The Frankfurter School

On “The Daily Show” a few nights ago, Jon Stewart devoted a long segment to the hearings that were held last week by the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on the virtual world Second Life. The comedy segment’s first laugh came at the expense of Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) who warned of the dangers of terrorists using second life as a recruiting tool. Stewart looked at the camera, addressing Harman directly and slowly, said “I don’t believe you.”

But Jane Harman’s fear-mongering is no laughing matter. There is no more shrill voice on the Democratic side of the House aisle than Rep. Harman, who sees terror and danger around every corner. Perhaps it’s because her Los Angeles district is home to some of the writers and locations for the FOX terrorism-in-the-homeland spectacle 24, but her knack for smelling danger in our midst is unparalleled. Last month she published an editorial for the San Jose Mercury News (also published in The Huffington Post ) beginning with a breathlessly vivid scene of suicide bombers exploding dirty bombs at LAX airport and New York’s Times Square. The point in her litany of danger-porn was that “security strategy” is a huge priority for the next president, and her first suggestion is to “anticipate and prevent attacks” by better understanding the “motivations and capabilities” of our enemies.

Just who these enemies might be is one of the scariest things about Rep. Harman’s singular focus on terror prevention. Much like predicting in advance who will become a criminal, predicting who among us might become a terrorist is a difficult task. Harman has taken to it aggressively, sponsoring a bill which sailed through the House last year called the “Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007“, ominously subtitled “to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.” The act establishes a commission to hold hearings around the country and a “Center of Excellence” to study the findings on what might make individuals “born and raised” in the US tend towards violence in support of their ideological leanings, or “to advance political, religious, or social change.” The bill has earned the nickname “The Thought Crimes Bill” because of its Orwellian language and its focus on dissent as an indicator of potential violent radicalization. The RAND corporation, which has close ties to Rep. Harman and is rumored to have written the bill, has long studied this issue and identifies environmentalists and anti-globalization activists as target groups to watch for ideologically-based violence.

Jane Harman is a “Blue Dog” Democrat who is reported to have once called herself “The best Republican in the Democratic Party.” She is a multi-millionaire (Harman/Kardon electronics) and a pro-war hawk who voted twice for the PATRIOT Act. She was in line to become the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when the Democrats regained Congress in 2006 but was passed over by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when it was reported that Harman was under federal investigation for allegedly improper dealings with AIPAC lobbyists.

As the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Harman was part of the “gang of eight,” a select few with whom the Bush Administration shared its classified and illegal domestic spying programs. Eric Lichtblau, the New York Times reporter whose work with James Risen first exposed the program to the public, writes in his new book Bush’s Law, that Harman was in total support of the eavesdropping program, even imploring the Times not to reveal it to the public (and attacking the paper on “Meet the Press” when they did), only to later flip-flop and turn against it after the public outcry, claiming to have consulted with constitutional experts once it was legal to do so. Harman has even written in defense of her position(s) on a popular blog, writing “The premise of strong Congressional intelligence oversight is that members will guard sensitive information.” Actually, Ms. Harman, the premise of strong Congressional intelligence oversight is that members of Congress will act as a check and balance on the executive branch and act as a watchdog for abuse and illegality as a representative of the people.

In 2006, Jane Harman fought off a primary challenge from progressive Marcy Winograd, who garnered nearly 40% of the vote. California’s 36th Congressional district is safely Democratic, having gone for Kerry by a nearly twenty-point margin in the 2004 election. By many accounts, Harman has tacked to the left in the last two years and is now very aware of how out of step she is with her Venice constituents. But although she may now be cautious about her hawkish votes on Iraq, she has really only shifted tactics in support of her defense contractor lobbyist/supporters. Hyping threats and policing the internet are not making us safer, and Rep. Harman is an example of exactly the kind of incumbent that makes a Democratic Congress so useless.

email this to a friend
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::