An American Muslim Journal

The Associated Press: With CIA help, NYPD moves covertly in Muslim areas

One of the enduring questions of the past decade is whether being safe requires giving up some liberty and privacy. The focus of that debate has primarily been federal programs like wiretapping and indefinite detention. The question has received less attention in New York, where residents do not know for sure what, if anything, they have given up.

via www.google.com

That this question is evening being asked in the mainstream is just another sign of our times.  Or is it?

Actually, I don't think the CIA working internally (within the U.S.) is a new development.  TIME magazine did a story titled "THE CIA: Operating at Home" back in 1973 and in that article it reported that the CIA trained local police departments, including the New York Police Department, on various techniques and tactics to, ostensibly, fight crime.  Or spy on Americans...

From the May 1973 TIME article:

In February the agency admitted that it had trained policemen from nine U.S. cities and counties, including New York, in clandestine photography, identification of explosive devices and analysis of intelligence data. The purpose was to improve police ability to fight crime.

I guess some may argue that training police officers is not the same as conducting operations.  Training alone may not be considered "operating" inside of America (which the CIA by law is prohibited from doing), but this begs the question: where is the line drawn?  If the CIA uses local law enforcement agents to do things they themselves could not do, is that considered "operating"?

This was reported in today's Associated Press:

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NYPD has become one of the country's most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies. A months-long investigation by The Associated Press has revealed that the NYPD operates far outside its borders and targets ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government. And it does so with unprecedented help from the CIA in a partnership that has blurred the bright line between foreign and domestic spying.

This is not shocking news to civil liberties proponents who have been watching and criticizing these practices for as long as they've been going on.  This is, however, one of the few times that mainstream reporting has disclosed so many facts and details about the NYPD/CIA intelligence program.

According to the Associated Press, the CIA, using active and former CIA staff, trained NYPD detectives at the CIA's "Farm" (a training facility in Virginia), and recently sent a CIA officer to work clandestinely within NYPD headquarters.

The AP description of what the NYPD is doing, with the help and support of the CIA, is shocking:

The department has dispatched teams of undercover officers, known as "rakers," into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as "mosque crawlers," to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing. NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims.

The NYPD believes that what it's doing is good for New York City.  The AP story reports NYPD officials as saying the following:

"The New York Police Department is doing everything it can to make sure there's not another 9/11 here and that more innocent New Yorkers are not killed by terrorists," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. "And we have nothing to apologize for in that regard."

No one will argue that stopping terrorists and keeping people safe is priority #1.  The question is whether the ends justify the means?  And with regard to the second part of the NYPD statement regarding "nothing to apologize for" one has to wonder what that means.  Does it mean the NYPD believes that what it's doing is lawful?  

The AP story suggests that NYPD itself recognizes that what it is doing is probably out-of-bounds of the legal system: 

But officials said they've also been careful to keep information about some programs out of court, where a judge might take a different view.

What does it mean to "keep information...out of court"?  When criminal cases are presented to the DA's office, are material details as to how evidence was gather omitted (or even altered)?

Read this AP story.  It is an intriguing look into the NYPD and CIA collaboration post-9/11.

_______________________________________

I love this quote attributed to Police Commissioner Kelly:

We see ourselves as very conscious and aware of civil liberties. And we know there's always going to be some tension between the police department and so-called civil liberties groups because of the nature of what we do. (emphasis added)

"So-called"?  What the heck was he trying to say when he added that qualifier into his statement?

Oh, and what the heck does it say when the FBI is troubled by something?  Read this excerpt:

The idea troubled senior FBI officials, who saw it as the NYPD and CIA blurring the lines between police work and spying, in which undercover officers regularly break the laws of foreign governments. The arrangement even made its way to FBI Director Robert Mueller, two former senior FBI officials said, but the training was already under way and Mueller did not press the issue. 

Sheesh!  It has to be bad for the FBI to be "troubled" given what we know about their current guidelines.

GOP and Muslims are perfect together | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/31/2011

Memo to Republicans: Muslims are cultural conservatives, too. And if you can stop maligning them for a moment, they might move over to your column.

via www.philly.com

I think what Professor Zimmerman is saying here is partially true.  In my youth I was a Republican in large part because I believed that it was most consistent with my faith.  Some 20+ years later I understand my faith and politics differently and that has led me away from the Republican Party (their hate helped move me a long but I think I would have left eventually nonetheless).  If the Republicans can get over their bigotry against Muslims, then Prof. Zimmerman's prediction might come true.

I hope not.  Yes, I do want the Republicans to stop being bigots (anti-Muslim and anti- everything else they get whipped into a frenzy over), but I don't want my co-religionists and fellow Americans to flock to the Right.  That would be wrong.

For American Muslims whose faith guides their individual political choices, I think those politicians who can strike a balance between securing individual freedom while making sure that the vulnerable segments of our society (the children first and foremost but also the homeless, the mentally ill, the unemployed, the working poor and so on) are not left in the lurch, will be most attractive to us.

Social values - sexual preference, abortion, and so on - are important issues to me and to many American Muslims but to think that American Muslims (or Muslims across the world) have a unified opinion on these issues would be incorrect.  These are personal matters and personal choices that are between individuals and God.  I'm pro-choice but I would want my wife to have an abortion.  I believe that homosexuality is a sin but so too is pre-marital sex in Islam.  Again, these are matters between individuals and God.  Frankly, I don't want promiscuity and lewd behavior in public spaces whether its between heterosexuals or homosexuals, but it is not for me to judge others on the basis of their personal choices.  

Furthermore, we've got many more important public and societal issues that we need to address and fix before we can even have time to debate the sinfulness of private adult activities, behaviors and choices. Food insecurity, food deserts, the evisceration of our civil liberties, homelessness, un- and under-employment, discrimination, un- and under-insured families, the rapidly deteriorating environment, our over-dependence on oil and the impact of our country's overall lifestyle and our foreign policies that secure that lifestyle are all issues that demand our attention ahead of sexual preferences and abortion.  

I hope that American Muslims will come to look deeper into their faith and into their duty as Americans in order to avoid flocking to the Republican Party (assuming it eventually abandons its anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies).  Muslims in America and abroad are charged to work for the common good of their neighbors and of humanity, and today's Republican Party does not work for the common good.

______________________

To understand what Republicans and conservatives really want read George Lakoff's essay on Alternet (click here).

Dick Durbin holds Muslim rights hearings - Scott Wong - POLITICO.com

Durbin noted that King previously stated there are too many mosques in the country. And he pointed to comments by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP presidential candidate, that the country is “experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.”

“Some have even questioned the premise of today’s hearing: that we should protect the civil rights of American Muslims,” Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said in his opening remarks. “Such inflammatory speech from prominent public figures creates a fertile climate for discrimination. So it’s not surprising that the Anti-Defamation League says we face an intensified level of anti-Muslim bigotry.’”

via www.politico.com

Of course the right-wing nuts are going nuts over this hearing.  They hear "Muslims" and they can't help but freak out (hat tip for that Pavlovian conditioning to Faux News).

Here's a shot of some comments on Politico.com:

Wow!  The anger and hate is so strong!  And wrong.

The fact is that this was a civil rights hearing.  The American community it was focusing on today was the American Muslim community.  And fighting to secure the civil rights of each and every segment of our community helps to strengthen the civil rights of every citizen.

As such, I'm not so keen on POLITICO.com's headline about "Muslim rights hearings".  These were civil rights hearings focused on the rising bigotry against American Muslims.

Sen. Durbin deserves a lot of credit for taking the lead.  I also want to acknowledge Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for co-chairing this hearing.

 

Southwest apologizes to Muslim booted off plane - good for Southwest

 

(Reuters) - A Muslim woman who was booted from a Southwest Airlines plane because flight attendants found her behavior suspicious received a public apology from the airline on Wednesday.

Graduate student Irum Abassi was wearing a head scarf when she was ordered to leave a flight on Sunday before it took off from San Diego International Airport.

via www.reuters.com

Good for Southwest Airlines for apologizing in a timely fashion! It does them absolutely no good to have bigoted or ill-trained personnel on their flights.

It's amazing what narrow-minded (perhaps even bigoted) comments Ms. Abassi's experience and the subsequent apology are stirring up on the internet.  These people should be ashamed of themselves!

Here's a sampling:

Big deal. Southwest was trying to protect its passengers and I say good for them. I am sick of the crocodile tears and all of the rest from any member of a protected class in this country. And Muslims are the latest protected class, thank you misguided media/leftists.) Ms. Abassi’s fellow Muslims murder Christians every day all over the world. Jews are not allowed to travel to Saudi Arabia or to many other countries. Homosexuals are routinely jailed, tortured and murdered. I think Ms. Abassi should be grateful for the free travel coupon and that this is America. Tens of thousands of Japanese died a sudden and horrific death a few days ago. That was a tragedy. Ms. Abassi’s “trauma” was not.  via www.reuters.com

I say to Fing bad!! Muslims are the reason for the growing anti Muslim movement..Deal with it or leave via www.sigonsandiego.com

What a bunch of jerks!  This is the United States of America people!  We have laws and those laws prohibit the kind of discrimination that Southwest Airlines engaged in when it kicked Ms. Abassi off her flight.

We aren't going anywhere.  American Muslims are here to stay.  Period.  So deal with it.  We'll certain fight for our civil rights and liberties.  We can either live up to the ideals of America or become like the nations we abhor.

 

 

Latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment may help UC Irvine students

Dear DA Tony Rackauckas:

It's time to drop the ill-conceived criminal charges against the student protesters from the University of California-Irvine.  Your prosecution is a waste of taxpayers' money for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of it.

Did you read the latest U.S. Supreme Court case on the First Amendment?  It's titled Snyder v. Phelps and the majority of the Supreme Court comes down squarely in support of First Amendment rights.  You should read it.  You can find it here.

The facts in Snyder v. Phelps are different from those of the student protesters at UC Irvine, but the analysis of First Amendment speech and when it is protected helps better understand exactly why your prosecution, even if it succeeds at the trial court, will ultimately falter and fail (much to the chagrin of Orange County taxpayers who will eventually foot the bill for the constitutional challenges).

The words spoken by the student protesters on the campus of UC-Irvine were clearly the most highly protected speech.  the Irvine 11's speech dealt with public policy matters of the United States vis-a-vis international relations with Israel and the Palestinians.  The speech was at UC-Irvine and that's a public university.  Here's what the Supremes had to say about such speech in the context of the Westboro Church (but equally applicable here):

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).

I'm not sure it can be anymore clear.  Speech of a public concern in a public space gets "special protection" and cannot be restricted because it upset others at the event.

You should not be allowed to take this case to a jury.  Unless things are really slow in Orange County, I'm going to assume that some pressure was brought to bear upon your office to bring charges against these folks.  I'm very concerned that any jury you impanel for this trial might find it difficult to disassociate their political views which may differ from those of the students with the facts and law to be applied. Again, the Snyder v. Phelps opinion addresses this issue:

In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270).

In other words, the students will not only not get a fair trial, the entire system becomes complicit in an unlawful suppression of protected speech.  That's not good.  And yet again, the Snyder v. Phelps opinion:

Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

The best course of action is to dismiss the charges with prejudice.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen who isn't an Con Law Expert but Does Read

_____________________________

Click here for another blog post on this topic (pre-Snyder v. Phelps)

 

 

U.S. calls on Syria to release young blogger | Reuters

(Reuters) - The United States condemned Saturday what it said was Syria's "secret trial" of a young blogger and called for her immediate release, saying allegations of U.S. espionage connections were baseless.

"The United States strongly condemns Syria's secret trial of blogger Tal al-Molouhi," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement, saying baseless allegations of U.S. connections had resulted "in a spurious accusation of espionage."

"We call on the Syrian government to immediately release all its prisoners of conscience; and allow its citizens freedom to exercise their universal rights of expression and association without fear of retribution from their own government," he said.

via www.reuters.com

First things first - I am fully supportive of our call to free Tal al-Molouhi and I abhor the use of any secret legal proceedings.  Furthermore, while I don't know much about spies outside of Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy novels, it seems to me rather unlikely that a high school student would be a spy.

But if the Syrians suspect al-Molouhi of this crime then allow the trial to be a public proceeding with all the necessary safeguards(including those additional ones needed to protect minors).  With a secret trial the Syrian public and the world has no way of knowing whether the proceedings were fair or not.

It's situations like this where the diminution of our (America's) moral authority hurts.  Our use of secret evidence, closed trials, military trials, use of sealed evidence, limited cross examinations of foreign operatives who give evidence for the government's case in chief and the collection of evidence through unconstitutional means are some of the things America has been doing more and more of in the 1990s onwards (and particularly egregiously after 9/11/01).

Even on our worst days I think America's standards for justice are better than Syria's, but the perception of the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black" taints our messages.

Hopefully, with the winds of change gusting in the Middle East, Syria will re-think its actions and reverse course on what its done to Tal al-Molouhi.

 

REUTERS: U.S. judge dismisses targeted-kill program lawsuit

Via Reuters.com:

A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit seeking to halt the Obama administration's program to capture or kill American citizens who join militant groups abroad, a case involving a Muslim cleric in Yemen.

U.S. District Judge John Bates threw out the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. Bates said the father lacked legal standing to bring the case and that his claims presented political questions that cannot be decided by the courts, requiring dismissal of the lawsuit without addressing the heart of the allegations.

Our government assassinating American citizens may be many things - among them political - but it is at its core a fundamental due process issue and that's the kind of issue courts exist to address.  I wonder how much of this dismissal was based on the standing issue - which is a real issue in litigation - and how much is based on the political ramifications of the underlying policy?

The only thing missing from this little saga is Jason Bourne and Operation Blackbriar.  Of course Hollywood got it right and portrayed our system in its best light by showing that assassination of U.S. citizens was reprehensible.  In that case the CIA man - Noah Vosen - who saw himself as the "sharp end of the stick" with full authority to use extrajudicial "lethal action" was the bad guy.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a real "Noah Vosen" heading up a real "Operation Blackbriar"...  And if Judge Bates is right then can the real "Noah Vosen" do just about anything with impunity now?

Flustered in Phoenix: Mosque or Church?! Aw hell, let's just protest it just in case!

I have a simple message for some residents of Phoenix, Arizona: 

Dear Vigilant (but not-so-bright) citizens of Phoenix,

You must be stupid, stupid, stupid!  Don't you think it might be a good idea to at least confirm that the target of your protest is what you think it is?  Idiots.

Why such harsh words?  What else can you say to folks who compound their vices by heaping stupidity on top of their bigotry?

I'm fine with residents objecting to the building of a religious facility based on land use laws and zoning issues.  Protesting the house worship because you don't like the faith tradition, on the other hand, is simply wrong.

I hope these people have some reasonable friends and family who will chastise these silly people for their idiotic actions.  I refuse to believe that the majority of my fellow Americans condone the actions of those who oppose mosques (or any other house of worship) on the basis their dislike of the faith tradition it represents, but I also know that these are issues that most of us would rather not raise a ruckus over.

That has to change.  If you see something (stupid, bigoted, hateful, racist or simply ignorant), say something.

Thanks to The Atlantic for sharing this incident!

Still going... the Park51 debate rages on

The Park51 (formerly Cordoba Initiative) debate continues to rage in press conferences and in the media.  Well, if people are going to talk about this proposed community center which includes a mosque within it, then the public should use this as an opportunity to think about the broader issue of anti-Muslim sentiment that is holding up mosque construction in places throughout the United States.

The notion that Park51 is on “hallowed ground” is a red herring meant to sway the sentiments of the American public.  It’s been well established, ad nauseam in fact, that the site for Park51 is a few blocks away from Ground Zero, that there are other places of worship within the same area as the future home of Park51 and that there is a strip club even closer to Ground Zero than the proposed Park51.  “Hallowed ground” to those raving lunatics who are rabidly anti-Muslim is just a catchy label that has little to do with the truth.

But the bigger issue is the demonization of Muslims and the active efforts to cast Muslims as outsiders.  Why do “they” want to build here these people ask.  The “they” is conveyed with such contempt.

I was heartened to read some very positive comments from non-Muslims recently on this topic.  A New York Times reader posted this comment yesterday:

 

This person's sentiment is not surprising.  The people I interact with every day overwhelmingly share this mindset.  

I don’t need my friends to apologize for the bigotry of their co-religionists.  I know how unreasonable that expectation is and I will not impose it on my friends.  That said, it is nice to hear this sentiment articulated!

The forces for good are strong.  They just need to be activated and mobilized!

Keith Olbermann's insightful commentary on the "Ground Zero Mosque" that wasn't

Keith Olbermann did an outstanding job articulating a range of thoughtful points recently.  And he exhibited an incredible aura of sincerity in his delivery.  I hope all Americans have a chance to watch and listen to Mr. Olbermann's insightful commentary.

Check it out here: