The Return of HUAC?

H.R. 1955

I urge those poor deluded souls who still cling to the notion that our long national nightmare will end just as soon as Democrats solidify their control over the federal government in 2008, to peruse H.R. 1955, a bill that recently passed the US House of Representatives by a vote of 404 yea vs. 6 nay. H.R. 1955, which bears the chilling title "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," was introduced, not by some red state Republican, but, rather, by Rep. Jane Harman, a Los Angeles-area Democrat. Harman, a so-called "moderate" "blue dog" Democrat, chairs the Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee. She is married to Sidney Harman, audio-equipment magnate (he founded Harman/Kardon), and she has the distinction of being the richest member of the House of Representatives (as of 2005), with a net worth estimated to be in a range from $168 to $289 million.

 

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)

H.R. 1955 would create a special commission charged with studying and making recommendations for the prevention of "violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence," which the bill declares to be a clear and present threat to homeland security. This commission is granted the power to hold public hearings, at which it can take the testimony of such witnesses and consider such evidence as it deems necessary.

The definitions provided by H.R. 1955 for the principal ills it seeks to combat are strikingly broad and vague (although, given the packing of the federal courts with right-wing judges, I suspect that, should it become law, the bill would be unlikely to be thrown out on constitutional grounds). "Violent radicalization" is defined as

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.

"Homegrown terrorism" is

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.

In the former case, depending on who's doing the defining, the term "extremist belief system" could pretty much be anything outside of the two-party system. In the latter, one wonders what sort of planning would have to be shown to demonstrate "planned use" of force or violence. Would loose talk over a few beers be enough?

Perhaps most shocking of all is this "finding" related to the internet, which may shortly become the law of the land:

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.

In this regard, Rep. Harman provided her view of the internet "threat" in a prepared  introductory statement to the subcommittee she chairs, for a November 6 hearing on "Using the Web as a Weapon":

"These people [by which she meant, potential domestic terrorists] no longer need to travel to foreign countries or isolated backwoods compounds to become indoctrinated by extremists and to learn how to kill their neighbors.

On the contrary, the Internet allows them to share violent goals and plot from the comfort of their own living rooms . . . "

Full disclosure requires that I note the inclusion in the bill of a section that purports to protect civil rights and civil liberties. The operative provision of the section is as follows:

The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

It then charges the Department of Homeland Security with the task of auditing itself to insure compliance with this provision. Whew! I feel better already, don't you?

Although the poster children for domestic terrorism cited by Rep. Harman and others are almost exclusively Islamic radicals, it's likely that the commission this bill creates would cast a wider net. We can anticipate that radical environmentalists and anti-globalization activists could very well find themselves hauled before the commission, and, thus, implicitly identified to the world as terrorists. I would expect that representatives of groups such as School of the Americas Watch, and individuals who have been involved in attempts to disrupt military shipments (such as the recent efforts in Olympia, Washington) are extremely vulnerable in this regard as well. It seems beyond question that this bill would have a chilling effect on public protest of US government policy and military action in connection with the so-called "war on terror."

The Complicity of the Democrats

Given its rather obvious threat to democratic rights, how are we to explain the nearly unanimous support among House Democrats for H.R. 1955? Sure, Jane Harman is no liberal, but what about supposed progressive stalwarts, such as Maxine Waters (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Pete Stark (CA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), Ed Markey (MA), John Lewis (GA), and many others, all of whom voted in favor? The only liberal Democrat who voted no was Dennis Kucinich.

In the cases of the Iraq war and impeachment, congressional Democrats have demonstrated that they cannot be counted on to carry out the will of an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters. With H.R. 1955, it becomes obvious, as well, that the Democrats cannot be relied on to defend the basic constitutional rights of Americans. As with the various transparent stunts carried out by Democrats since they took control of Congress aimed at providing the appearance of opposing the war while doing nothing whatsoever to impede it, here we find liberal Democrats hiding behind the fig leaf of toothless civil liberties protection and lending support to a bill that could lead to the criminalization of dissent.

It's not as if they can honestly plead ignorance. Here, for example, is Dennis Kucinich's recently expressed clear-eyed view of H.R. 1955:

“If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Nevertheless, as with Hillary Clinton's preposterous "if I'd known then what I know now" excuse for her Iraq war authorization vote, we can expect to hear a great big "Who knew?" from congressional Democrats as the consequences of this bill become impossible to ignore. By then, of course, it'll probably be too late.

The Rhyme of History

Interestingly enough, the initial legislative history of H.R. 1955 bears a striking resemblance to the establishment of the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee. HUAC is generally identified with "McCarthyism"  -- that is to say, with the 1950s  anti-communist witch hunts. Yet, HUAC actually began before World War II. It had its origins in a bill introduced in 1934 by a liberal Democrat, Samuel Dickstein, who represented the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Samuel Dickstein (D-NY)

Dickstein was concerned about the threat of subversion of American institutions posed, not by communists and other leftist groups, but, rather, by domestic fascist and pro-Nazi movements like the German-American Bund and the Silver Shirts. Hence, the title of the so-called "Dickstein Resolution" which led to the establishment of the McCormack-Dickstein Special Committee on Un-American Activities, the precursor of HUAC: "An Act to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities." From the outset, although there were some rather cursory examinations of pro-fascist groups and individuals, the primary focus of the special (later permanent) committee was investigation of leftists, including supposed communist subversives among New Dealers.

Going even further back, we might discern history's rhyme in the Espionage Act, passed in 1917 shortly after the (bitterly unpopular) American entry into World War I. This act was ostensibly intended (as the title indicates) to contain German espionage and sabotage activity in the US. In fact, it was immediately marshaled as the key tool for the suppression of antiwar dissent. Under this law hundreds of dissenters were imprisoned (the great majority of them from the left), including socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, and dozens of left-oriented and foreign-language periodicals were denied mailing privileges and shut down.

Alas, the past, it appears, is prologue. It's scoundrel time, yet again.