By William Fisher
Will we always have GITMO? Will it always be the 800-pound gorilla in the room?
This week, the world marks the fifth anniversary of the arrival of the first detainees at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And still a growing number of people and organizations – from military officers to religious leaders to legal scholars to human rights groups – continue to label the prison a black hole of injustice and demand that it be closed.
The facility, established following the war in Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, has been controversial throughout the world as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) imprisoned hundreds of alleged terrorists. It has been widely condemned for prisoner abuse and for the absence of any meaningful process to separate genuine wrongdoers from people detained because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Recently departed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly declared all the detainees “the worst of the worst.” But from its peak inmate population of 773, several hundred detainees have been released – mostly because the DOD concluded that they no longer represented a threat to U.S. national security -- the camp continues to house more than 400 prisoners.
While the US military claimed Guantanamo inmates were captured “on the battlefield” in Afghanistan, and designated by the Bush Administration as enemy combatants, there has been mounting evidence that a number were victims of what is known as “extraordinary rendition” – capturing a person and sending him to a site recognized for practicing torture.
President George W. Bush has implicitly admitted that others, including 14 so-called “high value” prisoners said to have played significant roles in the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist act, were sent to Guantanamo after long detentions in the CIA’s “black hole” secret prisons in Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and other locations.
None of these prisoners have been tried nor have any charges been brought against them.
Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA, a human rights group that has labeled Guantanamo as the “American Gulag,” told us, “The U.S. administration chose Guantanamo as the location for this detention facility in an attempt to hold detainees beyond the reach of U.S. and international law. For five years, the vast majority of these men have been held in indefinite detention, without charge or trial. For five years, we have heard stories of torture and ill-treatment. And for five years, we have been assured that these detainees were captured ‘on the battlefield’ and represent the ‘worst of the worst’. Yet the U.S. government's own tribunals have determined that over half of those detained never committed any hostile acts against the United States. And most of those held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, but were handed over to the U.S. by others in exchange for cash rewards. Undoubtedly, this practice of paying bounties for prisoners has led to mistakes; yet for five years the U.S. government has denied that these men have the basic right to challenge their detentions.”
Or, as well put to us by Elizabeth de la Vega, author of the recent book, “U.S. v. Bush,” “Even before the drafting of the United States Constitution, since John Adams's famous decision to represent the British soldiers who were accused of the Boston Massacre, the right to counsel for all defendants -- regardless of the crime with which they are charged--has been a bedrock of the American criminal justice system. The vast majority of prisoners at Guantanamo, however, have not been charged with anything at all. By abolishing habeas corpus and now, with the casual change of a regulation, the Bush Administration has effectively prevented an entire group of people, many of whom may well be innocent, from having any means of redress whatsoever. Every American should be appalled by these actions."
Over the past five years, there has also been increasing disclosure of prisoner abuse, violating the Geneva Conventions. This evidence has flowed the testimony of released prisoners and from documents provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. This evidence centers on written communications from FBI agents who witnessed ”cruel, inhuman and degrading” prisoner treatment and interrogation, and reported it to their FBI superiors.
There have been three suicides among prisoners and hundreds have been force-fed to keep them alive during intermittent hunger strikes. The Department of Defense has acknowledged 41 suicide attempts among 29 prisoners.
The New York Times has reported that, while the June 10, 2006, suicides were the first inmate deaths at Guantanamo, “some prisoners tried suicide almost immediately after their arrival in 2001. By mid-2002, there had been numerous suicide attempts, and DOD renamed these acts as ‘self-injuries’."
In January 2005, the Times reported that there had been 350 incidents of "self-harm" in 2003. Of those, 120 were attempts by prisoners to hang themselves. Twenty-three prisoners participated in a simultaneous mass-suicide attempt.
President Bush has said he would like to close the facility, but the U.S. military has recently completed construction of new buildings to house cellblocks.
Among the most widespread criticisms of Guantanamo is the system set up by the Bush Administration for adjudicating individual cases.
That process began with the establishment of CSRTs – Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- in July 2004, more than two years after most detainees were imprisoned there. The CSRTs, while deeply flawed according to many military and civilian legal authorities, have been responsible for the release of some prisoners. In some cases, they concluded that the detainees had been captured by Afghan militias, Pakistani border guards and other surrogates, and some had been turned in for bounties, intelligence officials have said.
But the CSRT process itself proved to be ineffective. The New York Times reported that “Information about detainees’ identities and actions was often vague and secondhand. Physical evidence, if any existed, was sometimes lost before reaching Cuba.” Information obtained by coercion was allowed to be admitted as evidence.
The CSRTs required three military officers to decide cases by majority vote, based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” Midlevel officers – not military lawyers -- were ordered to help detainees prepare for their hearings.
Lawyers for detainees contended that the military placed insurmountable obstacles to their defense. For example, more than a week after a hearing for a Pakistani businessman accused of ties to Al Qaeda, a civilian lawyer who had been trying to help him said he had not been advised of the hearing.
Amidst growing international criticism, the Bush administration in May 2004 set up an annual parole system, called Administrative Review Boards, to assess whether a detainee represented a continuing threat or had intelligence value.
But before those hearings ever began, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration must conduct a one-time review of all Guantánamo detainees using the sort of panels called for by Army regulations — and by the Geneva Conventions. This year’s round of parole-type review hearings ended last month. Most of the detainees eligible to appear at these hearings have reportedly stopped trying because of the perceived bias in the procedure and the haste with which hearings are carried out.
Meanwhile, in an effort to restrain President Bush from claiming inherent powers to determine what kinds of treatment constituted cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act. The President signed the bill into law, but at the same time issued a “signing statement” that essentially claimed that the commander-in-chief could disregard the law when he deemed it not in the national interest to do so.
Last year, the Supreme Court also played a pivotal role in rejecting President Bush’s assertion that his commander-in-chief authority gave him inherent power to establish Military Commissions to try Guantanamo detainees.
In a landmark decision in a 2006 case known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration "violate both the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions." The suit was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee.
The case considered whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, whether the special military commissions that had been set up violated federal law, and whether courts can enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva Convention.
On June 29, 2006, the Court ruled 5-3 that it had jurisdiction and that the federal government did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions.
Congress then quickly passed the United States Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, which was signed by President George W. Bush in October 2006. The Act's stated purpose was to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes."
Under the MCA, the Bush administration and the US Congress retroactively shielded from prosecution for illegal criminal activities those who have been involved in illegal detention, torture, and rendition.
But Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), strong backers of the MCA, agreed to the administration's "alternative" definitions of torture, which essentially meant that torture techniques could continue to be used by the U.S. military, the CIA, and contract employees. Attempts by the Senate Judiciary Committee to preserve the rights of habeas corpus hearings for detainees also failed.
Headlined by these and other lawmakers as a “compromise” with the president, the MCA essentially gave the administration all the powers it had claimed previously, as well as a few others. Congress allowed the president to prevent prisoners from appealing to the U.S. courts, and immunized government personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses.
The new Democratic Party-controlled Congress is reportedly considering whether to challenge the suspension of habeas corpus hearings for detainees.
The Bush administration claims it plans to charge up to 70 Guantanamo detainees in the military commissions authorized by the MCA. But legal experts point out that this still leaves more than 300 men held in Guantanamo without charge and without any clear explanation of what they are accused of doing.
Amidst the continuing uncertainty about this and other issues at Guantanamo, pressure for its closure is likely only to increase over time.
But what then? Where do we put the prisoners? And what do we do with them? And will anyone know?
At a bare minimum, and no thanks to the Bush Administration, we know where GITMO is and we know a lot of what has gone on there. GITMO’s “justice system” is a travesty, but arguably it is better than no system at all – and that might be the consequence of sending all the detainees to other facilities. With world attention focused on this Caribbean Devil’s Island over such a long period of time, it might just be that the Bush Administration finally understands that it has no place to hide – it has to run a model prison. Or be subjected to still more scorn from friends and adversaries alike.
Along with Abu Ghraib, GITMO has become emblematic of the colossal blunders our government has made in conducting the so-called War on Terrorism and in following the president’s messianic vision of a world chockablock with liberal Western-style democracies.
If the president still believes in this vision – mandated, as he said, by “a higher father” – he is truly delusional. If he is not, what he needs to do now is ensure that prisoners left at GITMO receive justice with due process and the right of appeal. Congress can now play a role by amending the MCA. Then the remaining cases should be swiftly and transparently adjudicated. Justice not only must be done; it must be seen to be done.
How Mr. Bush handles this issue will be a significant part of his legacy, about which every president must be concerned. Doing the right thing at GITMO – now -- could help remove a bit of the tarnish that promises to characterize his legacy. And begin to rebuild a little of the respect the world once had for our country.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
RELIGIOUS LEADERS PUSH BACK AGAINST REP. GOODE
By William Fisher
More than 20 prominent religious leaders have launched an online petition demanding that Rep. Vigil Goode (R-Va) reexamine his opposition to newly-elected Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim from Minnesota, taking his unofficial oath of office using the Qur'an, and to apologize for his statement that, without punitive immigration reform, "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Qur’an."
The petition warns, “An attack against one religion is an attack against them all. Next week, it could be Jews. Next month, it could be Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals. Right now, it is Muslims. It is they who feel targeted by repression and abuse, and they who live among us in a growing climate of fear. … We hold it to be self-evident that all Americans have the right to practice their faith, whatever it may be, and that any Americans - regardless of race, color or creed - may be elected and sworn into office holding whatever book they consider sacred…We would point out that there are some five million Muslims in the US. Many have been here for generations. They are every bit as American as Rep. Goode. Some Americans have also converted to Islam, including Rep. Ellison. We call for a renewed unity among people of conscience and of faith.”
The petition adds, “In a spirit of reconciliation and peace, we invite Rep. Goode to join with us in an inter-religious delegation to visit a mosque in his district, in order that the healing may begin.”
The Goode-Ellison firestorm was triggered by remarks by right-wing talk-show host and writer Dennis Prager, who got the ball rolling about a month ago, arguing that Ellison, Congress’ first Muslim, will literally “undermine American civilization” and “embolden Islamic extremists” if he takes the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Christian Bible. Rep. Goode was part of a wide assortment of right-wing critics who came forward with similar denunciations. Goode argued that Ellison is proof that we need immigration reform to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
On swearing-in day last week, Rep. Ellison did in fact place his hand on the Muslim holy book in a private ceremony for family, friends, and staffers at the Capitol. The Qur’an he used had belonged to Thomas Jefferson, who was a native of Goode’s Congressional District.
Earlier, following the en masse swearing in of the 110th Congress – at which no holy book is used – Rep. Goode was seen making his way to Rep. Ellison on the floor of the House. The two shook hands, but Goode has refused to retract his statements.
Appearing on Fox's "Your World" program with guest-host David Asman, Goode insisted he does not want to forbid Keith Ellison from using the Qu’ran outright. "But," he said, "I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives."
To block the invading hordes, Goode wants to curtail legal immigration for Middle Easterners, and end Diversity Visa programs that were created to increase the immigrants from non-European countries.
Religious leaders and organizations backing the petition include Dr. George Hunsinger of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. Robert Edgar of the
National Council of Churches, Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs of the Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation, Rev. Dr. Larry L. Greenfield of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago, Rev. Cedric A. Harmon of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joseph C. Hough, Jr. of the Union Theological Seminary, Vincent Isner of Faithful America, a program of the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, and Rev. Timothy F. Simpson of the Christian Alliance for Progress.
Readers wishing to read the full petition and original signatories can do so at http://ga3.org/campaign/reconcile.
In a statement, Rep. Ellison said, “We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document -- a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity. I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion. This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families.”
He added, “I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.”
Right-wing religious groups and the Republican Party have remained largely silent on the Goode-Ellison controversy. Only one prominent Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has publicly defended Ellison’s Qur’an decision and criticized Rep. Goode. Conservative religious groups have deviated little from promoting their more customary issues, such as opposition to “activist judges” and gay marriage. But there is mounting evidence that the more inclusive religious communities in the U.S. are determined to make their voices heard.
Princeton’s Dr. George Hunsinger, one of the original petition signatories, told us, "We were outmaneuvered by the Religious Right. We have a 20-year deficit to make up for. But remember that it wasn't so long ago that the likes of Martin Luther King and Rev. William Sloane Coffin were on the scene…From a Christian point of view, faithfulness is a higher virtue than effectiveness. Which doesn't mean that we can afford to be slackers when it comes to making a difference."
Goode was elected to Congress in 1996 as a Democrat, representing the historically conservative 5th Congressional District of Virginia, located in the southwest part of the state, where the largest city is Charlottesville. Like many Southern Democrats, Goode strongly opposed abortion and gun control and vigorously supported the tobacco industry. He is also a long-time opponent of same-sex marriage and gay civil unions. He officially became a Republican in August 2002 before the primary election, making him the first Republican to represent this district since Reconstruction.
In 2005, Goode faced questions when a major corporate campaign donor, defense contractor MZM, Inc., was implicated in a bribery scandal that resulted in the criminal conviction and resignation of California congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Although Goode insisted that his relations with MZM were motivated solely by his interest in bringing high-paying skilled jobs to his district, in December of that year he donated the $88,000 received in MZM contributions to regional charities.
In July 2006 Richard Berglund, a former supervisor of the Martinsville, Va. office of MZM Inc., pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Goode's campaign. Court papers indicated that Berglund and MZM owner Mitchell Wade, who previously pleaded guilty, engaged in a scheme to reimburse MZM employees for campaign donations.There was no allegation of wrong-doing on the part of Goode's campaign.
More than 20 prominent religious leaders have launched an online petition demanding that Rep. Vigil Goode (R-Va) reexamine his opposition to newly-elected Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim from Minnesota, taking his unofficial oath of office using the Qur'an, and to apologize for his statement that, without punitive immigration reform, "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Qur’an."
The petition warns, “An attack against one religion is an attack against them all. Next week, it could be Jews. Next month, it could be Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals. Right now, it is Muslims. It is they who feel targeted by repression and abuse, and they who live among us in a growing climate of fear. … We hold it to be self-evident that all Americans have the right to practice their faith, whatever it may be, and that any Americans - regardless of race, color or creed - may be elected and sworn into office holding whatever book they consider sacred…We would point out that there are some five million Muslims in the US. Many have been here for generations. They are every bit as American as Rep. Goode. Some Americans have also converted to Islam, including Rep. Ellison. We call for a renewed unity among people of conscience and of faith.”
The petition adds, “In a spirit of reconciliation and peace, we invite Rep. Goode to join with us in an inter-religious delegation to visit a mosque in his district, in order that the healing may begin.”
The Goode-Ellison firestorm was triggered by remarks by right-wing talk-show host and writer Dennis Prager, who got the ball rolling about a month ago, arguing that Ellison, Congress’ first Muslim, will literally “undermine American civilization” and “embolden Islamic extremists” if he takes the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Christian Bible. Rep. Goode was part of a wide assortment of right-wing critics who came forward with similar denunciations. Goode argued that Ellison is proof that we need immigration reform to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
On swearing-in day last week, Rep. Ellison did in fact place his hand on the Muslim holy book in a private ceremony for family, friends, and staffers at the Capitol. The Qur’an he used had belonged to Thomas Jefferson, who was a native of Goode’s Congressional District.
Earlier, following the en masse swearing in of the 110th Congress – at which no holy book is used – Rep. Goode was seen making his way to Rep. Ellison on the floor of the House. The two shook hands, but Goode has refused to retract his statements.
Appearing on Fox's "Your World" program with guest-host David Asman, Goode insisted he does not want to forbid Keith Ellison from using the Qu’ran outright. "But," he said, "I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives."
To block the invading hordes, Goode wants to curtail legal immigration for Middle Easterners, and end Diversity Visa programs that were created to increase the immigrants from non-European countries.
Religious leaders and organizations backing the petition include Dr. George Hunsinger of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. Robert Edgar of the
National Council of Churches, Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs of the Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation, Rev. Dr. Larry L. Greenfield of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago, Rev. Cedric A. Harmon of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joseph C. Hough, Jr. of the Union Theological Seminary, Vincent Isner of Faithful America, a program of the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, and Rev. Timothy F. Simpson of the Christian Alliance for Progress.
Readers wishing to read the full petition and original signatories can do so at http://ga3.org/campaign/reconcile.
In a statement, Rep. Ellison said, “We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document -- a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity. I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion. This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families.”
He added, “I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.”
Right-wing religious groups and the Republican Party have remained largely silent on the Goode-Ellison controversy. Only one prominent Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has publicly defended Ellison’s Qur’an decision and criticized Rep. Goode. Conservative religious groups have deviated little from promoting their more customary issues, such as opposition to “activist judges” and gay marriage. But there is mounting evidence that the more inclusive religious communities in the U.S. are determined to make their voices heard.
Princeton’s Dr. George Hunsinger, one of the original petition signatories, told us, "We were outmaneuvered by the Religious Right. We have a 20-year deficit to make up for. But remember that it wasn't so long ago that the likes of Martin Luther King and Rev. William Sloane Coffin were on the scene…From a Christian point of view, faithfulness is a higher virtue than effectiveness. Which doesn't mean that we can afford to be slackers when it comes to making a difference."
Goode was elected to Congress in 1996 as a Democrat, representing the historically conservative 5th Congressional District of Virginia, located in the southwest part of the state, where the largest city is Charlottesville. Like many Southern Democrats, Goode strongly opposed abortion and gun control and vigorously supported the tobacco industry. He is also a long-time opponent of same-sex marriage and gay civil unions. He officially became a Republican in August 2002 before the primary election, making him the first Republican to represent this district since Reconstruction.
In 2005, Goode faced questions when a major corporate campaign donor, defense contractor MZM, Inc., was implicated in a bribery scandal that resulted in the criminal conviction and resignation of California congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Although Goode insisted that his relations with MZM were motivated solely by his interest in bringing high-paying skilled jobs to his district, in December of that year he donated the $88,000 received in MZM contributions to regional charities.
In July 2006 Richard Berglund, a former supervisor of the Martinsville, Va. office of MZM Inc., pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Goode's campaign. Court papers indicated that Berglund and MZM owner Mitchell Wade, who previously pleaded guilty, engaged in a scheme to reimburse MZM employees for campaign donations.There was no allegation of wrong-doing on the part of Goode's campaign.
Friday, January 05, 2007
GOODBYE TO A YEAR OF IRONIES
By William Fisher
One needs a well-honed sense of irony to truly appreciate 2006. Some of these ironies were funny. Some were embarrassing. A lot were downright tragic. Before we finally consign the old year to the historians, let us recount some of some of them.
Arguably the most depressing irony of 2006 was that the country to which we claim to be bringing the rule of law turned the execution of a true miscreant into a lynch mob. We didn’t do it – that was the handiwork of Iraq’s so-called unity government. But we’re getting blamed anyway. This piece of Kafkaesque theater is going to do wonders for our Public Diplomacy programs! Karen Hughes, where are you when we need you?
But there was a lot more.
While we fretted about North Korea’s A-bombs and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Pentagon and the Energy Department chose the first new, nuclear-weapon design for development since the end of the Cold War. But not to worry -- the new warhead will be safer, cheaper, more secure, easier to manufacture, and never need explosive testing. This latest toy would be the first step toward an entirely new U.S. nuclear arsenal. But it’s far from the first step in the perception that America might just have a tad of a double-standard problem in the proliferation business.
Then, there was the irony of Iraqi refugees. Members of Muslim and Christian minorities, as well as doctors, university professors, scientists, people who worked for the U.S. authorities, and just average citizens, fled this “liberated” country in the tens of thousands. But the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 of these refugees in the U.S. As the year drew to a close, the New York Times reported that State Department officials were “open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly financed United Nations referral system.” The Times cited some critics of the Bush administration as claiming the U.S. “has been reluctant to create a significant refugee program because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq.” Someone needs to remind President Bush of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn analogy: “You break it, you own it.” Equating refugees with “collateral damage” just doesn’t cut it.
Then there were the grotesquely mixed messages being sent to American citizens who happen to be Muslims. The Pentagon and the armed forces, for example, started a big push to recruit more Muslims into the military because of the dearth of Arabic-speakers who understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. To win “hearts and minds” of American Muslims, West Point, the other service academies, and military installations, opened Muslim prayer rooms, appointed Imams to serve as chaplains, and got non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials to celebrate religious events with Muslims. The FBI, CIA, and DHS also continued their campaigns to recruit Arab-Americans as analysts and linguists – and turned down most of the many applicants because they had families and friends in the Middle East. Surprise, surprise!
At the same time, however, Muslims were being harassed, intimidated and attacked not only by wing-nut talk show hosts and many of their fellow citizens, but by people who should know better – like Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode. This distinguished gent said Muslims were not welcome in the United States. He told us he believes Muslims “should not be allowed to enter this country and that they should seek their political or economic aspirations in other countries.” This redneck no-nothing attacked a newly-elected member of congress – Keith Ellis, the House’s first Muslim – for using the Koran instead of the Bible for his informal swearing in. That Koran, by the way, belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Goode then administered the coup de grace by tying American Muslims to the urgency of building a very tall fence to seal off our borders and prevent a tsunami of illegal Muslim immigration.
The xenophobia didn’t apply only to people like Goode. Our government, too, was more than complicit. “Terrorist” Maher Arar, who was “rendered” from Kennedy Airport to ten months in a torture chamber in a Syrian jail, then acquitted after a two-year Canadian investigation, remained on America’s famous no-fly list, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, aging grandmothers and numerous infants. He is barred from traveling in the U.S. or even flying over U.S. airspace -- but the State Department won’t tell him why. Then, the Department of Homeland Security had to apologize to a Muslim traveler who was unnecessarily strip-searched at the Pinellas County Jail, and held in a maximum-security cell for two days after being detained at Tampa International Airport. And six Muslim-American Imams were removed from a US Airways flight in handcuffs after a passenger complained to a flight attendant that they were acting “suspiciously.” They had prayed in the airline’s waiting room before boarding their flight.
Another mixed message came from Christian military officers who continued their proselytizing at the Air Force Academy, despite the findings of a special investigative panel that promised to clean up the Academy’s act. Mikey Weinstein, an Academy graduate, called for an investigation into several officers who appeared in a promotional video for a Christian organization while in uniform. Weinstein said evangelistic efforts by Christian officers directed toward their colleagues or subordinates amounted to "coercion" and "fanatical unconstitutional religious persecution."
But my favorite irony has to be the fence caper. It’s about the Golden State Fence company, which helped build San Diego's border wall in the 1990s. That fence served as a model for the recently legislated 700-mile border fence because it successfully stopped immigrants from crossing at points along its 14-mile stretch. (However, the fence simply pushed would-be immigrants to more dangerous terrain in Arizona.)
In 2006, company executives pled guilty to hiring illegal immigrants. The executives may serve jail time in addition to paying nearly $5 million in fees. Their attorney told NPR that the case proves construction companies need guest workers.
There were many more ironies in 2006, too numerous to recount here. But don’t despair; we’re likely to have an even bigger crop at the end of 2007.
One needs a well-honed sense of irony to truly appreciate 2006. Some of these ironies were funny. Some were embarrassing. A lot were downright tragic. Before we finally consign the old year to the historians, let us recount some of some of them.
Arguably the most depressing irony of 2006 was that the country to which we claim to be bringing the rule of law turned the execution of a true miscreant into a lynch mob. We didn’t do it – that was the handiwork of Iraq’s so-called unity government. But we’re getting blamed anyway. This piece of Kafkaesque theater is going to do wonders for our Public Diplomacy programs! Karen Hughes, where are you when we need you?
But there was a lot more.
While we fretted about North Korea’s A-bombs and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Pentagon and the Energy Department chose the first new, nuclear-weapon design for development since the end of the Cold War. But not to worry -- the new warhead will be safer, cheaper, more secure, easier to manufacture, and never need explosive testing. This latest toy would be the first step toward an entirely new U.S. nuclear arsenal. But it’s far from the first step in the perception that America might just have a tad of a double-standard problem in the proliferation business.
Then, there was the irony of Iraqi refugees. Members of Muslim and Christian minorities, as well as doctors, university professors, scientists, people who worked for the U.S. authorities, and just average citizens, fled this “liberated” country in the tens of thousands. But the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 of these refugees in the U.S. As the year drew to a close, the New York Times reported that State Department officials were “open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly financed United Nations referral system.” The Times cited some critics of the Bush administration as claiming the U.S. “has been reluctant to create a significant refugee program because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq.” Someone needs to remind President Bush of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn analogy: “You break it, you own it.” Equating refugees with “collateral damage” just doesn’t cut it.
Then there were the grotesquely mixed messages being sent to American citizens who happen to be Muslims. The Pentagon and the armed forces, for example, started a big push to recruit more Muslims into the military because of the dearth of Arabic-speakers who understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. To win “hearts and minds” of American Muslims, West Point, the other service academies, and military installations, opened Muslim prayer rooms, appointed Imams to serve as chaplains, and got non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials to celebrate religious events with Muslims. The FBI, CIA, and DHS also continued their campaigns to recruit Arab-Americans as analysts and linguists – and turned down most of the many applicants because they had families and friends in the Middle East. Surprise, surprise!
At the same time, however, Muslims were being harassed, intimidated and attacked not only by wing-nut talk show hosts and many of their fellow citizens, but by people who should know better – like Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode. This distinguished gent said Muslims were not welcome in the United States. He told us he believes Muslims “should not be allowed to enter this country and that they should seek their political or economic aspirations in other countries.” This redneck no-nothing attacked a newly-elected member of congress – Keith Ellis, the House’s first Muslim – for using the Koran instead of the Bible for his informal swearing in. That Koran, by the way, belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Goode then administered the coup de grace by tying American Muslims to the urgency of building a very tall fence to seal off our borders and prevent a tsunami of illegal Muslim immigration.
The xenophobia didn’t apply only to people like Goode. Our government, too, was more than complicit. “Terrorist” Maher Arar, who was “rendered” from Kennedy Airport to ten months in a torture chamber in a Syrian jail, then acquitted after a two-year Canadian investigation, remained on America’s famous no-fly list, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, aging grandmothers and numerous infants. He is barred from traveling in the U.S. or even flying over U.S. airspace -- but the State Department won’t tell him why. Then, the Department of Homeland Security had to apologize to a Muslim traveler who was unnecessarily strip-searched at the Pinellas County Jail, and held in a maximum-security cell for two days after being detained at Tampa International Airport. And six Muslim-American Imams were removed from a US Airways flight in handcuffs after a passenger complained to a flight attendant that they were acting “suspiciously.” They had prayed in the airline’s waiting room before boarding their flight.
Another mixed message came from Christian military officers who continued their proselytizing at the Air Force Academy, despite the findings of a special investigative panel that promised to clean up the Academy’s act. Mikey Weinstein, an Academy graduate, called for an investigation into several officers who appeared in a promotional video for a Christian organization while in uniform. Weinstein said evangelistic efforts by Christian officers directed toward their colleagues or subordinates amounted to "coercion" and "fanatical unconstitutional religious persecution."
But my favorite irony has to be the fence caper. It’s about the Golden State Fence company, which helped build San Diego's border wall in the 1990s. That fence served as a model for the recently legislated 700-mile border fence because it successfully stopped immigrants from crossing at points along its 14-mile stretch. (However, the fence simply pushed would-be immigrants to more dangerous terrain in Arizona.)
In 2006, company executives pled guilty to hiring illegal immigrants. The executives may serve jail time in addition to paying nearly $5 million in fees. Their attorney told NPR that the case proves construction companies need guest workers.
There were many more ironies in 2006, too numerous to recount here. But don’t despair; we’re likely to have an even bigger crop at the end of 2007.
Monday, January 01, 2007
THIS STRATEGY IS NEW?
By William Fisher
It’s encouraging to know that President Bush is taking a hard look at economic initiatives as he prepares to let the nation in on his new strategy for Iraq.
But he faces two huge problems. The first is that he’s been here before – and his Coalition Provisional Authority, under the aegis of Viceroy Jerry Bremer botched this job as he did most others back 2003 and 2004.
The second is that, whatever economic development projects Bush may try to put in place, it may just be too late for any of them to be effective.
The Washington Post reports that the initiatives Bush is considering include a short-term work program, a micro-lending project, and a reappraisal of potentially viable state-owned industries that could be re-started.
Officials told the Post that these kinds of programs are part of a “classic counter-insurgency strategy” that also includes military and political components.
The military piece would presumably include the much-discussed “surge” in U.S. boots on the ground. The political part would be largely out of U.S. control; it would turn on the ability and the will of Iraq’s so-called “Unity Government” to take on the armed militias and death squads now wreaking so much death and destruction.
Some administration officials consider the economic package the most important of the three components. But, even if it’s not too late, it seems clear that projects of this type will be largely useless absent security and political reconciliation. And the Malaki government seems paralyzed to confront these realities.
As to the nature of the economic initiatives themselves, there is certainly nothing new or innovative here. These kinds of projects have been used by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, virtually since the agency was founded more than 40 years ago.
Short-term work programs that would follow up a military sweep by immediately hiring people in the neighborhood to clear up trash or do other small civil-affairs jobs, is a sometimes useful band-aid that USAID has applied dozens of times, in many parts of the world, and in areas not necessarily beset by insurgencies. Short-term, it might prevent some Iraqis from joining armed gangs, but it is unlikely to change the allegiances of the thousands who have already made that bloody decision. And it is doubtful that, given the nature of both military and civilian bureaucracy in Iraq, such programs could be implemented quickly enough to have any significant impact on unemployment, which is far higher today than during the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's late leader.
Micro-lending programs are also an old USAID chestnut, recently brought to public attention by the Bangladeshi efforts for which Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Micro lending involves making modest loans to help individuals get businesses going and create new economic activity in poor neighborhoods. USAID and other countries’ aid agencies have used the technique to help poor but entrepreneurial men and women in villages in every part of the developing world. In many of these, a loan of $10 or $100 dollars has started to help lift thousands of communities out of poverty. The loan repayment rate would be to die for by any commercial banker. In some iterations of this program, there is a rule that no one in a community can get a new loan if any borrower in that community misses a payment on his or her current loan. That gets the whole village involved. Where these programs have not worked, it is more often than not because of red tape and corruption by their national governments.
But will micro-lending work in war zones where vendors are afraid to take their handicrafts and other wares to the markets that are prime targets for suicide bombers and IEDs? Will it work in towns where there is no electricity to, say, power the sewing machines needed to turn out the inexpensive T-shirts and other garments that are traditional products made with micro-loans?
Most international development experts would find this proposition extremely problematic.
Then there’s the review of dormant state-owned industries to try to determine which ones are economically viable and worth reopening. This, too, is an old USAID approach, especially since the Reagan Administration, when such reviews almost always recommended not resuscitation but privatization. And in many cases, they were right. State-run industries in developing countries are almost always inefficient, over-manned, and often corrupt. In countries where unemployment is high, the governmental industrial sector is little more than a dumping ground for young men and women who can scrape together a bribe for the factory manager. In many situations, private investors could probably do better. But the problem has been that there were few bidders for these dinosaur industries.
If the Bush Administration elects to resurrect these losers, it may keep some Iraqis off the streets and collecting a paycheck. That may well be useful, but we should be under no illusions that Iraq can build an economy on losers.
If all this has a deja vue feel to it, it’s because most of these initiatives – any many others -- have been tried before, only to go down in flames under the supervision of the inexperienced, ideologically-driven political appointees sent to Iraq to supervise the “reconstruction” of the country – at a cost well in excess of $20 billion.
During 2003 and 2004, the CPA hired some of the most respected and successful international development consulting firms as contractors. When their projects failed to achieve their objectives, the contractors were blamed. No doubt some under-performed. But spotty performance was overwhelmingly the fault of the CPA folks charged with supervising these contractors. Few had any experience with international development. They knew nothing of the country, its culture, its languages. They showed a disgraceful indifference to the CPA red tape that prevented critical supplies, and salaries for contractors’ Iraqi employees, from reaching contractors on a timely basis. They pushed for a Baghdad stock exchange to rival New York’s. They recommended privatizing virtually everything that didn’t move. They constantly changed the missions and workplans of their contractors, who often worked under life-threatening conditions. They rarely ventured outside the Green Zone to review progress or lack thereof. They were heavily populated by Bush political appointees full of grandiose ideas that served only to expose their ignorance of the country they were sent to help.
Doubtless, some of the same contractors will win bids to execute Mr. Bush’s “new” economic strategy – if there is one. That’s to be expected, since they are among the best in the world. But these kinds of contractors cannot operate as free-lancers in a vacuum. I draw on years of personal experience when I say that they depend on – and welcome – informed eyes-on supervision and oversight. We’re not talking about Halliburton here.
The CPA, thankfully, is gone – its leader now the proud recipient of the Medal of Freedom. But there is no evidence that it has been replaced by international development specialists who actually know what they’re doing. Remember that these are the same folks who still can’t deliver electricity or clean water.
Even if I’m wrong about that – and I hope I am – the devil will still be in the details. The U.S. Government is not famous for its rapid response skills.
So it will likely be months between President Bush’s unveiling of his new plan and the signing of contracts and the arrival of new contractors on the ground.
The big problem is that the U.S. has run out of months.
It’s encouraging to know that President Bush is taking a hard look at economic initiatives as he prepares to let the nation in on his new strategy for Iraq.
But he faces two huge problems. The first is that he’s been here before – and his Coalition Provisional Authority, under the aegis of Viceroy Jerry Bremer botched this job as he did most others back 2003 and 2004.
The second is that, whatever economic development projects Bush may try to put in place, it may just be too late for any of them to be effective.
The Washington Post reports that the initiatives Bush is considering include a short-term work program, a micro-lending project, and a reappraisal of potentially viable state-owned industries that could be re-started.
Officials told the Post that these kinds of programs are part of a “classic counter-insurgency strategy” that also includes military and political components.
The military piece would presumably include the much-discussed “surge” in U.S. boots on the ground. The political part would be largely out of U.S. control; it would turn on the ability and the will of Iraq’s so-called “Unity Government” to take on the armed militias and death squads now wreaking so much death and destruction.
Some administration officials consider the economic package the most important of the three components. But, even if it’s not too late, it seems clear that projects of this type will be largely useless absent security and political reconciliation. And the Malaki government seems paralyzed to confront these realities.
As to the nature of the economic initiatives themselves, there is certainly nothing new or innovative here. These kinds of projects have been used by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, virtually since the agency was founded more than 40 years ago.
Short-term work programs that would follow up a military sweep by immediately hiring people in the neighborhood to clear up trash or do other small civil-affairs jobs, is a sometimes useful band-aid that USAID has applied dozens of times, in many parts of the world, and in areas not necessarily beset by insurgencies. Short-term, it might prevent some Iraqis from joining armed gangs, but it is unlikely to change the allegiances of the thousands who have already made that bloody decision. And it is doubtful that, given the nature of both military and civilian bureaucracy in Iraq, such programs could be implemented quickly enough to have any significant impact on unemployment, which is far higher today than during the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's late leader.
Micro-lending programs are also an old USAID chestnut, recently brought to public attention by the Bangladeshi efforts for which Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Micro lending involves making modest loans to help individuals get businesses going and create new economic activity in poor neighborhoods. USAID and other countries’ aid agencies have used the technique to help poor but entrepreneurial men and women in villages in every part of the developing world. In many of these, a loan of $10 or $100 dollars has started to help lift thousands of communities out of poverty. The loan repayment rate would be to die for by any commercial banker. In some iterations of this program, there is a rule that no one in a community can get a new loan if any borrower in that community misses a payment on his or her current loan. That gets the whole village involved. Where these programs have not worked, it is more often than not because of red tape and corruption by their national governments.
But will micro-lending work in war zones where vendors are afraid to take their handicrafts and other wares to the markets that are prime targets for suicide bombers and IEDs? Will it work in towns where there is no electricity to, say, power the sewing machines needed to turn out the inexpensive T-shirts and other garments that are traditional products made with micro-loans?
Most international development experts would find this proposition extremely problematic.
Then there’s the review of dormant state-owned industries to try to determine which ones are economically viable and worth reopening. This, too, is an old USAID approach, especially since the Reagan Administration, when such reviews almost always recommended not resuscitation but privatization. And in many cases, they were right. State-run industries in developing countries are almost always inefficient, over-manned, and often corrupt. In countries where unemployment is high, the governmental industrial sector is little more than a dumping ground for young men and women who can scrape together a bribe for the factory manager. In many situations, private investors could probably do better. But the problem has been that there were few bidders for these dinosaur industries.
If the Bush Administration elects to resurrect these losers, it may keep some Iraqis off the streets and collecting a paycheck. That may well be useful, but we should be under no illusions that Iraq can build an economy on losers.
If all this has a deja vue feel to it, it’s because most of these initiatives – any many others -- have been tried before, only to go down in flames under the supervision of the inexperienced, ideologically-driven political appointees sent to Iraq to supervise the “reconstruction” of the country – at a cost well in excess of $20 billion.
During 2003 and 2004, the CPA hired some of the most respected and successful international development consulting firms as contractors. When their projects failed to achieve their objectives, the contractors were blamed. No doubt some under-performed. But spotty performance was overwhelmingly the fault of the CPA folks charged with supervising these contractors. Few had any experience with international development. They knew nothing of the country, its culture, its languages. They showed a disgraceful indifference to the CPA red tape that prevented critical supplies, and salaries for contractors’ Iraqi employees, from reaching contractors on a timely basis. They pushed for a Baghdad stock exchange to rival New York’s. They recommended privatizing virtually everything that didn’t move. They constantly changed the missions and workplans of their contractors, who often worked under life-threatening conditions. They rarely ventured outside the Green Zone to review progress or lack thereof. They were heavily populated by Bush political appointees full of grandiose ideas that served only to expose their ignorance of the country they were sent to help.
Doubtless, some of the same contractors will win bids to execute Mr. Bush’s “new” economic strategy – if there is one. That’s to be expected, since they are among the best in the world. But these kinds of contractors cannot operate as free-lancers in a vacuum. I draw on years of personal experience when I say that they depend on – and welcome – informed eyes-on supervision and oversight. We’re not talking about Halliburton here.
The CPA, thankfully, is gone – its leader now the proud recipient of the Medal of Freedom. But there is no evidence that it has been replaced by international development specialists who actually know what they’re doing. Remember that these are the same folks who still can’t deliver electricity or clean water.
Even if I’m wrong about that – and I hope I am – the devil will still be in the details. The U.S. Government is not famous for its rapid response skills.
So it will likely be months between President Bush’s unveiling of his new plan and the signing of contracts and the arrival of new contractors on the ground.
The big problem is that the U.S. has run out of months.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
HERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS!
By William Fisher
My recent column, “Where Are The Christians?” drew a bundle of answers in emails from Truthout readers. That piece was about the bigoted remarks of Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va) attacking newly–elected Congressman Keith Ellis, a Muslim, from taking his unofficial oath of office with his hand on the Quoran – and mindlessly predicting that this would somehow lead to a vast increase in illegal Muslim immigration (unless, of course, we close our borders).
It might be instructive to quote a couple of the emails I received.
Reverend Joy A. Bergfalk, of the Life Listening Resources at Labyrinth House Rochester, NY, wrote, “We progressives…do not have the finances of the Religious Right. We do not have Big Business and Sun Jung Moon to back us and the oil industry is certainly not with us. That kind of money goes to those who will let the corporate world take over America. Plus, we tend to try to use our finances to change the world by helping it.”
In answer to my “Where Are The Christians?” question, Rev. Bergfalk wrote, “We are almost all of the places where peacemaking is going on. We are at marches and rallies. We are at our computers writing responses, letters to Congress and whomever we can. I have written a response to Goode's statements. There was no way to e-mail it to him from outside of Virginia, so I have prepared a letter to be sent to each of his five offices.”
She added, “And we are speaking out in churches and from the pulpits. I think my parishioners now realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same God
by different names.”
And she closed with, “We may not be as obnoxious and flamboyant as the Religious Right, but we are here and active. Maybe if people would quit leaving the church in reaction to right wingers, the church would be a stronger force for change in our world.”
Another reader, Rev Jim Altman, Pastor of Cadott, Stanley, and Thorp United Methodist Churches in Stanley, WI, called my article “a cheap shot.” He explained, “There are credible progressive Christian voices out there who are rarely reported by even the progressive media. My response to Mr. Fisher's question is that nobody's asking us. I, for one, would love to give a Christian's response to Rep. Virgil Goode's outrageous rant against his fellow Congressman, Keith Ellison, but media outlets seem only interested in conflating Christianity with the religion of Falwell and Robertson. The majority of Christians in this country do not subscribe to ‘The Old-Time Gospel Hour’’ or ‘The 700 Club’, and do not worship in ‘mega-churches’, yet when journalists look for the American ‘Christian’ response we get Jerry, Pat, or some blow-dried dandy from the Church of What's Trendy. Most of the Christians I know would support Rep. Ellison's freedom of religion and more than a few would argue that the world still has much good to learn from Islam, but in the theater of journalism inflammation trumps reason and cartoon trumps reality.”
Well, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. I wrote, “You might not be aware of it, but there is a robust community of progressive Christians in America, struggling to get its voice heard. That’s a tough task when you don’t have the deep pockets and the cynical White House connections to effectively drown out dissent. Or change the subject. It’s a lot easier for this wedge constituency to get people worried that if same-sex unions become legal, they’ll all be forced to marry a gay or a lesbian than it is to speak out for the homeless, the poor, those who have no health care, and for religious tolerance to find common ground.”
There are dozens of progressive Christian websites and blogs and many of them have spoken out against Rep. Goode. For example, the simple advice from Rev. Tim Simpson’s Christian Alliance for Progress was, “Stand up for religious freedom, tell Rep. Virgil Goode that America is still ‘one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all’."
Or Cross Left’s admonition to its readers to “Stand Up for Religious Freedom, Tell Rep. Virgil Goode to Stop Attacking US Muslims.”
The Christian Alliance’s reader response was plentiful and passionate.
One reader wrote, “The attempt to conflate Islamophobia with immigration reform is laughable, except I can only imagine that we'll only see more of it from the Right. Once they come up with an intellectually unfounded conflation of issues, they tend to use it relentlessly until it takes hold in the minds of enough people for it to enter the cultural discourse (see their attempts to claim that all gays are pedophiles).”
Another wrote, “No matter what nonsense Congressman Virgil Goode spouts, he'll continue to be reelected by his constituency of good-ole-boys from Franklin County, Virginia. I live in a Congressional district adjacent to Goode's so I know whereof I speak. Please, please let's all allow good ole Virge to keep on writing and speaking as he pleases. The more Rep. Goode writes and says to expose his own narrow-minded ignorance, the more progressives will feel emboldened to vote against his willful stupidity.”
And yet another said, “It is truly sad that the people of Goode's district and believe me, their are many, many good people in that district aren't standing up and demanding either a retraction of his remarks or his removal from office… The former bastion of the Confederacy lingers with those like Goode who have no respect or tolerance for anyone different from them.”
Well, I’m afraid these are voices in the wilderness. The websites and broadcasts run by “values” groups like Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, and the Family Research Council, attract many more people and, as one of my readers rightly points out, are routinely turned to by journalists in need of a “religious source.”
It is worth noting that Tony Perkins’s Family Research Council website claims it has “led the way in defending religious freedom in the public square,” yet has been silent on the Goode affair. The websites of the other major right-wing “values” groups have either ignored the issue, or presented it as “straight news”, but using code-words such as references to Goode’s opposition from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Foundation for Moral Law, led by dismissed Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore, inveighed that Ellis should not be allowed to take his congressional seat at all.
True, there are some counter-balances with national reputations, like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, the Interfaith Council, and the National Council of Churches, but they attract nothing like the media coverage given to the religious right.
All of which suggests that if religious extremism doesn’t really represent the views of most Christians, the more progressive forces within Christianity – and Judaism and Islam – need to become as unified and aggressive and determined as those who have sadly become the public faces of these great faiths by hijacking. They need to do more to organize nationally, to raise substantial funds, and to be much more proactively media savvy.
That’s not an easy task and it won’t happen quickly. But it’s the only way to at least level the playing field of religious discourse.
My recent column, “Where Are The Christians?” drew a bundle of answers in emails from Truthout readers. That piece was about the bigoted remarks of Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va) attacking newly–elected Congressman Keith Ellis, a Muslim, from taking his unofficial oath of office with his hand on the Quoran – and mindlessly predicting that this would somehow lead to a vast increase in illegal Muslim immigration (unless, of course, we close our borders).
It might be instructive to quote a couple of the emails I received.
Reverend Joy A. Bergfalk, of the Life Listening Resources at Labyrinth House Rochester, NY, wrote, “We progressives…do not have the finances of the Religious Right. We do not have Big Business and Sun Jung Moon to back us and the oil industry is certainly not with us. That kind of money goes to those who will let the corporate world take over America. Plus, we tend to try to use our finances to change the world by helping it.”
In answer to my “Where Are The Christians?” question, Rev. Bergfalk wrote, “We are almost all of the places where peacemaking is going on. We are at marches and rallies. We are at our computers writing responses, letters to Congress and whomever we can. I have written a response to Goode's statements. There was no way to e-mail it to him from outside of Virginia, so I have prepared a letter to be sent to each of his five offices.”
She added, “And we are speaking out in churches and from the pulpits. I think my parishioners now realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same God
by different names.”
And she closed with, “We may not be as obnoxious and flamboyant as the Religious Right, but we are here and active. Maybe if people would quit leaving the church in reaction to right wingers, the church would be a stronger force for change in our world.”
Another reader, Rev Jim Altman, Pastor of Cadott, Stanley, and Thorp United Methodist Churches in Stanley, WI, called my article “a cheap shot.” He explained, “There are credible progressive Christian voices out there who are rarely reported by even the progressive media. My response to Mr. Fisher's question is that nobody's asking us. I, for one, would love to give a Christian's response to Rep. Virgil Goode's outrageous rant against his fellow Congressman, Keith Ellison, but media outlets seem only interested in conflating Christianity with the religion of Falwell and Robertson. The majority of Christians in this country do not subscribe to ‘The Old-Time Gospel Hour’’ or ‘The 700 Club’, and do not worship in ‘mega-churches’, yet when journalists look for the American ‘Christian’ response we get Jerry, Pat, or some blow-dried dandy from the Church of What's Trendy. Most of the Christians I know would support Rep. Ellison's freedom of religion and more than a few would argue that the world still has much good to learn from Islam, but in the theater of journalism inflammation trumps reason and cartoon trumps reality.”
Well, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. I wrote, “You might not be aware of it, but there is a robust community of progressive Christians in America, struggling to get its voice heard. That’s a tough task when you don’t have the deep pockets and the cynical White House connections to effectively drown out dissent. Or change the subject. It’s a lot easier for this wedge constituency to get people worried that if same-sex unions become legal, they’ll all be forced to marry a gay or a lesbian than it is to speak out for the homeless, the poor, those who have no health care, and for religious tolerance to find common ground.”
There are dozens of progressive Christian websites and blogs and many of them have spoken out against Rep. Goode. For example, the simple advice from Rev. Tim Simpson’s Christian Alliance for Progress was, “Stand up for religious freedom, tell Rep. Virgil Goode that America is still ‘one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all’."
Or Cross Left’s admonition to its readers to “Stand Up for Religious Freedom, Tell Rep. Virgil Goode to Stop Attacking US Muslims.”
The Christian Alliance’s reader response was plentiful and passionate.
One reader wrote, “The attempt to conflate Islamophobia with immigration reform is laughable, except I can only imagine that we'll only see more of it from the Right. Once they come up with an intellectually unfounded conflation of issues, they tend to use it relentlessly until it takes hold in the minds of enough people for it to enter the cultural discourse (see their attempts to claim that all gays are pedophiles).”
Another wrote, “No matter what nonsense Congressman Virgil Goode spouts, he'll continue to be reelected by his constituency of good-ole-boys from Franklin County, Virginia. I live in a Congressional district adjacent to Goode's so I know whereof I speak. Please, please let's all allow good ole Virge to keep on writing and speaking as he pleases. The more Rep. Goode writes and says to expose his own narrow-minded ignorance, the more progressives will feel emboldened to vote against his willful stupidity.”
And yet another said, “It is truly sad that the people of Goode's district and believe me, their are many, many good people in that district aren't standing up and demanding either a retraction of his remarks or his removal from office… The former bastion of the Confederacy lingers with those like Goode who have no respect or tolerance for anyone different from them.”
Well, I’m afraid these are voices in the wilderness. The websites and broadcasts run by “values” groups like Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, and the Family Research Council, attract many more people and, as one of my readers rightly points out, are routinely turned to by journalists in need of a “religious source.”
It is worth noting that Tony Perkins’s Family Research Council website claims it has “led the way in defending religious freedom in the public square,” yet has been silent on the Goode affair. The websites of the other major right-wing “values” groups have either ignored the issue, or presented it as “straight news”, but using code-words such as references to Goode’s opposition from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Foundation for Moral Law, led by dismissed Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore, inveighed that Ellis should not be allowed to take his congressional seat at all.
True, there are some counter-balances with national reputations, like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, the Interfaith Council, and the National Council of Churches, but they attract nothing like the media coverage given to the religious right.
All of which suggests that if religious extremism doesn’t really represent the views of most Christians, the more progressive forces within Christianity – and Judaism and Islam – need to become as unified and aggressive and determined as those who have sadly become the public faces of these great faiths by hijacking. They need to do more to organize nationally, to raise substantial funds, and to be much more proactively media savvy.
That’s not an easy task and it won’t happen quickly. But it’s the only way to at least level the playing field of religious discourse.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS?
By William Fisher
It’s not rocket science to understand why Republicans have gone into hibernation on the issue of Rep. Virgil Goode’s outrageous rant against his fellow Congressman, Keith Ellison – the first Muslim ever elected to either legislative house – to want to take his oath on the Quran.
After all, Goode is one of their own. He’s from the same party that brought us George Allen’s “Macaca Moment” and the flirtatious “Call Me” tagline from a cute white blonde in a campaign commercial in the recent senate race against black Rep. Harold Ford.
To refresh your memory, Goode is the congressman who wrote his constituents: 'If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran in his personal private ceremony.'
Immigration? What has a single Muslim congressman got to do with immigration? Easy. If you’ve learned anything from Messrs Bush and Cheney over the past six years, it’s that conflating wildly unrelated issues can get people so spooked that it works. The president and the veep did it with Iraq and 9/11. Goode does it with an unofficial swearing-in and dark visions of illegals pouring across our borders. If we don’t stop Rep. Ellison from taking his oath on a Quran, the numbers of illegal Muslim immigrants will become a tsunami.
Never mind that the real swearing-in is administered to new members of Congress enmasse and without any holy book at all. The ceremony at which Ellison wants to use the Quran is a private, unofficial event for friends and family, a kind of memory-book photo-op. Also never mind that Muslim immigration into the U.S. is miniscule and overwhelmingly legal. Unlike the 9/11 hijackers who were in the U.S. legally on valid visas, most Muslim immigrants become citizens and many have been here for generations and more.
An extensive search suggests that only two Republicans have uttered a single word against this no-nothing attack. One of them is Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who delivered a robust smackdown of this bigot on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Graham asked why the newly-elected Minnesota lawmaker shouldn’t be allowed to take his oath on a book he believes in?
The other is Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who offered the half-hearted comment that he respects the right of all members of Congress to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran."
California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, presidential wannabee, Guantanamo booster, and outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, dodged the Goode question put to him by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
Good for Senator Graham. He did the right thing.
But the more important question – particularly at this season of the year -- is “where are all the Christians?” Unless I’ve completely misunderstood the Scriptures, Christ believed in helping “the least of these,” for love, compassion, and tolerance.
But the silent Christians seem to have forgotten to ask, “What Would Christ Do?”
One wouldn’t expect the likes of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or Pat Robertson to be caught dead defending a Muslim’s right to be a Muslim. They’ve already made the denigration of this religion a cottage industry for the far right in Christendom.
So have senior military officers like Gen. Jerry Boykin, who has inveighed in uniform that his God is better than their God.
But there are tens of millions of other Christians out there. They ought to know that love of all God’s creatures is at the core of their religion. They ought also to know that an attack against one religion is an attack against all religions. Next week, it could be Jews. Next month, it could be Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals.
You might not be aware of it, but there is a robust community of progressive Christians in America, struggling to get its voice heard. That’s a tough task when you don’t have the deep pockets and the cynical White House connections to effectively drown out dissent. Or change the subject. It’s a lot easier for this wedge constituency to get people worried that if same-sex unions become legal, they’ll all be forced to marry a gay or a lesbian than it is to speak out for the homeless, the poor, those who have no health care, and for religious tolerance to find common ground.
Lately, however, we, the people, have been doing a bit better. As of Nov. 7, voters have sent their message to the Congress, to the White House, and to the religious
far-right. America has grown weary of their divide-and-conquer strategies.
Republicans may find some hope in this message. Now, they might not be quite so terrified of losing their campaign contributions and maybe their seats by taking principled stands against the never-mind-what-Christ-would-do wing of their party.
Mainstream Christians can play a big role here. Expressing their outrage at Virgil Goode’s mindless xenophobia and their support for Keith Ellison would be a good first step.
It’s not rocket science to understand why Republicans have gone into hibernation on the issue of Rep. Virgil Goode’s outrageous rant against his fellow Congressman, Keith Ellison – the first Muslim ever elected to either legislative house – to want to take his oath on the Quran.
After all, Goode is one of their own. He’s from the same party that brought us George Allen’s “Macaca Moment” and the flirtatious “Call Me” tagline from a cute white blonde in a campaign commercial in the recent senate race against black Rep. Harold Ford.
To refresh your memory, Goode is the congressman who wrote his constituents: 'If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran in his personal private ceremony.'
Immigration? What has a single Muslim congressman got to do with immigration? Easy. If you’ve learned anything from Messrs Bush and Cheney over the past six years, it’s that conflating wildly unrelated issues can get people so spooked that it works. The president and the veep did it with Iraq and 9/11. Goode does it with an unofficial swearing-in and dark visions of illegals pouring across our borders. If we don’t stop Rep. Ellison from taking his oath on a Quran, the numbers of illegal Muslim immigrants will become a tsunami.
Never mind that the real swearing-in is administered to new members of Congress enmasse and without any holy book at all. The ceremony at which Ellison wants to use the Quran is a private, unofficial event for friends and family, a kind of memory-book photo-op. Also never mind that Muslim immigration into the U.S. is miniscule and overwhelmingly legal. Unlike the 9/11 hijackers who were in the U.S. legally on valid visas, most Muslim immigrants become citizens and many have been here for generations and more.
An extensive search suggests that only two Republicans have uttered a single word against this no-nothing attack. One of them is Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who delivered a robust smackdown of this bigot on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Graham asked why the newly-elected Minnesota lawmaker shouldn’t be allowed to take his oath on a book he believes in?
The other is Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who offered the half-hearted comment that he respects the right of all members of Congress to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran."
California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, presidential wannabee, Guantanamo booster, and outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, dodged the Goode question put to him by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
Good for Senator Graham. He did the right thing.
But the more important question – particularly at this season of the year -- is “where are all the Christians?” Unless I’ve completely misunderstood the Scriptures, Christ believed in helping “the least of these,” for love, compassion, and tolerance.
But the silent Christians seem to have forgotten to ask, “What Would Christ Do?”
One wouldn’t expect the likes of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or Pat Robertson to be caught dead defending a Muslim’s right to be a Muslim. They’ve already made the denigration of this religion a cottage industry for the far right in Christendom.
So have senior military officers like Gen. Jerry Boykin, who has inveighed in uniform that his God is better than their God.
But there are tens of millions of other Christians out there. They ought to know that love of all God’s creatures is at the core of their religion. They ought also to know that an attack against one religion is an attack against all religions. Next week, it could be Jews. Next month, it could be Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals.
You might not be aware of it, but there is a robust community of progressive Christians in America, struggling to get its voice heard. That’s a tough task when you don’t have the deep pockets and the cynical White House connections to effectively drown out dissent. Or change the subject. It’s a lot easier for this wedge constituency to get people worried that if same-sex unions become legal, they’ll all be forced to marry a gay or a lesbian than it is to speak out for the homeless, the poor, those who have no health care, and for religious tolerance to find common ground.
Lately, however, we, the people, have been doing a bit better. As of Nov. 7, voters have sent their message to the Congress, to the White House, and to the religious
far-right. America has grown weary of their divide-and-conquer strategies.
Republicans may find some hope in this message. Now, they might not be quite so terrified of losing their campaign contributions and maybe their seats by taking principled stands against the never-mind-what-Christ-would-do wing of their party.
Mainstream Christians can play a big role here. Expressing their outrage at Virgil Goode’s mindless xenophobia and their support for Keith Ellison would be a good first step.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
WINNING BY LOSING?
By William Fisher
Daniel Sutherland, head of the civil rights division of the Department of Homeland Security, says the government needs the help of American Muslims and Arab-Americans to fight terrorism at home: "Homeland security isn't gonna be won by people sitting in a building inside the Beltway, " he says.
But, five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, “Islamophobia” -- intensified by the war in Iraq and U.S. government actions at home – has left millions of American Muslims fearful of harassment, discrimination, and questionable prosecutions, and confused about their place in American society.
What is the impact on Muslims and Americans of Arab descent? One, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, “It sometimes feels suffocating being in the U.S. now. We cannot turn on our TV in the evening to watch CNN or MSNBC or the other ‘news stations’ because of people like Glenn Beck and others who consistently spew hate, nonsense and misinformation about Islam and Arabs on primetime. And if we try to watch mindless drama on TV we are bombarded with shows about Middle East/Arab and Islamic terrorism -- shows like 24, Sleeper Cell, The Agency, etc. It is very difficult being an Arab/Muslim American these days.”
That appears to correctly sum up the feelings of those whose help the government says it is seeking.
Most members of these communities believe that the government is – perhaps inadvertently -- fanning the flames of bigotry by using phrases like “Islamo-Fascist” from the lexicon it has crafted for the “Global War on Terror” and by actions such as high-profile press conferences announcing prosecutions that often collapse.
Recent polls indicate that almost half of Americans have a negative perception of Islam and that one in four of those surveyed have "extreme" anti-Muslim views. A survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that a quarter of Americans consistently believe stereotypes such as: "Muslims value life less than other people" and "The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred."
In 2005, CAIR received 1,972 civil rights complaints, compared to 1,522 in 2004. This constitutes a 29.6 percent increase in the total number of complaints of anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2004. It is the highest number of Muslim civil rights complaints ever reported to CAIR.
Following 9/11, the U.S. Department of Justice began rounding up Arabs and other Muslims and – mistakenly – anybody who looked “Middle Eastern,” including Sikhs from South Asia. In the months after the attacks, some 5,000 men were held in detention without charges, most without access to lawyers or family members. As confirmed in an investigation by the DOJ Inspector-General, many were held in solitary confinement and physically abused.
There were no prosecutions and no convictions of any of these people. Some, who were in the U.S. with expired visas or who had committed other immigration infractions, were deported.
Since then, the seemingly endless catalog of harassment and infringements on the civil rights of U.S. citizens has grown unabated. A few examples:
Ahmad Al Halabi graduated from high school in Dearborn, Michigan, the center of the nation’s Muslim community. He joined the Air Force and was assigned as a translator for al-Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused of spying and spent 10 months in solitary confinement before the spy charges were dropped.
Osama Abulhassan and Ali Houssaiky, both 20 and from Dearborn, were charged with supporting terrorism in Marietta, Ohio, in August after making bulk purchases of cheap, prepaid cell phones from discount stores. The charges were dropped a week later.
Four men were accused after the 9/11 attacks of being part of a "sleeper cell" that was planning terrorist attacks. Two of the men were convicted of conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, but a federal judge overturned the verdicts at the Justice Department's request in 2004 because prosecutors withheld evidence at the trial that could have helped the defendants.
Farooq Al-Fatlawi, a bus passenger en route to Chicago, was put off with his bags in Toledo, Ohio, after he told the driver he was from Iraq.
A San Francisco Bay Area civil rights activist, Raed Jarrar, was barred from a plane for wearing a T-shirt that said, "We will not be silent" in Arabic and English.
A respected upstate-New York oncologist, Dr. Rafil Dhafir, was arrested as a possible terrorist in 2003. Political leaders like then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and Gov. George Pataki happily served as cheerleaders by making inflammatory terror-related public statements. But when their terrorist claims failed to materialize, the government expanded its case. And the judge in his trial granted a prosecution motion to exclude any reference to terrorism from the courtroom. Dhafir was convicted of Medicare fraud and using his charitable organization, Help the Needy, to violate Iraq sanctions to send money to illegal groups in Iraq. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Six imams seen praying in a Minneapolis airport terminal were later removed from their US Airways flight after a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant saying that the men were acting suspiciously. The imams were removed from the plane in handcuffs. They were questioned and released, but the airline says the crew acted properly in having the imams removed, and refused to issue them new tickets the following day. The imams are suing the airline.
Often cited as “Islamophobia Exhibit A,” Canadian Muslim Maher Arar, was abducted by U.S. officials at Kennedy airport in New York in 2002, and then transported to a prison in Syria where he was confined for more than 10 months in a cell that looked like a grave. He was beaten, tortured, and forced to make a false confession about having ties to Al Qaeda. A Canadian commission of inquiry ruled after a two-year investigation that all the charges were unfounded. But Arar was barred from suing the U.S. Government, which claimed that a trial would divulge “state secrets.”
The U.S. government agreed to pay $2 million and issue a written apology to a Muslim attorney in Oregon who was jailed after the FBI mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings. Brandon Mayfield sued the FBI, alleging that his civil rights had been violated and that he was arrested in part because he is a Muslim convert.
Fox television’s hit drama '24' portrayed an American Muslim family as being at the heart of a terrorist 'sleeper cell.' A spokeswoman for CAIR said the show was 'taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects.”
When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, announced that he was planning to take a ceremonial oath of office on a Qur’an, right-wing radio and Internet bloggers went into high paranoia mode. Oh my God, talk show host Dennis Prager fumed, Ellison can't be allowed to do that; it "undermines American civilization."
The American Family Association (AFA), a conservative religious group, posted an "Action Alert" on its Web site requesting that supporters urge lawmakers to pass "What book will America base its values on, the Bible or the Koran?" the AFA said.
The U.S. Treasury Department, in its efforts to cut off financing for radical Islamic organizations, has used a provision of the Patriot Act to designate charities that support Muslim causes as terrorist organizations. Once a charitable organization is designated as a supporter of terrorism, all of its materials and property may be seized and its assets frozen. Thus far, the effort has resulted in the government shutting down five charities. But there has only been one indictment, no trials, and no convictions. Only one official criminal charge has been brought against a Muslim organization for support of terrorism, and that case has not yet made it to trial. Three months ago, Federal agents raided the offices of one of the nation's largest Islamic charities, Life for Relief and Development. Agents seized computers and donor records. But no charges have been filed and the charity remains in business.
While many American Muslims serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, they have less luck trying to get jobs in the civilian agencies involved in national security. When the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when on a recruiting binge to find and hire new analysts and translators, many Arab-Americans and other American Muslims came forward and applied. But they have met with little success because they are frequently denied security clearances on grounds that they have friends and family back in the Middle East.
Samer Shehata, professor of Arab Politics at Georgetown University, probably speaks for the feelings of most of the U.S. Muslim community, “Quite simply,” he says, Islamophobia “produces an environment that is fundamentally at odds with what the U.S. is supposed to be about; our values for treating everyone fairly and not discriminating on the basis of skin color, race, religion, gender, etc.”
Prof. Shehata adds, “This is damaging certainly for all Americans and it is also damaging for the reputation of the U.S. overseas. One of the questions I hear the most whenever I am in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East is: how is it like now in the U.S. for Arabs? Have you been the victim of discrimination, bigotry, abuse?”
It is obvious that our government has not yet achieved a rational balance between investigation and intimidation. If it doesn’t get it right, it will have lost a critical resource.
Nobody wants terrorists in our midst. But we cannot win by losing.
Daniel Sutherland, head of the civil rights division of the Department of Homeland Security, says the government needs the help of American Muslims and Arab-Americans to fight terrorism at home: "Homeland security isn't gonna be won by people sitting in a building inside the Beltway, " he says.
But, five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, “Islamophobia” -- intensified by the war in Iraq and U.S. government actions at home – has left millions of American Muslims fearful of harassment, discrimination, and questionable prosecutions, and confused about their place in American society.
What is the impact on Muslims and Americans of Arab descent? One, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, “It sometimes feels suffocating being in the U.S. now. We cannot turn on our TV in the evening to watch CNN or MSNBC or the other ‘news stations’ because of people like Glenn Beck and others who consistently spew hate, nonsense and misinformation about Islam and Arabs on primetime. And if we try to watch mindless drama on TV we are bombarded with shows about Middle East/Arab and Islamic terrorism -- shows like 24, Sleeper Cell, The Agency, etc. It is very difficult being an Arab/Muslim American these days.”
That appears to correctly sum up the feelings of those whose help the government says it is seeking.
Most members of these communities believe that the government is – perhaps inadvertently -- fanning the flames of bigotry by using phrases like “Islamo-Fascist” from the lexicon it has crafted for the “Global War on Terror” and by actions such as high-profile press conferences announcing prosecutions that often collapse.
Recent polls indicate that almost half of Americans have a negative perception of Islam and that one in four of those surveyed have "extreme" anti-Muslim views. A survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that a quarter of Americans consistently believe stereotypes such as: "Muslims value life less than other people" and "The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred."
In 2005, CAIR received 1,972 civil rights complaints, compared to 1,522 in 2004. This constitutes a 29.6 percent increase in the total number of complaints of anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2004. It is the highest number of Muslim civil rights complaints ever reported to CAIR.
Following 9/11, the U.S. Department of Justice began rounding up Arabs and other Muslims and – mistakenly – anybody who looked “Middle Eastern,” including Sikhs from South Asia. In the months after the attacks, some 5,000 men were held in detention without charges, most without access to lawyers or family members. As confirmed in an investigation by the DOJ Inspector-General, many were held in solitary confinement and physically abused.
There were no prosecutions and no convictions of any of these people. Some, who were in the U.S. with expired visas or who had committed other immigration infractions, were deported.
Since then, the seemingly endless catalog of harassment and infringements on the civil rights of U.S. citizens has grown unabated. A few examples:
Ahmad Al Halabi graduated from high school in Dearborn, Michigan, the center of the nation’s Muslim community. He joined the Air Force and was assigned as a translator for al-Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was accused of spying and spent 10 months in solitary confinement before the spy charges were dropped.
Osama Abulhassan and Ali Houssaiky, both 20 and from Dearborn, were charged with supporting terrorism in Marietta, Ohio, in August after making bulk purchases of cheap, prepaid cell phones from discount stores. The charges were dropped a week later.
Four men were accused after the 9/11 attacks of being part of a "sleeper cell" that was planning terrorist attacks. Two of the men were convicted of conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, but a federal judge overturned the verdicts at the Justice Department's request in 2004 because prosecutors withheld evidence at the trial that could have helped the defendants.
Farooq Al-Fatlawi, a bus passenger en route to Chicago, was put off with his bags in Toledo, Ohio, after he told the driver he was from Iraq.
A San Francisco Bay Area civil rights activist, Raed Jarrar, was barred from a plane for wearing a T-shirt that said, "We will not be silent" in Arabic and English.
A respected upstate-New York oncologist, Dr. Rafil Dhafir, was arrested as a possible terrorist in 2003. Political leaders like then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and Gov. George Pataki happily served as cheerleaders by making inflammatory terror-related public statements. But when their terrorist claims failed to materialize, the government expanded its case. And the judge in his trial granted a prosecution motion to exclude any reference to terrorism from the courtroom. Dhafir was convicted of Medicare fraud and using his charitable organization, Help the Needy, to violate Iraq sanctions to send money to illegal groups in Iraq. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Six imams seen praying in a Minneapolis airport terminal were later removed from their US Airways flight after a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant saying that the men were acting suspiciously. The imams were removed from the plane in handcuffs. They were questioned and released, but the airline says the crew acted properly in having the imams removed, and refused to issue them new tickets the following day. The imams are suing the airline.
Often cited as “Islamophobia Exhibit A,” Canadian Muslim Maher Arar, was abducted by U.S. officials at Kennedy airport in New York in 2002, and then transported to a prison in Syria where he was confined for more than 10 months in a cell that looked like a grave. He was beaten, tortured, and forced to make a false confession about having ties to Al Qaeda. A Canadian commission of inquiry ruled after a two-year investigation that all the charges were unfounded. But Arar was barred from suing the U.S. Government, which claimed that a trial would divulge “state secrets.”
The U.S. government agreed to pay $2 million and issue a written apology to a Muslim attorney in Oregon who was jailed after the FBI mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings. Brandon Mayfield sued the FBI, alleging that his civil rights had been violated and that he was arrested in part because he is a Muslim convert.
Fox television’s hit drama '24' portrayed an American Muslim family as being at the heart of a terrorist 'sleeper cell.' A spokeswoman for CAIR said the show was 'taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects.”
When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, announced that he was planning to take a ceremonial oath of office on a Qur’an, right-wing radio and Internet bloggers went into high paranoia mode. Oh my God, talk show host Dennis Prager fumed, Ellison can't be allowed to do that; it "undermines American civilization."
The American Family Association (AFA), a conservative religious group, posted an "Action Alert" on its Web site requesting that supporters urge lawmakers to pass "What book will America base its values on, the Bible or the Koran?" the AFA said.
The U.S. Treasury Department, in its efforts to cut off financing for radical Islamic organizations, has used a provision of the Patriot Act to designate charities that support Muslim causes as terrorist organizations. Once a charitable organization is designated as a supporter of terrorism, all of its materials and property may be seized and its assets frozen. Thus far, the effort has resulted in the government shutting down five charities. But there has only been one indictment, no trials, and no convictions. Only one official criminal charge has been brought against a Muslim organization for support of terrorism, and that case has not yet made it to trial. Three months ago, Federal agents raided the offices of one of the nation's largest Islamic charities, Life for Relief and Development. Agents seized computers and donor records. But no charges have been filed and the charity remains in business.
While many American Muslims serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, they have less luck trying to get jobs in the civilian agencies involved in national security. When the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when on a recruiting binge to find and hire new analysts and translators, many Arab-Americans and other American Muslims came forward and applied. But they have met with little success because they are frequently denied security clearances on grounds that they have friends and family back in the Middle East.
Samer Shehata, professor of Arab Politics at Georgetown University, probably speaks for the feelings of most of the U.S. Muslim community, “Quite simply,” he says, Islamophobia “produces an environment that is fundamentally at odds with what the U.S. is supposed to be about; our values for treating everyone fairly and not discriminating on the basis of skin color, race, religion, gender, etc.”
Prof. Shehata adds, “This is damaging certainly for all Americans and it is also damaging for the reputation of the U.S. overseas. One of the questions I hear the most whenever I am in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East is: how is it like now in the U.S. for Arabs? Have you been the victim of discrimination, bigotry, abuse?”
It is obvious that our government has not yet achieved a rational balance between investigation and intimidation. If it doesn’t get it right, it will have lost a critical resource.
Nobody wants terrorists in our midst. But we cannot win by losing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
