US Democrats criticise Terrorism Designation Bill to ban the Muslim Brotherhood

America’s House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Wednesday to add the Muslim Brotherhood to the US list of banned foreign terrorist organisations. The bill was introduced initially by Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz last year; it was approved by 17 votes to 10. It now requires the Secretary of State to designate the movement within 60 days as a “terrorist organisation” or provide a detailed report explaining why he does not think it should be so listed.

If successful the terrorist designation would require the US administration to prevent foreign nationals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood from coming to the US. It would also mean that the movement would be subject to federal criminal prosecution and any of its assets in America would be frozen.

The State Department is responsible for America’s foreign policy and entrusted to make such designations. So far it has resisted joining the likes of Russia, Syria and Egypt – as well as a number of other repressive regimes – in adding the Brotherhood to the US list of terrorist organisations. After two years of investigation, Britain only recently stopped short of placing the movement on its own list of banned organisations.

During the House Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte, notable Democrats declared their opposition by raising a number of concerns over the bill, including the process by which this draconian measure is being undertaken. Congressman John Conyers was the first to urge his colleagues on both sides of the house to join him in opposing the legislation. The representative from Michigan cautioned against marking up a bill “without holding a single hearing and without considering the serious diplomatic and foreign policy ramifications of [our] actions.”

Referring to a previous attempt to designate the Taliban as a terrorist organisation, the veteran politician added, “It is very worrisome that the majority appears to be making a habit of bringing up measures for consideration that have received no deliberative process.” On that occasion, following his intervention, the majority moved the bill out of the Committee. Conyers was alarmed by the Committee’s decision to take action without “any real consideration of the facts.” He pointed out that, “Once again, without holding any hearings or even receiving a briefing from the Department of State or the intelligence community, the House Judiciary Committee is marking up a bill that would have the United States designate a foreign organisation as a terrorist organisation”.

The Brotherhood Terrorism Designation Act, claim its supporters, is designed to de-fund American groups linked to the movement. The legislation targets “secret Palestine Committees” in countries around the world that “covertly assist the Hamas terrorist group.” Proponents of the Bill even subscribe to the “global Muslim plot to take over the world” narrative by professing that the intentions of the Brotherhood in America are, “A kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilisation from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

All of this, of course, sounds more like conspiracy theory than reality. “Any terrorist designation must be based on the facts, not innuendo and supposition,” said Conyers. “Since swearing off violence in the 1950s, the Brotherhood has become a predominantly non-violent religious, political, and social service organisation.” He pointed to what appears to be uncharacteristic oversight by the Committee. “Before rushing to conclusions that can lead to unknown or unintended consequences,” he advised, “our Committee should weigh and consider the specific facts that pertain to this complex organisation.”

Few would have imagined that the current anti-Muslim rhetoric in America would make its way into the country’s legal process, but that is what many would say is exactly what is happening. “I fear that this bill appeals to our base fears,” Conyers noted. “Islamophobia may be good politics – time will tell – but it is certainly not good policy. It does not serve our national security or foreign policy interests. And it will not make us safer.”

Sheila Jackson Lee intervened to endorse Conyers’ comments, directing her criticism of the bill specifically at the decision to usurp the State Department. The Congresswoman from Texas puzzled over the prudence of the decision by the Committee to engage in a process that has been “appropriately handled by the State Department with their thorough assessment as they place entities on the terrorist list.”

Congresswomen Lee, acutely aware of the normalisation of anti-Muslim bigotry in America, was wary about the move to ban the Brotherhood in the current political climate, wherein presidential candidates are calling for Muslims to be banned from entering the country. The bill as it stands is likely to reinforce hateful rhetoric; it would not only put American Muslims and organisations under intense pressure, but it could also make it easier for the US authorities to deny entry to anyone, especially Muslims, suspected of having links to the movement. This, believes, Ms Lee, gives an entirely wrong impression of America to Muslims around the world, the vast majority of whom are equally against terrorism. She concluded by stressing her disapproval of the process by underlining the fact that the State Department and intelligence community assets are the appropriate government authorities to make such designations.

Despite such interventions, the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015”. The Secretary of State may choose not to include the movement on the terrorist list, so it will be interesting to see if John Kerry does so, or what his “detailed explanation” for not doing so will include.

The fact that this bill has reached this stage highlights the alarming rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in the United States. Due process and other hallmarks of healthy democracies appear to be compromised and the federal institutions normally entrusted to make such sensitive decisions as terrorist designations are under intense pressure from the political right. John Kerry’s decision could be a key litmus test for the future of Muslims in America and its relations with the Muslim world.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.