The Lousiville Courier-Journal | Editorial, Sunday 24 April 2005
At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.
That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.
"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."
Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point.
Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.
As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.
There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.
There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."
There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative.
There's William G. Meyers III, who also lacks trial experience but who has put in plenty of time rabidly fighting against environmental laws and in favor of mining interests.
And there's William Haynes II, whose meager courtroom work is offset by his considerable contribution, as the Defense Department's counsel, to the shameful abandonment of America's deepest legal principles regarding the treatment and rights of prisoners of war and detainees.
It's no wonder their advocates are so intent on diverting attention from their legal limitations, ideological excesses and partisan activism with claims of anti-Christian discrimination.
But religious martyrs, they're not -- nor jurists worthy of the damage their nominations are doing to both politics and religion.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND HATE CRIMES
William Fisher
Earlier this month, Eric Rudolph was sentenced to four life sentences without parole for the deadly 1996 Olympic park bombing in Atlanta and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub. In May 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. His accomplice, Terry Nichols, is currently serving a life sentence without possibility of parole.
But while there is general joy that these miscreants are off the streets, human rights groups and government agencies believe that ‘home grown terrorism’ remains a clear and present danger to post 9/11 America.
For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an advocacy organization, says that extremist groups in the US are planning events and heightened activity through the month of April, especially during the period of April 15 through April 24, at a time when they traditionally commemorate the birthday of Adolf Hitler. The ADL says national groups such as the neo-Nazi National Alliance and local chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.
One reason for the growth of ‘home grown terrorism’ appears to be that fanatic extremists have now added Islam to their list of ‘targets’. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice reports a dramatic increase in hate crimes directed against people perceived to be Arabs, though Sikhs and Hindus are frequently attacked because they ‘look like’ those of Middle Eastern descent.
A second reason is the rise of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., making homosexuals, same-sex couples, abortion clinics and those who work in them – even ‘activist’ judges and their families -- likely targets. White supremacist Matthew Hale faces 40 years in a federal prison after a judge gave him the maximum sentence for plotting to assassinate a federal judge.
Another reason is that, while known individual membership in militias and other organized ‘paramilitary’ hate groups is believed to have fallen since 9/11, remaining members appear even more intensely committed to acts of violence.
Still another factor is that the Internet has made bomb-making knowledge accessible to everyone.
The bottom line is that ‘Lone Wolf’ domestic terrorists – like McVeigh, Nichols and Rudolph – are now seen as the primary domestic threats. But the US militant militia movement has been overshadowed by the threat of Al-Qaeda.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) have devoted massive resources to Islamic terrorism. But the agencies deny that there has been any slackening in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, whether directed against Muslims or anyone else.
For example, the FBI, which is responsible for investigating hate crimes, reports that nearly 7,500 incidents were classified as hate crimes in the United States in 2003, the last year for which complete data is available. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), however, points out that FBI and DOJ data are based on reports voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement authorities, who do not always track or report hate crime statistics. SPLC estimates that there are probably 50,000 more hate crimes than the FBI is reporting.
More than half these crimes are motivated by racial prejudice. Intimidation and vandalism were the most frequently reported hate crimes, though there were 14 murders. Six of those murders were among more than 1,200 incidents based on sexual orientation.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it received reports of 1,019 anti-Muslim incidents during 2003 — a nearly 70 percent increase from the previous year and the highest number of civil-rights complaints from those of the Islamic faith in the nine years the group has been tracking them.
In their report, "Unpatriotic Acts," hate crimes against Muslims (Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans perceived to be members of these groups) jumped 121 percent that same year.
While the DOJ and FBI claim to be applying increasing resources to combating hate crime, Arab-American and Muslim-American civil rights groups have accused the agencies of racial profiling, harassment of ‘Middle Eastern-looking’ people at airports and in other public settings, and widespread abuses in the round-ups and detention of Arabs and Muslims after the 9/11 attacks.
Law-enforcement observers agree that the membership of militant right-wing groups has decreased since the Oklahoma City bombing – from some 20,000 to perhaps a few thousand now -- but many believe that has made them all the more dangerous.
Nonetheless, the contrasting treatment given to two cases illustrate the priority given to foreign terrorism.
In 2002, federal agents arrested Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, claiming he was an Al-Qaeda operative planning to explode a ‘dirty bomb’ in the US. He was officially declared an ‘enemy combatant’, and was held virtually incommunicado in a naval brig –though the Supreme Court ruled he should be charged or released.
A few months later, federal agents in Texas arrested William Krar, who was found to have a bomb like the one used in Oklahoma City, as well as a half-million rounds of ammunition. Krar is now serving an 11-year prison term.
Padilla had no record of militant activity and had no weapon when he was arrested. Krar was known as a right-wing zealot and was heavily armed. The disparity in their treatment indicates a double standard, according to Daniel Levitas, the author of "The Terrorist Next Door," which describes indigenous American terrorist movements. He attributes this double standard simply to the government saving face.
"I think it's embarrassing to the United States to present frightening evidence that there are people in this country who are just as fanatical and murderous as Islamic terrorists halfway around the world," he said. As a result, Levitas said, the Justice Department made little of Krar's arrest, but took pains to publicize Padilla's.
Earlier this month, Eric Rudolph was sentenced to four life sentences without parole for the deadly 1996 Olympic park bombing in Atlanta and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub. In May 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. His accomplice, Terry Nichols, is currently serving a life sentence without possibility of parole.
But while there is general joy that these miscreants are off the streets, human rights groups and government agencies believe that ‘home grown terrorism’ remains a clear and present danger to post 9/11 America.
For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an advocacy organization, says that extremist groups in the US are planning events and heightened activity through the month of April, especially during the period of April 15 through April 24, at a time when they traditionally commemorate the birthday of Adolf Hitler. The ADL says national groups such as the neo-Nazi National Alliance and local chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.
One reason for the growth of ‘home grown terrorism’ appears to be that fanatic extremists have now added Islam to their list of ‘targets’. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice reports a dramatic increase in hate crimes directed against people perceived to be Arabs, though Sikhs and Hindus are frequently attacked because they ‘look like’ those of Middle Eastern descent.
A second reason is the rise of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., making homosexuals, same-sex couples, abortion clinics and those who work in them – even ‘activist’ judges and their families -- likely targets. White supremacist Matthew Hale faces 40 years in a federal prison after a judge gave him the maximum sentence for plotting to assassinate a federal judge.
Another reason is that, while known individual membership in militias and other organized ‘paramilitary’ hate groups is believed to have fallen since 9/11, remaining members appear even more intensely committed to acts of violence.
Still another factor is that the Internet has made bomb-making knowledge accessible to everyone.
The bottom line is that ‘Lone Wolf’ domestic terrorists – like McVeigh, Nichols and Rudolph – are now seen as the primary domestic threats. But the US militant militia movement has been overshadowed by the threat of Al-Qaeda.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) have devoted massive resources to Islamic terrorism. But the agencies deny that there has been any slackening in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, whether directed against Muslims or anyone else.
For example, the FBI, which is responsible for investigating hate crimes, reports that nearly 7,500 incidents were classified as hate crimes in the United States in 2003, the last year for which complete data is available. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), however, points out that FBI and DOJ data are based on reports voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement authorities, who do not always track or report hate crime statistics. SPLC estimates that there are probably 50,000 more hate crimes than the FBI is reporting.
More than half these crimes are motivated by racial prejudice. Intimidation and vandalism were the most frequently reported hate crimes, though there were 14 murders. Six of those murders were among more than 1,200 incidents based on sexual orientation.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it received reports of 1,019 anti-Muslim incidents during 2003 — a nearly 70 percent increase from the previous year and the highest number of civil-rights complaints from those of the Islamic faith in the nine years the group has been tracking them.
In their report, "Unpatriotic Acts," hate crimes against Muslims (Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans perceived to be members of these groups) jumped 121 percent that same year.
While the DOJ and FBI claim to be applying increasing resources to combating hate crime, Arab-American and Muslim-American civil rights groups have accused the agencies of racial profiling, harassment of ‘Middle Eastern-looking’ people at airports and in other public settings, and widespread abuses in the round-ups and detention of Arabs and Muslims after the 9/11 attacks.
Law-enforcement observers agree that the membership of militant right-wing groups has decreased since the Oklahoma City bombing – from some 20,000 to perhaps a few thousand now -- but many believe that has made them all the more dangerous.
Nonetheless, the contrasting treatment given to two cases illustrate the priority given to foreign terrorism.
In 2002, federal agents arrested Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, claiming he was an Al-Qaeda operative planning to explode a ‘dirty bomb’ in the US. He was officially declared an ‘enemy combatant’, and was held virtually incommunicado in a naval brig –though the Supreme Court ruled he should be charged or released.
A few months later, federal agents in Texas arrested William Krar, who was found to have a bomb like the one used in Oklahoma City, as well as a half-million rounds of ammunition. Krar is now serving an 11-year prison term.
Padilla had no record of militant activity and had no weapon when he was arrested. Krar was known as a right-wing zealot and was heavily armed. The disparity in their treatment indicates a double standard, according to Daniel Levitas, the author of "The Terrorist Next Door," which describes indigenous American terrorist movements. He attributes this double standard simply to the government saving face.
"I think it's embarrassing to the United States to present frightening evidence that there are people in this country who are just as fanatical and murderous as Islamic terrorists halfway around the world," he said. As a result, Levitas said, the Justice Department made little of Krar's arrest, but took pains to publicize Padilla's.
HRW CALLS FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL, COMMISSION
By William Fisher
Rejecting the conclusions of previous investigations, a major civil rights organization is calling for appointment of a special counsel and creation of an independent commission to investigate all issues of prisoner abuse by the US.
Human Rights Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group, said in a new report, “a wall of impunity surrounds the architects of the policies responsible for the larger pattern of abuses.”
“Evidence is mounting that high-ranking US civilian and military leaders — including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, formerly the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Major General Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — made decisions and issued policies that facilitated serious and widespread violations of the law.”
The group recommended that the US Attorney General, Alberto onzazales, “appoint a special counsel to investigate any US officials — no matter their rank or position — who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited ill-treatment against detainees in U.S. custody.”
HRW said the special counsel “is necessary because the prospect for accountability through ordinary avenues is severely compromised.” The Attorney General, “who, as head of the Department of Justice, sits atop the prosecutorial machinery, was himself deeply involved in the policies leading to these alleged crimes, and thus may not only have a conflict of interest but also he, himself, may have a degree of complicity in those abuses.”
Similarly, the group charged, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “sits atop the military justice system, thus all but ruling out accountability though that channel for policies he set in motion.”
HRW also recommended that Congress create a special commission, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, to investigate prisoner abuse. “Such a commission would hold hearings, have full subpoena power, and be empowered to recommend the creation of a special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal offenses, if the Attorney General had not yet named one”, HRW said.
It said a special commission “could also compel evidence that the government has continued to conceal, including President Bush’s reported authorization for the CIA to set up secret detention facilities and to ‘render suspects to other countries, and details on Secretary Rumsfeld’s role in the chain of events leading to the worst period of abuses at Abu Ghraib.”
U.S. Department of Justice regulations call for the appointment of a “special counsel” when a conflict exists and the public interest warrants a prosecutor from outside the government.
In its report, HRW said, “Circumstances strongly suggest that (senior military and administration officials) either knew or should have known that such violations took place as a result of their actions. There is also mounting data that, when presented with evidence that abuse was in fact taking place, they failed to act to stem the abuse.
“The coercive methods approved by senior U.S. officials and widely employed over the last three years include tactics that the United States has repeatedly condemned as barbarity and torture when practiced by others. Even the U.S. Army field manual condemns some of these methods as torture.
“Although much relevant evidence remains secret, a series of revelations over the past twelve months, brought together here, already makes a compelling case for a thorough, genuinely independent investigation of what top officials did, what they knew, and how they responded when they became aware of the widespread nature of the abuses.”
The group charged that “coercive interrogation methods were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for use on prisoners at Guantánamo — including the use of guard dogs to induce fear in prisoners, “stress” techniques such as forced standing and shackling in painful positions, and removing their clothes — “migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were neither limited nor safeguarded,” and contributed to the widespread and systematic torture and abuse at U.S. detention centers there.
It added, “We know that some detainees…have even been ‘disappeared after entering U.S. custody: the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) continues to hold al-Qaeda suspects in prolonged incommunicado detention in “secret locations,” reportedly outside the US, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or oversight of any sort of their treatment, and in some cases no acknowledgement that they are even being held.”
HRW’s report is also critical of the practice of ‘rendition’. It says, “100-150 detainees have been ‘rendered’ by the US for detention and interrogation by governments in the Middle East such as Syria and Egypt, which, according to the U.S. State Department, practice torture routinely.” It called this practice “a violation of U.S. and international law. In an increasing number of cases”, adding that “there is now credible evidence that rendered detainees have in fact been tortured.”
“Despite these revelations and findings, the United States has not engaged in a serious process of accountability. Officials have denounced the most egregious abuses, rhetorically reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to uphold the law and respect human rights, and belatedly opened a number of prosecutions for crimes committed against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To date, however, with the exception of one major personally implicated in abuse, only low-ranking soldiers — privates and sergeants — have been called to account.”
HRW said that, “While it is true that the Pentagon established no fewer than seven investigations in the wake of Abu Ghraib, not one has had the independence or the breadth to get to the bottom of the prisoner-abuse issue.
“All but one involved the military investigating itself, and was focused on only one aspect or another of the treatment of detainees. None took on the task of examining the role of civilian leaders who might have had ultimate authority over detainee treatment policy. None looked at the issue of renditions. The CIA has reportedly also initiated a number of self-investigations, but no details have been made public.
“What is more, these investigations effectively defined detainee abuse as any treatment not approved by higher authorities. To the Pentagon’s investigators, treatment that followed approved policies and techniques could not, by definition, have been torture. With this logical sleight of hand, they thus rendered themselves incapable of finding any connections between policies approved by senior officials and acts of abuse in the field. But that does not mean such connections did not exist,” HRW’s report said.
Rejecting the conclusions of previous investigations, a major civil rights organization is calling for appointment of a special counsel and creation of an independent commission to investigate all issues of prisoner abuse by the US.
Human Rights Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group, said in a new report, “a wall of impunity surrounds the architects of the policies responsible for the larger pattern of abuses.”
“Evidence is mounting that high-ranking US civilian and military leaders — including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, formerly the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Major General Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — made decisions and issued policies that facilitated serious and widespread violations of the law.”
The group recommended that the US Attorney General, Alberto onzazales, “appoint a special counsel to investigate any US officials — no matter their rank or position — who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited ill-treatment against detainees in U.S. custody.”
HRW said the special counsel “is necessary because the prospect for accountability through ordinary avenues is severely compromised.” The Attorney General, “who, as head of the Department of Justice, sits atop the prosecutorial machinery, was himself deeply involved in the policies leading to these alleged crimes, and thus may not only have a conflict of interest but also he, himself, may have a degree of complicity in those abuses.”
Similarly, the group charged, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “sits atop the military justice system, thus all but ruling out accountability though that channel for policies he set in motion.”
HRW also recommended that Congress create a special commission, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, to investigate prisoner abuse. “Such a commission would hold hearings, have full subpoena power, and be empowered to recommend the creation of a special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal offenses, if the Attorney General had not yet named one”, HRW said.
It said a special commission “could also compel evidence that the government has continued to conceal, including President Bush’s reported authorization for the CIA to set up secret detention facilities and to ‘render suspects to other countries, and details on Secretary Rumsfeld’s role in the chain of events leading to the worst period of abuses at Abu Ghraib.”
U.S. Department of Justice regulations call for the appointment of a “special counsel” when a conflict exists and the public interest warrants a prosecutor from outside the government.
In its report, HRW said, “Circumstances strongly suggest that (senior military and administration officials) either knew or should have known that such violations took place as a result of their actions. There is also mounting data that, when presented with evidence that abuse was in fact taking place, they failed to act to stem the abuse.
“The coercive methods approved by senior U.S. officials and widely employed over the last three years include tactics that the United States has repeatedly condemned as barbarity and torture when practiced by others. Even the U.S. Army field manual condemns some of these methods as torture.
“Although much relevant evidence remains secret, a series of revelations over the past twelve months, brought together here, already makes a compelling case for a thorough, genuinely independent investigation of what top officials did, what they knew, and how they responded when they became aware of the widespread nature of the abuses.”
The group charged that “coercive interrogation methods were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for use on prisoners at Guantánamo — including the use of guard dogs to induce fear in prisoners, “stress” techniques such as forced standing and shackling in painful positions, and removing their clothes — “migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were neither limited nor safeguarded,” and contributed to the widespread and systematic torture and abuse at U.S. detention centers there.
It added, “We know that some detainees…have even been ‘disappeared after entering U.S. custody: the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) continues to hold al-Qaeda suspects in prolonged incommunicado detention in “secret locations,” reportedly outside the US, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or oversight of any sort of their treatment, and in some cases no acknowledgement that they are even being held.”
HRW’s report is also critical of the practice of ‘rendition’. It says, “100-150 detainees have been ‘rendered’ by the US for detention and interrogation by governments in the Middle East such as Syria and Egypt, which, according to the U.S. State Department, practice torture routinely.” It called this practice “a violation of U.S. and international law. In an increasing number of cases”, adding that “there is now credible evidence that rendered detainees have in fact been tortured.”
“Despite these revelations and findings, the United States has not engaged in a serious process of accountability. Officials have denounced the most egregious abuses, rhetorically reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to uphold the law and respect human rights, and belatedly opened a number of prosecutions for crimes committed against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To date, however, with the exception of one major personally implicated in abuse, only low-ranking soldiers — privates and sergeants — have been called to account.”
HRW said that, “While it is true that the Pentagon established no fewer than seven investigations in the wake of Abu Ghraib, not one has had the independence or the breadth to get to the bottom of the prisoner-abuse issue.
“All but one involved the military investigating itself, and was focused on only one aspect or another of the treatment of detainees. None took on the task of examining the role of civilian leaders who might have had ultimate authority over detainee treatment policy. None looked at the issue of renditions. The CIA has reportedly also initiated a number of self-investigations, but no details have been made public.
“What is more, these investigations effectively defined detainee abuse as any treatment not approved by higher authorities. To the Pentagon’s investigators, treatment that followed approved policies and techniques could not, by definition, have been torture. With this logical sleight of hand, they thus rendered themselves incapable of finding any connections between policies approved by senior officials and acts of abuse in the field. But that does not mean such connections did not exist,” HRW’s report said.
HRW URGES BUSH TO ACT ON SAUDI ARABIA
By William Fisher
A major U.S. civil liberties group is calling on President George W. Bush to demand release of dissidents, appointment of women to municipal councils, and an end to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia when that country’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, meets with the president today (April 25).
In a letter to Bush, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged the president to call on the Crown Prince to immediately release three dissidents imprisoned for more than a year for petitioning for a constitutional monarchy.
.
HRW wrote that “Charges against the three Saudi dissidents should be dropped”, and said that their lead lawyer, who was arrested in early November, should also be released and charges against him dropped”
It also called on the president to use the occasion of Crown Prince Abdullah’s visit to “urge Saudi authorities to appoint women to the recently formed municipal councils, and to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.”
"Without freedom of expression and association, there can't be political
reform worthy of the name," said Joe Stork, Washington director of Human
Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "The Bush administration's response to the dissidents' arrest has been completely inadequate. For the sake of its own credibility, it needs to speak clearly and publicly now."
HRW said that in March 2004, Saudi authorities arrested 13 people in several cities for circulating a petition calling for a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament, and signaling their intent to form an independent human rights organization. The government released 10 of them after compelling them to sign an agreement that they would cease their public petitioning.
Three of the men -- Matruk al-Falih, Ali al-Domaini, and Abdullah al-Hamid --
refused to sign the agreement, and remain in prison facing charges of "issuing statements" and "using Western terminology" in calling for reform, the organization said.
It added: “Their lead lawyer, 'Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, one of the 10 released in March, has been detained since early November for statements he made to the press about the case.”
"President Bush should raise the cases of these dissidents by name when he
meets with Crown Prince Abdullah," Stork said. "He needs to point out that
vague proclamations of reform will be judged by what happens to people who
peacefully petition their government for change."
HRW also called on the president to raise the issue of “severe discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia. While there have been some positive developments, such as the recent denunciation of forced marriages by the country’s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Shaikh `Abd al-`Aziz bin Al Shaikh, these statements need to be followed up with action. We urge you to ask the Crown Prince what legal measures the government plans to stop this practice.”
HRW said that official promises that women would be allowed to vote when municipal elections are held again were not reassuring, and asked President Bush to urge the Saudi leader to take "concrete, feasible steps towards ending gender discrimination" by appointing women to unelected seats on the municipal councils as well as to the national level Consultative (Shura) Council, which is wholly appointed.
“The exclusion of women as voters and candidates in the recent nationwide municipal elections for ‘logistical’ reasons raises doubts about whether the government is serious about granting women decision-making power in public life. Official remarks that women would be allowed to participate when such elections occur again are hardly reassuring, given the government’s past failure to fulfill various promises of reform.”
“If the government wishes to demonstrate good faith in this area, it should appoint a representative number of women to the unelected seats of these municipal councils, and to the national-level Consultative (Shura) Council.”
Islamists won in the municipal elections in the capital, Riyadh, and in the main eastern city of Dammam in earlier stages of the municipal elections that began in February. Conservatives were also poised to win most of the seats in Jeddah, the nation’s commercial capital. Abdul Rahman Yamani, one of the projected winners from a field of around 500 hopefuls there, said, “We are a religious people by nature, and secular people are not accepted (by society).”
HRW also urged Bush to address “the recent proliferation of judicial executions of Saudi Arabian citizens and, in greater numbers, non-Saudi residents of the country.”
It noted that Saudi Arabia “had publicly beheaded at least 40 persons since the beginning of the year, two-thirds of them from south and Southeast Asia. A number of those executed had been convicted of robbery and drug-related offenses.”
The letter asked President Bush, “in light of the absence of basic due process protections in the Saudi judicial system, to urge the Crown Prince to declare a moratorium on all judicial executions.”
Noting that “Saudi Arabia has taken some political reform initiatives, such as the partial elections to municipal councils held over the past few months”, the organization said, “improvements in human rights, where they have occurred at all, have been halting and inadequate.”
“Government proclamations regarding adherence to human rights principles have not led to changes in practices or to public access to information about violations of human rights,” HRW said.
The group urged the president “to make clear, in a public manner as well as in private talks, that the US expects to see concrete improvements in those areas that the Saudi authorities can address directly and immediately. The credibility of your administration’s emphasis on the need for political reform in the region rests in part on your readiness to address the Saudi Arabian government openly on some core issues.”
HRW said that the March 2004 arrests of dissidents occurred during then-Secretary of State Powell’s visit to the kingdom, “timing that may have been intended to signal opposition to U.S. calls for reform.” The administration’s response “has, in our view, been inadequate: Secretary Powell mildly criticized the arrest of the thirteen in public at the time, but neither the State Department nor the White House have since mentioned the continued imprisonment of these four individuals on completely specious charges.”
HRW aid it hoped that Bush “will make clear that you consider the treatment of these individuals to be emblematic of Saudi Arabia’s response to its human rights crisis, and that their continued incarceration and prosecution makes improvements in US-Saudi relations extremely difficult.”
The HRW letter was signed by Joe Stork, Washington Director for the Middle East and North Africa Division, and Tom Malinowski, the organization’s Washington Advocacy Director.
A major U.S. civil liberties group is calling on President George W. Bush to demand release of dissidents, appointment of women to municipal councils, and an end to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia when that country’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, meets with the president today (April 25).
In a letter to Bush, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged the president to call on the Crown Prince to immediately release three dissidents imprisoned for more than a year for petitioning for a constitutional monarchy.
.
HRW wrote that “Charges against the three Saudi dissidents should be dropped”, and said that their lead lawyer, who was arrested in early November, should also be released and charges against him dropped”
It also called on the president to use the occasion of Crown Prince Abdullah’s visit to “urge Saudi authorities to appoint women to the recently formed municipal councils, and to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.”
"Without freedom of expression and association, there can't be political
reform worthy of the name," said Joe Stork, Washington director of Human
Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "The Bush administration's response to the dissidents' arrest has been completely inadequate. For the sake of its own credibility, it needs to speak clearly and publicly now."
HRW said that in March 2004, Saudi authorities arrested 13 people in several cities for circulating a petition calling for a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament, and signaling their intent to form an independent human rights organization. The government released 10 of them after compelling them to sign an agreement that they would cease their public petitioning.
Three of the men -- Matruk al-Falih, Ali al-Domaini, and Abdullah al-Hamid --
refused to sign the agreement, and remain in prison facing charges of "issuing statements" and "using Western terminology" in calling for reform, the organization said.
It added: “Their lead lawyer, 'Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, one of the 10 released in March, has been detained since early November for statements he made to the press about the case.”
"President Bush should raise the cases of these dissidents by name when he
meets with Crown Prince Abdullah," Stork said. "He needs to point out that
vague proclamations of reform will be judged by what happens to people who
peacefully petition their government for change."
HRW also called on the president to raise the issue of “severe discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia. While there have been some positive developments, such as the recent denunciation of forced marriages by the country’s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Shaikh `Abd al-`Aziz bin Al Shaikh, these statements need to be followed up with action. We urge you to ask the Crown Prince what legal measures the government plans to stop this practice.”
HRW said that official promises that women would be allowed to vote when municipal elections are held again were not reassuring, and asked President Bush to urge the Saudi leader to take "concrete, feasible steps towards ending gender discrimination" by appointing women to unelected seats on the municipal councils as well as to the national level Consultative (Shura) Council, which is wholly appointed.
“The exclusion of women as voters and candidates in the recent nationwide municipal elections for ‘logistical’ reasons raises doubts about whether the government is serious about granting women decision-making power in public life. Official remarks that women would be allowed to participate when such elections occur again are hardly reassuring, given the government’s past failure to fulfill various promises of reform.”
“If the government wishes to demonstrate good faith in this area, it should appoint a representative number of women to the unelected seats of these municipal councils, and to the national-level Consultative (Shura) Council.”
Islamists won in the municipal elections in the capital, Riyadh, and in the main eastern city of Dammam in earlier stages of the municipal elections that began in February. Conservatives were also poised to win most of the seats in Jeddah, the nation’s commercial capital. Abdul Rahman Yamani, one of the projected winners from a field of around 500 hopefuls there, said, “We are a religious people by nature, and secular people are not accepted (by society).”
HRW also urged Bush to address “the recent proliferation of judicial executions of Saudi Arabian citizens and, in greater numbers, non-Saudi residents of the country.”
It noted that Saudi Arabia “had publicly beheaded at least 40 persons since the beginning of the year, two-thirds of them from south and Southeast Asia. A number of those executed had been convicted of robbery and drug-related offenses.”
The letter asked President Bush, “in light of the absence of basic due process protections in the Saudi judicial system, to urge the Crown Prince to declare a moratorium on all judicial executions.”
Noting that “Saudi Arabia has taken some political reform initiatives, such as the partial elections to municipal councils held over the past few months”, the organization said, “improvements in human rights, where they have occurred at all, have been halting and inadequate.”
“Government proclamations regarding adherence to human rights principles have not led to changes in practices or to public access to information about violations of human rights,” HRW said.
The group urged the president “to make clear, in a public manner as well as in private talks, that the US expects to see concrete improvements in those areas that the Saudi authorities can address directly and immediately. The credibility of your administration’s emphasis on the need for political reform in the region rests in part on your readiness to address the Saudi Arabian government openly on some core issues.”
HRW said that the March 2004 arrests of dissidents occurred during then-Secretary of State Powell’s visit to the kingdom, “timing that may have been intended to signal opposition to U.S. calls for reform.” The administration’s response “has, in our view, been inadequate: Secretary Powell mildly criticized the arrest of the thirteen in public at the time, but neither the State Department nor the White House have since mentioned the continued imprisonment of these four individuals on completely specious charges.”
HRW aid it hoped that Bush “will make clear that you consider the treatment of these individuals to be emblematic of Saudi Arabia’s response to its human rights crisis, and that their continued incarceration and prosecution makes improvements in US-Saudi relations extremely difficult.”
The HRW letter was signed by Joe Stork, Washington Director for the Middle East and North Africa Division, and Tom Malinowski, the organization’s Washington Advocacy Director.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
WHAT HAPPENS TO ‘PERSONS OF INTEREST’?
William Fisher
Eric Rudolph has been sentenced to four life sentences without parole for the deadly 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub.
But the chances are that by the time most of us heard the news of Rudolph’s sentence, we had long since forgotten another name that was prominent in the Olympic Park case.
That name is Richard Jewell.
And some see what happened to him as part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other law enforcement agencies.
Richard Jewell was working as a security guard at Olympic Park, where the bomb exploded. He spotted a suspicious object and reported it. He thus helped save lives that might otherwise have been lost.
Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero. TV networks and newspapers interviewed him. He seemed to have a bright future in law enforcement.
But only three days after the explosion, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a story saying police were investigating the possibility that Jewell had planted the bomb. FBI agents interviewed Jewell and searched his apartment. Their aggressive questioning led him to ask for an attorney. A large crowd of journalists and TV crews watched as the security guard’s property was hauled away as evidence.
Jewell told reporters he was innocent. Two bombing victims filed suit against Jewell. A few days later, Jewell’s mother, Barbara Jewell, appeared on television, was weeping as she asked President Bill Clinton to exonerate her son.
But U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno refused to clear Jewell or apologize to him. He was labeled a ‘person of interest’. The FBI would neither confirm nor deny he was a suspect.
It was not until the following October that a US District Judge said he thought Jewell was not, at that time, a suspect. The US Attorney then told Jewell that he was no longer under investigation.
In August 1997, a year after the event, then Attorney General Janet Reno publicly apologized to Jewell and deplored the leak to the media that made his name known as a suspect. “I regret very much the leak that made him an object of so much public attention,” Reno commented. “I don’t think any apology is sufficient when somebody has gone through . . . what Mr. Jewell has gone through.”
But by that time Richard Jewell had lived for months under a very dark cloud. He appeared at a televised news conference, and said, “I am not the Olympic Park bomber. I am a man who has lived 88 days afraid of being arrested for a crime I did commit.” He said the FBI latched onto him “in its rush to show the world it could get its man.”
Another high-profile ‘person of interest’ is Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former researcher at the Army's infectious disease research laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Hatfill, 50, has been under FBI scrutiny since the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others. He has never been charged with a crime, simply designated a ’person of interest’.
The former Army researcher has denied involvement in the anthrax mailings and claims he was fired from a job because of the media coverage of the case. The Washington Times, which claimed that Hatfill might have been the culprit, eventually said Hatfill might have been framed by a team of government scientists.
His apartment and rubbish bins were searched several times. He has been under 24-hour surveillance. A swamp, near the government laboratory where he once worked, was drained by the FBI.
Hatfill told news media, "I've been in this field for a number of years, working until 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction, and, sir, my career is over at this time."
Hatfill sued then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI, accusing the government of "a campaign of harassment" and unfairly singling him out. . Ashcroft had publicly called him a ‘person of interest’ in the anthrax probe in 2002.
Hatfill also sued the New York Times Co. and columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, claiming the paper defamed him in a series of columns that identified him as the likely culprit. The lawsuit said Kristof identified him as the anthrax killer to "light a fire" under investigators in their probe of the anthrax-spore mailings.
Hatfill accused Kristof of making "false and defamatory" allegations and the Times of engaging in "substandard and unethical journalism.''
In a series of columns in 2002, Kristof criticized the FBI for failing to
aggressively pursue a scientist he at first identified as "Mr. Z.'' He wrote
that the biodefense community had called Mr. Z a "likely culprit" and was
"buzzing about Mr. Z behind his back," in part because the scientist was
familiar with anthrax and was angered at the suspension of his top security
clearance less than a month before the attacks.
Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, later acknowledged that Mr. Z was
Hatfill. He also wrote that Hatfill deserved the "presumption of innocence" and
that "there is not a shred of traditional physical evidence linking him to the
attacks.''
No one has ever been charged in the investigation of anthrax-tainted letters mailed to media and government offices.
At the end of September 2003 – nearly two years after the anthrax attacks -- the new head of the FBI investigation says it is troubling that Hatfill was publicly labeled a "person of interest" in the case by top law enforcement officials. "The anthrax investigation has been beset by a number of leaks”, he said, and labeled this “unfortunate”.
Meanwhile, Hatfill remains unemployed, and perhaps unemployable.
Eric Rudolph has been sentenced to four life sentences without parole for the deadly 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub.
But the chances are that by the time most of us heard the news of Rudolph’s sentence, we had long since forgotten another name that was prominent in the Olympic Park case.
That name is Richard Jewell.
And some see what happened to him as part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other law enforcement agencies.
Richard Jewell was working as a security guard at Olympic Park, where the bomb exploded. He spotted a suspicious object and reported it. He thus helped save lives that might otherwise have been lost.
Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero. TV networks and newspapers interviewed him. He seemed to have a bright future in law enforcement.
But only three days after the explosion, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a story saying police were investigating the possibility that Jewell had planted the bomb. FBI agents interviewed Jewell and searched his apartment. Their aggressive questioning led him to ask for an attorney. A large crowd of journalists and TV crews watched as the security guard’s property was hauled away as evidence.
Jewell told reporters he was innocent. Two bombing victims filed suit against Jewell. A few days later, Jewell’s mother, Barbara Jewell, appeared on television, was weeping as she asked President Bill Clinton to exonerate her son.
But U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno refused to clear Jewell or apologize to him. He was labeled a ‘person of interest’. The FBI would neither confirm nor deny he was a suspect.
It was not until the following October that a US District Judge said he thought Jewell was not, at that time, a suspect. The US Attorney then told Jewell that he was no longer under investigation.
In August 1997, a year after the event, then Attorney General Janet Reno publicly apologized to Jewell and deplored the leak to the media that made his name known as a suspect. “I regret very much the leak that made him an object of so much public attention,” Reno commented. “I don’t think any apology is sufficient when somebody has gone through . . . what Mr. Jewell has gone through.”
But by that time Richard Jewell had lived for months under a very dark cloud. He appeared at a televised news conference, and said, “I am not the Olympic Park bomber. I am a man who has lived 88 days afraid of being arrested for a crime I did commit.” He said the FBI latched onto him “in its rush to show the world it could get its man.”
Another high-profile ‘person of interest’ is Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former researcher at the Army's infectious disease research laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Hatfill, 50, has been under FBI scrutiny since the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others. He has never been charged with a crime, simply designated a ’person of interest’.
The former Army researcher has denied involvement in the anthrax mailings and claims he was fired from a job because of the media coverage of the case. The Washington Times, which claimed that Hatfill might have been the culprit, eventually said Hatfill might have been framed by a team of government scientists.
His apartment and rubbish bins were searched several times. He has been under 24-hour surveillance. A swamp, near the government laboratory where he once worked, was drained by the FBI.
Hatfill told news media, "I've been in this field for a number of years, working until 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction, and, sir, my career is over at this time."
Hatfill sued then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI, accusing the government of "a campaign of harassment" and unfairly singling him out. . Ashcroft had publicly called him a ‘person of interest’ in the anthrax probe in 2002.
Hatfill also sued the New York Times Co. and columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, claiming the paper defamed him in a series of columns that identified him as the likely culprit. The lawsuit said Kristof identified him as the anthrax killer to "light a fire" under investigators in their probe of the anthrax-spore mailings.
Hatfill accused Kristof of making "false and defamatory" allegations and the Times of engaging in "substandard and unethical journalism.''
In a series of columns in 2002, Kristof criticized the FBI for failing to
aggressively pursue a scientist he at first identified as "Mr. Z.'' He wrote
that the biodefense community had called Mr. Z a "likely culprit" and was
"buzzing about Mr. Z behind his back," in part because the scientist was
familiar with anthrax and was angered at the suspension of his top security
clearance less than a month before the attacks.
Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, later acknowledged that Mr. Z was
Hatfill. He also wrote that Hatfill deserved the "presumption of innocence" and
that "there is not a shred of traditional physical evidence linking him to the
attacks.''
No one has ever been charged in the investigation of anthrax-tainted letters mailed to media and government offices.
At the end of September 2003 – nearly two years after the anthrax attacks -- the new head of the FBI investigation says it is troubling that Hatfill was publicly labeled a "person of interest" in the case by top law enforcement officials. "The anthrax investigation has been beset by a number of leaks”, he said, and labeled this “unfortunate”.
Meanwhile, Hatfill remains unemployed, and perhaps unemployable.
ABOUT TARIQ RAMADAN
By William Fisher
The Muslim scholar who was issued and then denied a visa to teach in the United States because of alleged ties to ‘terrorists’ is calling for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishments, stoning, and the death penalty that Muslim fundamentalists say is mandated by Shariah law.
Writing in the French newspaper, Le Monde, Tariq Ramadan said, in Western societies, “the infliction of corporal punishments, stoning, execution in the name of a religious standard that would impose itself on an entire society, cannot be accepted.” The Islamic world, he writes, “sends very contradictory messages: firm and definitive condemnations come from a small minority of Muslim intellectuals or social or political actors, while certain governments attempt to legitimize their Islamic character by the application of these repressive practices.”
Calling for a robust debate over “the future of relations between civilizations, religions, and cultures”, Ramadan urges “an immediate moratorium in the Muslim world in the very name of Islamic principles themselves.”
“When we call for a moratorium” on the application of Shariah law, he says, “voices in the West assert: ‘That's unacceptable; it's not enough!’ Others in the Muslim world exclaim: ‘It's unacceptable; it's treason to our standards!’ “
Ramadan wonders how such a debate is possible given the hardened attitudes of both Islamic and Western societies.
At least one Muslim scholar, Prof. Omid Safi, Chair for Islamic Studies at the American Academy of Religion at Colgate University, believes this kind of debate is “not only possible but essential”. He told IPS, “It’s true that this kind of intra-Muslim conversation may be attractive to the West. But it is not for the benefit of the West that it should happen. It is for the benefit of Islam, and for all of us simply as human beings. The ‘fundamental debate’ Prof. Ramadan is urging will find its subject matter within the core of Islam itself.” Prof. Safi is chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU), a relatively new, small but growing movement within Islam.
Safi, who is the editor of ‘Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism’, says of the movement, “Our aim has been to envision a socially and politically active Islamic identity that remains committed to ideals of social justice, pluralism, and gender equality. The aim here is not to advocate our own understanding as uniquely "Islamic" to the exclusion of the past fourteen hundred years of Islamic thought and practice.”
Ramadan voices a similar idea. “The evolution of minds,” he says, “will only happen in the Muslim world as a result of this debate, which should allow this universe to reconcile itself with the essence of its message of justice, equality, and pluralism rather than to be obsessed with its most repressive and violent aspects because of frustration with bad experiences or feelings of alienation fostered by the leitmotiv of Western domination.”
“Isn't it possible,” he asks, “to stipulate non-negotiable universal values (the integrity of the human person, equality under the law, rejection of degrading treatment, etc.), while recognizing and acknowledging the diversity and specificity of standards (religious and cultural), the histories that can lead to their expression and demand?”
In August 2004, the U. S. revoked the visa it issued to Dr. Ramadan to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics at Notre Dame University in Indiana. He received a visa from the State Department and was scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security.
Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies and philosophy at Fribourg University in Switzerland, was barred under a section of the Patriot Act, which denies entry to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." He has been described by Time magazine as one of the 100 most likely innovators of the 21st century.
Prof. Ramadan is far from the first to be denied visas to the U.S. in recent months. A group of Cuban Grammy nominees was denied U.S. visas and could not attend the award ceremonies in Los Angeles. Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan historian and former Sandinista official, was excluded because of purported involvement in terrorist acts – even though she had traveled to the U.S. numerous other times. And a group of Chinese computer scientists met the same fate.
But it is unusual for a visa to be issued and then rescinded, as in Prof. Ramadan’s case.
Ramadan’s position on Shariah law suggests a solution. He says “the ulemas (scholars trained in Islamic law and theology) agree neither on the interpretations of the contents (nor sometimes on the authenticity) of the texts that refer to these practices, nor, by the way, on the prerequisite conditions and the socio-political contexts in which they are possible. In the absence of any consensus on the subject, we must, therefore, open a large and pluralistic debate, by deciding to stop the practices immediately.”
He adds, “The application of Shariah is used today by repressive powers that attack women, the poor, and their political opposition in a legal near-void in which summary executions of accused persons - whose human dignity is not respected, accused persons without defense, without a lawyer - are increasing. Contemporary Muslim conscience cannot accept these denials of justice.”
“Whole swathes of Muslim populations, from Nigeria to Malaysia, regularly demand the strict application of Shariah, and the majority of ulemas -- Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law and theology -- limit themselves to asserting that these punishments ‘are almost never applicable’, by insisting on the prerequisite conditions, but they avoid expressing themselves clearly on the question, most often so as not to lose their credibility with these populations.”
“The unilateral condemnations that we hear in the West will not help things evolve. For the moment, we're living through exactly the opposite phenomenon: Muslim populations convince themselves of the Islamic character of these practices by virtue of Western rejection… the less Western it is, the more Islamic it is."
He concludes: “We have to emerge from this perversion, and Western governments and individuals have a major responsibility to allow the Muslim world to engage in this debate…”
The Muslim scholar who was issued and then denied a visa to teach in the United States because of alleged ties to ‘terrorists’ is calling for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishments, stoning, and the death penalty that Muslim fundamentalists say is mandated by Shariah law.
Writing in the French newspaper, Le Monde, Tariq Ramadan said, in Western societies, “the infliction of corporal punishments, stoning, execution in the name of a religious standard that would impose itself on an entire society, cannot be accepted.” The Islamic world, he writes, “sends very contradictory messages: firm and definitive condemnations come from a small minority of Muslim intellectuals or social or political actors, while certain governments attempt to legitimize their Islamic character by the application of these repressive practices.”
Calling for a robust debate over “the future of relations between civilizations, religions, and cultures”, Ramadan urges “an immediate moratorium in the Muslim world in the very name of Islamic principles themselves.”
“When we call for a moratorium” on the application of Shariah law, he says, “voices in the West assert: ‘That's unacceptable; it's not enough!’ Others in the Muslim world exclaim: ‘It's unacceptable; it's treason to our standards!’ “
Ramadan wonders how such a debate is possible given the hardened attitudes of both Islamic and Western societies.
At least one Muslim scholar, Prof. Omid Safi, Chair for Islamic Studies at the American Academy of Religion at Colgate University, believes this kind of debate is “not only possible but essential”. He told IPS, “It’s true that this kind of intra-Muslim conversation may be attractive to the West. But it is not for the benefit of the West that it should happen. It is for the benefit of Islam, and for all of us simply as human beings. The ‘fundamental debate’ Prof. Ramadan is urging will find its subject matter within the core of Islam itself.” Prof. Safi is chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU), a relatively new, small but growing movement within Islam.
Safi, who is the editor of ‘Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism’, says of the movement, “Our aim has been to envision a socially and politically active Islamic identity that remains committed to ideals of social justice, pluralism, and gender equality. The aim here is not to advocate our own understanding as uniquely "Islamic" to the exclusion of the past fourteen hundred years of Islamic thought and practice.”
Ramadan voices a similar idea. “The evolution of minds,” he says, “will only happen in the Muslim world as a result of this debate, which should allow this universe to reconcile itself with the essence of its message of justice, equality, and pluralism rather than to be obsessed with its most repressive and violent aspects because of frustration with bad experiences or feelings of alienation fostered by the leitmotiv of Western domination.”
“Isn't it possible,” he asks, “to stipulate non-negotiable universal values (the integrity of the human person, equality under the law, rejection of degrading treatment, etc.), while recognizing and acknowledging the diversity and specificity of standards (religious and cultural), the histories that can lead to their expression and demand?”
In August 2004, the U. S. revoked the visa it issued to Dr. Ramadan to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics at Notre Dame University in Indiana. He received a visa from the State Department and was scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security.
Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies and philosophy at Fribourg University in Switzerland, was barred under a section of the Patriot Act, which denies entry to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." He has been described by Time magazine as one of the 100 most likely innovators of the 21st century.
Prof. Ramadan is far from the first to be denied visas to the U.S. in recent months. A group of Cuban Grammy nominees was denied U.S. visas and could not attend the award ceremonies in Los Angeles. Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan historian and former Sandinista official, was excluded because of purported involvement in terrorist acts – even though she had traveled to the U.S. numerous other times. And a group of Chinese computer scientists met the same fate.
But it is unusual for a visa to be issued and then rescinded, as in Prof. Ramadan’s case.
Ramadan’s position on Shariah law suggests a solution. He says “the ulemas (scholars trained in Islamic law and theology) agree neither on the interpretations of the contents (nor sometimes on the authenticity) of the texts that refer to these practices, nor, by the way, on the prerequisite conditions and the socio-political contexts in which they are possible. In the absence of any consensus on the subject, we must, therefore, open a large and pluralistic debate, by deciding to stop the practices immediately.”
He adds, “The application of Shariah is used today by repressive powers that attack women, the poor, and their political opposition in a legal near-void in which summary executions of accused persons - whose human dignity is not respected, accused persons without defense, without a lawyer - are increasing. Contemporary Muslim conscience cannot accept these denials of justice.”
“Whole swathes of Muslim populations, from Nigeria to Malaysia, regularly demand the strict application of Shariah, and the majority of ulemas -- Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law and theology -- limit themselves to asserting that these punishments ‘are almost never applicable’, by insisting on the prerequisite conditions, but they avoid expressing themselves clearly on the question, most often so as not to lose their credibility with these populations.”
“The unilateral condemnations that we hear in the West will not help things evolve. For the moment, we're living through exactly the opposite phenomenon: Muslim populations convince themselves of the Islamic character of these practices by virtue of Western rejection… the less Western it is, the more Islamic it is."
He concludes: “We have to emerge from this perversion, and Western governments and individuals have a major responsibility to allow the Muslim world to engage in this debate…”
Are We "Ugly Americans"?
By Jason Miller
Somebody please tell Karl Rove to quit holding up the applause sign. The minions he manipulates are cheering for an America that does not exist. The abstract concept of America, and its embodiment of liberties and human rights, is a fiction. Norman Rockwell's portrayal of America was an idealistic perversion of a landscape, that for many, has been littered with oppression, bigotry, greed, torture and even murder. Goya's brutal "Duel With Cudgels" would come closer to capturing the essence of the underlying mean-spiritedness of this nation that the Bush administration is working so hard to revitalize. Yes, there is a dark, brutish aspect to this self-proclaimed beacon of freedom and liberty, and I am going to delve into it. Read on if you dare to take an introspective look at the darker aspects of our national identity.
This nation's founders captured inhabitants of various nations or tribes
from the continent of Africa, brought them to the colonies against their
will, and allowed for their continued enslavement through our
Constitution. Abolitionists, like John Brown, were executed as terrorists.
A bloody Civil War and three Amendments to the Constitution still were not
enough to end the oppression of blacks in our nation. The specter of Jim
Crow arose in the south in the 1890's, and did not die out until leaders
like Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged in
the mid Twentieth Century. Even some peaceful opponents of black
oppression, like King, were slain for their beliefs. In today's world,
racism hides behind the veil of "political correctness", and those who
practice it often cower from the legal consequences of practicing their
bigotry openly. However, covert as it often is, racism is still a
pervasive part of American society.
The Native Americans have not fared so well in America either, at least
not since the Western Europeans invaded their continent. In 1830, the US
Congress passed the "Indian Removal Act", which eventually enabled the
federal government to resolve the problem of a growing population in the
state of Georgia by moving the Cherokee Nation to the state of Oklahoma,
In 1838, on the forced 1,000 mile march, 4,000 Cherokee men, women and
children died in what is now known as "The Trail of Tears".
Tecumseh, a Shawnee leader who organized opposition to forced Native
American colonization, showed his insight into the ugly aspect of America
when he spoke to the Osage tribe in 1812. In his speech, he said,
"Brothers, the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled,
they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they
sting their benefactors to death."
Thanks to Howard Zinn in Voices of a People's History of the United States
for uncovering a telling quote from the Saturday Pioneer, a newspaper in
Aberdeen, South Dakota. Ironically, L. Frank Baum, who also wrote The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was the paper's editor in 1890, when the quote
appeared. Shortly after the massacre at Wounded Knee, and the subsequent
murder of Sitting Bull, Baum's paper wrote, "The Whites, by law of
conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American
continent....and the best safety of the frontier settlers will be secured
by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." What a
heart-warming heritage for our nation.
America continued to demonstrate its imperialistic ways in the Mexican
War. Eager to expand US territory, President James Polk annexed Texas, and
sent American troops to help this future state gain its independence from
Mexico. In less than two years, America brought Mexico to its knees, and
proudly included Texas, New Mexico, and California in its borders. Maybe
the illegal Mexican immigrants of today are simply trying to find their
ancestral homes that were seized by conquest.
William McKinley came to office in 1896 to preside over a country that
still had a ravenous appetite for expansion. "Manifest destiny" was the
order of the day. Under McKinnley, the US waged war against Spain in Cuba,
and drove the Spaniards out, leaving a power vacuum that was quickly
filled by greedy US corporations. 500,000 Filipinos were killed as America
wrested the Philippine Islands away from Spain. McKinley also arranged for
the annexation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico during his reign, or, depending
on one's perspective, presidency.
In the early Twentieth Century, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers
cast a light into the shadows where ruthless corporations victimized
workers and consumers with their avarice-driven disregard for health and
safety. Sinclair's expose' of the corrupt and dangerous practices of the
meat-packing industry (entitled The Jungle)led to the passage of The Pure
Food and Drug Act of 1906. Prior to the efforts of Populists and
Socialists, America's system of unbridled capitalism and laisez-faire
economic policy by the federal government enabled ruthless corporations to
treat their workers like cattle and market products to consumers with
little regard for health or quality.
Eugene Debs and other war protestors who violated the Sedition Act during
World War I, paid the price with their freedom. As they sat in prison for
exercising their First Amendment rights, over 100,000 Americans died in
the "war to end all wars". Our government could employ flag-waving
propaganda to lure millions of young men to face horror and death, but if
an individual protested against their use of this propaganda in the "land
of the free", that individual went to prison.
Ask the Japanese citizens during World War II for their perspective on the
"American Dream". Or would it be more appropriate to say "Nightmare"? Over
100,000 of them were displaced from their homes and businesses and herded
into camps surrounded by barb-wire. Their "crime" was "disloyalty". After
the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the federal government first employed curfews
as a means to marshal control of the "enemy within". Eventually, they made
the decision to move 110,000 people of Japanese descent into ten
"relocation centers" throughout the United States. Most of them were
American citizens born on American soil, and they were imprisoned without
a trial and without being charged with a crime. Guantanamo Bay now makes
America a repeat offender.
America is still drunk with power, arrogance, and an insatiable appetite
for the accumulation of wealth. Based on a statement of principles drafted
in 1997, and a think-tank created to formulate ways to implement the
principles, The Project for the New American Century paved the way for
George Bush and his pack of so-called "neo-cons" to launch the unprovoked
and unsubstantiated invasion of Iraq. Several of the war hungry neo-cons,
like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, signed the statement of principles,
and 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to initiate their aggression.
Their imperial intentions are clearly outlined at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Their
concluding paragraph states:
"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next."
The Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to making the
Twenty First Century the "American Century". However, the reality is, the
invasion of a small country like Iraq has stretched our military to its
limits, and two years later there is still strong resistance to the
American imposed government, and much chaos. The sun is setting on the
"American Empire" as Bush and his people desperately struggle to fan the
dying embers and rekindle the flames. There are multiple countries with
nuclear capabilities. China is rivalling the US both as an economic and
military power. Terrorism has proven to be the David to our Goliath. With
a $7.5 trillion deficit, America is bleeding red ink, and the effort in
Iraq is costing billions that this country does not have.
Bush has launched a war with no end in sight against the "evil
terrorists", an elusive, shadow target which cannot be definitively
beaten. Perpetual fear and hatred of the "terrorists" motivate Americans
to support a seemingly endless war, and enable Karl Rove to manipulate the
masses, leaving the neo-cons free to pursue their policy of military
proliferation of American interests to their hearts' content. However, the
waning strength of this nation, coupled with the rising strength of
nations like China, make this model unsustainable.
In 1997, with the advent of The Project for the New American Century,
America laid out a publicly available plan for global domination.
Historically, Americans have pursued a policy of aggressive global
expansionism under the guise of altruism, the "right of manifest destiny",
or under the pretext of protecting its regional interests. The United
States flaunts its lofty Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet with each
passing day continues to deny basic civil rights to homosexuals (who make
up 5% of the population), defies the UN and Geneva Convention, earns an
annual per capita income of $34,000.00 (compared to the world per capita
of $7,000.00), and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while 2
billion people in the world have no access to electricity and Bush has
elected to withdraw from the Kyoto Treaty). In 2000, the Bush regime
installed itself to rule our Executive branch by manipulating the voting
process. This regime has engaged in a consistent pattern of false
propaganda to manipulate public opinion, unilateral decision-making
without regard for relationships with allies or the UN, and has rewarded
and promoted its staff members in spite of acts of incompetence and war
crimes. The US Senate is now considering a bill, the Constitution
Restoration Act, promoted by America's own religious radicals. The CRA
would, for the purposes of judicial review, recognize "God as the
sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." And Americans thought
the Muslim theocracies were frightening?
Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? Certainly it shattered
our illusion of invulnerability. However, there are deeper psychological
forces at work. As Ward Churchill stated in "Some People Push Back",
"America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of
self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's
peoples ample cause to be at war with it." It is time for America to stop
considering itself the center of the universe. America was not an innocent
victim on 9/11. The people who died that day were innocent victims, but
America as a nation was not innocent, and had been asking to be attacked
for many years. Our nation has oppressed and provoked people and other
nations since its founding, and has faced few consequences. 9/11 was a
wake up call. It is time for America to come down from its pedestal and
take its place amongst the world community, as equals, rather than as
condescending tyrants.
I will conclude by stating that I still believe in the inherent decency of
many of the people in the United States. My opinion is that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights represent a contract between citizens and
government that is unparalleled in its capacity to create a government
that represents and protects the rights and interests of its people. I
believe in an economic system based on capitalism, provided there are
reasonable government restraints on the power of businesses, and
government safety nets for the poor and under-privileged. Despite the ugly
stains on our history, we as Americans had been making great evolutionary
strides in the areas of civil rights, inclusion, justice, and toning down
our aggressive foreign policy. However, I am seeing many signs of that
progress eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and
dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth,
justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the
ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles
of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Today, I have written
about the dark side of our nation to motivate those of us who are willing
to look at the uglier aspects of our nature to continue to work toward a
more spiritually evolved and enlightened place.
Somebody please tell Karl Rove to quit holding up the applause sign. The minions he manipulates are cheering for an America that does not exist. The abstract concept of America, and its embodiment of liberties and human rights, is a fiction. Norman Rockwell's portrayal of America was an idealistic perversion of a landscape, that for many, has been littered with oppression, bigotry, greed, torture and even murder. Goya's brutal "Duel With Cudgels" would come closer to capturing the essence of the underlying mean-spiritedness of this nation that the Bush administration is working so hard to revitalize. Yes, there is a dark, brutish aspect to this self-proclaimed beacon of freedom and liberty, and I am going to delve into it. Read on if you dare to take an introspective look at the darker aspects of our national identity.
This nation's founders captured inhabitants of various nations or tribes
from the continent of Africa, brought them to the colonies against their
will, and allowed for their continued enslavement through our
Constitution. Abolitionists, like John Brown, were executed as terrorists.
A bloody Civil War and three Amendments to the Constitution still were not
enough to end the oppression of blacks in our nation. The specter of Jim
Crow arose in the south in the 1890's, and did not die out until leaders
like Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged in
the mid Twentieth Century. Even some peaceful opponents of black
oppression, like King, were slain for their beliefs. In today's world,
racism hides behind the veil of "political correctness", and those who
practice it often cower from the legal consequences of practicing their
bigotry openly. However, covert as it often is, racism is still a
pervasive part of American society.
The Native Americans have not fared so well in America either, at least
not since the Western Europeans invaded their continent. In 1830, the US
Congress passed the "Indian Removal Act", which eventually enabled the
federal government to resolve the problem of a growing population in the
state of Georgia by moving the Cherokee Nation to the state of Oklahoma,
In 1838, on the forced 1,000 mile march, 4,000 Cherokee men, women and
children died in what is now known as "The Trail of Tears".
Tecumseh, a Shawnee leader who organized opposition to forced Native
American colonization, showed his insight into the ugly aspect of America
when he spoke to the Osage tribe in 1812. In his speech, he said,
"Brothers, the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled,
they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they
sting their benefactors to death."
Thanks to Howard Zinn in Voices of a People's History of the United States
for uncovering a telling quote from the Saturday Pioneer, a newspaper in
Aberdeen, South Dakota. Ironically, L. Frank Baum, who also wrote The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was the paper's editor in 1890, when the quote
appeared. Shortly after the massacre at Wounded Knee, and the subsequent
murder of Sitting Bull, Baum's paper wrote, "The Whites, by law of
conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American
continent....and the best safety of the frontier settlers will be secured
by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." What a
heart-warming heritage for our nation.
America continued to demonstrate its imperialistic ways in the Mexican
War. Eager to expand US territory, President James Polk annexed Texas, and
sent American troops to help this future state gain its independence from
Mexico. In less than two years, America brought Mexico to its knees, and
proudly included Texas, New Mexico, and California in its borders. Maybe
the illegal Mexican immigrants of today are simply trying to find their
ancestral homes that were seized by conquest.
William McKinley came to office in 1896 to preside over a country that
still had a ravenous appetite for expansion. "Manifest destiny" was the
order of the day. Under McKinnley, the US waged war against Spain in Cuba,
and drove the Spaniards out, leaving a power vacuum that was quickly
filled by greedy US corporations. 500,000 Filipinos were killed as America
wrested the Philippine Islands away from Spain. McKinley also arranged for
the annexation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico during his reign, or, depending
on one's perspective, presidency.
In the early Twentieth Century, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers
cast a light into the shadows where ruthless corporations victimized
workers and consumers with their avarice-driven disregard for health and
safety. Sinclair's expose' of the corrupt and dangerous practices of the
meat-packing industry (entitled The Jungle)led to the passage of The Pure
Food and Drug Act of 1906. Prior to the efforts of Populists and
Socialists, America's system of unbridled capitalism and laisez-faire
economic policy by the federal government enabled ruthless corporations to
treat their workers like cattle and market products to consumers with
little regard for health or quality.
Eugene Debs and other war protestors who violated the Sedition Act during
World War I, paid the price with their freedom. As they sat in prison for
exercising their First Amendment rights, over 100,000 Americans died in
the "war to end all wars". Our government could employ flag-waving
propaganda to lure millions of young men to face horror and death, but if
an individual protested against their use of this propaganda in the "land
of the free", that individual went to prison.
Ask the Japanese citizens during World War II for their perspective on the
"American Dream". Or would it be more appropriate to say "Nightmare"? Over
100,000 of them were displaced from their homes and businesses and herded
into camps surrounded by barb-wire. Their "crime" was "disloyalty". After
the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the federal government first employed curfews
as a means to marshal control of the "enemy within". Eventually, they made
the decision to move 110,000 people of Japanese descent into ten
"relocation centers" throughout the United States. Most of them were
American citizens born on American soil, and they were imprisoned without
a trial and without being charged with a crime. Guantanamo Bay now makes
America a repeat offender.
America is still drunk with power, arrogance, and an insatiable appetite
for the accumulation of wealth. Based on a statement of principles drafted
in 1997, and a think-tank created to formulate ways to implement the
principles, The Project for the New American Century paved the way for
George Bush and his pack of so-called "neo-cons" to launch the unprovoked
and unsubstantiated invasion of Iraq. Several of the war hungry neo-cons,
like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, signed the statement of principles,
and 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to initiate their aggression.
Their imperial intentions are clearly outlined at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Their
concluding paragraph states:
"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next."
The Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to making the
Twenty First Century the "American Century". However, the reality is, the
invasion of a small country like Iraq has stretched our military to its
limits, and two years later there is still strong resistance to the
American imposed government, and much chaos. The sun is setting on the
"American Empire" as Bush and his people desperately struggle to fan the
dying embers and rekindle the flames. There are multiple countries with
nuclear capabilities. China is rivalling the US both as an economic and
military power. Terrorism has proven to be the David to our Goliath. With
a $7.5 trillion deficit, America is bleeding red ink, and the effort in
Iraq is costing billions that this country does not have.
Bush has launched a war with no end in sight against the "evil
terrorists", an elusive, shadow target which cannot be definitively
beaten. Perpetual fear and hatred of the "terrorists" motivate Americans
to support a seemingly endless war, and enable Karl Rove to manipulate the
masses, leaving the neo-cons free to pursue their policy of military
proliferation of American interests to their hearts' content. However, the
waning strength of this nation, coupled with the rising strength of
nations like China, make this model unsustainable.
In 1997, with the advent of The Project for the New American Century,
America laid out a publicly available plan for global domination.
Historically, Americans have pursued a policy of aggressive global
expansionism under the guise of altruism, the "right of manifest destiny",
or under the pretext of protecting its regional interests. The United
States flaunts its lofty Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet with each
passing day continues to deny basic civil rights to homosexuals (who make
up 5% of the population), defies the UN and Geneva Convention, earns an
annual per capita income of $34,000.00 (compared to the world per capita
of $7,000.00), and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while 2
billion people in the world have no access to electricity and Bush has
elected to withdraw from the Kyoto Treaty). In 2000, the Bush regime
installed itself to rule our Executive branch by manipulating the voting
process. This regime has engaged in a consistent pattern of false
propaganda to manipulate public opinion, unilateral decision-making
without regard for relationships with allies or the UN, and has rewarded
and promoted its staff members in spite of acts of incompetence and war
crimes. The US Senate is now considering a bill, the Constitution
Restoration Act, promoted by America's own religious radicals. The CRA
would, for the purposes of judicial review, recognize "God as the
sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." And Americans thought
the Muslim theocracies were frightening?
Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? Certainly it shattered
our illusion of invulnerability. However, there are deeper psychological
forces at work. As Ward Churchill stated in "Some People Push Back",
"America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of
self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's
peoples ample cause to be at war with it." It is time for America to stop
considering itself the center of the universe. America was not an innocent
victim on 9/11. The people who died that day were innocent victims, but
America as a nation was not innocent, and had been asking to be attacked
for many years. Our nation has oppressed and provoked people and other
nations since its founding, and has faced few consequences. 9/11 was a
wake up call. It is time for America to come down from its pedestal and
take its place amongst the world community, as equals, rather than as
condescending tyrants.
I will conclude by stating that I still believe in the inherent decency of
many of the people in the United States. My opinion is that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights represent a contract between citizens and
government that is unparalleled in its capacity to create a government
that represents and protects the rights and interests of its people. I
believe in an economic system based on capitalism, provided there are
reasonable government restraints on the power of businesses, and
government safety nets for the poor and under-privileged. Despite the ugly
stains on our history, we as Americans had been making great evolutionary
strides in the areas of civil rights, inclusion, justice, and toning down
our aggressive foreign policy. However, I am seeing many signs of that
progress eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and
dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth,
justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the
ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles
of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Today, I have written
about the dark side of our nation to motivate those of us who are willing
to look at the uglier aspects of our nature to continue to work toward a
more spiritually evolved and enlightened place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
