On Second Thought: What's he building in there?

It is several weeks since the Department of Homeland Security’s admonishment, “If You See Something, Say Something” reached me on Facebook. I don’t remember the accompanying video, I probably didn’t watch it. I do remember the numerous outraged comments about government asking us to spy on each other. The outrage cheered me up: maybe the neighbors aren’t totally paranoid.

Then came Homeland Security’s Disinformation Board scheme. The Disinformation Board idea sparked the same outrage I saw in those comments on the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, so I forgot about “If You See Something...” The new outrage was intense enough, the administration stopped talking about a Disinformation Board. Then came the Buffalo shooting, and the Domestic Terrorism bill.

The good news about the Domestic Terrorism bill is that it only targets white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The legislation creates an inter agency task force of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice to monitor, investigate and prosecute white supremacists and neo-Nazis, with special attention to white supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Essentially, the new law, if it passes the Senate, would call on the three agencies to apply the same methods they have used for 20 years to combat Islamic extremism in the War on Terror to a new threat.

The history of that other War is an argument against declaring this one. From the start of the War on Terror following the Sept. 11 attack, there have been reports of agents spying on mosques, and paid informants egging on credulous young Muslim men to prove themselves, and to win girls and glory by action. In its commentary on an earlier draft of the legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union raised some of the same objections it had voiced a generation ago against the Patriot Act: the law would violate freedom of speech and assembly rights, protection against illegal search and seizure, and due process rights, all protected by the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU’s principal argument against earlier versions of domestic terrorism legislation has been that, once a domestic terrorism task forces is established and agents get busy, targets are likely to shift. Ironically, in the case of a law intended to protect racial, ethnic and other minorities, the usual pattern is for minorities and other marginal groups to become primary targets for surveillance and prosecution, whatever the original intent of the law.

The ACLU always worries that laws intended to curb dangerous expressions of some ideology will end up hammering racial minorities and advocates for progressive causes, probably because that is what generally does happen. Fifty and 60 years ago, the FBI spent a lot of time looking for communists among the Civil Rights leadership, and anti-war activists learned to suspect an agency affiliation whenever anyone showed up at the meeting with really radical new ideas. While it may not be easy to imagine repurposing a law that specifically names “white supremacists” and “neo-Nazis,” if a law mandating a task force for one variety of troublemakers is okay, why not another for “Animal Rights Extremists,” or one for “Climate Action Radicals” or … .? In the rush to do something after the Buffalo shooting, however, neither ACLU principle nor history have deterred progressive lawmakers. The measure passed the House with all Democrats voting yes.

But no need to worry just yet. Senate Republicans, who just finished invoking Orwell to stop the Disinformation Board are saying Orwell again and, while they may vote “Yes,” Senate Democrats, who refused to abandon the Senate’s super majority filibuster custom to pass voting rights legislation, are not about to go over the top for a law as likely to boomerang as this one.

In the end, Congressional Democrats will be able to say, “Republicans” to their base while Republicans will be able to proclaim, “Saved you” to their own. None of this means Republicans have suddenly become the uncompromising defenders of civil liberties, any more than Democrats have become the law and order party. Some of the same Republican senators horrified by the First Amendment implications of the Domestic Terrorism bill also want to put a stop to abortion rights activists assembling in protest near the homes of Supreme Court justices while Democratic senators may join the demonstrations.

Even without a new Domestic Terrorism law, government agencies can find ways to keep an eye out for trouble. Federal law enforcement agencies haven’t actually needed legislatively mandated task forces to deal with animal rights extremists and climate action radicals. Since laws passed after 9/11 to protect the country from foreign terrorists have proved flexible enough for deployment against Greenpeace and animal rights organizations, they can be stretched to cover white supremacists and neo-Nazis too.

When I finally did get to the DHS “If You See Something, Say Something” video, a lot of the vignettes actually turned out to be be good cases for citizen action. I’m not sure how I will react next time I spot the neighbors moving strange objects around behind a closing garage door; that may depend on whether or not I hear spooky background music. However, any time I spot somebody with fake ID in a nuclear medicine lab, I will raise the alarm. Still, I want the lady with the cellphone to watch a little longer before calling in the young guy on the subway platform. While I don’t wear a hoodie and am no longer young, I have been the guy sometimes looking around me, sometimes writing in my notebook while I wait for the train.

——

Will Rawn of Havre is a retired Montana State University-Northern professor.