By William Fisher
An organization of September 11 families is lobbying U.S. senators to defeat the REAL ID bill.
“September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows” charges that the proposed legislation, which passed the House of Representatives last week, “will make our highways more dangerous, undermine our security, impose guilt by association, and prevent some people fleeing persecution from obtaining refuge”.
Colleen Kelly, a spokesperson for the group, told IPS, “As an organization composed of family members of those killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks, we are vigilant in promoting measures that enhance our security. We also have a special responsibility to point out measures that use our concern about this nation’s safety and security to promote an entirely different agenda. Sadly, that is the case” with the REAL ID Act.”
The proposed legislation, introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, lists factors relevant to credibility determinations in asylum cases; authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive environmental laws to construct barriers and roads at the U.S.-Mexican border; expands grounds of inadmissibility and deportability due to terrorist or terrorist-related activity; modifies the provision defining "engage in terrorist activity" to eliminate the possibility of discretionary waivers of inadmissibility for material support of organizations or individuals that have engaged in terrorist activity; expands the definition of a "terrorist organization"; prohibits Federal agencies from accepting State issued driver's licenses or identification cards unless such documents are determined by the DHS Secretary to meet minimum security requirements; requires States, as a condition of receiving financial assistance, to participate in the interstate compact regarding the sharing of driver's license data; and authorizes the Secretary to make grants to States to assist them in conforming to the document standards of the act.
Ms. Kelly asserts that the bill “will not make us safer” and will “prevent people fleeing persecution from obtaining relief: Some asylum seekers are actually fleeing from the very countries the U. S. government has labeled as supportive of terrorist activity. Asylum applicants already undergo more extensive security checks than any other foreign nationals who come to this country. Terrorists and others who pose a danger to our security are already ineligible for asylum.”
The group also claims that the legislation would “Make our highways more dangerous and undermine our security”. The intelligence reform bill that Congress passed last year already addresses the concerns raised by the 9/11 Commission regarding driver's licenses and identity documents. However, Mr. Sensenbrenner's proposal to set federal eligibility requirements for driver's licenses, including restrictions on immigrants' access to licenses, would undermine, not enhance, national security by pushing people deeper into the shadows and forcing many more to drive without a license in order to earn a living. Such a result would severely undermine the law enforcement utility of Department of Motor Vehicles databases by limiting, rather than expanding, government data about individuals in this country.”
The bill would also” impose guilt by association by permitting deportation of non-citizens who are members of or support any political organization that has used violence, even if the organization has not been designated as a "foreign terrorist organization," is misguided. This proposal to impose guilt by association leaves out what we believe to be a basic component of wrongdoing – intent. With its retroactive application, it could be used to deport long-term, lawful residents, even if the association rendering them deportable occurred decades earlier and was legal at the time.”
The group says Congress should be “working on comprehensively reforming our immigration system so that immigration is legal, safe, orderly, and reflective of the needs of American families, businesses, and national security.”
Douglas G. Rivlin, Director of Communication for the National Immigration Forum (NIF), an advocacy group, told IPS, “While many think you can’t have comprehensive immigration reform until you have border security, that is precisely backwards. You can’t have border security until our immigration laws are reformed so that they we make legality the prevailing norm and can concentrate scarce enforcement resources on real threats like terrorism and criminals. Unilateral, heavy-handed, enforcement-only, border-centric strategies are demonstrably ineffective. What we need is reform that puts the emphasis on legal immigration channels and reflects the reality of our economic and security needs.”
Founded in 2002, Peaceful Tomorrows is an organization of “family members of those killed on September 11th who have united to turn our grief into action for peace. By developing and advocating nonviolent options and actions in the pursuit of justice, we hope to break the cycles of violence engendered by war and terrorism”.
As the REAL ID bill makes its way to the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it will conduct an audit of a number of the detention facilities used to house suspected illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers. The facilities became the subject of controversy when, following 9/11, large numbers of immigrants and visitors to the U.S. were rounded up and arrested. Most were Arabs and other Muslims. Many complained of being held for long periods of time in inhumane conditions without charges or access to legal counsel. Hundreds were deported.
A DHS flyer announces that its Inspector General (OIG) “is conducting a review of the treatment of aliens held on immigration charges at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.” It urges detainees who feel they “have been physically or sexually abused or...conditions of confinement have been abusive” to contact them. “All contacts will be kept confidential, ” the OIG said.
The OIG is “assessing the treatment of detainees and conditions of confinement” at ten of the detention facilities. These facilities were formerly operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now renamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and incorporated into the DHS.
Mark Dow, author of “American Gulag: Inside America’s Secret Prisons”, and an authority on the INS/ICE detention facilities told IPS he had “mixed feelings” about the OIG investigation because he believes the government should not be operating any prison system for immigrants. However, he urged "NGO's to be sure to take control of this rather than become OIG messengers and then have to start the same old fight again to make sure complaints are handled seriously.” He said he hoped the OIG investigation would be “a springboard for establishing monitoring systems outside DHS altogether."
Monday, March 14, 2005
WHITHER PUBLIC DIPLOMACY?
By William Fisher
The expected nomination of one of President Bush’s closest advisors to lead America’s public diplomacy efforts has been met with cautiously hopeful skepticism by some leaders in the U.S. foreign policy community.
Among them is Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and an authority on the Middle East. Prof. Cole told IPS, ““You need someone who knows something serious about the Middle East publics and is willing to engage them on their terms. Ms. Hughes could be effective, but she needs to get good advice from non-toady Arabs and others. There is also the question of how much you can dress up the US support for Israeli occupation and annexation of Muslim lands or the US heavy-handedness in Iraq. PR without policy changes is most often not very effective.”
Another commentator, Adam Clayton Powell III, Visiting Professor and Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, told IPS, “Regardless of the merits of U.S. policies or the lack thereof, there is almost universal agreement that the U.S. has been woefully lacking in effectively stating its case. This is not a brief for propaganda, marketing or public relations: it is a simple recognition that the U.S. has not stated its policy or policy objectives clearly or in ways that audiences in most of the world can understand.”
He added, “There are only a half dozen or so U.S. spokesmen who have a sufficient grasp of the Arabic language to appear on radio or television in that part of the world. That means the U.S. is not even part of the dialogue there.
Anything Karen Hughes does to improve that can only advance U.S. national interests.”
Ms. Hughes, a close personal friend of the President who is credited with helping craft and deliver the messages that won him a second term, will be nominated next week to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. She will also lead the President’s campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.
Ms. Hughes, the former counselor to the president, left the White House in 2002 to move her family back to Texas. She is a former Texas television reporter with little experience in foreign affairs.
Ms. Hughes will need to be confirmed by the U.S Senate. Her new boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said during her confirmation hearings before the Senate that she regarded public diplomacy as a top priority. At a subsequent hearing, she requested $120 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative for reform, $40 million for the National Endowment for Democracy to support the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, $180 million for Muslim outreach through educational and cultural exchanges, and increases for a wide range of other public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives geared toward Muslim publics, particularly young people.
Ms. Hughes will be the third occupant of the position at the State Department, which has been vacant since last summer. Three years ago, the president recruited advertising executive Charlotte Beers to publicize US interests. She resigned eighteen months later, replaced by Margaret Tutwiler, a State Department veteran who handled public relations for former Secretary of State James Baker during the administration of George H.W. Bush. Ms.Tutwiler also resigned.
In writing about Ms. Hughes’s appointment, The New York Times quoted unnamed State Department officials as saying, “the problem is American policy, not inadequate public relations, and that no amount of marketing will change minds in the Muslim world about the war in Iraq or American support of Israel.”
The effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, especially in the Middle East, has also been seriously questioned by a number of commissions, foundations and individual experts.
Late last year, a bipartisan commission appointed by President Bush concluded that the American campaign to communicate its ideas and ideals, particularly to Muslim audiences, was “uncoordinated and underfunded, and risk sending contradictory messages about US intentions.”
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy was critical of the administration and Congress for not adequately funding the communications aspects of the war on terrorism. It said that one successful initiative -- exchange programs between US and foreign students -- has been burdened by ''redundant" security measures and ''excessive" visa fees. The report also offered a mixed critique of public relations efforts to promote the United States abroad.
Another group, headed by Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and now director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, reported, "Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels. What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic and radical transformation."
The Brookings Institution, a highly respected Washington-based think-tank, also found U.S. communications efforts “not only under-resourced, but also lacking an effective strategic direction, particularly towards the Islamic world.”
The Commission established to investigate the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks also found the U.S. unaware of the need to conduct a ‘war of ideas’ alongside the ‘war on terror’.
The Commission said that, beyond defeating al-Qaida, the U.S. ”must defeat a radical strain of Islamist ideology that celebrates death and destruction.” The chairman of the Commission, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, testified to Congress that U.S. public diplomacy required a complete overhaul.
He said, “As much as we worry about [Osama] bin Laden and al-Qaida, and we do worry about them, we should worry far more about the attitudes of tens of millions of young Arabs and hundreds of millions of young Muslims."
Mr. Kean noted that popular opinion of the United States has fallen sharply in the Muslim world, even in nations with governments that maintain close relations with Washington.
But the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, said that no amount of U.S. public diplomacy can succeed if America's actions around the world are unpopular.
"Our public diplomacy fails because it is derived from a failed foreign policy," he said. "Recent polls show that Arab respondents do understand and do respect American values. But they do not see American policy reflecting those values. They saw the horrible pictures of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. They read about the treatment of detained prisoners at Guantanamo Bay [Cuba]. So why are we surprised that there are harsh feeling towards the United States?"
U.S. Public Diplomacy currently has a number of components. Broadcasting activities include radio and television broadcasts to Cuba, through Radio Marti and TV Marti, radio broadcasts to the Middle East via Radio Sawa, television broadcasts to the Middle East through its Arabic satellite channel, Al Hurra, and broadcasts to Iran in Persian. Student and cultural exchanges are also important parts of the effort, though the numbers of foreign students attending U.S. universities has declined sharply because of security concerns that have resulted in visa delays and denials. Prospective students from the Middle East and South Asia have said they are also concerned about American discrimination against Arabs and other Muslims.
Al Hurra, the Department’s Arabic-language TV voice in the Middle East, has attracted a relatively small audience when compared with the more popular satellite channels, Al Jezeera and Al Arabia. Radio Sawa is widely listened to by young people in the Middle East, reportedly because of its pop music content.
The State Department’s broadcasting activities are supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), established when the Voice of America was discontinued.
In a separate development, a bipartisan bill designed to boost U.S. efforts to promote democracy abroad has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill, which proclaims that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights is an essential element of U.S. foreign policy, seeks to strengthen the U.S. ability to promote democracy in a number of ways. It would establish a new office of Democracy Movements and Transitions at the U.S. Department of State and separate regional democracy hubs at several embassies abroad.
The bill would also create a democracy promotion advisory board to provide outside expertise to the government, authorize $250 million in increased funding for democracy promotion over two years, require an annual report on democracy to include action plans to promote democracy in nondemocratic countries, and provide training and incentives for State Department personnel in the promotion of democracy.
The bill was introduced in the Senate by John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. In the House, it was introduced by Reps. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, and Tom Lantos, a California Democrat.
The expected nomination of one of President Bush’s closest advisors to lead America’s public diplomacy efforts has been met with cautiously hopeful skepticism by some leaders in the U.S. foreign policy community.
Among them is Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and an authority on the Middle East. Prof. Cole told IPS, ““You need someone who knows something serious about the Middle East publics and is willing to engage them on their terms. Ms. Hughes could be effective, but she needs to get good advice from non-toady Arabs and others. There is also the question of how much you can dress up the US support for Israeli occupation and annexation of Muslim lands or the US heavy-handedness in Iraq. PR without policy changes is most often not very effective.”
Another commentator, Adam Clayton Powell III, Visiting Professor and Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, told IPS, “Regardless of the merits of U.S. policies or the lack thereof, there is almost universal agreement that the U.S. has been woefully lacking in effectively stating its case. This is not a brief for propaganda, marketing or public relations: it is a simple recognition that the U.S. has not stated its policy or policy objectives clearly or in ways that audiences in most of the world can understand.”
He added, “There are only a half dozen or so U.S. spokesmen who have a sufficient grasp of the Arabic language to appear on radio or television in that part of the world. That means the U.S. is not even part of the dialogue there.
Anything Karen Hughes does to improve that can only advance U.S. national interests.”
Ms. Hughes, a close personal friend of the President who is credited with helping craft and deliver the messages that won him a second term, will be nominated next week to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. She will also lead the President’s campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.
Ms. Hughes, the former counselor to the president, left the White House in 2002 to move her family back to Texas. She is a former Texas television reporter with little experience in foreign affairs.
Ms. Hughes will need to be confirmed by the U.S Senate. Her new boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said during her confirmation hearings before the Senate that she regarded public diplomacy as a top priority. At a subsequent hearing, she requested $120 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative for reform, $40 million for the National Endowment for Democracy to support the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, $180 million for Muslim outreach through educational and cultural exchanges, and increases for a wide range of other public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives geared toward Muslim publics, particularly young people.
Ms. Hughes will be the third occupant of the position at the State Department, which has been vacant since last summer. Three years ago, the president recruited advertising executive Charlotte Beers to publicize US interests. She resigned eighteen months later, replaced by Margaret Tutwiler, a State Department veteran who handled public relations for former Secretary of State James Baker during the administration of George H.W. Bush. Ms.Tutwiler also resigned.
In writing about Ms. Hughes’s appointment, The New York Times quoted unnamed State Department officials as saying, “the problem is American policy, not inadequate public relations, and that no amount of marketing will change minds in the Muslim world about the war in Iraq or American support of Israel.”
The effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, especially in the Middle East, has also been seriously questioned by a number of commissions, foundations and individual experts.
Late last year, a bipartisan commission appointed by President Bush concluded that the American campaign to communicate its ideas and ideals, particularly to Muslim audiences, was “uncoordinated and underfunded, and risk sending contradictory messages about US intentions.”
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy was critical of the administration and Congress for not adequately funding the communications aspects of the war on terrorism. It said that one successful initiative -- exchange programs between US and foreign students -- has been burdened by ''redundant" security measures and ''excessive" visa fees. The report also offered a mixed critique of public relations efforts to promote the United States abroad.
Another group, headed by Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and now director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, reported, "Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels. What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic and radical transformation."
The Brookings Institution, a highly respected Washington-based think-tank, also found U.S. communications efforts “not only under-resourced, but also lacking an effective strategic direction, particularly towards the Islamic world.”
The Commission established to investigate the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks also found the U.S. unaware of the need to conduct a ‘war of ideas’ alongside the ‘war on terror’.
The Commission said that, beyond defeating al-Qaida, the U.S. ”must defeat a radical strain of Islamist ideology that celebrates death and destruction.” The chairman of the Commission, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, testified to Congress that U.S. public diplomacy required a complete overhaul.
He said, “As much as we worry about [Osama] bin Laden and al-Qaida, and we do worry about them, we should worry far more about the attitudes of tens of millions of young Arabs and hundreds of millions of young Muslims."
Mr. Kean noted that popular opinion of the United States has fallen sharply in the Muslim world, even in nations with governments that maintain close relations with Washington.
But the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, said that no amount of U.S. public diplomacy can succeed if America's actions around the world are unpopular.
"Our public diplomacy fails because it is derived from a failed foreign policy," he said. "Recent polls show that Arab respondents do understand and do respect American values. But they do not see American policy reflecting those values. They saw the horrible pictures of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. They read about the treatment of detained prisoners at Guantanamo Bay [Cuba]. So why are we surprised that there are harsh feeling towards the United States?"
U.S. Public Diplomacy currently has a number of components. Broadcasting activities include radio and television broadcasts to Cuba, through Radio Marti and TV Marti, radio broadcasts to the Middle East via Radio Sawa, television broadcasts to the Middle East through its Arabic satellite channel, Al Hurra, and broadcasts to Iran in Persian. Student and cultural exchanges are also important parts of the effort, though the numbers of foreign students attending U.S. universities has declined sharply because of security concerns that have resulted in visa delays and denials. Prospective students from the Middle East and South Asia have said they are also concerned about American discrimination against Arabs and other Muslims.
Al Hurra, the Department’s Arabic-language TV voice in the Middle East, has attracted a relatively small audience when compared with the more popular satellite channels, Al Jezeera and Al Arabia. Radio Sawa is widely listened to by young people in the Middle East, reportedly because of its pop music content.
The State Department’s broadcasting activities are supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), established when the Voice of America was discontinued.
In a separate development, a bipartisan bill designed to boost U.S. efforts to promote democracy abroad has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill, which proclaims that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights is an essential element of U.S. foreign policy, seeks to strengthen the U.S. ability to promote democracy in a number of ways. It would establish a new office of Democracy Movements and Transitions at the U.S. Department of State and separate regional democracy hubs at several embassies abroad.
The bill would also create a democracy promotion advisory board to provide outside expertise to the government, authorize $250 million in increased funding for democracy promotion over two years, require an annual report on democracy to include action plans to promote democracy in nondemocratic countries, and provide training and incentives for State Department personnel in the promotion of democracy.
The bill was introduced in the Senate by John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. In the House, it was introduced by Reps. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, and Tom Lantos, a California Democrat.
BLOGGING IN THE MIDDLE EAST
By William Fisher
In democracies throughout the world, ‘blogging’ – setting up personal websites, known as weblogs, able to receive comments from readers – has grown exponentially over the past few years.
In the United States, there are literally millions of ‘blogs’. Their growth has been accelerated by five main factors. First, the number of home computers has grown enormously. Some 61% of adults in the U.S. have Internet access at home and 71% have computers. Second, access to the online technology for creating a blog has become easier and simpler. Third, the U.S. has a relatively high literacy rate. Fourth, for the past decade – but particularly after the historic and controversial presidential election of 2000 –Americans have become increasingly cynical about reporting by newspapers, radio, and broadcast, cable and satellite television controlled by giant corporations. Finally, America has become a deeply divided nation politically and socially. Citizens with widely divergent points of view have found blogging a way to express their ideas and join or create communities of like-minded bloggers.
When satellite television arrived, it was hailed by journalism watchers as the ‘the new media’. But, predictably, its novelty was short-lived. Now, there are indications that, over the next decade, the Internet generally, and blogging in particular, may become the ‘new new media’ – America’s primary source of news.
However, it’s not there yet – a recent survey Gallup for CNN showed that only one in four Americans are either very familiar or somewhat familiar with blogs. So the jury is still out on whether virtual reality will replace Gutenberg. However, trends point in that direction.
Not yet in the Greater Middle East, though there are many parallels. For example, blogging technology is available to anyone with access to the Internet, and content can easily be created in Arabic, Hebrew, Persian and other languages. While home computer ownership is still embryonic, there is pretty solid anecdotal evidence of deep suspicion of government-owned ‘mainstream media’ that spurred growth in the ‘blogosphere’ elsewhere.
But there is at least one critical difference. In most of the countries in the Greater Middle East, using a personal weblog to express political dissent can land you in jail as easily as taking part in an unauthorized political protest in the public square.
Iran is one of the worst offenders. Recently, an Iranian weblogger was jailed for 14 years for ‘spying and aiding foreign counter-revolutionaries’ after using his blog to criticize the arrest of other online journalists.
Despite the risks, an estimated 75,000 Iranians among its five million Internet users maintain online ‘blogs’. Especially among middle class youth, they have become an important way for Iranians to express dissatisfaction.
As in Iran, most countries of the region impose varying degrees of restriction on weblogs.
Saudi Arabia, where authorities block some 400,000 websites, is among the most restrictive. It is unclear how many blogsites there are in the Kingdom, but those that are accessible focus largely on political dissent.
Typical is a site called “The Religious Policeman”. One recent posting said,
“What Reforms? There aren't any Reforms! The government promised to set up a higher commission on women’s affairs, guaranteed women participation in the recent National Dialogue Forum….and in the National Human Rights Commission…the National Dialogue Forum… agreed to change nothing, the ‘team photo’ had no women in it, anyone with any sense left in tears.”
In Iraq today, there are hundreds of blogsites, most run by Iraqis, some by American and other coalition soldiers. They are communist, monarchist, Kurdish, Assyrian, Islamist, Shiite, Sunni, nationalist and secularist. Their political positions range from full support for the U.S. invasion and occupation to rabid calls for jihad against the Americans.
For example, on the one-year commemoration of the start of the Iraq war, a 24-year-old woman computer programmer wrote in her "Baghdad Burning" blog, "Occupation Day, April 9, 2003: The day we sensed that the struggle in Baghdad was over and the fear of war was nothing compared to the new fear we were currently facing. It was the day I saw my first American tank roll grotesquely down the streets of Baghdad - through a residential neighborhood. And that was April 9 for me and millions of others...and the current Governing Council want us to remember April 9 fondly and hail it our 'National Day' ... a day of victory ... but whose victory?"
Mona El Tahawy, a columnist at the daily Asharq Al Awsat, writes that bloggers in Iran and Iraq “have inspired others in the Arab world…Despite working in an elite medium, requiring a computer and literacy”, she said, “bloggers are the voice of the true Arab street, especially the young.”
But free expression comes at a price.
In Egypt, authorities have tightened their control of the country’s 600,000 web users. The webmaster of the English-language Al Ahram Weekly was sentenced to a year in prison for posting a sexually-explicit poem, and a 19-year-old student was sentenced to a month in jail for "putting out false information" after reporting a serial killer on the loose in Cairo.
In Syria, one blogger asked others to sign an online petition addressed to “The White House” and “The Elysées” (palace). “With the killing of Hariri in Lebanon” it said, “Syrian Ba'athists are out of control. Who's next? Syria is inciting civil war in Lebanon.”
Another Syrian, calling himself “Kafka”, wrote that President Assad’s speech “made the Syrian people forget that (he) “never cared to give a damn about us since he came to power….”
In Tunisia, President Zine el-Abidine ben Ali has been determined to stamp out all cyber-dissidence. Among many others, a prominent lawyer was arrested for posting an article online. In Bahrain, two online forum moderators were arrested. Nonetheless, a Bahraini blogsite, called “Sabbah's Blog” was busy organizing a “Middle East Bloggers Meetup”. Dozens of enthusiastic comments were posted by readers.
Even in Afghanistan, poorest of the poor, blogging is beginning to catch on. One Afghan blog reports, “During the Taliban we didn’t have the Internet, but now there are about 25 net cafes in Kabul, and also some in Herat, Kandahar, and Balkh provinces. People are really interested to use the Internet but it’s too expensive…only rich people can afford it.”
If political dissent via blogging has not yet risen to the level of “new, new media” in the western democracies, it is at least not yet constrained by government regulation (though Congress and the Justice Department have floated various proposals to do just that). In fact, there may be a bizarre inverse relationship between the suppression of free expression and the proliferation of blogs. In the U.S., the number of blogs has increased significantly during the Bush Administration, when millions of Americans feel passionately that their civil liberties are being eroded by the ‘war on terror’. That outcry has generated equally passionate response from bloggers on the right. Maybe the lesson for heads of state in the Middle East is: Increase freedom of speech and reduce the challenge and expense of having to deal with this cyber uproar.
In democracies throughout the world, ‘blogging’ – setting up personal websites, known as weblogs, able to receive comments from readers – has grown exponentially over the past few years.
In the United States, there are literally millions of ‘blogs’. Their growth has been accelerated by five main factors. First, the number of home computers has grown enormously. Some 61% of adults in the U.S. have Internet access at home and 71% have computers. Second, access to the online technology for creating a blog has become easier and simpler. Third, the U.S. has a relatively high literacy rate. Fourth, for the past decade – but particularly after the historic and controversial presidential election of 2000 –Americans have become increasingly cynical about reporting by newspapers, radio, and broadcast, cable and satellite television controlled by giant corporations. Finally, America has become a deeply divided nation politically and socially. Citizens with widely divergent points of view have found blogging a way to express their ideas and join or create communities of like-minded bloggers.
When satellite television arrived, it was hailed by journalism watchers as the ‘the new media’. But, predictably, its novelty was short-lived. Now, there are indications that, over the next decade, the Internet generally, and blogging in particular, may become the ‘new new media’ – America’s primary source of news.
However, it’s not there yet – a recent survey Gallup for CNN showed that only one in four Americans are either very familiar or somewhat familiar with blogs. So the jury is still out on whether virtual reality will replace Gutenberg. However, trends point in that direction.
Not yet in the Greater Middle East, though there are many parallels. For example, blogging technology is available to anyone with access to the Internet, and content can easily be created in Arabic, Hebrew, Persian and other languages. While home computer ownership is still embryonic, there is pretty solid anecdotal evidence of deep suspicion of government-owned ‘mainstream media’ that spurred growth in the ‘blogosphere’ elsewhere.
But there is at least one critical difference. In most of the countries in the Greater Middle East, using a personal weblog to express political dissent can land you in jail as easily as taking part in an unauthorized political protest in the public square.
Iran is one of the worst offenders. Recently, an Iranian weblogger was jailed for 14 years for ‘spying and aiding foreign counter-revolutionaries’ after using his blog to criticize the arrest of other online journalists.
Despite the risks, an estimated 75,000 Iranians among its five million Internet users maintain online ‘blogs’. Especially among middle class youth, they have become an important way for Iranians to express dissatisfaction.
As in Iran, most countries of the region impose varying degrees of restriction on weblogs.
Saudi Arabia, where authorities block some 400,000 websites, is among the most restrictive. It is unclear how many blogsites there are in the Kingdom, but those that are accessible focus largely on political dissent.
Typical is a site called “The Religious Policeman”. One recent posting said,
“What Reforms? There aren't any Reforms! The government promised to set up a higher commission on women’s affairs, guaranteed women participation in the recent National Dialogue Forum….and in the National Human Rights Commission…the National Dialogue Forum… agreed to change nothing, the ‘team photo’ had no women in it, anyone with any sense left in tears.”
In Iraq today, there are hundreds of blogsites, most run by Iraqis, some by American and other coalition soldiers. They are communist, monarchist, Kurdish, Assyrian, Islamist, Shiite, Sunni, nationalist and secularist. Their political positions range from full support for the U.S. invasion and occupation to rabid calls for jihad against the Americans.
For example, on the one-year commemoration of the start of the Iraq war, a 24-year-old woman computer programmer wrote in her "Baghdad Burning" blog, "Occupation Day, April 9, 2003: The day we sensed that the struggle in Baghdad was over and the fear of war was nothing compared to the new fear we were currently facing. It was the day I saw my first American tank roll grotesquely down the streets of Baghdad - through a residential neighborhood. And that was April 9 for me and millions of others...and the current Governing Council want us to remember April 9 fondly and hail it our 'National Day' ... a day of victory ... but whose victory?"
Mona El Tahawy, a columnist at the daily Asharq Al Awsat, writes that bloggers in Iran and Iraq “have inspired others in the Arab world…Despite working in an elite medium, requiring a computer and literacy”, she said, “bloggers are the voice of the true Arab street, especially the young.”
But free expression comes at a price.
In Egypt, authorities have tightened their control of the country’s 600,000 web users. The webmaster of the English-language Al Ahram Weekly was sentenced to a year in prison for posting a sexually-explicit poem, and a 19-year-old student was sentenced to a month in jail for "putting out false information" after reporting a serial killer on the loose in Cairo.
In Syria, one blogger asked others to sign an online petition addressed to “The White House” and “The Elysées” (palace). “With the killing of Hariri in Lebanon” it said, “Syrian Ba'athists are out of control. Who's next? Syria is inciting civil war in Lebanon.”
Another Syrian, calling himself “Kafka”, wrote that President Assad’s speech “made the Syrian people forget that (he) “never cared to give a damn about us since he came to power….”
In Tunisia, President Zine el-Abidine ben Ali has been determined to stamp out all cyber-dissidence. Among many others, a prominent lawyer was arrested for posting an article online. In Bahrain, two online forum moderators were arrested. Nonetheless, a Bahraini blogsite, called “Sabbah's Blog” was busy organizing a “Middle East Bloggers Meetup”. Dozens of enthusiastic comments were posted by readers.
Even in Afghanistan, poorest of the poor, blogging is beginning to catch on. One Afghan blog reports, “During the Taliban we didn’t have the Internet, but now there are about 25 net cafes in Kabul, and also some in Herat, Kandahar, and Balkh provinces. People are really interested to use the Internet but it’s too expensive…only rich people can afford it.”
If political dissent via blogging has not yet risen to the level of “new, new media” in the western democracies, it is at least not yet constrained by government regulation (though Congress and the Justice Department have floated various proposals to do just that). In fact, there may be a bizarre inverse relationship between the suppression of free expression and the proliferation of blogs. In the U.S., the number of blogs has increased significantly during the Bush Administration, when millions of Americans feel passionately that their civil liberties are being eroded by the ‘war on terror’. That outcry has generated equally passionate response from bloggers on the right. Maybe the lesson for heads of state in the Middle East is: Increase freedom of speech and reduce the challenge and expense of having to deal with this cyber uproar.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL
By William Fisher
My nomination for the three most outrageous statements of the ‘war on terror’:
President Bush: "Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture" (January 2005).
Former CIA official Michael Scheuer, the ‘anonymous’ author of “Imperial Hubris” who was the head of the agency’s “Bin Laden Unit”: About the practice of ‘extreme rendition, “The idea that we're gonna suddenly throw our hands up like Claude Raines in 'Casablanca' and say, 'I'm shocked that justice in Egypt isn't like it is in Milwaukee,' there's a certain disingenuousness to that…(rendition is) “convenient in the sense that it allows American policy makers and American politicians to avoid making hard decisions…Yes. It's very convenient. It's finding someone else to do your dirty work" (CBS News, 60 Minutes, March 6, 2005).
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: U.S. policy is not to send detainees "to countries where we believe or we know that they're going to be tortured." If a country has a history of torture, Washington seeks additional assurances that it will not be used against the transferred detainee. But the government "can't fully control" what other nations do. He does not know whether countries have always complied with their promises (Washington Post, March 8, 2005).
The ‘dirty work’ Scheuer refers to is the practice of ‘extreme rendition’, or ‘outsourcing torture’, in which U.S. counter-terrorism agencies kidnap terror suspects and take them to jails in countries that torture prisoners.
We know they torture prisoners because there is a growing body of first-hand testimony from detainees who were tortured. And because our own State Department identifies those countries in its annual Human Rights Report. They include Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and others – all are destinations for the ‘AIR CIA’ service that transports them.
The rendition program started during the Clinton Administration and Michael Scheuer was one of its founders. For years, it was known by Washington reporters who never wrote about it. It was ultra-top-secret.
But if was so secret, how come there has been an avalanche of newspaper, magazine and television reporting about it lately? There are three reasons: First, Abu Ghraib focused the world’s attention on prisoner torture. Second, CIA operatives began to worry that they might be personally prosecuted for breaking U.S. law, and have been scared enough to leak the rendition story to the media so they could hide behind the ‘I was just following orders’ defense. Third, a small but growing number of journalists have persisted in digging deeper, resulting in chilling accounts of things our government doesn’t want us to know.
But how about the President? Is it possible that everyone forgot to tell him? Wow! Isn’t he the commander-in-chief? Doesn’t he give the orders?
Think about it. You’d have to be living in cloud cuckooland to buy the ‘I didn’t know’ story.
My nomination for the three most outrageous statements of the ‘war on terror’:
President Bush: "Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture" (January 2005).
Former CIA official Michael Scheuer, the ‘anonymous’ author of “Imperial Hubris” who was the head of the agency’s “Bin Laden Unit”: About the practice of ‘extreme rendition, “The idea that we're gonna suddenly throw our hands up like Claude Raines in 'Casablanca' and say, 'I'm shocked that justice in Egypt isn't like it is in Milwaukee,' there's a certain disingenuousness to that…(rendition is) “convenient in the sense that it allows American policy makers and American politicians to avoid making hard decisions…Yes. It's very convenient. It's finding someone else to do your dirty work" (CBS News, 60 Minutes, March 6, 2005).
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: U.S. policy is not to send detainees "to countries where we believe or we know that they're going to be tortured." If a country has a history of torture, Washington seeks additional assurances that it will not be used against the transferred detainee. But the government "can't fully control" what other nations do. He does not know whether countries have always complied with their promises (Washington Post, March 8, 2005).
The ‘dirty work’ Scheuer refers to is the practice of ‘extreme rendition’, or ‘outsourcing torture’, in which U.S. counter-terrorism agencies kidnap terror suspects and take them to jails in countries that torture prisoners.
We know they torture prisoners because there is a growing body of first-hand testimony from detainees who were tortured. And because our own State Department identifies those countries in its annual Human Rights Report. They include Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and others – all are destinations for the ‘AIR CIA’ service that transports them.
The rendition program started during the Clinton Administration and Michael Scheuer was one of its founders. For years, it was known by Washington reporters who never wrote about it. It was ultra-top-secret.
But if was so secret, how come there has been an avalanche of newspaper, magazine and television reporting about it lately? There are three reasons: First, Abu Ghraib focused the world’s attention on prisoner torture. Second, CIA operatives began to worry that they might be personally prosecuted for breaking U.S. law, and have been scared enough to leak the rendition story to the media so they could hide behind the ‘I was just following orders’ defense. Third, a small but growing number of journalists have persisted in digging deeper, resulting in chilling accounts of things our government doesn’t want us to know.
But how about the President? Is it possible that everyone forgot to tell him? Wow! Isn’t he the commander-in-chief? Doesn’t he give the orders?
Think about it. You’d have to be living in cloud cuckooland to buy the ‘I didn’t know’ story.
Monday, March 07, 2005
AMERICA’S ‘OTHER’ WAR
By William Fisher
Civil libertarians say America’s ‘war on terror’ is eroding the constitutional freedoms of ordinary citizens. For example, the USA Patriot Act, hurriedly passed by Congress without debate in the weeks after the attacks of 9/11, gave the government sweeping new police and surveillance powers they say are necessary to ‘keep the homeland safe’.
But there is an ongoing and equally insidious challenge to civil liberties that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
The current case of a Michigan artist illustrates the rules of engagement in America’s ‘other war’.
In the Macomb County, Michigan suburb of Roseville, North of Detroit, artist Edward Stross was convicted by a six-person jury last month and sentenced to prison for his mural depicting a bare-breasted figure on a building. The artist was ordered to serve 30 days in jail, do two years of probation and pay a fine of $500 for his variation of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Man,” illustrating a half-naked Eve. Stross was also mandated to alter the fresco, which he painted on the outside of his art gallery in 1997. The mural depicted a woman's breast and the word "LOVE," as does the original Michelangelo work.
Stross says he was acting on the basis of a zoning variance granted Stross by city officials some six years ago. But a district court jury decided in January that Stross' version violated that variance.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan successfully filed an emergency motion to keep him out of jail pending an appeal of the sentence.
But officials in this town of about 50,000 seem determined to see Stross jailed. Roseville city attorney John Dolan said, “We don’t believe there is a basis for a stay. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.” Continued Dolan: “There also aren’t any constitutional claims that we think have any likelihood of prevailing in this case.” Dolan added, "Six of his fellow citizens hear the facts ... and return a guilty verdict."
Stross' attorneys had filed a motion to keep the artist free on bond pending the outcome of an appeal of his conviction. Macomb County Circuit Judge Peter Maceroni stopped short of granting the motion, but took the request "under advisement," which keeps Stross free for the moment. Maceroni, the judge who will decide the appeal, could issue a ruling on the bond motion at any time.
After his conviction, Stross covered the breast with black cloth. He explained to reporters that he was in mourning for artists everywhere. “Removing the work is the ultimate punishment. The jail time is nothing compared to removing what I painted. ... They’re trying to paint me out as a criminal.”
Stross, 43, told the Detroit Free Press newspaper: “This is one of the world’s most famous paintings. This is not my work. It is Michelangelo’s, and all I am trying to do is brighten up our community. ... They’re trying to turn my message into something it’s not.”
In a press release, national ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg commented, “It is disturbing that an artist can be imprisoned for replicating a masterpiece from the Sistine Chapel on the side of his art studio.”
Stross is not alone in attracting the wrath of law enforcement and religious groups. In Pontiac, Michigan, Jef Bourgeau, faced obscenity charges in 2000 for displaying classical art such as Gustave Courbet’s “The Origin of the World.
He is among a number of Michigan artists have spoken out in Stross’ support. “It’s an absurd case...Stross’ is a folk version of Michelangelo. There is more nudity in your average church. Sex has become one of the main focuses since the Christian right has gained influence. There has been an increasing preoccupation by the right wing with what is quite normal in art.”
Michigan voted for democratic contender John Kerry in the 2004 election, but Macomb County, where Roseboro is located, voted for George W. Bush, and approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
In Texas, the ACLU filed suit in January against the city of Pilot Point, north of Dallas, and its police department when they demanded that art gallery owner Dwight Miller remove a version of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” on an exterior wall of his gallery.
The Pilot Point police repeatedly threatened to prosecute Miller under a criminal statute that targets those who abuse children by selling or displaying hard-core pornography. In response, Miller covered Eve’s breasts with a banner that read “Crime Scene.”
“It is unconstitutional for government officials to censor a work of art because it might offend a small group of people,” said Texas ACLU Director Will Harrell. “It is also a misuse of resources to have our law enforcement officials act as art critics.”
These cases would be troublesome enough if they were aberrations. Unfortunately, they are part of a growing and seemingly ever-more powerful movement by ultra-conservatives to chip away at the freedom of expression guaranteed to all citizens in the U.S. constitution. Many in this camp are religious groups on the extreme right. They seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between Janet Jackson and Michaelangelo. Or between art and ‘Desperate Housewives’.
How does the right wing feel about this part of the ‘culture wars’? Here are a few comments posted on the “Free Republic” website, which claims to be “the premiere online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism”.
“Regardless of the inspiration, sounds pretty clear that this was just another desire to display sexual appetite in public ("love" = "lust"). We don't need to sexualize our children.”
“Breasts don't belong on public walls. I do think they are fine (tastefully) in a museum.”
“Nakedness leads to questions about what all that is from children, and what's it all about, etc. Which leads to children who don't have very strong parents possibly dabbling in the whole free-sex, anything-goes culture and propagating same. Which tends to propagate a very dysfunctional society as we have become. “
There has always been an ultra-right wing in American politics and culture. And certain fundamentalist and evangelical religious groups have always formed part of its support. What is different now is that, with the help and support of the White House and its allies, these groups are well represented among local office-holders such as city and county commissions, school boards and law enforcement agencies. Their ability to get elected to these offices -- the result of a strategy created a decade ago by Rev. Pat Roberts, then head of the Christian Coalition – is proof that they are also far better organized at the grassroots than the Democrats.
It remains to be seen whether the Democrats can successfully take on the Christian Right, or whether they will have to be co-opted by them in order to win.
Civil libertarians say America’s ‘war on terror’ is eroding the constitutional freedoms of ordinary citizens. For example, the USA Patriot Act, hurriedly passed by Congress without debate in the weeks after the attacks of 9/11, gave the government sweeping new police and surveillance powers they say are necessary to ‘keep the homeland safe’.
But there is an ongoing and equally insidious challenge to civil liberties that has nothing to do with the war on terror.
The current case of a Michigan artist illustrates the rules of engagement in America’s ‘other war’.
In the Macomb County, Michigan suburb of Roseville, North of Detroit, artist Edward Stross was convicted by a six-person jury last month and sentenced to prison for his mural depicting a bare-breasted figure on a building. The artist was ordered to serve 30 days in jail, do two years of probation and pay a fine of $500 for his variation of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Man,” illustrating a half-naked Eve. Stross was also mandated to alter the fresco, which he painted on the outside of his art gallery in 1997. The mural depicted a woman's breast and the word "LOVE," as does the original Michelangelo work.
Stross says he was acting on the basis of a zoning variance granted Stross by city officials some six years ago. But a district court jury decided in January that Stross' version violated that variance.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan successfully filed an emergency motion to keep him out of jail pending an appeal of the sentence.
But officials in this town of about 50,000 seem determined to see Stross jailed. Roseville city attorney John Dolan said, “We don’t believe there is a basis for a stay. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.” Continued Dolan: “There also aren’t any constitutional claims that we think have any likelihood of prevailing in this case.” Dolan added, "Six of his fellow citizens hear the facts ... and return a guilty verdict."
Stross' attorneys had filed a motion to keep the artist free on bond pending the outcome of an appeal of his conviction. Macomb County Circuit Judge Peter Maceroni stopped short of granting the motion, but took the request "under advisement," which keeps Stross free for the moment. Maceroni, the judge who will decide the appeal, could issue a ruling on the bond motion at any time.
After his conviction, Stross covered the breast with black cloth. He explained to reporters that he was in mourning for artists everywhere. “Removing the work is the ultimate punishment. The jail time is nothing compared to removing what I painted. ... They’re trying to paint me out as a criminal.”
Stross, 43, told the Detroit Free Press newspaper: “This is one of the world’s most famous paintings. This is not my work. It is Michelangelo’s, and all I am trying to do is brighten up our community. ... They’re trying to turn my message into something it’s not.”
In a press release, national ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg commented, “It is disturbing that an artist can be imprisoned for replicating a masterpiece from the Sistine Chapel on the side of his art studio.”
Stross is not alone in attracting the wrath of law enforcement and religious groups. In Pontiac, Michigan, Jef Bourgeau, faced obscenity charges in 2000 for displaying classical art such as Gustave Courbet’s “The Origin of the World.
He is among a number of Michigan artists have spoken out in Stross’ support. “It’s an absurd case...Stross’ is a folk version of Michelangelo. There is more nudity in your average church. Sex has become one of the main focuses since the Christian right has gained influence. There has been an increasing preoccupation by the right wing with what is quite normal in art.”
Michigan voted for democratic contender John Kerry in the 2004 election, but Macomb County, where Roseboro is located, voted for George W. Bush, and approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
In Texas, the ACLU filed suit in January against the city of Pilot Point, north of Dallas, and its police department when they demanded that art gallery owner Dwight Miller remove a version of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” on an exterior wall of his gallery.
The Pilot Point police repeatedly threatened to prosecute Miller under a criminal statute that targets those who abuse children by selling or displaying hard-core pornography. In response, Miller covered Eve’s breasts with a banner that read “Crime Scene.”
“It is unconstitutional for government officials to censor a work of art because it might offend a small group of people,” said Texas ACLU Director Will Harrell. “It is also a misuse of resources to have our law enforcement officials act as art critics.”
These cases would be troublesome enough if they were aberrations. Unfortunately, they are part of a growing and seemingly ever-more powerful movement by ultra-conservatives to chip away at the freedom of expression guaranteed to all citizens in the U.S. constitution. Many in this camp are religious groups on the extreme right. They seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between Janet Jackson and Michaelangelo. Or between art and ‘Desperate Housewives’.
How does the right wing feel about this part of the ‘culture wars’? Here are a few comments posted on the “Free Republic” website, which claims to be “the premiere online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism”.
“Regardless of the inspiration, sounds pretty clear that this was just another desire to display sexual appetite in public ("love" = "lust"). We don't need to sexualize our children.”
“Breasts don't belong on public walls. I do think they are fine (tastefully) in a museum.”
“Nakedness leads to questions about what all that is from children, and what's it all about, etc. Which leads to children who don't have very strong parents possibly dabbling in the whole free-sex, anything-goes culture and propagating same. Which tends to propagate a very dysfunctional society as we have become. “
There has always been an ultra-right wing in American politics and culture. And certain fundamentalist and evangelical religious groups have always formed part of its support. What is different now is that, with the help and support of the White House and its allies, these groups are well represented among local office-holders such as city and county commissions, school boards and law enforcement agencies. Their ability to get elected to these offices -- the result of a strategy created a decade ago by Rev. Pat Roberts, then head of the Christian Coalition – is proof that they are also far better organized at the grassroots than the Democrats.
It remains to be seen whether the Democrats can successfully take on the Christian Right, or whether they will have to be co-opted by them in order to win.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU
By William Fisher
When Al Qaida’s Human Resources department brings new folks on board, we can assume 99.9% of them will be radical Islamists. Fine, we expect it.
When the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan is out recruiting, Henry Kissinger or Joe Lieberman or Barbra Streisand are not his most promising targets. He’s looking for W.A.S.P.s. No surprise here.
And when Bob Jones University goes scouting for new blood, they’re not looking for Denzel Washington or Whoopi Goldberg. The Supreme Court ruled twenty years ago that the federal government could deny a religiously-run university tax benefits because the university imposed a racially discriminatory anti-miscegenation policy.
Frankly, I don’t really care who gets hired by these discredited and disgraceful outfits. At least, not until I’m asked to help pay their salaries.
And that’s what the U.S. House of Representatives is asking me – and you --to do.
Yesterday, 224 of our courageous representatives passed the first rollback of religious liberty since President Reagan signed the Job Training Partnership Act into law back in 1982.
In that year, Congress passed the original Job Training Partnership Act. It was sponsored by then Republican Senator (later vice-president) Dan Quayle, reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee by then-chairman Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, and signed into law by Republican President Reagan.
Yesterday a different bunch of Republicans – joined by a lone Southern Democrat – decided in their infinite wisdom to scrap the civil rights protections contained in the Reagan version of the Act.
What they okayed was use of tax dollars to fund religious discrimination in hiring for government-funded jobs. So the House made it OK to demand that taxpayers help finance hiring policies that say Protestants-only or Muslims-only, or Catholics-only, or Jews-only, or, for that matter, whites or blacks or Asians-only.
Despite the aggressive opposition of a huge coalition of religious, civil rights, labor, educational, and other advocacy groups, President Bush pushed hard for passage as part of his Faith Based Initiative.
Reminds me of my childhood when signs at companies and newspaper want-ads blatently announced “Jews and Negroes need not apply”.
Not to misunderstand, most of the religious groups who favored this sea-change do outstanding work. In fact, almost all of them have been doing it for years without tax dollars. Just like the religious and other groups who opposed it.
I’m with President Bush in thinking they could do even more. But whatever happened to the volunteer donors whose generosity has traditionally helped fund these organizations? Do all these champions of ‘smaller government’ jump ship as soon as federal grants are on offer?
Although religious employers enjoy an exemption allowing them to apply religious tests when hiring for positions funded with their own money (italics mine), the Constitution requires that direct receipt and administration of federal funds removes that exemption.
More than 60 years ago, one of the first successes of the modern civil rights movement was a decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to bar federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, or national origin. And, as of today, that’s still the law of the land.
As for tomorrow, I’m not so sure. The bill passed by the House now goes to the Senate. Let us hope that the Constitutional separation of church and state is not dead there too.
When Al Qaida’s Human Resources department brings new folks on board, we can assume 99.9% of them will be radical Islamists. Fine, we expect it.
When the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan is out recruiting, Henry Kissinger or Joe Lieberman or Barbra Streisand are not his most promising targets. He’s looking for W.A.S.P.s. No surprise here.
And when Bob Jones University goes scouting for new blood, they’re not looking for Denzel Washington or Whoopi Goldberg. The Supreme Court ruled twenty years ago that the federal government could deny a religiously-run university tax benefits because the university imposed a racially discriminatory anti-miscegenation policy.
Frankly, I don’t really care who gets hired by these discredited and disgraceful outfits. At least, not until I’m asked to help pay their salaries.
And that’s what the U.S. House of Representatives is asking me – and you --to do.
Yesterday, 224 of our courageous representatives passed the first rollback of religious liberty since President Reagan signed the Job Training Partnership Act into law back in 1982.
In that year, Congress passed the original Job Training Partnership Act. It was sponsored by then Republican Senator (later vice-president) Dan Quayle, reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee by then-chairman Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, and signed into law by Republican President Reagan.
Yesterday a different bunch of Republicans – joined by a lone Southern Democrat – decided in their infinite wisdom to scrap the civil rights protections contained in the Reagan version of the Act.
What they okayed was use of tax dollars to fund religious discrimination in hiring for government-funded jobs. So the House made it OK to demand that taxpayers help finance hiring policies that say Protestants-only or Muslims-only, or Catholics-only, or Jews-only, or, for that matter, whites or blacks or Asians-only.
Despite the aggressive opposition of a huge coalition of religious, civil rights, labor, educational, and other advocacy groups, President Bush pushed hard for passage as part of his Faith Based Initiative.
Reminds me of my childhood when signs at companies and newspaper want-ads blatently announced “Jews and Negroes need not apply”.
Not to misunderstand, most of the religious groups who favored this sea-change do outstanding work. In fact, almost all of them have been doing it for years without tax dollars. Just like the religious and other groups who opposed it.
I’m with President Bush in thinking they could do even more. But whatever happened to the volunteer donors whose generosity has traditionally helped fund these organizations? Do all these champions of ‘smaller government’ jump ship as soon as federal grants are on offer?
Although religious employers enjoy an exemption allowing them to apply religious tests when hiring for positions funded with their own money (italics mine), the Constitution requires that direct receipt and administration of federal funds removes that exemption.
More than 60 years ago, one of the first successes of the modern civil rights movement was a decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to bar federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, or national origin. And, as of today, that’s still the law of the land.
As for tomorrow, I’m not so sure. The bill passed by the House now goes to the Senate. Let us hope that the Constitutional separation of church and state is not dead there too.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
THE WEEK THAT WAS
By William Fisher
This has been a week when the U.S. press was barely able to keep up with new developments in the ‘war on terror’, bewilderment coupled with hubris about changes in the Middle East, one court proceeding denying bail to an American citizen held without charge in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and a second telling the Department of Justice to either charge another citizen or let him go, a civil liberties lawsuit accusing the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, of being responsible for prisoner abuse, and the release of the State Department’s annual report on civil rights around the world.
So it is not surprising that the recruiting problems facing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sneaked by virtually under the radar.
Two former CIA case officers weighed in on the recruiting problem. Melissa Boyle Mahle, who spent five years as a CIA recruiter, talked about her new book, "Denial and Deception: An Insider's View of the CIA From Iran-Contra to 9/11".
As reported in The Washington Post, Ms. Mahle says “part of the trouble in the CIA's trenches arises from the agency's hermetically sealed office culture, where secrecy and security can become excuses for avoiding risk. She cites the agency's continuing struggles to recruit Arab Americans, Asian Americans and other second-generation immigrants with native speaking ability who might blend more successfully into Third World societies than someone who looks like her.”
As a CIA recruiter, Mahle says she “sent many well-qualified, diverse candidates on for security review, only to see large numbers wash out. While some were rejected for straightforward reasons, such as lying about past drug use, others were turned away because their "psychological profile" did not match the CIA's abstract ideal or because their family and social contacts overseas made their backgrounds hard to scrub.”
"Security has no incentive to take risks," Mahle said.
The result "was best illustrated by a panoramic view of the swearing-in of the first class to enter on duty . . . after September 11; it was a sea of white faces."
And the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Policy, the premier publication of its kind, carried an article by Robert Baer, cautioning that “The CIA must cultivate foreign sources, reward service overseas, and tap America’s top students to once again get good information on enemies of the United States.”
Baer, who was a CIA case officer from 1976 to 1997, had some advice for CIA chief Porter Goss -- “recruit on college campuses.” Baer noted an earlier time when the CIA “recruited actively and effectively on college campuses. If a student excelled in an obscure language such as Uzbek and expressed a desire to serve his country, a friendly professor might direct him or her toward Langley. It was a vetting system that helped the CIA attract the best and the brightest. The Vietnam War helped put an end to this system and left in its wake a hostile professoriate. Today, the agency relies too heavily on volunteers who come knocking on the door. Having a booth at college job fairs is no substitute for guidance from university professors and administrators.
“Reviving even an informal feeder system would surely meet resistance. But if
you’re able to reconnect with the country’s top universities and their students,
the rewards will be great down the line. Today, the directorate needs six years
to vet new employees: a year of working at headquarters, a year of training, a
year of language study, and a three-year journeyman tour overseas. For those who prove inadequate along the way, the only recourse is to shunt them off to jobs where they can’t do any harm. Imagine how much better the system would work if the CIA identified the prime talent at the front end,” he said.
He suggested changing the security clearance system. “If you are, say, an American born in Islamabad who happens to have a second cousin working in the Pakistani intelligence service, the chances of getting security clearance to join the agency are close to nil. Third-generation Americans with no known foreign relatives but who have spent much of their lives overseas have a better chance, but the odds are still slim, especially if those overseas years were spent
studying in a place like Cairo.”
Of course, he wrote, “there is always a risk that someone who has studied in Cairo—and picked up an Egyptian girlfriend or boyfriend, and a lot of other Egyptian friends—will have gone over to the dark side. But the CIA and the DO desperately need people who speak foreign languages and who know parts of the world crucial to the United States. To reject such people solely because they aren’t provincial is yet another way the agency cuts off its nose to spite its face.”
“Why give such people any clearance?” he asks. “Because we get a window on the world. Let’s say the CIA hires a young U.S. citizen educated at the American University of Beirut who marries a Saudi girl, and who maybe even converts to Islam and moves to Saudi Arabia to take a job. After five or six years living in the kingdom, he’s sure to speak fluent Arabic and move in circles regular CIA employees can’t even glimpse. He might even get close enough to the fundamentalists to recruit one as a source. This reform would radically alter protocols that have been in place since the CIA was founded in 1947. It will be tough to force through the system, but it is crucial if the CIA hopes to adapt.”
But one of the CIA’s juiciest recruiting targets is proving to be elusive. The Arab-American and Muslim-American communities are, by and large, terrified by even the idea of talking with any U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agencies. While some have come forward – and many of those have been unable to get security clearances – the Islamophobia that has gripped America since 9/11 has created widespread suspicion and fear in these communities.
Leaders of organizations representing Arab- and Muslim-Americans insisted on speaking with this column on condition of anonymity. But their message was unified and clear: “When the FBI or the CIA or the Department of Homeland Security come knocking at your door, you’re more likely to be rounded up and put in jail than offered a job.”
This has been a week when the U.S. press was barely able to keep up with new developments in the ‘war on terror’, bewilderment coupled with hubris about changes in the Middle East, one court proceeding denying bail to an American citizen held without charge in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and a second telling the Department of Justice to either charge another citizen or let him go, a civil liberties lawsuit accusing the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, of being responsible for prisoner abuse, and the release of the State Department’s annual report on civil rights around the world.
So it is not surprising that the recruiting problems facing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sneaked by virtually under the radar.
Two former CIA case officers weighed in on the recruiting problem. Melissa Boyle Mahle, who spent five years as a CIA recruiter, talked about her new book, "Denial and Deception: An Insider's View of the CIA From Iran-Contra to 9/11".
As reported in The Washington Post, Ms. Mahle says “part of the trouble in the CIA's trenches arises from the agency's hermetically sealed office culture, where secrecy and security can become excuses for avoiding risk. She cites the agency's continuing struggles to recruit Arab Americans, Asian Americans and other second-generation immigrants with native speaking ability who might blend more successfully into Third World societies than someone who looks like her.”
As a CIA recruiter, Mahle says she “sent many well-qualified, diverse candidates on for security review, only to see large numbers wash out. While some were rejected for straightforward reasons, such as lying about past drug use, others were turned away because their "psychological profile" did not match the CIA's abstract ideal or because their family and social contacts overseas made their backgrounds hard to scrub.”
"Security has no incentive to take risks," Mahle said.
The result "was best illustrated by a panoramic view of the swearing-in of the first class to enter on duty . . . after September 11; it was a sea of white faces."
And the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Policy, the premier publication of its kind, carried an article by Robert Baer, cautioning that “The CIA must cultivate foreign sources, reward service overseas, and tap America’s top students to once again get good information on enemies of the United States.”
Baer, who was a CIA case officer from 1976 to 1997, had some advice for CIA chief Porter Goss -- “recruit on college campuses.” Baer noted an earlier time when the CIA “recruited actively and effectively on college campuses. If a student excelled in an obscure language such as Uzbek and expressed a desire to serve his country, a friendly professor might direct him or her toward Langley. It was a vetting system that helped the CIA attract the best and the brightest. The Vietnam War helped put an end to this system and left in its wake a hostile professoriate. Today, the agency relies too heavily on volunteers who come knocking on the door. Having a booth at college job fairs is no substitute for guidance from university professors and administrators.
“Reviving even an informal feeder system would surely meet resistance. But if
you’re able to reconnect with the country’s top universities and their students,
the rewards will be great down the line. Today, the directorate needs six years
to vet new employees: a year of working at headquarters, a year of training, a
year of language study, and a three-year journeyman tour overseas. For those who prove inadequate along the way, the only recourse is to shunt them off to jobs where they can’t do any harm. Imagine how much better the system would work if the CIA identified the prime talent at the front end,” he said.
He suggested changing the security clearance system. “If you are, say, an American born in Islamabad who happens to have a second cousin working in the Pakistani intelligence service, the chances of getting security clearance to join the agency are close to nil. Third-generation Americans with no known foreign relatives but who have spent much of their lives overseas have a better chance, but the odds are still slim, especially if those overseas years were spent
studying in a place like Cairo.”
Of course, he wrote, “there is always a risk that someone who has studied in Cairo—and picked up an Egyptian girlfriend or boyfriend, and a lot of other Egyptian friends—will have gone over to the dark side. But the CIA and the DO desperately need people who speak foreign languages and who know parts of the world crucial to the United States. To reject such people solely because they aren’t provincial is yet another way the agency cuts off its nose to spite its face.”
“Why give such people any clearance?” he asks. “Because we get a window on the world. Let’s say the CIA hires a young U.S. citizen educated at the American University of Beirut who marries a Saudi girl, and who maybe even converts to Islam and moves to Saudi Arabia to take a job. After five or six years living in the kingdom, he’s sure to speak fluent Arabic and move in circles regular CIA employees can’t even glimpse. He might even get close enough to the fundamentalists to recruit one as a source. This reform would radically alter protocols that have been in place since the CIA was founded in 1947. It will be tough to force through the system, but it is crucial if the CIA hopes to adapt.”
But one of the CIA’s juiciest recruiting targets is proving to be elusive. The Arab-American and Muslim-American communities are, by and large, terrified by even the idea of talking with any U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agencies. While some have come forward – and many of those have been unable to get security clearances – the Islamophobia that has gripped America since 9/11 has created widespread suspicion and fear in these communities.
Leaders of organizations representing Arab- and Muslim-Americans insisted on speaking with this column on condition of anonymity. But their message was unified and clear: “When the FBI or the CIA or the Department of Homeland Security come knocking at your door, you’re more likely to be rounded up and put in jail than offered a job.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
