaping and pushing for new policies, followed logically by the ensuing action taken, based on these future supposed scientific premises, to Harman's Subcommittee on June 14th:

"Rigorous scrutiny of radicalization undertaken by academics and practitioners alike, as mandated by this legislation, should go a long way towards pulling together what is known in this area, identifying the gaps in our knowledge, and moving forward. In turn, that foundational research may then be used to better inform and shape policies, which should prove to be all the more effective as a result of this evidence-based tailoring."

One should pose the question to Mr. Cilluffo: Is this the 'evidence-based tailoring' of policy or the policy-based tailoring of evidence?

Cilluffo and Jenkins both express that age-old dichotomous belief in some inherent contradiction between liberty and security, and their insistence that security should prevail, with liberty being an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice. As Jenkins explains in his April 5th written testimony, entitled "Building an Army of Believers: Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment":

"However, the first principle must be to do no greater harm, to avoid misguided policies, needless hassles that only create enemies. A more permissive intelligence environment, society's demand to intervene before terrorist attacks occur will inevitably result in occasional errors. These should not be the basis for dismantling intelligence efforts or imposing unreasonable controls: Errors should produce prompt apologies. Systematic abuse should be punished."

What's easier for the state, preventing terrorism by non-state actors or preventing terrorism by the state? His statement prematurely socializes blame by evading responsibility on his part as an intellectual with claims of some theoretically popular 'demand' for such measures that 'will inevitably result in occasional errors', which even if they are systematic rights violations should only provoke apologies and punishment, not 'the basis for dismantling' the very mechanism that systematically causes 'occasional errors'. In other words, he is saying, civil liberties should not impede 'intelligence efforts', thus it is clear to me that he sees the latter as a priority over the former. Make no mistake about it, Jenkins is referring to a perceived necessity to create admissible forms of pre-emptive action, and the green light to such action may well be nothing more than peoples' views. He also lays the responsibility on all of society to create this preventative atmosphere, implying that the population should be made to go along with such action in some way or another.

"Society's purpose in this area is twofold: to deter vulnerable individuals from recruitment into destructive paths and to protect society itself against destruction—this may require preemptive intervention before manifest criminal behavior occurs."

This is highly suspicious considering that plotting a terrorist attack is already illegal, and society already has the right to take pre-emptive action to that effect, so what exactly does Jenkins have in mind? At the June 14th hearing he literally argues for a perceived inherent need to change the law, with no question, analysis or scrutiny, while suggesting that proposals to socially engineer the public's views, especially the views of that group of supposedly vulnerable targets to emotional or psychological exploitation, thus defining our participation, are all that should be questioned:

"Updating legal mechanisms to deal with Internet-era technology should be done, but more ambitious and more sensitive proposals for social engineering should be extensively analyzed for their intended and unintended, positive and negative consequences."

What is perhaps most disturbing about this statement is what he means by 'updating legal mechanisms'. From how it looks, he means making inroads on the First and Fourth Amendments, especially on the Internet. By 'social engineering' he is likely referring to the development of an Islamic-sounding counter-narrative to more radical interpretations of Islam, an idea shared by Cilluffo in his testimony to the Senate Committee in May. Of course the public would play a role in the discourse of such a narrative, especially in being alerted to the signs of 'radicalization' in individual psyches. Will the public act as social support to encourage those who may be prone to extremist propaganda, or will we be charged with the duty of spying on one another? It seems they intend to identify areas of disagreement and agitate those disputes with propaganda, dividing moderates and radicals, isolating those who stubbornly resist along with those who would use terrorist tactics, enabling the government to take them both out. However, the stubborn resisters aren't terrorists, they just aren't sell-outs either, so there are bound to be innocent casualties in this belligerent cyber-war that seems to have been plotted by the usual suspects.

Aside from flirtation with pre-emptive crime fighting, and a complete disregard for the concept of 'peer review' in science and academia, as well as civil liberties and the concept of 'independent oversight', a consistent theme in the literature and testimonies surrounding this legislation is the expression of the view that the Internet is the terrorists' media, constituting a virtual 'battlefield'. Consistent with the bill's accusation that the Internet is somehow responsible for the spread of terrorism, is Michael Doran's statement that the Internet is a "virtual extremist madrassa." He also says:

"Thanks to the Internet terrorists now have direct control over their message, and the means of disseminating it, with the ability to disperse their propaganda to sympathetic audiences without the filter of third-party media."

In this testimony, delivered to the Senate Committee in May, he also sophisticatedly blurs the lines between Muslims with legitimate grievances and those who may have purely violent rage, again drawing a link between Islam and terrorism. He says that "intimidation, for all that it grabs attention, is not the main theme of terrorist propaganda, which more often than not generally focuses on the perceived wrongs that Muslims have suffered at the hands of non-Muslims, lead by the United States. It also stresses the religious justifications for taking violent action against them as a matter of defense."

Lt. Col. Joseph Felter also testified at this hearing, and he evoked the perspective of the Cold War most attributed to the United States, anti-communism. He specifically says that the Internet to radical Islam is "similar to Marxism" by virtue of its appeal for support being cast to the public, and that it makes it possible for the public to participate in terrorist attacks, supposedly, which he tries to illustrate with the old socialist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

This view of the Internet is reflected in related literature, for example the CRS Report for Congress entitled "Trends in Terrorism: 2006," by Raphael Perl, says that "some observers" believe "terrorism has become a 'web directed' phenomenon." The rhetorical defamation of the Internet in many testimonies, hearings, literature and discourse, with regard to this legislation, appears to be stated from the perspective of fear and paranoia of the ambiguous essence of the Internet. This view is expressed perhaps most diligently by anti-Free Speech crusader and censorship advocate, Parry Aftab, an attorney who founded "Wired Trust," a firm that consults Internet companies on cyber-safety and privacy issues, as well as "Wired Safety," the company that does the privacy settings for MySpace and other online communities.

At the November 6th hearing Aftab professes the belief, based almost solely on anecdotal evidence, that impressionable youths, struggling to fit in and find their identity in life, may become brainwashed by Al Qaeda to become jihadist suicide bombers, or something to that effect. She argues that dissident views of any kind are no different than the various forms of cyber-predators that have been identified, more or less, since the Internet first hit the public scene. Her ignorance shines in her description of the company she founded, 'Wired Trust,' which consults the "Internet industry" on how to "spot high traffic [Internet] sites where you know there's something going on (she roles her eyes), whether it's child predators, sexual … content, or radical groups because they really are no different." That's right, she really did just lump radicals and child molesters into the same lodge.

Though the term "hate speech" was not utilized in the November hearing, Aftab and Mark Weitzman, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reiterate some kind of terrorist threat posed by mere speech, arguments against this or that viewpoint. Weitzman gave a power-point presentation that showed white supremacist, anti-immigrant, Islamic radical, and actual terrorist websites all in the same frame. The problem with this is that the only websites that actually gave instructions, presumably meant to be taken seriously, on carrying out acts of violence were the explicitly pro-Al Qaeda sites. All others that he displayed in his presentation may be offensive, racist, condoning of violence in theory, or downright stupid, but they are not coordinating and/or organizing specific acts of violence.

Most of the sites were typically trashy hate speech sites, which is definitely negative propaganda, however, they do not constitute actual terrorism. One website that Aftab brought up more than once in her testimony that is not only heinously offensive but blatantly revisionist, is a disinformation site run by white supremacists. The website attempts to criticize credible historical information about Martin Luther King in a rather deceptive manner. She argues that young people are easily influenced by websites like this and if they buy this crap, then they'll buy anything, even Al Qaeda's messages of hate. This brand of paranoid fear mongering is nothing new coming from censorship advocates like Aftab, regardless of whose interests it actually may serve. The notion that we must protect our children from any knowledge of the existence of dissenting viewpoints seems to be the only point she makes. She doesn't differentiate between radical websites and hate speech websites, or for that matter Muslims who criticize U.S. and Israeli policy and Muslims who take violent action against governments. She is an attorney and is well aware of the semantic game she is playing.

Clearly they are urging that the COE and Commission look into ways of denying equal protection to those the government happens to regard as dissidents. By taking rights away from one group you are taking the same rights from every group protected by those rights. Racism can be censored from most media by the fact that it's hate speech, and websites like that brought up by Aftab can be unofficially censored (by popular demand) due to their being loaded with false information that is insulting to more than just a person's intelligence. That is not the same as bringing people up on terrorism charges for something they said on the Internet. When the latter happens it's a pretty concrete indication that democracy has been replaced by something resembling fascism.

Weitzman mentions one anti-immigrant website, the only point of mentioning such propaganda as having anything to do with terrorism, and moves on to Nazis and jihadists. No mention is made of neo-nativists, i.e. the Minutemen, beyond that point. Do you think they are meaning to censor people like Jack van Impe or Michael Savage? Is there a difference between van Impe, who spreads false information about Islam regularly on Television, and Stormfront who runs the deceptive MLK revisionist website? Stormfront's site is not entirely deceptive, considering that it doesn't hide who runs the site, and even provides a link to Stormfront's homepage. They aren't trying to hide their views, or who and what they are. Rather, they are just making factually false arguments based on their racist ignorance. They have every right to believe things that aren't true, much less realistic, under the Constitution. Any attorney would see this attempt to introduce partiality in the government's recognition of free speech, and thus adherence to the First Amendment, as handing a bunch of white supremacists enough verbal ammo to win a court battle. It is a case that cannot be won by those attacking the First Amendment, and Aftab knows that. Her argument lumps all dissidents in the same category, along with criminals and abusive people, thus attacking all dissenting views under the guise of striking a blow against neo-Nazis, actual terrorists, and child abusers.

It is hard to imagine an attorney unknowingly attacking the bill of rights, even under the guise of being against racism, terrorism, and child abuse. She is well aware of the implications of her efforts and thus fails to hide sufficiently behind her veil of opposition to racism. The very same censorship she is arguing for use against neo-Nazis and radical Islamists will undoubtedly be used against anarchists, socialists, libertarians, various schools of feminist thought, and really anyone the status quo apparently excludes, including many explicit anti-racists.

The RAND Corporation's Bruce Hoffman, who I suspect of being as influential to this legislation as Cilluffo and Jenkins, if not significantly more given his extensive relationship with Rep. Harman, uses a somewhat revealing metaphor in describing the essence of terrorists on the Internet. He says it is like a "shark in the water," and he makes Al Qaeda out to be a sort of mutant shark that can evolve and adapt to changing conditions. Why do I find this 'somewhat revealing'? Well, when there is a 'shark in the water' it is not safe for anyone to be in the water without a significantly sized protective vessel. You'll either need to have a boat (controlled and censored ISP), a subsurface vessel such as what we normal folks call a submarine (less censored, better quality, and logically most expensive – at some 'depth' requiring some kind of security clearance perhaps – ISP), or you'll just have to mope around at shore (back to TV land for you losers). Under the guise of a terrorist (shark) being on the Internet (in the water) they can justify the complete privatization of the Internet and the implementation of rigid censorship policies for example. The message is essentially that we should fear the wide-open depth of the Internet, as though it were the ocean, and willingly give up our civil liberties (the right to swim) in order to be safe.



Bruce Hoffman, image from PBS News Hour.

Their fear mongering is evident in testimonial contradictions between the several hearings. In Jenkins's testimony to the April 5th hearing he admits that the phenomenon of 'radicalization' is not nearly as serious in the United States as it is in Europe, and it is widely known and not denied in these hearings that terrorist attacks are significantly less frequent than other forms of violence in the United States. Jenkins put it this way:

"Conversely it may merely indicate that the American Muslim population has not yet been exposed to the degree, variety, of radicalization as that of its European counterparts. This 'success,' or temporary reprieve, whatever its explanation, suggests in turn that we move cautiously to fix what may not be broken while realizing that the threat from radicalization continues to grow."

In other words, the 'threat' has yet to 'grow' to a level that would compel a public reaction on its own. This is a suggestion to be overly cautious in the face of a very small and insignificant 'threat' of terrorism, which he thinks we should just assume to be growing. Regardless of the apparent convolution of this semantic overhaul, he is basically admitting that this 'threat' is not very big, and hasn't even proven to be looming. However, during the November hearing Harman asked Hoffman, who also works for RAND Corporation with Jenkins, "How big an issue do you think this is?" Hoffman's answer contradicts the reality that was implied by Jenkins's April testimony, he responds by saying "it's enormous." They both work for RAND Corporation, so which is it guys? Is it small and growing or is it 'enormous'? Make up your minds! After all, the theme here is prevention therefore enormity has yet to be achieved on the part of 'radicalization' and 'homegrown terrorism'. They have been arguing all year in favor of preventing this threat from growing, and were it to the point of enormity as Hoffman suggests, then the idea of prevention would be too little, too late. Enormity means it is time to react to the frequency and/or severity of terrorism. Reaction is not prevention by definition. If it is so large then we should be attacking what exists rather than wasting time trying to prevent what theoretically has already occurred. It is sophisticated, however, it is still a contradiction. Hoffman is blowing the issue out of proportion.

What is the purpose of this incessant exaggeration, ambiguity, and generally dichotomous perspective in testimonies and legislative language? Well, let's look at what could be useful in establishing such broad definitions of supposedly observable phenomena.

Jessica Lee mentioned Harman's relationship with RAND Corporation, and I noticed Harman mention her having worked with Hoffman, who works for RAND, for a long time in a webcast of the November 6th hearing. Lee also mentions a RAND report in 2005, which is cited by the 2006 CRS report mentioned above for the very same information, that literally ties radical environmentalists and anarchists to white supremacists and Islamic radicals under the banner of the "anti-globalization (AG) … movement." The 2006 CRS report mentioned that "such independent analysis is consistent with the trends identified by the State Department in its recent report," a statement indicative of the mutually supportive relationship between the two.

Bruce Hoffman was a coauthor to the 2005 RAND report, entitled "Trends in Terrorism: Threats to the United States and the Future of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act." The report not only demonizes anyone that can be considered by someone as part of the fringes of political thought, it also attacks the Internet as a tool for mobilization by; well … you know. And this report further demonizes the 'AG movement' by focusing on its opposition to "corporate power" (page 39). The report reads on page 40:

"In addition, anti-globalists directly challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world's ecology, indigenous cultures, and individual welfare." And on page 41;

"The real threat of the movement lies more in the effects that it appears to be having on anarchist, and, especially, far-right, and radical environmental imperatives." And on page 43;

"Although the United States has yet to experience this level of directed anarchist action, a loosely networked cadre of militants has emerged in the guise of the 'Black Bloc.' Often masked and armed with clubs, these radicals are largely responsible for instigating the street protests of the sort witnessed in Washington, D.C., during 2003 and New York and Boston in 2004. FBI domestic risk assessments now routinely single out the Black Bloc and other Kaczynski-type anarchists, warning that they are assuming heightened influence over the American protest population and possibly directing it toward more civilian-centric violence."



Image from Portland IMC.

I've never seen a 'Black Bloc' carrying clubs. They must have thought the police were the 'Black Bloc', after all they have masks and wear all black too, and no one denies that they are all wielding clubs. All jokes to numb the pain aside, this report ties a retro-radical urban punk scene to terrorism inappropriately by associating the 'Black Bloc' with Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber." Many agree that ideology had less to do with Kaczynski's behavior than did psychological illness, and the generally non-violent 'Black Bloc' activity at demonstrations is an extremely far cry from the act of blowing people up. The report also brings up the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), whose actions are legally not usually considered terrorism, but this I'll reflect upon later.

I'll tell you what really stuck out to me about this report. It's the fact that it is about insurance. It is an examination of the "policy" and "the architecture of" the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA).

TRIA was a response to the massive financial losses and the lack of terrorism insurance coverage following September 11th, 2001. It created a program under the Treasury Department to subsidize insurance providers whose terrorism insurance policy holders experience a terrorist attack costing $5 million or more. Insurers participating in the program pay "a deductible," which is "a certain amount in claims," and if the amount in losses exceeds the amount of the 'deductible' the Federal Government will happily spend our tax dollars covering 90 per cent of it, capped at $100 million of course (according to FindLaw.com). The 2005 RAND report explains that TRIA does not cover domestic terrorist attacks, "applies only to certain lines of commercial insurance," thus it does not cover "homeowners or auto coverage, which are referred to as 'personal lines coverage,'" does not cover "life insurance, which experienced significant losses on 9/11," nor does it mandate that insurers provide coverage for Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear, or "CBRN attacks," though it does allow for "reinsurance" to be provided if a participating insurer offers 'CBRN' coverage as part of their policy.

The Act was living on three-year sunset congressional extension votes until 2007, when the House and Senate came up with their own versions extending the law either fifteen or seven years respectively, according to a Reuters article by Kevin Drawbaugh. The article explains that the Senate version of the extension bill this year will include coverage for domestic attacks, and will extend the program for seven more years, while the House bill also extends coverage to domestic attacks, but it also includes a controversial mandate that insurers provide 'CBRN' coverage, extends the bill for fifteen years, and cuts the cap to $50 million. The Senate and House are due to square off on the matter in the near future, however, the problem still remains that there is no "national framework for managing terrorism risk," and "insurers would be exposed to losses far greater than they could sustain, significantly damaging their ability to provide the ongoing insurance coverage that is essential to the stability of the entire economy" in the case of a "large CBRN terrorist attack," according to the website for Lloyd's, one of the worlds largest insurance companies that "paid out more than $3 million to help rebuild lower Manhattan after 9/11."

Insurance companies are not all thrilled about the House bill mandate for CBRN coverage, and they insist that terrorism insurance is a market they cannot take on with out Federal Government support. According to an online fact sheet about the TRIA extension debate, by State Farm Insurance, entitled "Terrorism Risk and Insurance":

"There are no credible models to accurately predict terrorist activities, and therefore, no means to credibly quantify and price terror risk."

"Without assistance from the federal government to protect against catastrophic terrorism exposure, terrorism remains a risk that is uninsurable."

If you recall, TRIA was only meant to stimulate the terrorism insurance market, not to subsidize it for eternity, however, it has clearly failed as no such market has yet been established by the private sector alone. This is perhaps for the very reasons expressed by State Farm and Lloyd's, which are that there is no way to 'predict terrorist activities', and thus 'no national framework for managing terrorism risk'. Would expanding the definition of terrorism to include any political act the state finds irritating make risk assessment possible? After all there is such a low frequency of terrorist attacks that it seems ridiculous that anyone besides an investor in an obvious terrorist target, like a sports stadium for example, would want to buy terrorism insurance. It must be hugely expensive, and thus logically hard to sell. Expanding the definition to include acts of civil disobedience would certainly create the statistical illusion that terrorism occurs more frequently, given that civil disobedience occurs much more frequently than do actual terrorist attacks. That is a possibility, and given the common viewpoints and language shared by RAND, proponents of H.R. 1955/S. 1959, Internet censorship advocates, police, and - not surprisingly - the real estate and insurance industries, it is highly likely.

Sure enough, some of the same folks interested in TRIA are also interested in the issue of 'homegrown terrorism'. A report released by "Lloyd's and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)" called "Under Attack? Global business and the threat of political violence," found that many United Kingdom (UK) businesses believe the risk of political violence is growing, and among the "key threats" identified by the report are 'CBRN' attacks and "home-grown terrorism," according to a publication by Lloyd's about their "360 Risk Project," which also stated that attendees to a debate hosted by Lloyd's "were … warned that home-grown terrorism is the greatest security threat we currently face and that we need to do more to tackle the causes of terrorism rather than merely dealing with the symptoms." Granted this debate was centered primarily around the UK, however, in June of 2007 the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT), a U.S.-based organization that represents insurance policyholders in a myriad of industries, including real estate and development, in pushing for a sustainable terrorism risk insurance market and the extension of TRIA, quoted Christopher Nassetta, CEO of Host Hotels & Resorts and "representing" CIAT, as saying that "we must be prepared for home-grown terrorism as well as threats from abroad" in praising the TRIA extension bill's "elimination of the distinction between foreign and domestically-initiated acts of terror" in a press release on CIAT's testimony to the House.

The Real Estate Roundtable mentioned Brian Michael Jenkins's testimony to Harman and Reichert's April subcommittee hearing in a September 14th "Roundtable Weekly" article on complications surrounding the extension of TRIA. The brief also mentions the NYPD report in the same paragraph, and indicates that 'homegrown terrorism' was a topic of interest "at a special meeting of The Roundtable's Homeland Security Task Force" held in the UK in early 2007.

As described above, there is an interest in lengthening the list of labels that can be academically, scientifically, and thus legally considered terrorist, not only by RAND Corporation et al., but by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). As both TRIA extension bills passed eliminate restrictions on domestic terrorism, what still remains is a need to expand the definition of terrorism, which TRIA does not. The RAND report, coauthored by Rep. Harman's buddy Hoffman, not only lumps the most unlikely bedfellows together but also hones in on the ELF's "highly costly attacks against a range of commercial venues." Could expanding legal definitions of terrorism enable the government to repress any dissident group or individual, and would it not only criminalize thought but define what was not traditionally considered terrorism as exactly that, qualifying such 'attacks' for Federal reinsurance under either one of the two TRIA extension bills? The actions of the ELF sometimes include arson and vandalism, presumably the very 'highly costly attacks' to which RAND's report refers, thus there is a motive for those invested in real estate developments that may attract just such attention to push for these 'attacks' to be considered terrorism, in order that the Federal government may cover the cost via reinsurance, thus lowering the price of terrorism insurance in this sector of the market, which has not been a sector where many are likely to buy such insurance otherwise. The NAHB website is what raises my suspicion to this, especially the following excerpt:

"Domestic terrorist organizations, such as the Earth Liberation Front, have attacked and burned developments in acts of defiance against development. Under current law, these acts of domestic terrorism can only be prosecuted as arson and vandalism. Congress is considering legislation that would give federal law enforcement authorities and courts greater jurisdiction and harsher consequences for acts that go beyond standard criminal acts and extend into political and activist statements. Given the serious damage and efforts to cause fear by these groups and individuals, stronger prosecution powers is one means of counteracting this behavior."

I wonder to what 'legislation' they refer, perhaps a bill that merely targets pseudo-radicals (we get those now and then), or perhaps a bill that streamlines the process of developing scientific sounding definitions of terrorism and political violence for more bills that target possibly any dissent, and perhaps for government guidelines and/or a legal framework for assessing the risk of terrorism, thus supporting related markets; or perhaps all of the above.



Frank Cilluffo, image from HSPI.

Is it possible that elements of the real estate, insurance, and development industries, among others, are somehow behind H.R. 1955? A CIAT member, American Bankers Insurance Association's (ABIA) "Insurance News" implies that there has been talk surrounding TRIA in Washington D.C. of a need for "a commission to review the issues in depth, including such things as detailed definitions of 'terrorism' and much of the other terminology." Frank Cilluffo edited and coauthored an "Executive Brief," entitled "Terrorism Risk Insurance: Assessing TRIA and the Way Forward," in which the creation of "a non-partisan congressional commission to examine terrorism risk insurance" is suggested. Did Jane Harman answer the call of Dave Reichert for pre-emptive tactics on the home front, and the call of Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) for a commission as indicated in the ABIA newsletter, and the call of Frank Cilluffo for a similar commission also regarding terrorism risk insurance, with a mutually beneficial idea? Is this the origin of H.R. 1955? Well, I can't confirm exactly whose mind hatched the egg of "thoughtcrime" (read "1984" by George Orwell if you haven't yet) in the form of H.R. 1955/S. 1959, but it has been noted by some, including David Sirota for TruthDig.com, that the "finance and real estate industries" are definitely behind Blue Dogs like Jane Harman.

Dave Reichert, former Tacoma, Washington, Sheriff during the unrest surrounding the World Trade Organization meeting in 1999, is one of the 2007 recipients of the "Benjamin Franklin Public Policy Award," handed out by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) in concert with their Congressional Contact Program (CCP), an annual lobbying splurge, to those Representatives who show "unwavering support and leadership" in pandering to the insurance industry. In fact both Jane Harman and Dave Reichert have received support from the real estate, finance, and insurance industries, as well as computer and Internet companies like Microsoft. Opensecrets.org shows that they have several mutual friends.



Image from the above link under the award name.

The motive of creating a viable terrorism risk insurance market has apparently trumped the importance of academic integrity and the scientific standard of consensus in the House and the Senate. Islamophobia is nothing new coming from Senator Joe Lieberman, who regularly expresses such sentiments, and who praised the NYPD report in an August Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs press release, however, the bill is likely to zip through the Senate as fast as it did the House with as much bi-partisan support from even those some of us may well see as letting us down in response. According to a participant in an online forum for Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) presidential campaign supporters, Barack Obama has allegedly shown that he supports the bill as much as anyone else in a response letter sent to the forum poster's mother, and with guys like Leeland Eisenberg attempting suicide by building publicity for Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) – wouldn't be the first time – we can all likely predict how she'll vote.

Well, I can't say that it is a bill to create an effort to fill the void of information regarding terrorism and the likelihood of its occurrence only to drop the price of insurance and get Federal money to cover the cost of damage when the ELF decides to liberate an ecological biome from the catastrophic recklessness of post-modern developmental sprawl. However I do believe that may well be part of the overall picture for the future as dictated by the GWOT, the seeds for which are being sown by legislators, with their cronies and lapdogs etc.; in the form of the TRIA extension bills, H.R. 1955/S. 1959, the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus; each a part of an overall plan to create a concentration of hyper-capital power on the demise of universally recognized and credited fundamental principals of liberty. You get the idea.

Is this a conspiracy theory? Well, no if you read Lloyd's website you might notice that this is business as usual. They aren't conspiring to take away democracy, they are simply "sharing lessons on terrorism" and thinking about their bottom line, no doubt. That doesn't mean someone among this neo-fascist Brady Bunch isn't in it for vengeance or animosity towards legal protections that prevent them from attacking their political opponent in dubious ways, however, such vendettas simply don't mean squat in Washington D.C. unless you're the President. In order to get things done in politics you have to build alliances and coalitions, and you have to consider who the stakeholders are, and what their stake is. What's wrong with that?

Aside from everything that is wrong with that, all of which I'm sure just hit the fronts of your minds, there is one potentially socially destructive aspect that I can't get over, the impact on integrity in social sciences and academia. H.R. 1955 will, more immediately than anything else, orchestrate a scientific and academic front with an inherent bias in the form of a stake in the GWOT. To reiterate Chip Berlet's point that the need for such research is questionable since it already exists, and as he puts it "Congress could just read their books." Indeed there is much literature to build upon, and one that sticks out in my mind, especially after hearing and reading the comments of people like Jenkins, Hoffman and Cilluffo, is "The Politics of Terrorism" by Michael Stohl.

Stohl identifies "ten myths" that people often mistakenly believe regarding the phenomenon, indeed the anomaly, of terrorism. This work has been referenced by numerous others, including one that served as a text book for a Senior-level Seminar on political violence I attended as an undergraduate of liberal arts/political science at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Stohl's work is rather well known among scholars of this depressively stimulating field of study. Terrorism, what is often just a term governments use to describe whomever they really don't like, enough to toss democracy out the window in search of some perversely vindictive neurotic satisfaction, is at times a reality, and a horrifying one at that. The psychological and emotional power of such horror can lead even the most stoic and objective personalities into accepting and believing what is obviously ridiculous as though it were common sense. People tend to make assumptions that terrorists are what they're made out to be by their enemies, who could also be considered terrorists in most cases, thus people make what seem to be logical assumptions that Stohl lists as 'myths'. In order to avoid contradiction I should first point to the fourth 'myth' on Stohl's list (page 7): "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." If both sides of a conflict are terrorists, such as in a scenario like that described above pertaining to terrorists' identities being crafted by their enemies, then they are both terrorists whether some deranged man thinks of one or the other side as 'freedom fighters' or not, which is my view not Stohl's per se, but I wanted to point out that I agree with that first.

The other 'myths' listed in Stohl's book, however, include the belief that "all terrorists are madmen," and that "governments always oppose nongovernmental terrorism," and perhaps most significant to my up-and-coming point, that "terrorism is exclusively the activity of non-governmental actors." That's just it; Hoffman, Jenkins and Cilluffo are all participating in the voicing of biased views to biased ears. You can't objectively study terrorism for the purpose of arming one of two sides in a terrorist war with intelligence information – designed from the get-go to assist them in attacking their enemies. Now, am I calling the United States Government a terrorist organization? Well in the sense that our military is allowed and in fact ordered to commit acts, defined by researchers of equivalent credibility, of blatant terrorism, and condones such acts by private security firms and foreign allies within the same battle-zones, not to mention the torture scandals again but they certainly should qualify, then yes I have no choice but to consider such the case, from a scientific standpoint that is. For example, and even RAND Corporation's work can't realistically refute this, the "Shock and Awe" bombing raids over Iraq at the dawn of the invasion and subsequent occupation by the United States military, ordered from the top, was blatantly intended to terrorize the government and population.



Image from BBC News.

Government's terrorize as well, and there is a pretty good possibility of there being a relationship between government terrorism and the terrorism of 'non-governmental actors.' After all who do "the terrorists" (quotes for context) aim to defeat? Could it possibly be those they see as having terrorized them? Berlet's point shines with clarity, there is much already widely understood, and there is a great deal of literature to which the government can already refer, as well as ongoing research they can already consult. My making the government out to be as much terrorists as their enemy was merely for context, and in actuality those who make up the government often genuinely have absolutely nothing in common with those popularly considered to be terrorists by actors within the same ranks. The government does still have an obligation to protect a population that demands it, regardless of that government's possibly terroristic behavior with its military arm, however, the population is demanding that the government stay on top of the problem and actually provide protection, which the government can't do if it is confused by flawed beliefs based on evidence identified by flawed research. If it turns out that most terrorists are motivated by the terrorism they suffered at the hands of a government, surely any supposedly scientifically-backed evidence guiding governments to believe otherwise, especially evidence that would seemingly justify unleashing more terrorism, would be 'flawed' by definition.

Nevertheless erroneous phenomena identified in this legislation will be the COE's duty to research, and research they will, and what recommendations the National Commission makes will likely be based on whatever evidence serves the interests of the regime, whatever regime that might end up being. With no doubt we can expect the Internet first to become their laboratory, and later their battlefield, only to morph yet again into their total control, however, keep in mind that among 'the interests of the regime' is the interest in securing markets, and how might such evidence produced by the designated efforts of this legislation be used to serve that interest? I don't know exactly whose money is behind this apparent attempt at such a deep-seated undermining of constitutional liberties, but in my opinion there are 426 U.S. Representatives who owe their constituents – 404 of which, along with the insurance, real estate, Internet and computer, finance, et al. industries, owe the United States public – a very, very big explanation. S. 1959 currently sits in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, according to the Library of Congress website, and I don't know about you fellow voters, but I'd like that explanation before that legislation moves another inch, at least to show the House of Representatives is still aware of the population's existence.

As for the Senate, I should say they must reject this bill on grounds that it creates a dilemma in academic integrity and civil liberties, opening a shaft through which to undermine the fabric of U.S. society. I suppose I should also express that it should be interpreted as being against especially the First Amendment by the Supreme Court, and rightfully struck down. Unfortunately I don't have any faith in the Senate at this point, yet there is certainly a chance to sway the Court, especially considering that the bill is so vague that even people who are not really fringe, and who don't really have dissident views, are coming out against this legislation more and more. "We the [voting, taxpaying, producing and consuming] people" (quotes for context) who tacitly consent to the social contract binding our society, the Constitution, need to convey the message to those running the machine that we are the source of their power, and we will take it away if they abuse it by using it on us. How do we do that?

There is an election approaching and we could obviously not re-elect the corporate shills that blindly or maliciously – whatever the case may be – voted for this legislation. I certainly won't vote for any Colorado Representatives again, given that each and every one of them voted for this bill, for example. We can also use equal momentum to express a similar electoral warning to those in Senate who have yet to vote. We elect these lawmakers, and thus have that power, which is exactly why we have that power, and we should use it. There is also space and time in which to make a case that this bill should be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court via the media, and that is happening but the clock is ticking. If that doesn't work we can fill the void developed by a lack of 'peer-review' and civil liberties protections regarding the work of the National Commission and COE by applying public scrutiny and de facto oversight via whatever mediums possible, including demonstrating in public space. There is much we can still do to prevent the possible creation of actual legally recognized 'thoughtcrime', and we should get started right away, as these folks who have written letters to Jane Harman about this legislation at Congress.org, just a little pocket of grievances I noticed while 'swimming' freely on the net, would likely concur.

I'd like to personally thank Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for being brave enough – thus far the only candidate to actively oppose this disgraceful legislation – to vote with civil liberties in mind while running for President of the United States of America, it may sound strange but I think that has to be a very difficult position to fill, considering the Zeitgeist.