Coming on the steps of Americans allegedly plotting or committing acts of terrorism, a Dec. 15, 2009 Congressional hearing sought to identify where counterterrorism efforts intended to prevent violence cross the line into punishing radical, but protected, speech and thought. The hearing, “Violent Extremism: How Are People Moved from Constitutionally-Protected Thought to Acts of Terrorism,” was held by the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Jane Harmon (D-CA) opened the hearing by asking “how people who seem like anyone else—those who are capable of interacting socially with friends and colleagues and in many cases are athletes and scholars—could be recruited or self-recruited to train to be terrorists?” But even as the threat of homegrown extremists is gaining more public attention, the answer to that question is difficult, as experts say the process that pushes people to engage in terrorist acts remains inexact.
“Research suggests that no single pathway towards terrorism exists, making it somewhat difficult to identify overarching patterns in how and why individuals are susceptible to terrorist recruitment, as well as intervention strategies,” Kim Cragin, a terrorism expert at Rand Corp., said at the hearing.
Another speaker called for the focus of investigation to focus actual steps people take toward violence, rather than the ideology or beliefs that a person may have. Dr. Stevan Weine, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago said, “It’s not what people say or think, but whether they commit violent acts that counts. Terrorist researchers argue that our central concern should be on preventing violent radicalization and not radicalization per se.” Weine, who is studying violent radicalization in Minneapolis’s Somali community, said research in this area does not “support the claim that there is a particular profile of terrorists that clearly distinguishes them from the general population, other than their involvement in violent radicalization.”
In addition to raising similar concerns about the difficulty in identifying factors that lead to violent radicalization, Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, called for the protection of free speech while understanding the violent radicalization process. “It is crucial to understand the importance of zealously safeguarding our constitutionally-protected freedoms while we strive to understand how individuals become violent extremists,” he said. “While we recognize that our government has an obligation to protect us from terrorism, Congress must tread carefully when attempting to examine people’s thoughts or classify their beliefs as inside or outside the mainstream. We must avoid infringing on fundamental rights that are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy,” Macleod-Ball added.