Marcy Winograd of PDA sent out a long e-mail on this subject of great concern. Here’s the opening paragraphs of a longer document which I forwarded
separately:

“Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to ‘Disrupt’
Radical Movements in the United States

By Jessica Lee

_Global Research_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) , November 25, 2007

_indypendent.org_ (http://indypendent.org/)

Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,”
Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to
encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of
protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties
advocates, scholars and historians.

The proposed law, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), was passed by the House of Representative in a
404-6 vote Oct. 23. (The Senate is currently considering a companion bill, S.
1959.) The act would establish a “National Commission on the prevention of
violent radicalization and ideologically based violence” and a university-based
“Center for Excellence” to “examine and report upon the facts and causes
of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based
violence in the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention,
disruption and mitigation.”

Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based
groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from
political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical
right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine
academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for
power at the expense of civil liberties.

David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University who
studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars, says the
bill “is a shot over the bow of environmental activists, animal-rights
activists, anti-globalization activists and scholars who are working in the Middle
East who have views that go against the administration.” Price says some
right-wing outfits such as gun clubs are also threatened because “[they] would be
looked at with suspicion under the bill.”

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), which has been organizing
against post-Sept. 11 legislative attacks on First Amendment rights, is critical
of the bill. “When you first look at this bill, it might seem harmless
because it is about the development of a commission to do a study,” explained Hope
Marston, a regional organizer with BORDC.

“However, when you realize the focus of the study is ‘homegrown terrorism,’
it raises red flags,” Marston said. “When you consider that the government
has wiretapped our phone calls and emails, spied on religious and political
groups and has done extensive data mining of our daily records, it is worrisome
of what might be done with the study. I am concerned that there appears to be
an inclination to study religious and political groups to ultimately try to
find subversion. This would violate our First Amendment rights to free speech
and freedoms of religion and association.”

[continued....]