« Obama and his Democrats' Economic Plan for Economic Growth and Jobs: Increased Federal Spending, Deficits, and Debt | Main | Obama To Blame High Gas Prices On US Oil Companies »

March 30, 2011

Radicalization Lessons: A Quick Study of Contrasts - Dem vs. GOP

There's a big difference between how Republicans view how hearings should be run and how some Democrats view the way hearings should be run. Although both parties clearly have an agenda, the GOP is willing to allow opposing-view witnesses to be heard. And as can be expected, much more is actually learned when opposing views are allowed to be heard.

This was clearly demonstrated in the sharp contrast between the balanced and statesmanlike hearings convened by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, earlier this month on Muslim radicalization ... and the unbalanced and unstatesmanlike Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) hearings on "Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims" (and only Muslims - period ... even though crimes against Jews are up to 8 times more than against Muslims). And contrary to what was learned from Senator Durbin's "Muslim appeasement hearings," Senator King's hearings on Muslim radicalization provided important lessons learned.

As Ben Lerner writes at American Spectator (emphasis mine):

Earlier this week, Sen. Richard Durbin convened a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on "Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims." The subcommittee heard from four witnesses, each giving the same one-sided narrative on this issue, but did not hear from any witnesses offering an alternative view. This was a sharp contrast to the more balanced and, indeed, statesmanlike hearings convened by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, earlier this month.

That committee's hearing on radicalization in the American Muslim community was an opportunity for focusing the public's attention on how Congress often works. While the witness statements and exchanges provided those who care deeply about U.S. national security with valuable insight as to what is causing "homegrown terrorism" and hindering law enforcement efforts to stop it, the hearing itself also gave us a window into some procedural, tactical and strategic lessons that can be drawn from that day's conversations as Congress hopefully continues to examine this issue.

To be sure, the substance of that hearing proved vital. We received first-hand accounts of families experiencing the process of recruitment to the jihadist cause. We learned that there are in fact brave American Muslims like Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy who are fighting -- against incredible odds -- to counteract the destructive presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups amongst Muslims in the United States. And we learned much about the congressional critics of the hearing as well, if only from their total lack of substance. Most of them, rather than delving seriously into this issue, fell back on tired claims of "Islamophobia, " insisting that the Ku Klux Klan and radical environmentalist groups were deserving of at least equal scrutiny, and that Chairman Peter King's decision to convene this hearing was McCarthyism risen from the dead.

There were other important takeaways, however, which can inform what happens next.

Posted by Richard at March 30, 2011 7:54 AM

• Radicalization Lessons: A Quick Study of Contrasts - Dem vs. GOP - Mar 30, 2011