If the hearings hadn't been called by hypocritical douchebag Peter King, I might have accepted the premise that Congress ought to look into radicalization of American Muslims as a potential threat. But the hearings do not appear to have on the agenda the creation of an operational definition of "radicalization". How "radical" do you have to be before you are deemed to have been "radicalized"? What if you become radically committed to love and community service? Does that count? How meaningful is any of the testimony if the very topic has been left undefined?
Moreover, the hearings, despite their title, do not appear to be concerned with measuring the "extent" of the problem. A couple of anecdotes about nutty young Muslims does nothing to help us understand the extent of the problem, if it is one, or the potential for radicalization, whatever that might be.
Finally, if it is determined that some American Muslims are vulnerable to radicalization, what might a committee chaired by the likes of Peter King propose? Yellow armbands with crescents? Segregation of Muslims into camps or ghettos where we can keep an eye on them? Surely, a man who blatantly aims to smear and isolate an entire category of Americans by the way he conducts these hearings would be disinterested in efforts to fight memes with memes, the only way consistent with our values to confront the alleged threat. These hearings are about pandering to xenophobes.