"A world newspaper of conscience" alongside Le Monde Diplomatique and the U.K. Guardian. — Danny Schechter
The RAND Corp: Here, There, Everywhere
By Chris AndersonNovember 21, 2007 | Posted in IndyBlog | Email this article
In her latest article in the Indypendent, Jessica Lee highlighted the role of the RAND Corporation in drafting the the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.” Writes Lee:
The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND … and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.
Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.
But RAND does more than just push thought-crime legislation through Congress. Indeed, a report released today by the City of New York shows just how long the reach of the RAND Corporation is. According to the New York Times:
Whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on the street in New York City. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people — or to use force against them — according to a study released yesterday.
The study [was commissioned] by the Rand Corporation in March after it was revealed that the police stopped 508,540 people on the street last year.
Most importantly, the study “found no evidence of racial profiling,” writes the New York Sun:
A long-awaited independent review of half a million reports by the New York Police Department of stop, question, and frisk encounters with civilians was hailed yesterday by police officials, who said the review found no pattern of racial profiling.
The study, by the Rand Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif., found that black pedestrians were stopped by police “at a rate that is 20 to 30% lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.
The reason for the seemingly contradictory results? RAND’s methodology, critics argue:
Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the report “hugely flawed,” saying that the document was more striking for what it did not say than for what it said. She said the report relied on “inappropriate benchmarks” to reach its findings.
Shock of shocks: another dodgy government report from the RAND Corp. This time, in our own backyard.
–Chris Anderson
December 7th, 2007 at 6:10 am
The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” was recently passed by the House (H.R. 1955) and is now with the Senate (S. 1959). This bill ostensibly creates a Commission to study radical beliefs and recommend steps to prevent terrorist acts, but it may well lead to the defining of people who hold “out of the mainstream” beliefs, and people who engage in non-violent political protest and dissent, as “terrorists”. It may also lead to regulation of content on the internet, and increased warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans.
The National Lawyers Guild, Society of American Law Teachers, Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and millions of Americans oppose the current language of this bill, dubbed the “Thought Crime” Bill. There are already State and Federal Laws against planning and committing violent acts; there is no need for laws that will not stop or help prosecute acts of hate/violence, but will chill 1st Amendment-protected speech and dissent. The FBI, CIA and non-governmental organizations have already done extensive research on radical/violent ideologies; there is no need to give political ideologues $22 million to do research that will be redundant at best, and is likely to be detrimental to Liberty.
If you support our Rights to Free Speech, a Free Press, to Petition the government for redress of grievances, and to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, call Senators Feinstein (310) 914-7300 and Boxer (909) 888-8525 today, to express your opposition to the dangerous and un-Constitutional language in this bill.
National Lawyers Guild http://nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry071127-093332
“On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6…The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications…
“This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on “facts and causes” of “violent radicalism” and “extremist belief systems.” It defines “violent radicalism” as “adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” The term “extremist belief system” is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.
“”Ideologically based violence” is defined in the bill as 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.” Thus, “force” and “violence” are used interchangeably. If a group of people blocked the doorway of a corporation that manufactured weapons, or blocked a sidewalk during an anti-war demonstration, it might constitute the use of “force” to promote “political beliefs.”
“The bill charges 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.” This provision could be used to conduct more intrusive surveillance of our Internet communications without warrants.
“This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32886prs20071128.html