End the Disgrace of Guantanamo

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Amnesty International has embarked on a campaign to close Guantanamo detention facilities, adding an important voice to the rising demands to end Guantanamo disgrace. For years, Americans have been reluctant to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to keep the detention of terrorism suspects outside the purview of both American and International law. However, with the disturbing revelations of abuse and violation of detainees' human rights, and with recent reports of the ways several unsuspecting bystanders ended up in the ranks of Guantanamo detainees, anyone who cares about justice and the rule of law must join the call to close the infamous facilities, and end the moral and legal excesses committed under the veil of secrecy, and in the name of promoting freedom and the rule of law.

Gunatanamo Detention Facilities represent a sad and painful moment in US international conduct, as it runs contrary to the American founding principles and the self-pride of many Americans who see their country as the guardian of democracy and human rights. This moment of infamy was born out of arrogance, exaggerated fears, self-delusion, zealotry, and disregard to American and International law. In prosecuting the "Global War on Terrorism," the Bush administration has committed several serious mistakes that undermined the world standing of the United States as a leading advocate for human rights. None of these, however, rivals the negative impact caused by Guantanamo detention facilities.

The anger over the treatment of Guantanamo detainees reached a new height in November 2006, when German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed war crime complaint with the German Federal Attorney General against 14 high ranking officials and advisors in the Bush administration. The list included Robert Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo Sanchez, and Geoffrey Miller. The complaint cited complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations who are co-plaintiffs. The co-plaintiffs to the war crimes prosecution include 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (Argentine), 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay) and Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Robert Gonzales, former US Attorney General, and Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense, were particularly implicated in the making of the Guantanamo's disgrace, as the former led the efforts to authorize torture, while the latter introduced the "extended interrogation techniques," to US military manuals. So was Geoffrey Miller, Guantanamo detention facilities commander, who was evidently responsible for setting up procedures in both Guantanamo and Abu Graib that led to the revelation of the appalling practices of degradation and torture.

Up until 2002, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was used to house Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas on their way to the United States. On June 8, 1993, United States District Court Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. declared the holding of the refugees who fled Haiti unconstitutional, and the last Haitian migrants departed in late 1995. In 2002, US military designated the camp a military prisons for terrorism suspects.

The legal status of the detainees and their treatment came under criticism from the outset. The criticism was initially sporadic and focused on the designation of prisoners as "illegal enemy combatant" and the open cage-like cells were the prisoners were kept. The international criticism prompted the US military to build better facilities. The Bush administration, however, rejected calls to treat prisoners under the Geneva Convention rules.

A series of abuses that was made public in the last five years mobilized international public opinion, and led to increased demand by American political leaders to close it. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and Amenity International, have repeatedly called for opening up the Guantanamo detention facilities for outside inspection. Other humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross and the United Nations, have raised serious concerns about the conditions in the facilities. Members of Congress have also voiced their concerns about both interrogation procedures and the negative impact the camp has had on the US moral standing in the world. Charges of mistreatment of prisoners included degradation, physical and metal abuse, torture, violation of religious rights, and desecration of the Qur'an that led to worldwide Muslim outrage.

Calls for closing Guantanamo can now be heard even from once strong supporters of the Bush administration's War on Terror. Thomas Friedman declared, in a recent New York Times' opinion piece, that he "will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans." Friedman, like many other Americans troubled by the way the "War on Terror" has often used to further narrow political and ideological agendas, has come slowly to realize that the policies adopted to fight terrorism are strengthening the hands of the terrorists and extremists and weakening civil rights at home and undermining US standing in the world.

The outrage over Guantanamo is by no means an opposition to the international efforts to confront terrorism and hold terrorists responsible for their horrific actions. It is rather a clear rejection of the attempts to sidestep established legal and constitutional requirements, and to violate basic human rights. Guantanamo detainees have been deprived of the due process of the law, required by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and by International Law, which states that anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to review by a court of law to decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention.

Donald Rumsfeld approved in 2002 a list of 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, most of which were general and allowed for interpretation by interrogators. Many of the techniques involving humiliation were part of a standard "futility" or "ego down" approach, but some have permitted acts that generally considered blatant acts of torture, including "water-boarding," a technique of simulated drowning. Sadly, US Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed openly the use of water-boarding for interrogation of terrorist suspects, even though the technique makes a person feel that his death is imminent. In responding to a radio interviewer from North Dakota station WDAY who asked whether water boarding, was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives, Cheney replied: "It's a no-brainer for me." The promotion of “extended techniques of interrogation” by high ranking members of the Bush administration prompted Congress to pass a bill outlawing torture. Senator John McCain referred to water-boarding as “an extreme measure” and led the congressional endeavor to outlaw it.

Many of the conditions in Guantanamo are in violation of Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of enemy combatant. Article 17 of the Convention states that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." The Bush administration denied that Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo detainees, but the US Supreme Court disagreed, insisting that the humane treatment requirements apply to all detainees in the War on Terror.

Although known al Qaida members are imprisoned in Guantanamo, many detainees were picked from locations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, and other countries in very mysterious circumstances, and without any clear connection to terrorist groups. The New York Times reported, in June 2004, that not much more than two dozens of the around 750 detainees were closely linked to al Qaida and that only very limited information could have been gotten from questioning them. An Associated Press report claims that some detainees were turned over to the US in return for cash bounties. Amnesty International documented the case of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan living in the U.K. as a refugee, who decided in 2001 to travel to Malaysia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to look for work. In Afghanistan, he was married and had a son. After September 11th, he moved his family to Pakistan. They planned to return to the U.K. but he was arrested in Lahore, Pakistan in April 2002, for a bounty of $5000.

The New York Times reported in November 2004 that the International Committee of the Red Cross accused, in a confidential report issued in July 2004, the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The Red Cross inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings.

The US Government denial was, however, unconvincing given the contradictory statements by key members of the Bush team in charge of implementing the "War on Terror" policies. One of the key figures in the Guantanamo's controversy is Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib. The Washington Post reported its July 14, 2005 edition that Gen. Miller was accused by investigators into the interrogation of Guantanamo detainees of failing his duties and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the U.S. Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in the setting of Abu Ghraib's prison, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.

Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, claimed that it was Miller's idea to use attack dogs to intimidate prisoners. He insisted that the same tactics were used at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo. Several of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib showed terrified and naked detainees surrounded by dogs. Photos also showed that one of the detainees was even bitten by a dog.

Miller initially denied charges against him, and testified in May 2006 at the courts martial of the Abu Ghraib dog handlers that his instructions on the use of dogs had been misunderstood. Miller testified that he instructed that dogs should be used "only for custody and control of detainees." Miller's testimony was directly contradicted by the commander of Abu Ghraib's Military Police detachment, Col. Jerry Phillabaum.

This was not the only incident Miller's statements were contradicted by his colleagues, as he reversed himself in several other occasions. In July 2005 "discrepancies emerged between Miller's May 2004 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and sworn statements he made three months later." Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip. But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

Similarly, Major James Yee, the Muslim chaplain who spent one year in Guantanamo, and was responsible for developing the manual for safeguarding the religious rights of the Muslim detainees, charged in his memoir, For God and Country: Religion and Patriotism Under Fire, that Miller routinely incited the guards to hate the detainees. He was arrested on Miller's orders and accused of treason. However, after spending several months in solitary confinement and suffering sensory deprivation, all court-martial charges against him were dropped on March 19, 2004. Miller appealed to secrecy as the ground for not providing any evidence against Maj. Yee, "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence."

Guantanamo has been a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific tragedy committed by misguided terrorists full of anger and vengeance. We already know that a large number of the detainees where arrested because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were kept in custody because of zealotry and disregard of the rules of national and international law. The detainees were kept for years under extreme conditions of deprivation of basic human rights and dignity, even though the majority of them have not been charged with crimes, and were eventually let go because of the lack of evidence after spending many years of abuse, degradation, and mistreatment. It is about time that these detainees are given their day in a court of law, like any person accused of crime. Doing that is not only important for the sake of justice, but also for the sake of ending acts of gross excess, human pain, and international disgrace.

Support Amnesty International Campaign to close Gunatanamo Camp at tearitdown.org

This article appeared in the following publications:

CounterPunch
Online Journal
Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
iView
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

Will the Far Right Succeed? Turning the War on Terror into a War on Islam

The Far Right has finally found a clever way to arrest America’s march towards asserting its foundational principles of equality, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Their strategy is to transform the war on terror into a war against Islam and use security needs to subvert constitutional protection.

The Far Right draws its ranks from the fringes of the Christian Right and the neoconservatives, particularly those who see in the indigenization of Islam and the presence of authentic Muslim voices in the United States a direct threat to their ability to manipulate the public and promote their narrow religious and foreign policy agenda.

9/11 tragedy has given a new impetus to the campaign against Islam and Muslims, as the Far Right discovered that the climate of heightened fear and uncertainty provides an exceptional opportunity to advance their bigoted and racist agenda under the guise of patriotism. They have focused in the last four years on turning Islam into an enemy. In their efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims, they have persistently advanced two themes: (1) that Islam is intolerant, violent, and anti-western, and must not, therefore, be allowed a legitimate place in American society, and (2) that American Muslims who assert their Islamic identity, and express positive views of Islam cannot be trusted, and must be chastised and marginalized.

Although their fanatical views were initially rejected by mainstream America, the post 9/11 environment of confusion and fear provided them with a unique opportunity to advance their racist agenda. Their views and arguments have steadily gained more receptive ears among key agencies and leaders in the Bush administration. Not only have they succeeded in creating doubts in the White House and the Congress about mainstream American Muslim organizations and leaders, but they, evidently, have succeeded in injecting their language into the political discourse of public institutions and government agencies.

Top administration figures have moved from calling the current war against groups involved in indiscriminate killing of civilians a war on “terrorism” to a war on “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism,” and “radical Islam.” Most recently, top leaders in the Bush administration, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have accepted the argument, popular among the Far Right, that the war on terror aims at preventing Muslim extremists from establishing an “Islamic Caliphate” and an “Islamic Empire.”

Have the Far Right succeeded in pushing their extremist views on Islam and Muslim into mainstream political discourse? Are those who want to turn the war on terror into a war on Islam getting the ears of government agencies and political leaders? And what can we do to expose the Far Right’s deceptions and bring peace to a world that continues to drift toward turmoil and upheaval?


Demonizing Islam and Marginalizing American Muslims

Ever since George Bush described Islam as “a religion of peace,” the Far Right sprung to action to challenge the administration position and to generate ill-will toward Islam and Muslims in the United States and Europe. The anti-Islam fanatics have been working hard to demonize Islam and marginalize American Muslims. Using their propaganda machinery, and occasionally likeminded individuals in key governmental agencies, the Far Right have been able to confuse the public about Islam and Muslims, by using half-truth, innuendo, and sheer fabrications and lies.

Their tactics of confusing the public, painting all Muslims as potential terrorists, and presenting Islam as the source of hate and violence have brought them limited successes, including profiling Muslims in airports, smearing the good name of mainstream American Muslim organizations, and intimidating Muslim leaders and activists through repeated interviews by security agencies.

The anti-Islam fanatics have made it known that they are not happy with their limited success, and continue to drive at a complete crackdown by law enforcement agencies on all forms of Muslim organizations. They seem to have made a break through if a recent report by Paul Perry, an anti-Islam writer, turns to be correct. Perry, the author of recent book entitled Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have penetrated Washington, reported recently that a Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has embarked on a project to understand Islam by studying the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad.

Citing an internal document he claims to have obtained from CIFA, Perry contends that the CIFA’s document “notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," Perry quotes the document, “and Muslims today are commanded by their ‘militant’ holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the ‘cult characteristics of Islam.’"

Perry further contends that the CIFA’s document “ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as ‘an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism,’ which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing.”

It is shocking to learn that a public agency can sink to this level unless it is fed by the anti-Islam campaign. While Perry’s words cannot be trusted, Americans worried about abuse of public agencies for turning the war on terror into a war on Islam cannot afford to take chances. The Far Right has already succeeded in persuading the Bush administration to appoint a war monger to the United State Institute of Peace (USIP), and it took a great effort to make the divisive agenda of Pipes clear to the USIP board, leading to his demise as a USIP director.


Racist Outlook Dressed in Patriot Language

The terrorist attacks that shook the United States on 9/11 represent a watershed for the anti-Islam campaign. The brutality of these attacks, and the indiscriminate terror unleashed by Muslim fanatics, has raised many questions in the mind of Americans about the connection between Islam and terrorism. Americans’ interest in understanding Islam and deciphering the connection between the act of terrorism and the Islamic faith led to a sharp increase in the number of books published on Islam. While few of the books published since 9/11 provide a balanced views of Islam’s teachings and history, most aim at demonizing Islam and Muslims.

Of the 30 bestsellers by Amazon.com, by far the largest online distributor, 19 promote views that range between the negative and abusive, while 8 advance more favorable views of Islam. Three books offer neutral views on Islam. The eight positive books include two translations of the Quran and two on the renowned Muslim mystic Al Rumi.

The anti-Islam books dominate the Amazon bestsellers. They include books by well known hate mongers and Muslim bashers who made careers out of demonizing Islam and attacking Muslims, including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Tony Blankley, and Steven Emerson. At the heart of the writings of these four, and other collaborators, is a racist strategy whose aim is to persuade American leaders, and the public at large, that Islam is the enemy and that Muslims cannot be trusted.

The authors of anti-Islam books are not scholars who are objectively interested in understanding Islam and Muslims, but a group of activists who deeply committed to promoting an expansionist foreign policy. They perceive world politics as a zero-sum game that requires the United States to use its military power against present and future competitors. They have consistently presented Muslim countries as incapable of democratic rule, and Islamic values as antithetical to world peace and religious diversity.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, the Far Right has been working hard to undermine academic freedom and intimidate scholars with balanced views of the Middle East. Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, a diatribe against Middle East Studies in US universities, and Daniel Pipes’s Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of US foreign policy and Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians, have initiated a new campaign that aims at intimidating free thinking on the Middle East and silencing any views that challenge the Far Right’s propaganda.


The Concerted Effort to misrepresent Islam

The anti-Islam campaign is carried by self-appointed experts who have little understanding of Islam and Muslims, yet are bent on depicting the faith of 1/5 of humanity as intolerant, violent, and anti-western. Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith and history, they often rely on the crude and faulty logic of generalization about Muslims from the experiences of fringe Muslim groups, and of reading Islamic texts out of context, both the socio-political and the discursive.

Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Quran and its message. Spencer calls the Quran, a book sacred to Muslim, “the jihadists’ Mein Kampf,” in reference to Hitler’s memoir. He openly blames the Quran for giving impetus to the terrorist open war against the West. “So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification.”

Spencer insists that the Quran is the source of the violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists against civilians. “Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Quran says,” Spencer contends. “There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. ‘O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed’ (Sura 9:73). ‘Strive hard’ in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: ‘O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.’ (Qur’an 9:123).”

Spencer cherry picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Quran directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Quran is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse: “A declaration of disavowal from God and His Messenger to those of the polytheists (Arab pagans) with whom you contracted a Mutual alliance.” (9:1) The reason for this war against the pagans was their continuous fight and conspiracy against the Muslims to turn them out of Medina as they had been turned out of Makkah, and their infidelity to and disregard for the covenant they had made with the Muslims: “Why you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first.”(9:13)

Out of the hundreds of the Quran’s verses left out of Spencer’s discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)


The Specter of Islamic Empire

The Far Right has repeatedly exaggerated the size of Muslim extremists, and obscured their identity and the political conditions leading to their emergence, in an effort to link them to the larger Muslim communities and organizations. In order to instill fear of Islam in the heart of Americans and Europeans, the Far Right contends that mainstream Muslim communities and organizations in the West are part of a global movement with wild aspirations and grandeur design to control the world and impose institutions and laws borrowed from 7th century Muslim society.

It is true that fringe groups within Muslim societies espouse literalist views of Islamic sources and history, and are devoted to resuscitate historical practices such as the caliphate and the application of traditional fiqh. Yet the Far Right not only fails in identifying these groups as the exception to the rule, but they have erroneously presented them as the only voice in Muslim communities.

Similarly, mainstream Muslim organizations are depicted as supportive of global terrorism and American Muslim leaders and activists as fifth column. These organizations have been the target of a smear campaigns in which innuendo, half-truth, and guilt by association have been employed to undermine and disrupt their efforts to integrate the American Muslim community into mainstream American society.

In the last three years, mainstream Muslim organizations have been the subject of rough treatment by law enforcement agencies under the urging of the Far Right. In 2002 the offices of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the highest Muslim religious authority in the North America, and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSSIS), a major Muslim institution of higher learning for training Muslim chaplains, were raided by federal agents, led by an agent of the custom service who apparently relied heavily on information provided by the Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project and his former assistant Rita Katz’s SITE Institute.

Although the raids were publicized as an important operation in the war on terrorism, three years after the offices of these, and other Muslim institutions, were searched and hundreds of documents confiscated, no criminal charges were returned, and the Justice and Homeland Security Departments made no apology.

In June 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held a series of hearings on radicalization of Muslim inmates. Several Far Right spokesmen accused Muslim chaplains of promoting radical views. Indeed, the anti-Islam pressure groups succeeded in persuading Senator Schumer that the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences (GSISS) and the Islamic society of North America (ISNA) have been promoting “Wahhabi Islam” and demanded that the Justice Department conducts an investigation to uncover radical Islamic activities in federal prisons.

A year later, the Office of Inspector General (OIJ) of the Justice Department issued a report that showed that, contrary to earlier claims, Muslim chaplains made a positive impact and brought a balanced and moderate teachings to Muslim inmates, and that radicalization was more likely in prisons where inmates did not have Muslim chaplains. Federal correction facilities officials further testified that, contrary to the claims of the self-proclaimed experts who provided Senator Schumer with erroneous information, “ISNA is a moderate, mainstream, non-Wahhabist, Islamic organization that encompasses Muslims from several Islamic sects.”

In December 2003, the Finance Committee listed Muslim organizations and charities on a suspect list, and asked the IRS to provide financial records to uncover alleged support for global terrorism. Last month, Senator Charles Crassley stated in an interview with the Indianapolis Star that his committee “did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing.” A week later, the Finance Committee, apparently under pressure from the Far Right, issued a press release, reversing Crassley’s statement, and contending that the fact that Committee’s conclusion of reviewing the information it received from the IRS “does not mean that these groups have been cleared by the committee."


Rethinking the War on Terrorism

The war on terror has not contributed so far to isolating the terrorists, but seems to have led to increasing anti-American sentiments. The Bush administration has been ill-advised by individuals and groups driven by anti-Islam agenda that made an already difficult war even more complicated. By listening to prejudiced and bigoted voices who have shown little respect to the followers of the Islamic faith, and who have urged the administration to exceed established moral and legal limitations, the Bush administration has made several blunders that undermined the credibility of the United States.

From Guantanamo’s and Abu Ghuraibs’ abuses, to massive detention and deportation of Muslim immigrants, to profiling the predominantly law abiding America Muslims, to letting off the hook high ranking officials in the administration who were caught making derogatory and bigoted remarks about Islam and its followers, to denying visas and turning back from US airports moderate Muslim leaders who have been working hard to build bridges between Islam and the West, to supporting authoritarian regimes implicated in human rights violations, the Bush administration has adopted the wrong approach and gave the wrong impression that the war on terror is gradually shifting from targeting individuals implicated in terrorism and indiscriminate violence to targeting mainstream Muslim communities and organizations.

The Bush administration should reject the racist strategy of the Far Right and become more discreet in executing the war and terrorism, making a clear distinction between fringe groups driven by hatred and fanaticism, and the overwhelming majority of law abiding Muslims who aspire for just peace. The administration should also enlist the help and the crucial resources that the American Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders, can bring to bear on the war on terrorism and extremism.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Milli Gezette
Muslim Observer
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Neocon Pundits Malign American Muslims: All Faiths Must Face their Demons

Three militant neocon pundits spoke vehemently against the Bush administration’s gesture to include American Muslim leaders in discussions on how to deal with the rising tide of anti-Americanism and to restore the level of trust and support the United States enjoyed prior to the missteps the administration took under the neocons’ urging.

Frank Gaffney issued a warning to Karen Hughes, the newly appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, demanding that she does not attend the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention. Ignoring the false alarm he set in a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Ms. Hughes met with Muslim leaders and discussed her ideas for bridging the deepening divide between the United States and Muslim countries.

Gaffney told Hughes point bank: “Don’t go there.” Joel Mowbray, another neocon who is apparently more aware of the tactics of misinformation, gave her the benefit of the doubt, allowing her to make one mistake for one time: “Given that it is highly unlikely Hughes knew exactly what she was walking into, she deserves the benefit of the doubt—this time”

Gaffney belongs to a small but vocal group of militant pundits, driven by deep seated hate of Islam and Muslims, and bent on maligning Muslim leaders and organizations in a bid to marginalize and isolate mainstream American Muslims. Gaffney joined two other well known Muslim Bashers, Daniel Pipes and Joel Mowbray, in demonizing ISNA and the leaders of the national Muslim organizations that met Ms. Hughes.

Utilizing several conservative publications, including the Washington Times, the trio leveled serious allegations against mainstream Muslim organizations, accusing them of supporting terrorism and promoting radicalism. Using quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo, the group has been active in feeding lies to the public and inciting government officials and law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations, and then use these investigations as a basis for further maligning law-abiding and patriot American Muslims.

Pipes accused , last year, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) of being “part of the militant Islamist lobby," and contended that it was “well-disguised, and has brought in all the Islamist trends, giving them a patent of respectability."

After conducting a thorough investigation of Pipes’s accusations, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) issued a statement that brought out the irresponsible nature of Pipes’s attacks. “The Institute was aware of and took seriously the accusations made against CSID and some of the speakers at the event,” Kay King, the director of Congressional and Public Affairs at USIP wrote. “These allegations were investigated carefully with credible private individuals and U.S. government agencies,” she went on, “and found to be without merit. The public criticism of CSID and the speakers was found to be based on quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo.”

Gaffney, likewise, used misinformation and errors of fact to justify his demands that the Bush administration isolate the most inclusive and mainstream Muslim convention. He contended, in a recent article, that the Senate Finance Committee “listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that ‘finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.’" He, however, failed to disclose that the Finance Committee never found ISNA guilty of such allegations and that his reference relates to a letter sent by the committee chairman and the ranking member on December 22, 2003, asking the IRS to investigate Muslim charities for possible links to terrorist financing. 18 months have lapsed since February 20, 2004, the deadline set for the investigation, with no action, or even a congressional hearing conducted by the Finance Committee on the matter.

Mowbray, employing the same tactic of half-truths, quotes taken out of context, and innuendo, cited a Freedom House study that found Saudi publications in twelve mosques—out of 3500 throughout the country—that made bigoted references to followers of other religions. What Mowbray omits is the fact that the Freedom House, responding to complaints by American Muslim leaders of the misleading nature of the report's title, stressed that their study was intended to uncover the bigotry of the Saudi publications, and was never intended to implicate US mosques. The Freedom House went a step further and invited two of ISNA leaders to a meeting for consultation on its report and to explore the question of religious extremism.

These shameless attempts by Gaffney, Mowbray, and Pipes to malign mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders are not driven by rational and objective considerations, but by paranoia, prejudice, and irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Such irrational and emotional anti-Muslim postures can only confuse the pubic and confound the fight on terrorism with the fight on Islam, and hence plays to the hands of the anti-American pundits who thrive on the missteps, and counterproductive actions and postures, urged by Gaffney and his ilk.

Mainstream American Muslims have already taken a principled and firm position against the senseless killings of unarmed and defenseless civilians. But their ability to succeed in drying the swamp of extremism that feeds into terrorist attacks can only succeed if the Jewish and Christian communities confront their bigots and extremists, and dry the ponds of bigotry in their midst.

It is heartening to realize that most Americans are able to see through the militant pundits’ paranoia and bigotry, as Karen Hughes has amply demonstrated when she ignored the false alarm they set off on the eve of her meeting with Muslim leaders during ISNA convention.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Aljazeera Magazine
Alt.Muslim
American Muslim Perspective
iViews
Official Wire
Middle East Online
The Milli Gazette
The Muslim Boserver
Naseeb Vibes
Washington Report
Washington Times
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Beyond the Condemnation of Terrorism

London terrorist bombings elicited familiar response: Islamic organizations and Muslim communities in Europe and North America condemned the terrorist attacks and stressed the dissonance between the deplorable acts of the terrorists and the humane principles of Islam. Tony Blair paid tribute to the intrinsically peaceful teaching of Islam and reminded his countrymen that the British Muslims are law-abiding and contributing members of the British society, as he condemned the militant ideology espoused by the terrorists. “We know that these people act in the name of Islam,” Blair stressed, “but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor terrorism every bit as much as we do.”

Pundits of the militant Right found in the London attacks another opportunity to equate Islam with terrorism, to question the sincerity of the Muslim rejection of terrorism, and to incite the public against Islam and Muslims. Given the loud and extensive condemnation of terrorism by Muslims, particularly in North America and Europe, the militant-Right cry has shifted from “why Muslim leaders do not speak out against terrorism?” to “are Muslim leaders sincere in their condemnation of terrorism, or are they doing it to deflect anger and prevent a backlash?”

Clearly, Muslims are genuinely appalled by the brutality of the terrorist acts, and some are going the extra mile to make sure their condemnation is made loud enough, and is repeated enough, so that they can be heard by the deafest of their critics. The Fatwa issued by the Religious Council of North America, and supported by major Muslim organizations, is the latest effort in this regard.

The strong stand taken by American Muslim leaders against indiscriminate violence is a testimony of a remarkable maturity and the clarity of vision in dealing with a complex issue. The loud condemnation of terrorism is important to cut through the anti-Islam rhetorics and to reassure the public that Muslims reject indiscriminate violence and the killing of innocent civilians.

Muslim leaders cannot, however, stop their quest for justice at condemning atrocities committed by few misguided Muslim youth. They must do more to show young Muslims how to turn their moral indignation into a positive force that brings more balance and justice to the world, instead of exploding in anger. Muslim leaders must work more to shed light on the double-standard approach adopted by many western governments and institutions toward Muslims.

This is not only the right thing to do, but the only path to ensuring that Muslim leaders continue to speak for the values and interests of the larger Muslim community and address Muslim concerns. The expression of justice and compassion should not be reserved to atrocities committed by the terrorists against western civilians, but must also address Muslim pain and suffering visited on them by the action of western democracies.

Muslim leaders must do more to expose the harsh reality of many Muslims throughout the world and speak for the Muslim suffering; they must do more to pressure political leaders and leaders of public opinions to address the roots of anger and frustration that breed militancy and give rise to terrorism. The key here is the foreign policy of western powers, particularly the United States, toward Islam and Muslims. Ignoring legitimate grievances and applying double standards in dealing with Muslim societies and issues must stop if the war on terrorism is to bear fruits.

Muslim leaders and organizations have been repeatedly asked to condemn terrorism and repudiate individuals and groups connected with terrorist acts. This is a fair demand and Muslims should respond positively and take unequivocal stand against the violent attacks by angry Muslim radicals against innocent civilians and bystanders. By the same token, Muslim leaders should put similar demands on western leaders, and insist that the same set of standards be applied to all.

It does not help addressing the problem of terrorism when someone like Thomas Friedman put all the blame for terrorism on the Muslim world and feel that the West might be justified for treating every “Muslim living in a Western society” as a suspect and “a potential walking bomb,” and in cracking “down even harder on their own Muslim populations.” Friedman conveniently forgets that Western governments must take responsibility for befriending brutal dictators throughout the Muslim world, and supporting the daily humiliation of Palestinians in occupied Gaza and the West Bank.

It does not help when American leaders press hard to liberate European societies and Christian minorities in western Indonesia and southern Sudan from the yoke of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, but remain passive in the face of authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world, or in the face of the Israeli, the Indian, or the Thai aggression against Muslim populations that live under their control.

Similarly, Muslims do not hear loud condemnation when bigots like Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, Franklin Graham, Michael Savage, or Pat Robertson use venom to demonize Islam and Muslims, incite the attacks against both western and eastern Muslims, or openly call for violation of the basic human rights of all Muslims.

Muslim leaders must continue to speak against violence, brutality, and injustice, as they reject terrorism and indiscriminate violence against civilians and demand that the Islamic respect for the sanctity of human life, and the Islamic injunction against the killing of innocents be strictly observed. But this is not enough. Muslim leaders must go beyond the condemnation of terrorism to become more active in exposing the roots of violence, hatred, and terrorism. They must reject exclusivist ideologies that privilege particular religious or ethnic communities whether it takes the form of Jewish, Christian, or Muslim exclusivism.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Asia Times - Hong Kong
Middle East Times - Egypt
Official Wire - New York
India Monitor - UK
Media Monitor Network - CA
The American Muslim - USA
Monster and Critics - UK
American Muslim Perspective - USA
Naseeb Vibes - USA
Washington Times - USA

Read more >>>

Can the United States Lose the Whole World and its Own Soul Too?

Under a tremendous pressure from the White House, the Newsweek finally retracted its story on the desecration of the Qur'an at Guantanamo prison, and apologized for being sloppy in verifying sources. Rather than convincing the world that the interrogators at Guantanamo are innocent of the charges of abusing Islam's holy book, the Newsweek's retraction reinforced the perception that US media is toeing the government's line and that it has become impotent to challenge government's excesses.

Once again the Bush administration demonstrated its inability to deal with excesses committed by US security agencies. Many have hoped that the administration gets tough with those who violate basic human rights, tarnish the US image, and undermine the moral and political authority of the United States.

Many have also hoped that the White House and the Pentagon would appoint a neutral fact-finding team to investigate the charges, and either bring to task individuals implicated in torture, or declare that the charges are false and groundless. Instead, the administration took a defensive posture and haphazardly dismissed serious charges, placing the blame for the public uproar in several Muslim countries squarely on the Newsweek.

The charges of torture and abuse have been told repeatedly in many news reports, including reports that were published in three mainstream newspapers: New York Times, Financial Times, and Denver Post. A report published by the New York Times on May 1, 2005, cited a former American interrogator who corroborated early accounts by several detainees alleging that guards at Guantanamo had tossed copies of the Qur'an into a pile and stepped on them. The International Red Cross Committee also confirmed that it has received complaints from Guantanamo prisoners concerning Qur'an desecration long before the Newsweek broke the news.

Evidently, the Bush administration has not been able to come to grips with the ramifications of such actions on the image and credibility of the United States. The United States, which stood prior to 9/11 as the defender of human rights, is now as guilty of violating human rights as any of the authoritarian regimes it repudiates.

And let us be clear, the image of the United States as a country guilty of human rights violations and of Muslim bashing was not created by the Newsweek account, but emerged as a result of a long list of missteps and abuses. Let us recall the most serious ones:

In 2001 and 2002, bigotry and intolerance were elevated to a tolerable national discourse by leading evangelical leaders who insulted Islam and its prophet, and did it with impunity. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson described Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and called the Prophet of Islam a "terrorist" and "pedophile," and were allowed to get away with it. Little has been done so far to reign in Christian and Jewish extremists.

In November 2002, John Ashcroft, then the US attorney general, got away with similar bigoted remarks when he asserted that "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him," while "Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you." Ashcroft never denied that he made the statement, nor did he apologized despite demands by several American Muslim organizations to retract his statement.

In the same year Ashcroft made his remarks, The Department of Justice embarked on a massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of those who were detained were denied visitation by family members, and representation by lawyers. Deprived from the due process enshrined in the US constitution, they were eventually deported on minor violations.

In October 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was allowed to keep his job after telling church gatherings that the Christian God is "real" and the Muslim is "idol." Secretary Rumsfeld defended Baykin's bigoted remarks by citing the latter's freedom of speech.

In December 2003, the military accused Col. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and ordered his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but failed to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges. Chaplain Yee was eventually found innocent of all charges laid against him, including charges of adultery and pornography concocted when the spying charges were withdrawn. The army refused to issue an apology and Lee resigned.

In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer and former Army officer, was arrested by FBI agents in connection with the Madrid terrorist bombing. The FBI maintained its certainty that Mayfield's fingerprints matched those found on bags left behind by the terrorists even after Spanish authorities said that the original image of the fingerprint did not match Mayfield's. He was eventually released after spending two weeks in prison.

In December 2004, the open season on Islam and Muslims by extreme Religious Right pundits reached a new low, when the Washington Times, a leading American newspaper, published an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War." The article declared Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims.

In December 2004, 46 American Muslims were fingerprinted, searched and held for 6 hours by U.S. border security agents upon returning from a religious conference in Canada. The incident is the latest in a series of overzealous ethnic and religious profiling, and of the targeting of law-abiding American Muslims in the name of national security.

The above list, though far from being complete, reveals disturbing patterns of Muslim bashing and abuse, and underscores the troubling fact that some public officials in various departments and at highest levels espouse prejudices toward Islam and Muslims. While the number of bigots and zealots is still limited, the damage they have done to both American Muslims and the reputation of the United States is enormous.

It is about time that the Bush administration becomes proactive in weeding out reckless public servants, takes a firm stance against violations of the civil rights of American Muslims and vigorously investigates such violations, and engages American Muslim leaders in consultation on ways and means to mend fences with the Muslim World.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Middle East Online - London
Media Monitor Newtwork - USA
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Breaking the Vicious Circle of Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia

Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia share a common denominator: they both serve as a strategic weapon in the war of ideas between Muslim and Western extremists and bigots. On one level, anti-Americanism and Islamophobia stem from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, they stem from a very basic human instinct: the will to power unrestrained and undisciplined by moral values; they stem from human greed and the will to dominate, exploit, and abuse.

While both truth and vanity play a role in shaping anti-Americanism and Islamophobia, I am less concerned with the vain sources of these sentiments that take the form of deception, jealousy, and arrogance. I am more concerned, however, with the true sources of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia, namely U.S. foreign policy and exclusivist political ideologies that fuel extremism and terrorism. U.S. foreign policy, as articulated by the neo-conservatives, is bent on dominating and manipulating Muslim societies for achieving narrow economic and geopolitical interests; similarly, exclusivist ideologies continue to inflame the vicious terror campaigns that justify the killing of civilians for achieving political ends.

It is not difficult for any person aware of the patterns of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world, and of the terror campaign conducted by militant Muslims, to see that the two are interrelated and feed one another. The United States has for decades supported dictatorships and corrupt military regimes in the name of maintaining stability, and those regimes have bred extremism and gave rise to terrorist groups.

Yet the fact that U.S. foreign policy feeds into, and is fed by, the rise of extremism and terrorism in Muslim countries does not mean that we are moving in a vicious circle. The Untied States is in a position to end the cycle of violence and counter-violence, and American Muslims are well situated to help in redirecting U.S. foreign policy and in bridging the deepening divide between Muslim and Western societies.

There are reasons to believe that the Bush Administration has become increasingly aware, after 9/11, of the pitfalls of supporting autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and has made several readjustments in its foreign policy approach toward Muslim countries. Not only is the Bush Administration increasingly reluctant to openly support military and authoritarian regimes, but is increasingly coming to terms with the fact that no democratic government is possible without the involvement of Islamically-oriented political groups, as developments in Turkey and Iraq have demonstrated.

This does not mean that the Bush Administration has undergone a profound change of attitude; nor does it mean that the Administration has distanced itself from unilateralism and military preeminence that led to the war in Iraq. Bush has recently nominated John Bolton, a neo-conservative unilateralist, as the US ambassador to the UN, and continues to give him his full support, despite objection from leading Republicans. This is the same Bolton who, less than two years ago, expressed an utter contempt toward international law and the United Nations. “It is a big mistake for us,” he wrote, “to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.”

We must reject the neo-conservatives’ obsession with domination and empire building. Their drive to ensure the political and military dominance of the United States might appear at first glance patriotic, but in actuality it is undermining the political and moral standing of the United States by undermining democracy and freedom at home and rolling back the most important American achievements on the world stage: international law and the United Nations organization.

American Muslims are well positioned to expose the deceptions of power hungry unilateralists, and bridge the divide between Muslim and Western countries. American Muslims should equally reject the bigoted spirit of exclusivist ideologies that use religion in all its forms as a weapon for achieving political supremacy, and demonize and dehumanize political opponents. American Muslims should take a firm and resolute stance against individuals and groups that use violence and terror against civilians in the name of Islam, and condemn all campaigns of terrorism by militant Islamic groups like al-Qaeda, as they do condemn those who justify violence and aggression against Muslims in the name of biblical prophecies and religious supremacy.

The time has come for the world to undertake a profound shift in political thinking and practice, similar to the one achieved in Europe in modern times. A democratic and free Europe came to life when the feudal system that privileged a small class of European elites was rejected and replaced with a system based on political equality and the rule of law. A democratic and free world will be achieved when the current political structure that perpetuates political and economic disparity is replaced with one in which all are equally treated under international law, and have fairly equal access to international organizations.

For two centuries, America has shown that it is capable of transcending its limitations and marching behind those who struggle to realize the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. And throughout its history, America stood behind those who fought for equal rights and equal dignity against self-centered groups that wanted to preserve their privileges. American Muslims must take a firm stand against the militant Religious Right that is bent on denying them the equal dignity they deserve. As long as they uphold the values of freedom, justice, and equal dignity for all, and reach out to other fellow Americans who share with them deep commitment to these values, they are destined, with the grace of God, to defeat the unscrupulous and mean-spirited attacks led by hate mongers and religious bigots.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Asia Times - Hong Kong
The American Muslim - USA
Media Monitor Network - USA
American Muslim Perspective - USA
Naseeb Vibes - USA
Muslim Wake Up! - USA

Read more >>>