We have a problem when law enforcement -- or the media or politicians -- use race, religion, ethnicity or political beliefs rather than criminal behavior to decide who should be pulled over, put on a watch list, brought in for questioning, investigated or kept out of the country. But it happens all the time.

For an example of profiling run amok, I suggest the Virgina Fusion Center 2009 Terrorism Threat Assesment. This 'intelligence' report warns police to closely watch racially and ethnically diverse populations, peaceful political activists, college students and religious groups because they are all potential terrorists.

Islam and "homegrown terrorism"

-- Who is a Terrorist?
-- Key facts about terrorism in the U.S.
-- Suspicious Activity Reporting (SARs)
-- House Hearing on Disrupting Terrorist Plots
-- Virginia Fusion Center Report finds potential terroristst

In February 2010, Congress passed a resolution labeling Joe Stack's suicide plane attack on an IRS building in Texas a terrorist act, on a 408-2 vote (Ron Paul (R-TX) and Don Young (R-AK) voted no). The initial reaction of some in Congress and the media was to deny that Stack's action was terrorism, in marked contrast to their response to the Fort Hood shooting. Many noted the hypocrisy, but, rather than insisting that Stack be labeled a terrorist like Major Hasan, we would do better to try to narrow the ever-expanding definition of terrorism. DDF board member Hussein Ibish makes a compelling case in his blog (www.ibishblog.com):

Does it make sense, however, to lump these kinds of actions into the same category as carefully planned, ideologically-motivated conspiracies by organizations, no matter how small, to carry out acts of violence and sabotage in order to pursue a broader strategy, no matter how implausible? I doubt it. It seems to me that in order to deal with both problems effectively, distinguishing between the two is essential, since while they appear to share similar characteristics because the nature of the acts seems identical and the rhetoric similarly coincidental, in fact they are produced by very different dynamics and processes. What I'm arguing is that when two different equations produce similar results it does not make sense to deal with them as if they were reflective of the same essential problem. Of course fundamental security measures that would deter or prevent any act of violence, no matter the source or motivation, are essential in combating both of these phenomena and violence by organized criminals, gangs and others. But if we are serious about dealing with the problem of political terrorism it strongly behooves us not to confuse strategic actions by ideologically motivated organizations with the intersection of emotional crisis and political extremism that seems to produce these lone wolf atrocities.

Some Key Facts About Terrorism in the U.S.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council has released a report that looks at the number of actual and attempted terrorist attacks within the U.S. Anyone relying on the mainstream media for analysis of terrorism will be surprised with the findings:

• There were 54 total plots by domestic non-Muslim perpetrators against the United States, compared to 31 total plots by domestic and international Muslim perpetrators since 9/11.
• Less than half of individuals publicly associated with terrorism by the Department of Justice were actually charged with violating an anti-terrorism or national security statute.
• There are at least 4 incidents of non-Muslims possessing or attempting to possess Chemical or Radiological weapons, but no cases involving Muslim have been reported since 9/11.
Click here for the full report.

Suspicious Activity Reporting

After September 11, 2001, Congress ordered the creation of an "information sharing environment" to improve communication between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, with a special emphasis on "Suspicious Activity Reporting."

Instead of better connecting the dots, the Department of Homeland Security funded a counterproductive program that threatens to clog intelligence pipelines with junk data derived from racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological bias, a new report from Political Research Associates (PRA) has discovered.

Platform for Prejudice, a groundbreaking investigation by PRA Civil Liberties Project director Thomas Cincotta, exposes how Suspicious Activity Reporting undermines our Constitutional civil liberties and illuminates the structural flaws in the program that promote a reliance on existing prejudices and stereotypes.

The report's release comes as the Department of Justice and Director of National Intelligence are prepared to link up local Suspicious Activity Reporting programs into a national network and deploy it to all 72 intelligence fusion centers. The SARs program involves enlisting law enforcement as intelligence officers by training police to report 1st Amendment protected activities like photography, taking notes, making diagrams, and "espousing extremist views." The report documents numerous incidents where law-abiding people of "Middle Eastern appearance" received intimidating visits from cops or FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents simply because they videotaped a tourist attraction, rented a boat without fishing gear, engaged in religious practice, or took a picture with a friend at an airport.

In one instance, a van of seven Muslim men, one of them a U.S. armed forces veteran, was pulled over and harassed by police after it was reported that they prayed in a gas station parking lot near Henderson, Nevada. In another case, Duane Kerzic was detained because he took pictures of trains at New York's Penn Station. It turns out he was participating in Amtrak's annual photography contest.

Rather than random mistakes, Platform for Prejudice contends that such cases of racial and ethnic profiling are the inevitable result of the Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative's design.

Disrupting Terrorist Plots (without profiling)

On March 17, a subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing titled "Working with Communities to Disrupt Terror Plots". It was the second in what Committee staff tell us will be a series of hearings to explore how to fight homegrown terrorism without trampling civil liberties. We had met with staff before the hearing to raise a number of concerns and were invited to suggest witnesses for this hearing. We were very pleased that the Committee asked Mohamed Elibiary, the President & CEO of The Freedom and Justice Foundation and active in our working group on homegrown terrorism. However, we were dismayed that Mohamed was the sole representative of a community-based organization asked to participate. The rest of the witnesses were academics or represented the police, the FBI or DHS. Of course they lauded their own efforts at community outreach and building relationships with the Muslim community (and to be fair, many of the witnesses are engaged in good faith and successful community outreach work). It still was left to Mohamed to raise concerns about FBI infiltration of Mosques, the use of agent provocateurs and other methods that are counterproductive.

One lawmaker, Rep. Souder (R-IN) tried to use the hearing to smear the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), claiming it has ties to terrorist organizations. One of the witnesses, Los Angeles County Sherriff Leroy Baca stood up to Rep. Souder vehemently and forcefully asserting that CAIR is not a terrorist organization and that Rep. Souder's attack was un-American. As you know, CAIR has been the target of a relentless smear campaign by various politicians and groups. It was great to see an elected official stand up to innuendo and smears. In fact, several of the witnesses spoke up for CAIR. Click here for a video of the hearing, as well as written testimony. Mohamed Elibiary's testimony starts at the 2:00 hour mark, Rep. Souder's attack on CAIR starts at the 0:59-1:09 hour mark.

Beware of Boy and Girl Scouts conducting 'get out the vote' drives! The Virginia Fusion Center 2009 Terrorism Threat Assessment warns that they may have links to terrorism1. Scout troops are among the many worrisome features of life in Virginia that folks at the Fusion Center think may present an opportunity for terrorists. There are universities ("recognized as a radicalization node for almost every type of extremist group"), a diverse population ("affords terrorist operatives the opportunity to assimilate easily into society") and politically extreme groups, such as the New Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, Life & Liberty Ministries, Greenpeace and Blue Ridge Earth First. Strikingly, most of the threats uncovered by the fusion center are based on political ideology or race, religion or country of origin. Read more…

DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism

The right-wing media and blogosphere have justifiably gone apoplectic over a Department of Homeland Security report that was leaked in April. We think the left should be outraged by the report as well. Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In Radicalization and Recruitment targets legitimate political activities and beliefs for suspicion in the war on terror. The report defines right-wing "extremism" to include not only organized supremacist groups, but also antigovernment, anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups. Although the report finds no evidence that any right-wing groups are planning acts of violence, they all come under suspicion based on their political ideology, rather than any evidence of planning or perpetrating criminal acts. Read more…

We reported last spring that the California Assembly was considering a bill that would eliminate California's loyalty oath and repeal the law that allowed the firing of public school and community college teachers who are Communist Party members. Read more…

Ideological Exclusion

The Obama Justice Department stuck with Bush in another court case this month, asking a judge to uphold the Bush administration's decision to deny a visa to an Islamic scholar. The scholar, Tariq Ramadan was hired by the University of Notre Dame (that cauldron of radicalism), but the Bush administration used "ideological exclusion" to keep him out of the country. That means he was denied entry based on his views or associations. We are disappointed that the Obama administration has decided to uphold the practice. Read more...

Homegrown Terrorism, Violent Radicalization and Extremism

In the fall of 2007, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1955 the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act". The bill raised a number of red flags for us because it focused too much on political and religious beliefs, rather than violent activity. DDF pulled together a coalition of groups to fight the bill in the Senate, and we won. Read more here...