President of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, Jim Zogby, testified Tuesday before the U.S. House subcommittee on intelligence, information sharing and terrorism risk assessment.

Jim Zogby

Zogby spoke alongside a civil liberties leader and psychiatry and policy scholars, addressing the topic “Violent Extremism: How Are People Moved from Constitutionally-Protected Thought to Acts of Terrorism?”
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., asked the panel to provide insight on “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.”

“I hope our witnesses can help us to separate the intellectual process of committing to a political agenda (protected by the 1st Amendment) from the operational process of moving from non-violence to violence (not protected),” Harman said. “We need to be able to intervene to stop individuals in our schools, neighborhoods, religious centers and jails who are persuaded by extreme violent messaging, whether through the internet, friends or mentors to commit violent acts, before it is too late.”

Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago Stevan Weine testified that “Empirical research on terrorists does not support looking solely at individual-level risk factors.”

“Nor does it 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.”

Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington legislative office, warned against government counter-terrorism tactics that cross constitutional lines, citing past programs like the McCarthy-era Committee on Un-American Activities and the FBI’s domestic counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO).

“Congress must tread carefully when attempting to examine people’s thoughts or classify their beliefs as inside or outside the mainstream to avoid infringing on fundamental rights that are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Sacrificing our civil liberties in the pursuit of security is unwise, unnecessary, and according to several recent studies, counterproductive to preventing extremist violence,” Macleod-Ball said.

“Recent cases, of course, are of real concern,” said Zogby, “but we should not use a sledgehammer where a scalpel is needed. In the final analysis, how we react is of critical importance to both our national security and our national character.”

Kim Cragin, senior policy analyst for RAND Corporation, an international research and development group, said maintaining good relations between law enforcement and local communities is an important way to identify potentially violent radicals, citing last week’s arrests of five Virginia youths in Pakistan accused of trying to establish ties with militant groups there.

“The U.S. government already has established ties with Muslim community leaders,” she said. “And, indeed, the aforementioned case of the five youths arrested in Pakistan last week reportedly was brought to the attention of U.S. authorities through Muslim community leaders. I cannot image how difficult it was for these community leaders to call U.S. authorities and, regardless of the outcome, we owe them a great deal of respect and gratitude. Nonetheless, more could be done.”