In her latest article in the Indypendent, Jessica Lee highlighted the role of the RAND Corporation in drafting the the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.” Writes Lee:
The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND … and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.
Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.
But RAND does more than just push thought-crime legislation through Congress. Indeed, a report released today by the City of New York shows just how long the reach of the RAND Corporation is. According to the New York Times:
Whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on the street in New York City. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people — or to use force against them — according to a study released yesterday.
The study [was commissioned] by the Rand Corporation in March after it was revealed that the police stopped 508,540 people on the street last year.
Most importantly, the study “found no evidence of racial profiling,” writes the New York Sun:
A long-awaited independent review of half a million reports by the New York Police Department of stop, question, and frisk encounters with civilians was hailed yesterday by police officials, who said the review found no pattern of racial profiling.
The study, by the Rand Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif., found that black pedestrians were stopped by police “at a rate that is 20 to 30% lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.
The reason for the seemingly contradictory results? RAND’s methodology, critics argue:
Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the report “hugely flawed,” saying that the document was more striking for what it did not say than for what it said. She said the report relied on “inappropriate benchmarks” to reach its findings.
Shock of shocks: another dodgy government report from the RAND Corp. This time, in our own backyard.
~ link ~
