A bill that would create a commission and research center on "violent radicalization" and "extremist belief systems" that can lead to homegrown terrorism has been quietly making its way through Congress, passing the House on Oct. 23. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups are raising concerns that its vague definitions, broad mandate and minimal oversight could lead to ethnic profiling and censorship based on personal beliefs. The bill now moves to the Senate, although the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act was passed in the House as H.R. 1955 (and has been introduced in the Senate as S. 1959). It provides for:

• Creation of a ten-member national commission charged with examining the "facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States" and reporting its findings and legislative recommendations to Congress within 18 months of its creation. The commission would have the power to conduct hearings and receive evidence, but the act does not authorize it to subpoena persons or records.
• Establishment of a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States, at a university designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security "following the merit-review processes" used for similar programs in the past. The Center's purpose is to "study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalism" and methods for addressing them that can be used by federal, state, local and tribal homeland security officials.
• A survey of approaches used by other nations to address the problem, to be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, the Attorney General and "other Federal Government entities, as appropriate." The results are to be reported to Congress and used in developing a national policy on violent radicalization, "to the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution."

The bill was first introduced in the House on April 19 by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Chair of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA), the ranking member, after the committee held two hearings on the issue. The bill passed the subcommittee on July 17, and on Aug. 1, the full Homeland Security Committee passed it by voice vote. The bill was also considered by the House Judiciary Committee, which discharged it on Oct. 16. It then passed the House 404-6.

The two hearings were primarily one-sided, with the bulk of the witnesses representing law enforcement or federal agencies. There was only one nonprofit witness, representing the Muslim Public Affairs Council. This perpetuates an unfortunate, continuing pattern of insufficient information gathering by congressional committees that are considering terrorism related issues.

For example, in May, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on "Violent Islamist Extremism" where Treasury officials erroneously characterized the position of nonprofit organizations, but no charities were invited to testify, prompting a letter of protest from Grantmakers Without Borders. Congress also missed an oversight opportunity in October when it passed expansion of penalties for violating the ban on material support for terrorism, but only heard from government witnesses in the one hearing it had.

The primary objections to the House bill relate to its broad definitions of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence. Sec. 899A defines:

• "[V]iolent radicalization" as promoting an "extremist belief system" aimed at facilitating violence "to advance political, religious, or social change"
• Ideological violence as "use, or planned use, or threatened use of force or violence" to promote beliefs
• Homegrown terrorism as use or planned use of force to "intimdate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives"

This broad definition could be interpreted to include rallies, sit-ins, protest marches and other traditional forms of dissent.

The Equal Justice Alliance says the bill creates "thought police" and has called on its members to contact their senators to oppose it. Executive Director Odette Williams said the commission "would give the appearance that whoever they are investigating is potentially a traitor or disloyal or a terrorist, even if all they were doing was advocating lawful views."

The ACLU raised further objections in a Nov. 28 press release, which said, "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought." It said the ACLU appreciates steps taken to improve the bill but remains concerned about its overall impact. Caroline Frederickson, director of the ACLU's Washington office, said, "The focus on the Internet is problematic" and could lead to censorship. The bill's Findings in Sec. 899B point out 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 United States citizens."

Harman responded immediately in a letter to the ACLU, which said, "HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief …. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution." She said the ACLU's position is "confusing," since the group suggests revisions but also notes it is unlikely to support the bill even if the legislation is revised.

Sec. 899F of the bill requires that Homeland Security "not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." It also would require operations to be conducted with racial neutrality and to be audited by Homeland Security's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer. The ACLU's Mike German told In These Times that this provision does not amount to independent oversight, and, "Nobody should be fooled that such an office would have authority to address policies that are approved at a high level of the administration."

The commission itself is likely to be dominated by a coalition of congressional Republicans and administration officials if the bill passes and is implemented during the remainder of the Bush administration, though the majority could change when a new presidential administration takes power in January 2009. The president, Secretary of Homeland Security, minority leaders in the House and Senate and the ranking members of each chamber's homeland security committee would each appoint a member, which would currently provide a majority of six Republicans. Given the current administration's less than desirable record on protecting constitutional rights in the context of national security issues, assurances that such a commission will not lead to attempts to suppress dissent are unconvincing.