Hoover's Ghost

A recently declassified letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the White House in 1950, following the onset of the Korean conflict, revealed his plans to imprison "approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States." They, Hoover claimed, were "individuals who are potentially dangerous to the internal security." Apart from the complete lack of reference to any evidence for this claim, and the remarkable contempt he displayed for Constitutional rights, there are several interesting features in the letter that demonstrate Hoover's police-state mentality.
Consider these nuggets:
--"It should be pointed out that the plan does not distinguish between aliens and citizens and both are included in its purview.";
--"The plan calls for a statement of charges to be served on each detainee and a hearing be afforded the individual within a specified period. The Hearing Board will consist of three members to be appointed by the Attorney General composed of one Judge of the United States or State Court and two citizens. The hearing procedure will give the detainee an opportunity to know why he is being detained and permit him to introduce material in the nature of evidence in his own behalf. The hearing procedure will not be bound by the rules of evidence."
Imagine. Judge, jury and executioner.

And it gets better. Not only does Hoover propose rounding up and imprisoning some 12,000 people but his plan essentially wrote legislation for Congress and an executive order for the president:

--"The plan contains a prepared document which should be referred to the President immediately upon the existence of one of the emergency situations for the President’s signature. Briefly, this proclamation recites the existence of the emergency situation and that in order to immediately protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage the Attorney General is instructed to apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous to the internal security. In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus for apprehensions made pursuant to it.
The plan also contains a prepared joint resolution to be passed by Congress and an Executive Order for the President which too will validate the previous Presidential proclamation."
****

Of course, one might shrug and consign the letter to the dustbin of history. Then again, one might consider Hoover's undefined assumptions of what constitutes a threat in his plan to arrest thousands. A difference between now and 1950 is Congressional and judicial involvement. As Ronald Kessler, who's written about the FBI, argues "[t]he court has allowed . . . measures that the Bush administration has used to find terrorists to continue. Congress has allowed [them] to continue as well."
Yet recent legislative history doesn't shine so brightly, in light of the flaws in the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, or pending Senate legislation on FISA and telecom immunity.
****
Now, consider House bill, HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Co-sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the legislation calls for the establishment of a commission to "examine and report" on homegrown terrorism.
Sidling dangerously close to thought-police territory, the bill "finds", among other things, that "[t]he 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."
Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU, in objecting to the bill, notes that "[l]aw enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."
Rep. Harman responded in a letter to Fredrickson, writing "ideologically based violence is not a protected act – it is a crime. Our bill would establish a diverse, well-qualified, nonpartisan, short-term commission to make recommendations to Congress so it can better understand and hopefully take responsible steps to prevent ideologically based violence. This is not the 'thought police' and surely it is not censorship." (Apparently, there was sufficient anger over HR 1955 among constituents that Harman's committee felt compelled to publish a "fact sheet" to address concerns.)
****
Of course, Fredrickson didn't dispute that "ideologically-based violence is not a protected act." Why? Because violence (of the non-state sort) is not a protected act. But Harman's claim to have Congress "better understand" ideologically-based violence by focusing on the internet is confusing at best and threatening to speech at worst. What will be learned that we do not know already about "ideologically-based violence"? Violence advocacy websites abound on the internet. This is not an unknown. But thought can be combated only by thought. The only long-term goal of any Congressionally-authorized commission would be, inevitably, to limit speech. Those outside the US understand this.
Hoover may be dead now but with HR 1955 passed overwhelming by a vote of 404-6, it's clear his legacy haunts Washington D.C.