Defensiveness Dominates Homeland Security Session

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Rebutting criticisms that were not made, and often ignoring those that were, witnesses and representatives in a House subcommittee hearing on disrupting terror plots through community engagement often lost focus on their task Wednesday.

The digressions began when Jane Harman, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, read an excerpt from an article published Tuesday by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. It raised concerns about the hearing's absence of Muslim voices who are detached from national political organizations which have a record of extremist rhetoric and hostility toward law enforcement.

Reading from the IPT story, Harman, (D-CA), said the committee tried to include witnesses with varying ideas:

"One of the criticisms today says that 'the committee is seeking input from a narrow viewpoint – one that is sympathetic to Islamist extremist organizations here in America.' Well I'll state my own view, that is not my own view. I am not sympathetic to extremist organizations in America."

The objective, she said, was to build public trust and encourage people to work with authorities to identify possibly dangerous elements in their communities. It is not about silencing extreme rhetoric:

"Extreme views are protected by our Constitution. We're not talking about extreme views. We're not talking about so-called radicals, either on the left or the right of the spectrum. We're talking about people who intend to engage in violent behavior. Behavior is not protected – violent behavior is not protected in our Constitution ... only the expression of extreme views is protected under our First Amendment."

To be clear, the IPT story never advocated silencing anyone's speech. It recommended that other voices be included and included some suggestions. The testimony seemed to validate the concern that the hearing offered a limited perspective on how to court Muslim-American communities.

Harman's response, meanwhile, ignores the link between extremist rhetoric and the radicalization process that may lead to violence. Radical clerics like Anwar Al-Awlaki are creating waves of terrorists through charismatic sermons and a message that America is at war with Islam and Muslims.

One of the most important factors in radicalizing young Muslims is "the perception that Islam is under attack from the West." Many of the groups at the center of government outreach efforts perpetuate that message.

In a way, witness Mohamed Elibiary did too during his testimony. Elibiary, President and CEO of The Freedom and Justice Foundation, criticized federal law enforcement for targeting "low-hanging fruit" and using "agent provocateurs" to infiltrate mosques. That line has been pushed by Islamist organizations for more than a year, despite a growing record of informants disrupting significant terror plots throughout the country.

Read more about the hearing and the witness testimony here.