H.R. 1955 - one more foot in the door?

On November 12th, I posted "Why aren't we hearing more about H.R. 1955..?" Known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, it is now receiving some attention:

1. On November 19th the Baltimore Sun published "Here Come the Thought Police," an excellent description of H.R. 1955, which sailed through the House with a 404 –6 vote and is expected to be swiftly approved by the Senate.

2. On November 20th, Amy Goodman covered Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Raises Fears of New Government Crackdown on Dissent on Democracy Now. “A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights….Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two government-appointed bodies to study, monitor and propose ways of curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United States….

“Critics say the bill's definition of 'extremism' and 'terrorism' is too vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise and independence, the government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.”

Amy interviewed Jessica Lee, reporter for the Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin, Racial Justice Fellow at the NY-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

3. The Center for Constitutional Rights has a factsheet on H.R. 1955. Because everyone believes that the Senate will pass the bill, the focus is on the commission(s) that the bill establishes. The factsheet states, “The act claims to set up a Commission for a study that will ‘examine and report upon the facts and causes’ of so called violent radicalism and extremist ideology then make legislative recommendations on combating it.

"If we are lucky the commission will just be a way for Congress and committee members to have a few meetings in expensive hotels and work on their tan. However the greater fear should be the possible future outcomes of any report, which will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism.”

The factsheet also notes Rand Corporation influence: “Brian Michael Jenkins, Rand Corporation’s so-called counterterrorism expert, testified on the Violent Radicalism hearings.”
Jenkins has written several books on terrorism, including Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves. On terrorism, Jenkins says, “In their international campaign, the jihadists will seek common grounds with leftist, anti-American, and anti-globalization forces, who will in turn see, in radical Islam, comrades against a mutual foe.”

My concerns:
1. “Violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” are too loosely defined in the bill. The planned use of force and or threatened use of force by a group or individual are included. What is “force”? H.R. 1955 could be used to stifle dissent, especially of those who are viewed as “leftist, anti-American, and anti-globalization.”

2. The findings at Sec. 899B (3) that “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 the United States.” Will our Internet access be curtailed?

3. The language of Section 899B (8) regarding the protection of our constitutional rights is vague.

4. How do we keep an eye on the commissions that are established to study violent radicalism and extremist ideology and make legislative recommendations? Given the 9/11 Commission’s track record, which I posted about here, I’ve concluded that the public has very little, if any, impact on federal commissions.

(photo: FBI)

Habeas Corpus or Habeas Corpses - You decide

Two items appeared in the mainstream press this past week about the denial of habeas corpus to individuals suspected of being “unlawful enemy combatants.” The one that really got me is the Tom Toles cartoon, below, which appeared in the Washington Post.

The other one was the New York Times editorial, The Democrats' Pledge, published on May 9. Then I read Glenn Greenwald’s Salon.com blog, Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus, also published on May 9. Both articles charge the Democrats with restoring the writ of habeas corpus.

What is habeas corpus? According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the public interest law firm that is handling many of the Guantanamo detainees’ cases, “Habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, is the legal procedure that keeps the government from holding you indefinitely without showing cause. When you challenge your detention by filing a habeas corpus petition, the executive branch must explain to a neutral judge its justification for holding you. It’s been a pillar of Western law since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.”

What happened to it? On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. An excellent detailed analysis of the Act is available here. Among other egregious provisions, the Act suspends habeas corpus for all non-citizens who have been determined to be “enemy combatants” or are “awaiting such determination” and to strip the federal courts of the right to hear detainees‘ claims.

Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, believes that U.S. citizens are susceptible to being withheld without being able to seek a writ of habeas corpus, as reported in his February 23, 2007 article Still No Habeas Rights For You, but I believe the language of the Act excludes U.S. citizens.

But that’s not enough. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution opens with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…” People, not citizens. The ability to apply for a writ of habeas corpus is a human right.

Restoring habeas corpus should be a “slam dunk” with the Democrats in control of Congress. But it isn’t, which explains the New York Times May 9 editorial and Glenn Greenwald’s post. In this must-read article, Glenn states, “… whether a country permits its political leaders to imprison people arbitrarily and with no process is one of the few defining attributes dividing free and civilized countries from lawless tyrannies. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his 1789 letter to Thomas Paine: 'I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.' To vest the President with the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges is fundamentally to transform the type of country we are."

This post is longer than usual because I consider this an extremely important issue, and all of us need to decide whether or not we care enough to take action to restore the writ of habeas corpus. Greenwald says we need to act quickly. Fortunately, the Center for Constitutional Rights Restore Habeas Corpus webpage has all the information in four categories: Learn, Act, Tell, and Lobby. If I don’t take action, I feel personally responsible for those detainees sitting in cells in Guantanamo and U.S. secret prisons scattered around the world who will end up as corpses.