By Jonathan Kay | NationalPost | August 21, 2012 | [Original Article]
"In a recent Daily Beast article,
I criticized right-wing American activists who have become convinced
that a network of influential Washington insiders is secretly conspiring
to turn the United States into a Muslim theocracy governed by the laws
of Shariah. The launching off point for my article was the recent
letter-writing campaign by Michelle Bachmann, and four other GOP
congressional representatives, aimed at sniffing out alleged Muslim
Brotherhood operatives. But I also profiled American Center for Security
Policy president Frank Gaffney, who served as an assistant defense
secretary in the Reagan administration...
...In recent years, Gaffney has become an influential guru for Bachmann and
other anti-shariah activists, and I held up his claims as an example of
what I regard as paranoia. For example, his web site, muslimbrotherhoodinamerica,
suggests that America is under attack from “a stealthy and pre-violent
form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of
democratic government and free society,” and that this secret force is
the reason that America is “no closer to victory in the so-called ‘war
on terror’ than we were on 9/11.” I wrote that Gaffney’s overall
message, while well-intentioned, essentially amounts to a conspiracy
theory — with the Muslim Brotherhood cast as arch-villain...
...That 1991 memo exemplifies the truth that there always will be isolated
extremists within Western societies — whether Islamists, or white
supremicists (like the Milwaukee shooter) who spend their days dreaming
of revolutions that are never going to happen. When we discover them,
they should be investigated and prosecuted. But I’d urge Mr. Gaffney not
to puff up their revolutionary delusions to such a point that they
become fuel for witch hunts."
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Creeping Counterterrorism: From Muslims to Political Protesters
By Sahar Aziz | Truth-out.org | August 21 2012 | [Original Article]
"Few Americans are surprised to hear that 9/11 shifted our domestic terrorism focus from neo-Nazis and white supremacists to Muslims in America. What may come as a surprise, however, is the pervasive use of anti-terrorism powers against non-Muslims as well, including white middle-class protesters - as we saw in the Occupy movement.
The 9/11 terrorists' warped misinterpretation of Islam triggered a maelstrom of expanded national security powers selectively enforced against American Muslims en masse. Mosques are infiltrated with dubious and highly paid informants, thereby chilling religious freedom. Mentally unstable young Muslim men are targets of overzealous counterterrorism sting operations, and Muslim student associations are under mass surveillance for no apparent reason other than the religious identity of their members. Despite the serious civil liberties implications of such selective enforcement, it has occurred with minimal opposition by the American public.
Our shortsighted forfeiture of civil liberties based on fears of the "Muslim other" now equips our government to quash political dissent..." [Read More]
"... By believing in the fallacy of the "Muslim terrorist other," we weakened our resolve to protect fundamental American values. As a result, post-9/11 counterterrorism authorities are used to spy, infiltrate, entrap, arrest and aggressively prosecute any protesters.
When we allow governments to forfeit our civil rights to protect "us" from "them," we lose sight of how quickly we can become the "them."
So, how many more Americans must be subjected to civil liberties violations before we realize that no one is immune from creeping counterterrorism?"
"Few Americans are surprised to hear that 9/11 shifted our domestic terrorism focus from neo-Nazis and white supremacists to Muslims in America. What may come as a surprise, however, is the pervasive use of anti-terrorism powers against non-Muslims as well, including white middle-class protesters - as we saw in the Occupy movement.
The 9/11 terrorists' warped misinterpretation of Islam triggered a maelstrom of expanded national security powers selectively enforced against American Muslims en masse. Mosques are infiltrated with dubious and highly paid informants, thereby chilling religious freedom. Mentally unstable young Muslim men are targets of overzealous counterterrorism sting operations, and Muslim student associations are under mass surveillance for no apparent reason other than the religious identity of their members. Despite the serious civil liberties implications of such selective enforcement, it has occurred with minimal opposition by the American public.
Our shortsighted forfeiture of civil liberties based on fears of the "Muslim other" now equips our government to quash political dissent..." [Read More]
"... By believing in the fallacy of the "Muslim terrorist other," we weakened our resolve to protect fundamental American values. As a result, post-9/11 counterterrorism authorities are used to spy, infiltrate, entrap, arrest and aggressively prosecute any protesters.
When we allow governments to forfeit our civil rights to protect "us" from "them," we lose sight of how quickly we can become the "them."
So, how many more Americans must be subjected to civil liberties violations before we realize that no one is immune from creeping counterterrorism?"
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Who's Behind the Anti-Islam Ads on MTA and Muni?
By Adam Serwer | MotherJones.com | August 15, 2012 | [Original Article]
"They're popping up on public transit all over New York and San Francisco: Advertisements sponsored by anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller that imply Muslims are "savages," dismiss "Islamophobia" as "Islamorealism," and urge passengers to "support Israel" and "defeat jihad."
This isn't the first time Geller, who warned America about "stealth halal" turkeys last Thanksgiving, has used a public transit ad campaign to get her views out. In 2010, she sponsored ads attacking a proposed Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero as a "Mega Mosque" celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Another ad campaign Geller sponsored offered help to those who may have a "Fatwa on [their] head" and are considering "leaving Islam." This time, her ads, which are sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)—one of the many anti-Islam groups Geller is associated with, were so controversial that New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority initially rejected them.
One of Geller's ads features a paraphrase of an Ayn Rand quote, "in any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." The text also urges people to "support Israel" and "defeat jihad." When the MTA rejected that ad on the grounds that it was defamatory towards a group on the basis of religion, Geller and her attorney David Yerushalmi (the man behind much of the anti-Shariah legislation being proposed in conservative states) sued..." [Read More]
"They're popping up on public transit all over New York and San Francisco: Advertisements sponsored by anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller that imply Muslims are "savages," dismiss "Islamophobia" as "Islamorealism," and urge passengers to "support Israel" and "defeat jihad."
This isn't the first time Geller, who warned America about "stealth halal" turkeys last Thanksgiving, has used a public transit ad campaign to get her views out. In 2010, she sponsored ads attacking a proposed Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero as a "Mega Mosque" celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Another ad campaign Geller sponsored offered help to those who may have a "Fatwa on [their] head" and are considering "leaving Islam." This time, her ads, which are sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)—one of the many anti-Islam groups Geller is associated with, were so controversial that New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority initially rejected them.
One of Geller's ads features a paraphrase of an Ayn Rand quote, "in any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." The text also urges people to "support Israel" and "defeat jihad." When the MTA rejected that ad on the grounds that it was defamatory towards a group on the basis of religion, Geller and her attorney David Yerushalmi (the man behind much of the anti-Shariah legislation being proposed in conservative states) sued..." [Read More]
Friday, August 10, 2012
What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution
By Tangerine Bolen | Guardian.co.uk | August 10, 2012 | [Original Article]
"...I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported..."
"...In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA..."
... I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions...." [ Read More]
"...I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported..."
"...In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA..."
... I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions...." [ Read More]
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Deploying Informants, the FBI Stings Muslims
By Petra Bartosiewicz | TheNation.com | June 13, 2012 | [Original Article]
According to the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, there have been 138 terrorism or national security prosecutions involving informants since 2001, and more than a third of those have occurred in the past three years. Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism….
After the men were convicted at trial, the judge in the case, Colleen McMahon, said it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here” and criticized the FBI for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.” The men were sentenced to twenty-five years in prison….
These informants operate in a post-9/11 environment of relaxed guidelines that allow the FBI to engage in lengthy and extensive surveillance of individuals and communities with little or no evidence of any wrongdoing afoot. Where once agents needed to have a “predicate” to launch such an investigation, these days none are required…
Though relatively few informant-driven investigations have led to the discovery of actual “homegrown” plots, the Muslim community for years has reported instances of people being approached by informants trying to enlist them in violent jihad. At times the informants have been so aggressive they have quickly raised suspicions. At a California mosque in 2010 one FBI informant, Craig Monteilh, advocated violent jihad so vehemently that the mosque’s members sought and received a restraining order against him. Monteilh, a former fitness instructor paid $177,000 over the course of his service with the FBI, participated in what the bureau dubbed Operation Flex, in which he was assigned to monitor gyms and mosques across Orange County, California, home to the country’s second-largest Muslim population. “We started hearing that he was saying weird things,” college student Omar Kurdi later told a reporter. “He would walk up to one of my friends and say, ‘It’s good that you guys are getting ready for the jihad.’”
… He also gave a statement in support of a suit filed against the bureau by the ACLU that named the then head of the Los Angeles office, J. Stephen Tidwell, who had made a point of visiting a mosque in Irvine in June 2006 and telling the congregants that the FBI would not spy on them. “If we’re going to mosques to come to services, we will tell you,” he said. “We don’t want you to think you’re being monitored. We would come only to learn.” The next month, agents under Tidwell deployed Monteilh to the very same mosque….
According to Monteilh, his handlers in Operation Flex instructed him to identify potential militants or, failing that, to “pay attention to people’s problems”—such as marital or business difficulties—and assess whether individuals might be susceptible to rumors about their sexual orientation “so that they could be persuaded to become informants.” His handlers also told him that “everybody knows somebody,” meaning that people from Afghanistan, for example, would inevitably have family members or acquaintances with ties to the Taliban—information the FBI could use to “threaten…and pressure them to provide information, or could justify additional surveillance.” Monteilh said the agents also gave him the green light to have sex with Muslim women for investigative purposes. “They said if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex,” he told a reporter. “So I did.” When Monteilh asked his handler, agent Kevin Armstrong, about the FBI’s broad latitude in conducting the investigation, he said Armstrong told him that on national security matters, “Kevin is God.”
In 2005 the FBI’s Office of the Inspector General found “serious shortcomings” in the bureau’s Criminal Informant Program. The report, which examined some 120 cases, including those related to terrorism, found that 87 percent of the investigations involving informants contained violations of the FBI’s own guidelines. Among the chief violations were the failure of agents to caution informants about the “limits of their activities,” the “failure to report unauthorized illegal activity” by their informants, and the issuance of “retroactive approvals” for illegal acts the informants had already committed. The report noted that since 2001 the rules had been loosened at the FBI’s request to reflect the new emphasis on intelligence gathering, and by extension the bureau’s dire need for informants. In testimony before Congress in May 2002, FBI Director Mueller argued that requiring agents to read “verbatim instructions” to their informants, “written in often intimidating legalese, [was] proving to have a chilling effect, causing confidential informants to leave the program.”
… “The FBI approaches the vast majority of our clients as potential informants to partake in mass surveillance of Muslim communities, unconnected to any real criminal investigation,” said Amna Akbar, a supervising attorney at CLEAR. “The bureau is aggressively attempting to cultivate informants in Muslim communities by using coercion, pressure tactics and intimidation.”
According to the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, there have been 138 terrorism or national security prosecutions involving informants since 2001, and more than a third of those have occurred in the past three years. Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism….
After the men were convicted at trial, the judge in the case, Colleen McMahon, said it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here” and criticized the FBI for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.” The men were sentenced to twenty-five years in prison….
These informants operate in a post-9/11 environment of relaxed guidelines that allow the FBI to engage in lengthy and extensive surveillance of individuals and communities with little or no evidence of any wrongdoing afoot. Where once agents needed to have a “predicate” to launch such an investigation, these days none are required…
Though relatively few informant-driven investigations have led to the discovery of actual “homegrown” plots, the Muslim community for years has reported instances of people being approached by informants trying to enlist them in violent jihad. At times the informants have been so aggressive they have quickly raised suspicions. At a California mosque in 2010 one FBI informant, Craig Monteilh, advocated violent jihad so vehemently that the mosque’s members sought and received a restraining order against him. Monteilh, a former fitness instructor paid $177,000 over the course of his service with the FBI, participated in what the bureau dubbed Operation Flex, in which he was assigned to monitor gyms and mosques across Orange County, California, home to the country’s second-largest Muslim population. “We started hearing that he was saying weird things,” college student Omar Kurdi later told a reporter. “He would walk up to one of my friends and say, ‘It’s good that you guys are getting ready for the jihad.’”
… He also gave a statement in support of a suit filed against the bureau by the ACLU that named the then head of the Los Angeles office, J. Stephen Tidwell, who had made a point of visiting a mosque in Irvine in June 2006 and telling the congregants that the FBI would not spy on them. “If we’re going to mosques to come to services, we will tell you,” he said. “We don’t want you to think you’re being monitored. We would come only to learn.” The next month, agents under Tidwell deployed Monteilh to the very same mosque….
According to Monteilh, his handlers in Operation Flex instructed him to identify potential militants or, failing that, to “pay attention to people’s problems”—such as marital or business difficulties—and assess whether individuals might be susceptible to rumors about their sexual orientation “so that they could be persuaded to become informants.” His handlers also told him that “everybody knows somebody,” meaning that people from Afghanistan, for example, would inevitably have family members or acquaintances with ties to the Taliban—information the FBI could use to “threaten…and pressure them to provide information, or could justify additional surveillance.” Monteilh said the agents also gave him the green light to have sex with Muslim women for investigative purposes. “They said if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex,” he told a reporter. “So I did.” When Monteilh asked his handler, agent Kevin Armstrong, about the FBI’s broad latitude in conducting the investigation, he said Armstrong told him that on national security matters, “Kevin is God.”
In 2005 the FBI’s Office of the Inspector General found “serious shortcomings” in the bureau’s Criminal Informant Program. The report, which examined some 120 cases, including those related to terrorism, found that 87 percent of the investigations involving informants contained violations of the FBI’s own guidelines. Among the chief violations were the failure of agents to caution informants about the “limits of their activities,” the “failure to report unauthorized illegal activity” by their informants, and the issuance of “retroactive approvals” for illegal acts the informants had already committed. The report noted that since 2001 the rules had been loosened at the FBI’s request to reflect the new emphasis on intelligence gathering, and by extension the bureau’s dire need for informants. In testimony before Congress in May 2002, FBI Director Mueller argued that requiring agents to read “verbatim instructions” to their informants, “written in often intimidating legalese, [was] proving to have a chilling effect, causing confidential informants to leave the program.”
… “The FBI approaches the vast majority of our clients as potential informants to partake in mass surveillance of Muslim communities, unconnected to any real criminal investigation,” said Amna Akbar, a supervising attorney at CLEAR. “The bureau is aggressively attempting to cultivate informants in Muslim communities by using coercion, pressure tactics and intimidation.”
Thursday, June 14, 2012
A First Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives
Asma Uddin & Dave Pantzer | ISPU| June 14, 2012 | [Original Article]
Executive Summary
"Ten years after September 11, 2001, the American Muslim community continues to be surrounded by a fear created and promoted mostly by a small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals. Collectively, these groups have spread their message in twenty-three states through books, reports, websites, and blogs. Other anti-Islam grassroots organizations have utilized this propaganda to “educate” their constituency. The Center for American Progress defines Islamophobia as an “exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.” This Islamophobia movement’s ability to influence politicians’ talking has made mainstream that which was once considered marginal, extremist rhetoric.
The impact of the Islamophobia campaign upon the American public’s perception of Islam and Muslims has been very negative. Approximately half of all Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam. To date, dozens of bills have been introduced in more than half of the states to ban Sharia and/or international law. Some of these bills are overly broad, and some in essence would outlaw any organization that adhered to any Islamic jurisprudential school. The Muslim community pushed back, specifically because the regulations on common activities such as how to wash before prayer or how much money to give to the poor emanate from these same schools of thought and would cause great restrictions on their ability to practice their faith.
This report describes the broader climate of anti-Muslim sentiment, as promoted by anti-Islam grassroots organizations, and examines the various manifestations of this hate in light of the First Amendment. More specifically, this report analyzes the anti-Sharia bills and ballot measures proposed by numerous states and determines the extent to which they comply with free exercise and establishment principles and jurisprudence"
Key Findings
The American legal system has built-in safeguards
"The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power...." [Read More]
"Ten years after September 11, 2001, the American Muslim community continues to be surrounded by a fear created and promoted mostly by a small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals. Collectively, these groups have spread their message in twenty-three states through books, reports, websites, and blogs. Other anti-Islam grassroots organizations have utilized this propaganda to “educate” their constituency. The Center for American Progress defines Islamophobia as an “exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.” This Islamophobia movement’s ability to influence politicians’ talking has made mainstream that which was once considered marginal, extremist rhetoric.
The impact of the Islamophobia campaign upon the American public’s perception of Islam and Muslims has been very negative. Approximately half of all Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam. To date, dozens of bills have been introduced in more than half of the states to ban Sharia and/or international law. Some of these bills are overly broad, and some in essence would outlaw any organization that adhered to any Islamic jurisprudential school. The Muslim community pushed back, specifically because the regulations on common activities such as how to wash before prayer or how much money to give to the poor emanate from these same schools of thought and would cause great restrictions on their ability to practice their faith.
This report describes the broader climate of anti-Muslim sentiment, as promoted by anti-Islam grassroots organizations, and examines the various manifestations of this hate in light of the First Amendment. More specifically, this report analyzes the anti-Sharia bills and ballot measures proposed by numerous states and determines the extent to which they comply with free exercise and establishment principles and jurisprudence"
The American legal system has built-in safeguards
"The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power...." [Read More]
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Closing a loophole in the war on terror
By Los Angeles Times | June 3, 2012 | [Original Article]
"...Adding Feinstein's language to the 2013 defense authorization bill would do away with an ambiguity that a future administration could exploit to hold Americans without trial. The question is whether it goes far enough. Not only U.S. citizens arrested in the United States but those arrested abroad — and, for that matter, all suspected terrorists — should be afforded a civilian trial.
Unfortunately, despite the proven success of the civilian justice system in trying terrorism cases, Congress continues to thwart the administration's original plan to hold civilian trials for detainees now held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks. (Mohammed and four confederates are instead being tried by a military commission.) Congress should establish one system of justice for all suspected terrorists, but the Feinstein bill would at least codify Obama's promise that no U.S. citizen will be held without trial." [Read More]
"...Adding Feinstein's language to the 2013 defense authorization bill would do away with an ambiguity that a future administration could exploit to hold Americans without trial. The question is whether it goes far enough. Not only U.S. citizens arrested in the United States but those arrested abroad — and, for that matter, all suspected terrorists — should be afforded a civilian trial.
Unfortunately, despite the proven success of the civilian justice system in trying terrorism cases, Congress continues to thwart the administration's original plan to hold civilian trials for detainees now held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks. (Mohammed and four confederates are instead being tried by a military commission.) Congress should establish one system of justice for all suspected terrorists, but the Feinstein bill would at least codify Obama's promise that no U.S. citizen will be held without trial." [Read More]
Crusade 2.0
John Feffer talked about the resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West and reviewed the actions that the U.S. has taken against Muslim countries since September 11, 2001.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Bush’s Terror Overreach Becomes ’New Normal’ Under Obama
By Albert R. Hunt| Bloomberg.com | May 27, 2012 | [Original Article]
"Critics of President George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism efforts, mainly Democrats and some Republicans, rejoiced when Barack Obama was elected. They were convinced that what they considered the post-Sept. 11 trampling of constitutional rights and civil liberties would end...
...Things look different today. In his new book, “Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11,” Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who served in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush and objected to some of that administration’s tactics, writes: “The Obama administration would continue almost all of its predecessor’s policies, transforming what had seemed extraordinary under the Bush regime into the ‘new normal’ of American counter-terrorism policy.” That seems only a slight exaggeration..."
Self-Correction
"...In his first week in office, Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, issued an executive order banning torture and suspended military commissions. There was tremendous political blowback to his decision to close Guantanamo and move the accused terrorists to the U.S. or try suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in U.S. courts. Congress ultimately cut off funding for any such actions..."
Rendition Reversal
"...He backed off on ending rendition -- the policy of sending alleged terrorists to other countries for interrogation -- insisting that the U.S. would ensure that torture is no longer practiced in the places they are sent and that their treatment is in accord with international laws. The administration also says it has curbed the excesses of indefinite detention without trial, which now requires judicial review..."
...Things look different today. In his new book, “Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11,” Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who served in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bush and objected to some of that administration’s tactics, writes: “The Obama administration would continue almost all of its predecessor’s policies, transforming what had seemed extraordinary under the Bush regime into the ‘new normal’ of American counter-terrorism policy.” That seems only a slight exaggeration..."
Self-Correction
"...In his first week in office, Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, issued an executive order banning torture and suspended military commissions. There was tremendous political blowback to his decision to close Guantanamo and move the accused terrorists to the U.S. or try suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in U.S. courts. Congress ultimately cut off funding for any such actions..."
Rendition Reversal
"...He backed off on ending rendition -- the policy of sending alleged terrorists to other countries for interrogation -- insisting that the U.S. would ensure that torture is no longer practiced in the places they are sent and that their treatment is in accord with international laws. The administration also says it has curbed the excesses of indefinite detention without trial, which now requires judicial review..."
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
More federal judge abdication
By Glenn Greenwald | Salon.com | May 4, 2012 | [Original Article]
"...That is how history will record the behavior of American federal judges in the face of the post-9/11 onslaught of anti-Muslim persecution and relentless erosions of core rights...
...Even worse, if you’re a Muslim accused of any Terror-related crime, your conviction in a federal court is virtually guaranteed, as federal judges will bend the law and issue pro-government rulings that they would never make with a non-Muslim defendant; conversely, if you’re a government official who abused or otherwise violated the rights of Muslims, your full-scale immunity is virtually guaranteed..." [Read More]
"...That is how history will record the behavior of American federal judges in the face of the post-9/11 onslaught of anti-Muslim persecution and relentless erosions of core rights...
...Even worse, if you’re a Muslim accused of any Terror-related crime, your conviction in a federal court is virtually guaranteed, as federal judges will bend the law and issue pro-government rulings that they would never make with a non-Muslim defendant; conversely, if you’re a government official who abused or otherwise violated the rights of Muslims, your full-scale immunity is virtually guaranteed..." [Read More]
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The enemy isn't Islam
By Chris Ingram | Tampa Tribune | May 15, 2012 | [Original Article]
"...The plight of my ancestors is similar to those of countless immigrants who settled in what would become the United States of America.
Despite the fact that most Americans have stories of their ancestors coming here under less-than-desirable circumstances, a few among us seek to deny those who don't share the same religious beliefs the very rights and privileges that make America the place to be for those looking for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Last Saturday a group of self-described "patriots" assembled in Tampa at what they billed as a "Stop the Cultural Jihad" rally. In an email announcing the event, organizers said the purpose of the rally was to protest the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which met in Tampa over the weekend...
Earlier this year the same bunch of knuckle-draggers were outraged when Hassan Shibly, a Muslim associated with a different group on the government's unindicted co-conspirator list, spoke to Steinbrenner High School students about Islam.
...While the immediate reaction of many Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks was to treat all Muslims with a suspicious eye, today, most of us accept the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists (or have an anti-American agenda), and that not all terrorists are Muslims. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was a terrorist. He was also a Christian — and a Republican.
During the Crusades of the 11th century, Christians persecuted Muslims and Jews. For their part, Jews were called "Christ-killers" and given the choice of "accepting the cross or die." Needless to say, a lot of Jews chose the latter... [Read More]
...For their part, the "patriots" aren't bad people; they are just ignorant. The enemy isn't Islam, and we shouldn't feel threatened by those wearing a turban, any more than Jews should fear Christians or anyone entering a federal court building should fear Christian Republicans.
It is neither Christian nor patriotic to promote all this hate, but when people live in fear, they need an identifiable enemy — whether real or perceived"
"...The plight of my ancestors is similar to those of countless immigrants who settled in what would become the United States of America.
Despite the fact that most Americans have stories of their ancestors coming here under less-than-desirable circumstances, a few among us seek to deny those who don't share the same religious beliefs the very rights and privileges that make America the place to be for those looking for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Last Saturday a group of self-described "patriots" assembled in Tampa at what they billed as a "Stop the Cultural Jihad" rally. In an email announcing the event, organizers said the purpose of the rally was to protest the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which met in Tampa over the weekend...
Earlier this year the same bunch of knuckle-draggers were outraged when Hassan Shibly, a Muslim associated with a different group on the government's unindicted co-conspirator list, spoke to Steinbrenner High School students about Islam.
...While the immediate reaction of many Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks was to treat all Muslims with a suspicious eye, today, most of us accept the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists (or have an anti-American agenda), and that not all terrorists are Muslims. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was a terrorist. He was also a Christian — and a Republican.
During the Crusades of the 11th century, Christians persecuted Muslims and Jews. For their part, Jews were called "Christ-killers" and given the choice of "accepting the cross or die." Needless to say, a lot of Jews chose the latter... [Read More]
...For their part, the "patriots" aren't bad people; they are just ignorant. The enemy isn't Islam, and we shouldn't feel threatened by those wearing a turban, any more than Jews should fear Christians or anyone entering a federal court building should fear Christian Republicans.
It is neither Christian nor patriotic to promote all this hate, but when people live in fear, they need an identifiable enemy — whether real or perceived"
Monday, April 30, 2012
Far-right anti-Muslim network on rise globally as Breivik trial opens
By Mark Townsend | TheGaurdian | April 14, 2012 | [Original Article]
"...The international network of counter-jihadist groups that inspired Anders Behring Breivik is growing in reach and influence, according to a report released on the eve of the Norwegian's trial...
...Far-right organisations are becoming more cohesive as they forge alliances throughout Europe and the US, says the study, with 190 groups now identified as promoting an Islamophobic agenda...
...In Europe as a whole, 133 organisations were named in the report, including seven in Norway, and another 47 in the US, where a network of neo-conservative, evangelical and conservative organisations attempts to spread "negative perceptions of Islam, Muslim minorities and Islamic culture"...
...Andreas Mammone, a historian at Kingston University in London and an expert on European fascism, said broader factors had helped the counter-jihad movement to consolidate support. "The economic crisis continues to promote nationalism alongside the need for a common enemy. A fear of radical Islam is being developed, the idea that it presents a threat to our freedom," he said..."
"...The international network of counter-jihadist groups that inspired Anders Behring Breivik is growing in reach and influence, according to a report released on the eve of the Norwegian's trial...
...Far-right organisations are becoming more cohesive as they forge alliances throughout Europe and the US, says the study, with 190 groups now identified as promoting an Islamophobic agenda...
...In Europe as a whole, 133 organisations were named in the report, including seven in Norway, and another 47 in the US, where a network of neo-conservative, evangelical and conservative organisations attempts to spread "negative perceptions of Islam, Muslim minorities and Islamic culture"...
...Andreas Mammone, a historian at Kingston University in London and an expert on European fascism, said broader factors had helped the counter-jihad movement to consolidate support. "The economic crisis continues to promote nationalism alongside the need for a common enemy. A fear of radical Islam is being developed, the idea that it presents a threat to our freedom," he said..."
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Interpreting Shariah Law Across The Centuries
By NPR | April 16, 2012 | [Original Article]
...Sadakat Kadri is an English barrister, a Muslim by birth and a historian. His first book, The Trial, was an extensive survey of the Western criminal judicial system, detailing more than 4,000 years of courtroom antics...
...Islamic law is shaped by hadiths, or reports about what Prophet Muhammad said and did. The hadiths, says Kadri, govern how Muslims should pray, treat criminals and create medications, among other things...
Interview Highlights
On why he wanted to write about Shariah law
..."People just seemed to be arguing about Islam, Islamic law, the Shariah, without actually getting to the substance of what it was all about. So because I come from a Muslim background, I certainly had plenty of people I could ask... [Read More]
On the word 'Shariah'
"It means the right path to follow if you want to attain salvation. It's a very spiritual concept. It's an idea of the right thing to do, how you attain salvation. And there's no denying that the human interpretations of the Shariah do contain some very repressive laws."
On the movement to ban Shariah law in America
..."It's crazy, basically. It's this idea that Shariah is some kind of movement to take over the United States or a conspiracy to overturn American freedoms. That isn't what Shariah is. There are certainly hard-line interpretations of Islamic law. But these measures don't even claim to restrict themselves to that. They claim to prevent the courts from taking any account at all of the Shariah... [Read More]
...I am absolutely sure that many of the people who support the laws and their sponsors are genuinely motivated by fear of Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism is something which I'm fearful of. I was around on Sept. 11 and July 7 here in London when Islamic extremists blew lots of people up. I'm no fan of violent extremism from Muslims, but these laws don't target that. They simply target the body of beliefs that Muslims call the Shariah."
...Sadakat Kadri is an English barrister, a Muslim by birth and a historian. His first book, The Trial, was an extensive survey of the Western criminal judicial system, detailing more than 4,000 years of courtroom antics...
...Islamic law is shaped by hadiths, or reports about what Prophet Muhammad said and did. The hadiths, says Kadri, govern how Muslims should pray, treat criminals and create medications, among other things...
Interview Highlights
On why he wanted to write about Shariah law
..."People just seemed to be arguing about Islam, Islamic law, the Shariah, without actually getting to the substance of what it was all about. So because I come from a Muslim background, I certainly had plenty of people I could ask... [Read More]
On the word 'Shariah'
"It means the right path to follow if you want to attain salvation. It's a very spiritual concept. It's an idea of the right thing to do, how you attain salvation. And there's no denying that the human interpretations of the Shariah do contain some very repressive laws."
On the movement to ban Shariah law in America
..."It's crazy, basically. It's this idea that Shariah is some kind of movement to take over the United States or a conspiracy to overturn American freedoms. That isn't what Shariah is. There are certainly hard-line interpretations of Islamic law. But these measures don't even claim to restrict themselves to that. They claim to prevent the courts from taking any account at all of the Shariah... [Read More]
...I am absolutely sure that many of the people who support the laws and their sponsors are genuinely motivated by fear of Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism is something which I'm fearful of. I was around on Sept. 11 and July 7 here in London when Islamic extremists blew lots of people up. I'm no fan of violent extremism from Muslims, but these laws don't target that. They simply target the body of beliefs that Muslims call the Shariah."
Monday, February 27, 2012
A Muslim describes his life in America
Tampa Bay Times |February 26, 2012|[Original Article]
"...Shibly, a 25-year-old University at Buffalo Law School graduate, serves as executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)... [Read More]
...Since his appointment in August, Shibly has faced parents attempting to ban CAIR speakers from Hillsborough County Schools and allegations of terrorist affiliations. The School Board did not side with the parents...
...The accusations , Shibly says, are a symptom of what CAIR defines as Islamophobia, an unfounded fear of and hostility toward Islam...
Were you surprised by the reactions of people who did attend?
"...Shibly, a 25-year-old University at Buffalo Law School graduate, serves as executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)... [Read More]
...Since his appointment in August, Shibly has faced parents attempting to ban CAIR speakers from Hillsborough County Schools and allegations of terrorist affiliations. The School Board did not side with the parents...
...The accusations , Shibly says, are a symptom of what CAIR defines as Islamophobia, an unfounded fear of and hostility toward Islam...
...As an advocate for Muslim rights, Shibly has reached out to the community at public speaking engagements and open houses, urging those with the questions about Islam to ask not assume...
...An interfaith crowd including Christian pastors, a rabbi and a Hindu priest attended. Shibly spoke about the history of Islam, misunderstandings about the faith and a call for tolerance...
...Shibly recently shared his thoughts about being Muslim in America withTampa Bay Times staff writer Sarah Whitman...
...Shibly recently shared his thoughts about being Muslim in America withTampa Bay Times staff writer Sarah Whitman...
What is your background as a Muslim American?
...When 9/11 happened, I was in 10th grade. I remember running home to my prayer rug praying and crying for all the victims. As an American Muslim, I suffered that day for my country. Then suddenly, I'm seen as a terrorist. It's like if someone hits your mother and blames you for it. And that has been the situation ever since... [Read More]
"Shibly, here with his son, came to the U.S. at age 4.
“From a young age growing up, I felt like
I had to justify my existence"
Were you surprised by the reactions of people who did attend?
...I was shocked at the impact the first open house had. A couple ladies that were there started crying. They said they'd never been in a mosque before. They said 'We had no idea it was so peaceful.' I was shocked at how much they valued the presentation...
What do you want people in the community to know about CAIR?
...We want people [Of all faiths of the community] to reach out to us. Just call and set up a time for a discussion. Whether it's a one-on-one or for a community event, we want to discuss religious issues and community issues..." [Read More]
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
NYPD spying program aimed at Muslims
By Glenn Greenwald | February 22, 2012 | Salon.com | [Original Article]
"... For the past year, the Associated Press has systematically exposed how the New York Police Department, often working in conjunction with the CIA, engaged in a sprawling spying campaign aimed at Muslim individuals, students, institutions and mosques in the United States, all without a whiff of any suspected wrongdoing...
... Yesterday, the four AP investigative reporters who have exposed this program won a well-deserved Polk Award...
...The report was produced as part of a surveillance campaign whereby “plainclothes officers from the NYPD’s Demographics Units fanned out across Newark, taking pictures and eavesdropping on conversations inside businesses owned or frequented by Muslims.” Yet again, “the report cited no evidence of terrorism or criminal behavior,”...
...The effect of the program was that hundreds of American citizens were cataloged — sometimes by name, sometimes simply by their businesses and their ethnicity — in secret police files that spanned hundreds of pages... [Read More]
...In one section of the report, police wrote that the largest immigrant groups in Newark were from Portugal and Brazil. But they did not photograph businesses or churches for those groups.” That’s because “‘No Muslim component within these communities was identified,’ police wrote.”...
...Yet here we have the NYPD wandering outside of its jurisdiction in order to spy on the innocuous activities of a community of a religious minority (not even the Newark Mayor was informed about this), and the most disturbing part of it all is how common it now is" [Read More]
"... For the past year, the Associated Press has systematically exposed how the New York Police Department, often working in conjunction with the CIA, engaged in a sprawling spying campaign aimed at Muslim individuals, students, institutions and mosques in the United States, all without a whiff of any suspected wrongdoing...
... Yesterday, the four AP investigative reporters who have exposed this program won a well-deserved Polk Award...
...The report was produced as part of a surveillance campaign whereby “plainclothes officers from the NYPD’s Demographics Units fanned out across Newark, taking pictures and eavesdropping on conversations inside businesses owned or frequented by Muslims.” Yet again, “the report cited no evidence of terrorism or criminal behavior,”...
...The effect of the program was that hundreds of American citizens were cataloged — sometimes by name, sometimes simply by their businesses and their ethnicity — in secret police files that spanned hundreds of pages... [Read More]
...“A Black Muslim male named Mussa was working in the rear of store,”
an NYPD detective wrote after a clandestine visit to a dollar store
in Shirley, N.Y., on Long Island
...In one section of the report, police wrote that the largest immigrant groups in Newark were from Portugal and Brazil. But they did not photograph businesses or churches for those groups.” That’s because “‘No Muslim component within these communities was identified,’ police wrote.”...
...Yet here we have the NYPD wandering outside of its jurisdiction in order to spy on the innocuous activities of a community of a religious minority (not even the Newark Mayor was informed about this), and the most disturbing part of it all is how common it now is" [Read More]
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
NYPD spied on Muslims all over Northeast USNearly 400 miles west of Manhattan, the New York Police Department descended on the City of Buffalo.
"Nearly 400 miles west of Manhattan, the New York Police Department descended on the City of Buffalo. It was a rough Buffalo winter in January 2009 and three NYPD officers wanted to speak to local authorities. They wanted to know more about students at the University at Buffalo..." [Read More]
"...Based on that information — that Muslim students and professors had been involved in academic activity at a state school — the NYPD urged authorities in Buffalo to assist in an investigation. There were no reports of wrong-doing among the faculty, staff or students. There was nothing, really. One day, reports the AP, a University at Buffalo student received an email about an Islamic conference in nearby Toronto, Ontario, forwarded the info to a group of Muslims at the college and, somehow in the process, her correspondence was intercepted eight hours away by the NYPD..." [Read More]
"...Both the City College of New York and the University at Buffalo have publically expressed that they do not condone the behavior of the NYPD. A spokesperson with UB adds that the school were never approached by authorities and decries in an official statement that the institute “does not conduct this kind of surveillance, and, if asked, UB would not voluntarily cooperate with such a request.”“As a public university, UB strongly supports the values of freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion and a reasonable expectation of privacy,"..." [Read More]
"...Based on that information — that Muslim students and professors had been involved in academic activity at a state school — the NYPD urged authorities in Buffalo to assist in an investigation. There were no reports of wrong-doing among the faculty, staff or students. There was nothing, really. One day, reports the AP, a University at Buffalo student received an email about an Islamic conference in nearby Toronto, Ontario, forwarded the info to a group of Muslims at the college and, somehow in the process, her correspondence was intercepted eight hours away by the NYPD..." [Read More]
"...The Associated Press has uncovered previously unpublished documents and top-secret files that show that, sometimes in conjunction with the CIA, NYPD officers engaged in clandestine surveillance of Muslims in the greater New York City region..." [Read More]
"...Both the City College of New York and the University at Buffalo have publically expressed that they do not condone the behavior of the NYPD. A spokesperson with UB adds that the school were never approached by authorities and decries in an official statement that the institute “does not conduct this kind of surveillance, and, if asked, UB would not voluntarily cooperate with such a request.”“As a public university, UB strongly supports the values of freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion and a reasonable expectation of privacy,"..." [Read More]
Monday, February 20, 2012
NYPD monitored Muslim students all over Northeast
By Chris Hawley | Feb 18, 2012 | msnbc.msn.com | [Original Article]
"...Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a rwhitewater afting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed..." [Read More]
"Names recorded in reports, even though they hadn't been accused of any crimes"
"...NEW YORK — The New York Police Department monitored Muslim college students far more broadly than previously known, at schools far beyond the city limits, including the elite Ivy League colleges of Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, The Associated Press has learned..." [Read More]
"...Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a rwhitewater afting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed..." [Read More]
"...Detectives trawled Muslim student websites every day and, although professors and students had not been accused of any wrongdoing, their names were recorded in reports prepared for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly..." [Read More]
"...I see a violation of civil rights here," said Tanweer Haq, chaplain of the Muslim Student Association at Syracuse. "Nobody wants to be on the list of the FBI or the NYPD or whatever. Muslim students want to have their own lives, their own privacy and enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that everybody else has..." [Read More]
"...In recent months, the AP has revealed secret programs the NYPD built with help from the CIA to monitor Muslims at the places where they eat, shop and worship...Though the NYPD says it follows the same rules as the FBI, some of the NYPD's activities go beyond what the FBI is allowed to do..." [Read More]
Friday, September 30, 2011
CNN: My Take: Muslims should stop apologizing for 9/11
Aman Ali | Special to CNN
New York (CNN) – As a Muslim, I’m sick of people asking me how I feel about 9/11. What do you want me to say, seriously?
Do you want me to say, “It was a great plan, mwahahaha!” before I fly off on a magic carpet?
I was born and raised in this country and was just as shocked as everyone else to learn there were people on this earth so vile as to commit such a horrific attack - or to even think about doing it.
But I didn’t do it. Neither did 99.999999999 percent of the roughly 1.5 billion people in the world who also call themselves Muslims. So why should I or any other Muslim apologize for what happened?
Nickleback is planning on releasing another album. Should I ask white people to apologize for that?
Just like Christianity and Judaism, Islam unequivocally condemns terrorism. Don’t take it from me, though. Grab a copy of the Quran from a library and find out for yourself.
Don’t rely on some cherry-picked crackpot interpretation of the Muslim holy book that you read on some Islamophobic hack’s poorly designed website. Speaking of which, Islamophobes need to put down the Quran and pick up a book on HTML programming and Flash.
When 9/11 happened, I can understand why the average person would want to know what Muslims actually believe. After all, the terrorists claimed they were acting in the name of Islam.
That’s why hundreds of Islamic organizations around the globe condemned the attacks and told the truth about how Islam doesn’t condone terrorism whatsoever.
But that was 10 years ago. Why are mainstream American Islamic groups like the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council still condemning the attacks and just about any other act of terrorism that pops up in the news?
Weren’t we clear before how we feel about terrorism? If people didn’t understand us for the past 10 years, what makes Muslims think they’re going to understand us now?
If I have to explain 10 times to my little brother how to operate the toaster in my apartment, that’s not my fault because of inadequate messaging. It’s my brother’s fault that he’s dumb.
It’s ridiculous for Muslims to continuously condemn and apologize for stuff when every religion has their fair share of crazies....[Read More]
Monday, September 19, 2011
We need to challenge politics of fear 10 years after 9/11
By Dawud Walid
As we reflect on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, our country has the opportunity to reflect upon how far we have collectively moved away from being seen as a moral authority on civil and human rights in the world and where we need to go in the future to restore this perceived authority.
Ten years ago, the world grieved with us as we lost our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and friends to the most deadly terrorist attack upon American soil. Even countries and organizations that have continued to be deemed extremist — Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah — denounced the attack by Al-Qaeda as a crime against humanity and “un-Islamic.” However, much of the sympathy and empathy that we received from the world has fundamentally eroded 10 years later.
In less than two months after 9/11, President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Patriot Act, which provided unprecedented powers to federal law enforcement entities to surveil persons without predication of terrorism-related activities, including the expanded usage of paid informants (15,000 FBI informatns alone, according to current data) to infiltrate religious institutions and the ability to detain citizens during border reentry without charges in the name of national security.
Such powers have led to systematic abuses ranging from United State Border Patrol agents having the authority to detain and question persons — including citizens up to 100 miles from the U.S. border — without proof of criminal activity and anti-war activists having their homes raided and being served with grand jury subpoenas due to their lawful political expressions to citizens being placed on the no-fly list while being overseas, then being barred from flying home to their own country, America.
Besides problematic laws such as the Patriot Act being instituted post-9/11, a growing cottage industry of Islamophobes has shaped the political discourse in our nation and has influenced policy makers at the highest levels of government.
The Center for American Progress recently documented that some of the top Islamophobes have received up to $43 million dollars of funding from conservative foundations, not including other donations and honorariums, in which these same bigots have met with top federal law enforcement officials, testified in congressional hearings about American Muslims and the need to erode civil liberties more in the name of national security and even trained FBI and Homeland Security agents.
The increase in domestic abuses coupled with the culmination of reports such as the high levels of civilian casualties, labeled “collateral damage,” in the ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and de facto war in the Waziristan area of Pakistan by American military personnel along with CIA drones and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp have severely tarnished our reputation abroad.
Thus, even with President Obama giving speeches with much fanfare in Egypt, Ghana and Turkey about America’s commitment to human rights and our stated desire to “partner with the developing world,” polls such as a recent report released by the Arab American Institue show that America’s approval rating around the globe is at a record low.
While some Tea Party politicians and acolytes clamor about “taking America back” — meaning turning the clock back to the pre-civil rights movement era — we must be bold enough as Americans to stand up for the spirit of civil and human rights, be more vocal in confronting systemic bigotry and offer solutions to contemporary problems before some misguided souls push us toward the brink of fascism.
This starts with the awareness that many laws and policies that were basically shaped to confront Muslims who were deemed national security threats did not stop with Muslims, but has adversely impacted all American’s constitutional rights.
We need to continue to raise concerns about problematic provisions within the Patriot Act and call out unabashedly racist and xenophobic political rhetoric. Moreover, despite it being uncomfortable, we need to engage as a nation in intellectually honest national discussion about why most of the world is not fond of America and what are the root causes of the despicable disease of international terrorism, besides fear-mongering and Mickey Mouse explanations such as extremists attack us because “they hate us because of our freedoms” that have led our nation into unjust military conflicts.
As we remember those who were lost in the tragedy of 9/11, who we cannot bring back, let us be resolute in bringing back what we can, which is the American spirit of striving toward making our nation “a more perfect union” by ensuring “liberty and justice for all,” while standing against the politics of fear.
Dawud Walid is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Michigan (CAIR-MI)http://michigancitizen.com/we-need-to-challenge-politics-of-fear-years-after-p10225-76.htm
As we reflect on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, our country has the opportunity to reflect upon how far we have collectively moved away from being seen as a moral authority on civil and human rights in the world and where we need to go in the future to restore this perceived authority.
Ten years ago, the world grieved with us as we lost our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and friends to the most deadly terrorist attack upon American soil. Even countries and organizations that have continued to be deemed extremist — Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah — denounced the attack by Al-Qaeda as a crime against humanity and “un-Islamic.” However, much of the sympathy and empathy that we received from the world has fundamentally eroded 10 years later.
In less than two months after 9/11, President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Patriot Act, which provided unprecedented powers to federal law enforcement entities to surveil persons without predication of terrorism-related activities, including the expanded usage of paid informants (15,000 FBI informatns alone, according to current data) to infiltrate religious institutions and the ability to detain citizens during border reentry without charges in the name of national security.
Such powers have led to systematic abuses ranging from United State Border Patrol agents having the authority to detain and question persons — including citizens up to 100 miles from the U.S. border — without proof of criminal activity and anti-war activists having their homes raided and being served with grand jury subpoenas due to their lawful political expressions to citizens being placed on the no-fly list while being overseas, then being barred from flying home to their own country, America.
Besides problematic laws such as the Patriot Act being instituted post-9/11, a growing cottage industry of Islamophobes has shaped the political discourse in our nation and has influenced policy makers at the highest levels of government.
The Center for American Progress recently documented that some of the top Islamophobes have received up to $43 million dollars of funding from conservative foundations, not including other donations and honorariums, in which these same bigots have met with top federal law enforcement officials, testified in congressional hearings about American Muslims and the need to erode civil liberties more in the name of national security and even trained FBI and Homeland Security agents.
The increase in domestic abuses coupled with the culmination of reports such as the high levels of civilian casualties, labeled “collateral damage,” in the ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and de facto war in the Waziristan area of Pakistan by American military personnel along with CIA drones and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp have severely tarnished our reputation abroad.
Thus, even with President Obama giving speeches with much fanfare in Egypt, Ghana and Turkey about America’s commitment to human rights and our stated desire to “partner with the developing world,” polls such as a recent report released by the Arab American Institue show that America’s approval rating around the globe is at a record low.
While some Tea Party politicians and acolytes clamor about “taking America back” — meaning turning the clock back to the pre-civil rights movement era — we must be bold enough as Americans to stand up for the spirit of civil and human rights, be more vocal in confronting systemic bigotry and offer solutions to contemporary problems before some misguided souls push us toward the brink of fascism.
This starts with the awareness that many laws and policies that were basically shaped to confront Muslims who were deemed national security threats did not stop with Muslims, but has adversely impacted all American’s constitutional rights.
We need to continue to raise concerns about problematic provisions within the Patriot Act and call out unabashedly racist and xenophobic political rhetoric. Moreover, despite it being uncomfortable, we need to engage as a nation in intellectually honest national discussion about why most of the world is not fond of America and what are the root causes of the despicable disease of international terrorism, besides fear-mongering and Mickey Mouse explanations such as extremists attack us because “they hate us because of our freedoms” that have led our nation into unjust military conflicts.
As we remember those who were lost in the tragedy of 9/11, who we cannot bring back, let us be resolute in bringing back what we can, which is the American spirit of striving toward making our nation “a more perfect union” by ensuring “liberty and justice for all,” while standing against the politics of fear.
Dawud Walid is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Michigan (CAIR-MI)http://michigancitizen.com/we-need-to-challenge-politics-of-fear-years-after-p10225-76.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)