![]() ![]() The officials spoke about the new rules on condition of anonymity because they have not yet been made public. ![]() But several officials said that as a study group spoke with service members this year they found that many wanted clearer definitions of what was not allowed. What was wrong yesterday is still wrong today, said one senior defense official. Previous policies banned extremist activities but didn't go into such great detail, and also did not specify the two step process to determine someone accountable. The rules also specify that commanders must determine two things in order for someone to be held accountable: that the action was an extremist activity, as defined in the rules, and that the service member “actively participated” in that prohibited activity. The new policy lays out in detail the banned activities, which range from advocating terrorism or supporting the overthrow of the government to fundraising or rallying on behalf of an extremist group or “liking” or reposting extremist views on social media. And for the first time, it is far more specific about social media. Ultimately, this latest push solidifies what most advocates already know: Counter-extremism programs are themselves tools of white supremacy, and must come to an end.Officials said the new policy doesn't largely change what is prohibited, but is more of an effort to make sure troops are clear on what they can and can't do, while still protecting their First Amendment free speech rights. Even if these efforts claim to root out white supremacists, funding them is likely to further harm communities already traumatized by government surveillance. In late July, the Senate Armed Services Committee said the Department of Defense should “discontinue” counter-extremism programs directed towards the military. Lawmakers have also been critical of the counter-extremism rebrand. In a recent report and toolkit, University of Illinois researcher Nicole Nguyen and community-based researcher Yazan Zahzah noted that relying on counter-extremism to address white supremacy would “strengthen institutions that harm people of color (and) obscure structural inequality.” Part of 2015’s Counterterrorism and Security Act, the Prevent Duty places responsibility on public sectors to “look out for signs of radicalisation.” ![]() counter-extremism program known as the Prevent Duty. In March, I interviewed Layla Aitlhadj, director of Prevent Watch, for a report on the U.K. We can also draw insights from counter-extremism watchdogs in the United Kingdom. While there are few studies on specific counter-extremism programs, the negative psychological impacts of surveillance are widely documented. Federal agencies like DHS and the FBI have a long history of targeting racial justice and pro-choice activists, referring to them, for example, as “Black Identity Extremists” or “Abortion-Related Violent Extremists.” Historically, this nebulous category has been used to clamp down on social movements. However, the program was created to combat so-called domestic violent extremism. ![]() 2022, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told NPR he was “very cognizant of the trust deficit” related to counter-extremism and “that is precisely why we created CP3.” In 2016, the group applied for a DHS grant with plans to expand its work to target “jihadism.” In Jan. Its efforts largely focused on funding the nonprofit Life After Hate, which claims to help people leave white supremacist groups. The federal government has already tried to rebrand counter-extremism as the antidote to white supremacist activity. Civil rights advocates were immediately wary of CP3, citing previous counter-extremism programming’s surveillance of primarily Black and Muslim communities. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |