bezdomni
28th November 2007, 22:24
This is kind of frightening and, while it may not be that big of a deal by itself....I think it is definitely a sign of things to come.
NorthStarRepublicML requested that I post this here.
part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5fqTCQN2g
part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsnLzxpokp4&feature=related
and here is the text:
AMY GOODMAN: A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill, quietly making its
way through Congress is raising fears of the new affront on activism
and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400-6 House
vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government
crackdown on dissent and infiltration of universities under the guise
of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two
government-appointe d bodies to study, monitor, and propose ways of
curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United
States. The first body, a national commission, would convene for 18
months. The university-based "Center for Excellence" would follow,
bringing together academic specialists to recommend laws and other
measures. Critics say the definition of extremism and terrorism is too
vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise
and independence, they say, the government-appointe d commissions could
be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws. Following
last month's approval in the House, the Senate version is expected to
go before the Judiciary Committee this week. Two guests join us now in
the Firehouse studio. Kamau Franklin is an attorney with the Center
for Constitutional Rights. CCR has been closely following the measure.
And Jessica Lee with us. She’s a journalist with the
Indypendent, put
out by the New York Indymedia Center. She has an extensive piece in
the latest issue of the Indypendent. Its called "Bringing The War On
Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How To 'Disrupt' Radical Movements
In The United States." Jessica, let’s begin with you. Lay out what
this bill is.
JESSICA LEE: Thank you for having me. When I first heard about this, I
immediately did a Google news search and was alarmed to find that no
media was talking about it whatsoever. So I looked into the bill and
are two things that immediately jumped out of me. The first was that
there is a broad use of definitions and the second is, who would they
study? What does this mean? I would first like to point out the two
definitions that many people I interviewed had problems with. And if
you wouldnt mind me just reading them. The first is “violent
radicalization& #8221;. This term means “the process of adapting
or promoting
an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating
ideologically- based violence to advance political, religious, or
social change” . Many people I interviewed were very concerned about
this. The second definition, which is “homegrown
terrorism” , talks
about the planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group
to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States. When you
think about these definitions, what does that mean? When you look at
the activism going on today, is there planned use of force or coercion
going on? When you look at what is going on in Olympia, with
individuals sitting down and blocking war shipments. When you look at
Code Pink going into Congress and disrupting activities. Could this be
included in this definition? And that’s what I went out to try
to find
my article.
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Franklin, your concerns?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: Somewhere, as Jessica stated, the broad definitions
allow for new laws that can be passed. that can basically equate
social justice activism and civil disobedience to terrorism in some
ways. So in the past if someone got charged for blocking the street,
there were charged with disorderly conduct, or obstruction of
governmental administration. Now, after this commission is done, if
new laws are passed, with the broadness of the definitions, the Feds
can now say “well, wait a minute, you threatened the use of violence
or threatened the use of force. And that by itself can mean that we
can now charge you with federal terrorist crimes because we do not
agree with the type of demonstration that you were doing, we don’t
agree with the point of view that you were having” . So its the
broad
based-ness, the breadth, the scope of the inquiry, which is really
threatening for potential activists, people concerned with social
justice issues and civil libertarians, something people should really
be concerned about.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the groups you see.
KAMAU KARL FRANKLIN: Well, I see groups as folks that are come out
against the globalization, anti-globalization activists, social
justice activists, animal rights activists. I think the breadth is
[extounding] in terms of what can be covered. I dont think theres any
limits placed on who can be targeted by this particular act. I think
certain groups have already been singled out, like folks that are
fighting against some of the globalization measures that are
happening. And I think that is really going to be scary. Because The
the sponsors of this bill are really targeting this sect more than
targeting anything else.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the groups, Jessica. In particular, you’ve
mentioned, for example, Critical Mass, the cycling movement all over
the country.
JESSICA LEE: Right. When I started to look into this bill, what I
found was a great influence by the Rand Corporation, which is a
government affiliated think tank. Twice, Brian Michael Jenkins, who is
an expert on terrorism, gave testimony in the House on this bill.
AMY GOODMAN: He is from the Rand Corporation.
JESSICA LEE: He is from the Rand, yes. They largely tried to push this
bill through on this idea there are these extreme political Islamists
in our country and they did not do a very good job stating the actual
threat. But when you look through the Rand Corporation' s other reports
in 2005, they had a report called “Trends in Terrorism” .
And they had
one chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats” . When
you look in
that chapter, there’ s nothing about political Islamists. In
fact, its
all about anti- globalization people on the right and left side of the
spectrum. The animal rights and the environmental movements; and
anarchists. And to me I found that very interesting that that
testimony was not mentioned at all when this bill was passed. That
this legislation is not just gonna look at so-called violent,
religious people, but also people who have been very strong opinions
against this administration.
AMY GOODMAN: In terms of the Rand Corporation, it was Daniel Ellsburg
who worked for the Rand Corporation, when he have that many thousands
of pages on the history of the Vietnam war and the Pentagon papers. So
Rand is the key -- what would you say, writer of the bill? And the
Congressmember who’s most involved in this?
JESSICA LEE: Representative Jane Harmon, a Democrat from California,
has had a lengthy relationship with the Rand Corporation. I called
several times to get comment from the Rand Corporation, they said that
their experts are out of town and unavailable due to the holidays. So
I did not find out if they indeed did write the bill themselves. What
we do know is that have a great influence and that they have had in
the past.
KAMAU FRANKLIN: I just wanted to add to the Rand comment, particularly
with Brian Michael Jenkins, supposed terrorist expert who’s mainly
known according to Rand as someone who helped the United States in
counter-insurgency measures in Vietnam, which is one of his claims to
fame. In addition to that, he wrote a book and in his own book, I just
want to quote that says "in their international campaign, the Jihadist
will seek common ground with leftist, anti-American and
anti-globalization forces who will in turn seek radical Islam comrades
against a mutual foe." So I think what Jessica’ s talking about, is
that, the breadth of it is not focused in on supposed terrorists who
are threatening the United States, but folks who have real concerns
about where this country is heading, folks who express dissent in
various different ways including demonstrations and marches. These are
the folks who this bill potentially good target.
AMY GOODMAN: The Baltimore Sun has a column called "Here Comes the
Thought Police."
KAMAU FRANKLIN: I think they’re saying “thought& #8221;
because one of the
important aspects of this bill, also, is to – it concentrates on the
internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming
across into the United States and to American citizens. If, once
again, this bill reaches to become a law and that study is done, who
is to say that now after the study is done, the recommendations wont
get made to say “lets curb how the internet is being used, lets put
filters on what gets to come into the country” . You spoke a
little bit
about al- Jazeera. Imagine after they take a look at this and how
al-Jazeera is viewed, one particular area well say “let's stop
that” –
I mean they stopped that from coming in over a cable – but,
“let&# 8217;s
stop that from coming from the internet” . That could be
happening to
thousands of web sites in the near future.
AMY GOODMAN: And local, federal cooperation among police, Kamau?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: Theres a New York study that was done that also was a
basis for some of where this bill came from. These type of operations
go hand-in-hand with of course, joint task force. So we truly would
expect when they go around and seek out experts and they talk to folks
that it would be talking to local police officials and looking for
ways in which they can work together on this, where the local
officials can seek federal funding and they will come out and try to
use this and say “let's target these particular groups in our area
that we know about” . Once again, no basis for terrorism, but
“they& #8217;ve
been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we dont
like those” .
AMY GOODMAN: Jessica Lee, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in the house 400-6. That is a very
big margin.
JESSICA LEE: Correct. It was actually passed under what is called the
“Suspension of the Rules” , which is a provision the House
uses to pass
bills very quickly and these are usually bills deemed uncontroversial
and do not need more debate. So we saw a quick vote. Six people voted
against. One was presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He was
unavailable for comment unfortunately. So what we're seeing not only
the Republican congress giving the Bush administration swath of powers
to confront the war on terrorism, but we are also seeing the
democratically- led congress also extending these powers.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Center for Excellence.
JESSICA LEE: It would be one of the – there’ s already
eight in
existence, under the Department of Homeland Securityg, and they’re
based in universities, they bring scholars together from around the
country, that are “experts& #8221; in a bunch of different
fields to study a
particular thing. This is someone who would want to study the moment
in which somebody who is a radical or extremist will turn from being
peaceful, having those beliefs which are protected under the First
Amendment, to when they might become violent. I found it very
interesting because if you want to study the moment in which somebody
is going to turn violent, don't you need to study them before they
turned violent? If so, aren’t you studying First Amendment
beliefs? I
talked to a couple of scholars who study this type of thing. One is
Braun Taylor who has studied the radical environmental movement for
about 15 years, and he says if you really want to understand this
stuff, you have to go into the field, make human interactions, build
trust, and you have to talk to them. It takes a long time. These
people are very wary to talk to academics in the first place. So we
are seeing the Center of Excellence that is supposed to bring people
together to study these very people that are skeptical of academics.
Another interesting thing, the national commission which has mandated
to produce three reports, each six months apart. The first report is
supposed to come out after six months. How in the world can they
possibly study these very complex issues? They want to study the
social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of
terrorism. How are they supposed to study this in six months and come
up with these recommendations, which in fact, are going to be used to
prevent, disrupt and mitigate domestic terrorism in six months?
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Franklin, Center for Constitutional Rights, what
are you doing about this?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: On our website, we have a lot more information about
what this bill is. In fact, we have the different versions for people
to start to view. We’re gonna call for some actions in the next
couple
of weeks. We probably agree that at this stage the Senate is also
going to pass their version of the bill. What is really going to
happen, where the fight’ s really gonna start to take place is
in the
forming of this commission, watching this commission, responding to
its inquiries. In fact, doing demonstrations against this commission.
We think that is where the real fight will be now is in the grassroots
who are gonna have to come out and really talk about how they think
this commission will not really study terrorism but will study them.
We want to provide as much information as we can on who should be the
target of some of this work that will have to be done. So when people
go to the website ccrjustice.org, they’ll start to find this
information. In the next couple of weeks, we’ll rally start to
target
and hone in on who should be thought about.
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Karl Franklin, Center for Constitutional Rights and
Jessica Lee, journalist for the Indypendent. Thank you for being with
us. This is democracy now!, democracynow. org, the war and peace
report. I'm amy Goodman. When we come back, I will be joined by Marcel
Khalife the Marcel.
NorthStarRepublicML requested that I post this here.
part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5fqTCQN2g
part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsnLzxpokp4&feature=related
and here is the text:
AMY GOODMAN: A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill, quietly making its
way through Congress is raising fears of the new affront on activism
and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400-6 House
vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government
crackdown on dissent and infiltration of universities under the guise
of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two
government-appointe d bodies to study, monitor, and propose ways of
curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United
States. The first body, a national commission, would convene for 18
months. The university-based "Center for Excellence" would follow,
bringing together academic specialists to recommend laws and other
measures. Critics say the definition of extremism and terrorism is too
vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise
and independence, they say, the government-appointe d commissions could
be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws. Following
last month's approval in the House, the Senate version is expected to
go before the Judiciary Committee this week. Two guests join us now in
the Firehouse studio. Kamau Franklin is an attorney with the Center
for Constitutional Rights. CCR has been closely following the measure.
And Jessica Lee with us. She’s a journalist with the
Indypendent, put
out by the New York Indymedia Center. She has an extensive piece in
the latest issue of the Indypendent. Its called "Bringing The War On
Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How To 'Disrupt' Radical Movements
In The United States." Jessica, let’s begin with you. Lay out what
this bill is.
JESSICA LEE: Thank you for having me. When I first heard about this, I
immediately did a Google news search and was alarmed to find that no
media was talking about it whatsoever. So I looked into the bill and
are two things that immediately jumped out of me. The first was that
there is a broad use of definitions and the second is, who would they
study? What does this mean? I would first like to point out the two
definitions that many people I interviewed had problems with. And if
you wouldnt mind me just reading them. The first is “violent
radicalization& #8221;. This term means “the process of adapting
or promoting
an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating
ideologically- based violence to advance political, religious, or
social change” . Many people I interviewed were very concerned about
this. The second definition, which is “homegrown
terrorism” , talks
about the planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group
to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States. When you
think about these definitions, what does that mean? When you look at
the activism going on today, is there planned use of force or coercion
going on? When you look at what is going on in Olympia, with
individuals sitting down and blocking war shipments. When you look at
Code Pink going into Congress and disrupting activities. Could this be
included in this definition? And that’s what I went out to try
to find
my article.
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Franklin, your concerns?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: Somewhere, as Jessica stated, the broad definitions
allow for new laws that can be passed. that can basically equate
social justice activism and civil disobedience to terrorism in some
ways. So in the past if someone got charged for blocking the street,
there were charged with disorderly conduct, or obstruction of
governmental administration. Now, after this commission is done, if
new laws are passed, with the broadness of the definitions, the Feds
can now say “well, wait a minute, you threatened the use of violence
or threatened the use of force. And that by itself can mean that we
can now charge you with federal terrorist crimes because we do not
agree with the type of demonstration that you were doing, we don’t
agree with the point of view that you were having” . So its the
broad
based-ness, the breadth, the scope of the inquiry, which is really
threatening for potential activists, people concerned with social
justice issues and civil libertarians, something people should really
be concerned about.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the groups you see.
KAMAU KARL FRANKLIN: Well, I see groups as folks that are come out
against the globalization, anti-globalization activists, social
justice activists, animal rights activists. I think the breadth is
[extounding] in terms of what can be covered. I dont think theres any
limits placed on who can be targeted by this particular act. I think
certain groups have already been singled out, like folks that are
fighting against some of the globalization measures that are
happening. And I think that is really going to be scary. Because The
the sponsors of this bill are really targeting this sect more than
targeting anything else.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the groups, Jessica. In particular, you’ve
mentioned, for example, Critical Mass, the cycling movement all over
the country.
JESSICA LEE: Right. When I started to look into this bill, what I
found was a great influence by the Rand Corporation, which is a
government affiliated think tank. Twice, Brian Michael Jenkins, who is
an expert on terrorism, gave testimony in the House on this bill.
AMY GOODMAN: He is from the Rand Corporation.
JESSICA LEE: He is from the Rand, yes. They largely tried to push this
bill through on this idea there are these extreme political Islamists
in our country and they did not do a very good job stating the actual
threat. But when you look through the Rand Corporation' s other reports
in 2005, they had a report called “Trends in Terrorism” .
And they had
one chapter called “Homegrown Terrorism Threats” . When
you look in
that chapter, there’ s nothing about political Islamists. In
fact, its
all about anti- globalization people on the right and left side of the
spectrum. The animal rights and the environmental movements; and
anarchists. And to me I found that very interesting that that
testimony was not mentioned at all when this bill was passed. That
this legislation is not just gonna look at so-called violent,
religious people, but also people who have been very strong opinions
against this administration.
AMY GOODMAN: In terms of the Rand Corporation, it was Daniel Ellsburg
who worked for the Rand Corporation, when he have that many thousands
of pages on the history of the Vietnam war and the Pentagon papers. So
Rand is the key -- what would you say, writer of the bill? And the
Congressmember who’s most involved in this?
JESSICA LEE: Representative Jane Harmon, a Democrat from California,
has had a lengthy relationship with the Rand Corporation. I called
several times to get comment from the Rand Corporation, they said that
their experts are out of town and unavailable due to the holidays. So
I did not find out if they indeed did write the bill themselves. What
we do know is that have a great influence and that they have had in
the past.
KAMAU FRANKLIN: I just wanted to add to the Rand comment, particularly
with Brian Michael Jenkins, supposed terrorist expert who’s mainly
known according to Rand as someone who helped the United States in
counter-insurgency measures in Vietnam, which is one of his claims to
fame. In addition to that, he wrote a book and in his own book, I just
want to quote that says "in their international campaign, the Jihadist
will seek common ground with leftist, anti-American and
anti-globalization forces who will in turn seek radical Islam comrades
against a mutual foe." So I think what Jessica’ s talking about, is
that, the breadth of it is not focused in on supposed terrorists who
are threatening the United States, but folks who have real concerns
about where this country is heading, folks who express dissent in
various different ways including demonstrations and marches. These are
the folks who this bill potentially good target.
AMY GOODMAN: The Baltimore Sun has a column called "Here Comes the
Thought Police."
KAMAU FRANKLIN: I think they’re saying “thought& #8221;
because one of the
important aspects of this bill, also, is to – it concentrates on the
internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming
across into the United States and to American citizens. If, once
again, this bill reaches to become a law and that study is done, who
is to say that now after the study is done, the recommendations wont
get made to say “lets curb how the internet is being used, lets put
filters on what gets to come into the country” . You spoke a
little bit
about al- Jazeera. Imagine after they take a look at this and how
al-Jazeera is viewed, one particular area well say “let's stop
that” –
I mean they stopped that from coming in over a cable – but,
“let&# 8217;s
stop that from coming from the internet” . That could be
happening to
thousands of web sites in the near future.
AMY GOODMAN: And local, federal cooperation among police, Kamau?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: Theres a New York study that was done that also was a
basis for some of where this bill came from. These type of operations
go hand-in-hand with of course, joint task force. So we truly would
expect when they go around and seek out experts and they talk to folks
that it would be talking to local police officials and looking for
ways in which they can work together on this, where the local
officials can seek federal funding and they will come out and try to
use this and say “let's target these particular groups in our area
that we know about” . Once again, no basis for terrorism, but
“they& #8217;ve
been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we dont
like those” .
AMY GOODMAN: Jessica Lee, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in the house 400-6. That is a very
big margin.
JESSICA LEE: Correct. It was actually passed under what is called the
“Suspension of the Rules” , which is a provision the House
uses to pass
bills very quickly and these are usually bills deemed uncontroversial
and do not need more debate. So we saw a quick vote. Six people voted
against. One was presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He was
unavailable for comment unfortunately. So what we're seeing not only
the Republican congress giving the Bush administration swath of powers
to confront the war on terrorism, but we are also seeing the
democratically- led congress also extending these powers.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Center for Excellence.
JESSICA LEE: It would be one of the – there’ s already
eight in
existence, under the Department of Homeland Securityg, and they’re
based in universities, they bring scholars together from around the
country, that are “experts& #8221; in a bunch of different
fields to study a
particular thing. This is someone who would want to study the moment
in which somebody who is a radical or extremist will turn from being
peaceful, having those beliefs which are protected under the First
Amendment, to when they might become violent. I found it very
interesting because if you want to study the moment in which somebody
is going to turn violent, don't you need to study them before they
turned violent? If so, aren’t you studying First Amendment
beliefs? I
talked to a couple of scholars who study this type of thing. One is
Braun Taylor who has studied the radical environmental movement for
about 15 years, and he says if you really want to understand this
stuff, you have to go into the field, make human interactions, build
trust, and you have to talk to them. It takes a long time. These
people are very wary to talk to academics in the first place. So we
are seeing the Center of Excellence that is supposed to bring people
together to study these very people that are skeptical of academics.
Another interesting thing, the national commission which has mandated
to produce three reports, each six months apart. The first report is
supposed to come out after six months. How in the world can they
possibly study these very complex issues? They want to study the
social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of
terrorism. How are they supposed to study this in six months and come
up with these recommendations, which in fact, are going to be used to
prevent, disrupt and mitigate domestic terrorism in six months?
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Franklin, Center for Constitutional Rights, what
are you doing about this?
KAMAU FRANKLIN: On our website, we have a lot more information about
what this bill is. In fact, we have the different versions for people
to start to view. We’re gonna call for some actions in the next
couple
of weeks. We probably agree that at this stage the Senate is also
going to pass their version of the bill. What is really going to
happen, where the fight’ s really gonna start to take place is
in the
forming of this commission, watching this commission, responding to
its inquiries. In fact, doing demonstrations against this commission.
We think that is where the real fight will be now is in the grassroots
who are gonna have to come out and really talk about how they think
this commission will not really study terrorism but will study them.
We want to provide as much information as we can on who should be the
target of some of this work that will have to be done. So when people
go to the website ccrjustice.org, they’ll start to find this
information. In the next couple of weeks, we’ll rally start to
target
and hone in on who should be thought about.
AMY GOODMAN: Kamau Karl Franklin, Center for Constitutional Rights and
Jessica Lee, journalist for the Indypendent. Thank you for being with
us. This is democracy now!, democracynow. org, the war and peace
report. I'm amy Goodman. When we come back, I will be joined by Marcel
Khalife the Marcel.