About Me
- Hussam Ayloush
- Hussam has been a lifelong human rights activist who is passionate about promoting democratic societies, in the US and worldwide, in which all people, including immigrants, workers, minorities, and the poor enjoy freedom, justice, economic justice, respect, and equality. Mr. Ayloush frequently lectures on Islam, media relations, civil rights, hate crimes and international affairs. He has consistently appeared in local, national, and international media. Full biography at: http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2006/08/biography-of-hussam-ayloush.html
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Video: CAIR 'Muslim Day' at Calif. Capitol Promotes Civic Engagement
Members of the California Muslim community are taking part in the 1st annual "Muslim Day at the Capitol" in Sacramento. This first-of-its-kind event seeks to promote community engagement in local politics and to discuss issues of interest to the Muslim community with legislators.
----
Press TV, May 8, 2012
Muslims have gathered from across the state to take part in the first-ever Muslim Day at the Capitol.
The day is meant to engage Muslim voters on a state and federal level.
A report released by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding shows that Muslim voters could play a decisive role in swing states in the presidential election this November.
It follows the launch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 2012 "Muslims Vote" campaign, which encourages American Muslims to increase their presence in politics and elections.
Zahra Billoo Is the executive director for CAIR San Francisco.
Billoo says the day at the capitol is modeled after the work of a number of other minority communities
The day gives Muslims the chance to make a personal connection to their legislators.
CAIR officials say this connection is important because some people are attempting to diminish the role that Muslims play in American politics.
Hussam Ayloush is the executive director for CAIR Los Angeles.
Ayloush says the day will give Muslims the tools they need to have their say in the political process.
CAIR offices are holding similar events in state capitols across America.
They're hopeful that the outreach efforts will result in a more involved and influential voting population.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thirteen Ways Government Tracks Us | Common Dreams
Published on Monday, April 9, 2012 by Common Dreams
Thirteen Ways Government Tracks Us | Common Dreams
Thirteen Ways Government Tracks Us
Thirteen Ways Government Tracks Us | Common Dreams
Monday, April 09, 2012
The ex-FBI informant with a change of heart
Craig Monteilh describes how he pretended to be a radical Muslim in order to root out potential threats, shining a light on some of the bureau's more ethically murky practices
Paul Harris in Irvine, California
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2012
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time, did he shy away from recording their pillow talk.
"They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern Californian mosques.
It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as suspicious...
Read Full Article
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2012
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time, did he shy away from recording their pillow talk.
"They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern Californian mosques.
It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as suspicious...
Read Full Article
FBI Infiltrator Who Spied on Muslims Reveals Techniques
RT, 4/6/2012 -- While the FBI insists they are acting to defend the US from potential terrorist attacks, a former informant says it treats an entire religious group as suspicious. He told RT about some of the bureau's ethically murky practices.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Thank you, Malcolm!
 |
| (Photo credit: Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) |
47 years ago, Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was assassinated in Harlem, NY.
May Allah (God Almighty) bless your soul and grant you the highest place in Paradise. The martyr Malcolm/Malik was not merely a Black leader, a Muslim leader, or even an American civil rights leader. Malcolm was a universal leader who made our world a better place. His speeches, humility, love, courage and sacrifice continue to inspire millions of people around the world.
Thank you Malcolm.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Dead Poets Society Lied: What the Movies Don't Teach You About Student Resistance (on Irvine11)
John Hrabe
Huffington Post
9/25/2011
...In February 2010, members of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Association systematically interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. On September 23, an Orange County jury found ten of the students guilty of misdemeanor charges and sentenced them to three years of informal probation...
To be clear, I'm not defending the content of the protests, nor do I support the students' outbursts. Freedom of speech doesn't include a heckler's veto, and the students could have protested the ambassador in more constructive ways...
But, Dr. Smith also wisely points out that the heckler's veto wasn't the only First Amendment question in this case. There was also the issue of whether Muslim students were singled out and selectively prosecuted because of their views.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the District Attorney selectively prosecuted," said Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Greater Los Angeles Area, "because the students were Muslim, the speaker was an Israeli diplomat, and the verbal protests centered on Israel's long history of war crimes."
It strains credulity to think that the politics of the speakers didn't affect the decision to prosecute. Had this been a raucous student council meeting about the cost of tuition, the case would have ended in a campus administrative hearing. You'd be laughed out of any prosecutor's office if you tried to turn it into a criminal case. Most hecklers not only avoid prosecution, but get a bigger platform because of their disruptions. Anyone remember Rep. Joe Wilson and Joe the Plumber?
In Orange County, Muslim Americans have other reasons to believe that there's a double standard for free speech. Earlier this year, Villa Park City Councilwoman Deborah Pauly protested an Islamic charity event and exclaimed, "I know quite a few Marines who will be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise." Just this month, San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve said at a council meeting that he named his dog Muhammad to intentional provoke Muslim Americans and make a statement about free speech. These incidents explain why Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, described the verdict as keeping an "open wound" in the community.
If you protect the offensive, anti-Islamic rhetoric of Orange Curtain councilmembers, you have to protect the rights of the UC Irvine Muslim Student Association. As Ayloush put it, "No topic should be off limits and no public official or country should be above criticism."
When controversial speakers are prosecuted under ridiculous "disturbing the peace" statutes, it sets up a forced choice for freedom. Every speaker must live in fear of prosecution, or worse, only the dissenting speakers get quashed. Either scenario is unacceptable because both outcomes lead to less speech.
Our natural reaction to contrasting views should always be to speak out ourselves, not shut our opponents up. Muslim students get the same First Amendment protections as Israeli ambassadors. I'm entitled to my review of Dead Poets Society; and Roger Ebert has a right to his -- even if he's wrong.
Read Full article
Huffington Post
9/25/2011
...In February 2010, members of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Association systematically interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. On September 23, an Orange County jury found ten of the students guilty of misdemeanor charges and sentenced them to three years of informal probation...
To be clear, I'm not defending the content of the protests, nor do I support the students' outbursts. Freedom of speech doesn't include a heckler's veto, and the students could have protested the ambassador in more constructive ways...
But, Dr. Smith also wisely points out that the heckler's veto wasn't the only First Amendment question in this case. There was also the issue of whether Muslim students were singled out and selectively prosecuted because of their views.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the District Attorney selectively prosecuted," said Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Greater Los Angeles Area, "because the students were Muslim, the speaker was an Israeli diplomat, and the verbal protests centered on Israel's long history of war crimes."
It strains credulity to think that the politics of the speakers didn't affect the decision to prosecute. Had this been a raucous student council meeting about the cost of tuition, the case would have ended in a campus administrative hearing. You'd be laughed out of any prosecutor's office if you tried to turn it into a criminal case. Most hecklers not only avoid prosecution, but get a bigger platform because of their disruptions. Anyone remember Rep. Joe Wilson and Joe the Plumber?
In Orange County, Muslim Americans have other reasons to believe that there's a double standard for free speech. Earlier this year, Villa Park City Councilwoman Deborah Pauly protested an Islamic charity event and exclaimed, "I know quite a few Marines who will be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise." Just this month, San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve said at a council meeting that he named his dog Muhammad to intentional provoke Muslim Americans and make a statement about free speech. These incidents explain why Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, described the verdict as keeping an "open wound" in the community.
If you protect the offensive, anti-Islamic rhetoric of Orange Curtain councilmembers, you have to protect the rights of the UC Irvine Muslim Student Association. As Ayloush put it, "No topic should be off limits and no public official or country should be above criticism."
When controversial speakers are prosecuted under ridiculous "disturbing the peace" statutes, it sets up a forced choice for freedom. Every speaker must live in fear of prosecution, or worse, only the dissenting speakers get quashed. Either scenario is unacceptable because both outcomes lead to less speech.
Our natural reaction to contrasting views should always be to speak out ourselves, not shut our opponents up. Muslim students get the same First Amendment protections as Israeli ambassadors. I'm entitled to my review of Dead Poets Society; and Roger Ebert has a right to his -- even if he's wrong.
Read Full article
New Evidence of Anti-Islam Bias Underscores Deep Challenges for FBI’s Reform Pledge
Danger Room
By Spencer Ackerman
September 23, 2011
Following months of denials, the FBI is now promising a “comprehensive review of all training and reference materials” after Danger Room revealed a series of Bureau presentations that tarred average Muslims as “radical” and “violent.”
But untangling the Islamophobic thread woven into the FBI’s counterterrorism training culture won’t be easy. In addition to inflammatory seminars which likened Islam to the Death Star and Mohammed to a “cult leader,” Danger Room has obtained more material showing just how wide the anti-Islam meme has spread throughout the Bureau.
The FBI library at Quantico currently stacks books from authors who claim that “Islam and democracy are totally incompatible.” The Bureau’s private intranet recently featured presentations that claimed to demonstrate the “inherently violent nature of Islam,” according to multiple sources. Earlier this year, the Bureau’s Washington Field Office welcomed a speaker who claimed Islamic law prevents Muslims from being truly loyal Americans. And as recently as last week, the online orientation material for the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces included claims that Sunni Islam seeks “domination of the world,” according to a law enforcement source...
some voiced worries that the presentation sent an implicit message to agents that they should be targeting Muslims in the name of stopping terrorism. And in the past few years, the FBI has accelerated its monitoring of mosques, community centers, businesses and other organizations run by Muslims. Several observers suspect that the persistence of training materials that casts Islam in a threatening light helps explain the increased surveillance. Others — including many counterterrorism professionals within the FBI who say they are disgusted by the bigoted material they’ve received — fear that the presentations will drive a wedge between the Bureau and the U.S. Muslim communities whose assistance it needs to prevent terrorism...
By Spencer Ackerman
September 23, 2011
Following months of denials, the FBI is now promising a “comprehensive review of all training and reference materials” after Danger Room revealed a series of Bureau presentations that tarred average Muslims as “radical” and “violent.”
But untangling the Islamophobic thread woven into the FBI’s counterterrorism training culture won’t be easy. In addition to inflammatory seminars which likened Islam to the Death Star and Mohammed to a “cult leader,” Danger Room has obtained more material showing just how wide the anti-Islam meme has spread throughout the Bureau.
The FBI library at Quantico currently stacks books from authors who claim that “Islam and democracy are totally incompatible.” The Bureau’s private intranet recently featured presentations that claimed to demonstrate the “inherently violent nature of Islam,” according to multiple sources. Earlier this year, the Bureau’s Washington Field Office welcomed a speaker who claimed Islamic law prevents Muslims from being truly loyal Americans. And as recently as last week, the online orientation material for the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces included claims that Sunni Islam seeks “domination of the world,” according to a law enforcement source...
some voiced worries that the presentation sent an implicit message to agents that they should be targeting Muslims in the name of stopping terrorism. And in the past few years, the FBI has accelerated its monitoring of mosques, community centers, businesses and other organizations run by Muslims. Several observers suspect that the persistence of training materials that casts Islam in a threatening light helps explain the increased surveillance. Others — including many counterterrorism professionals within the FBI who say they are disgusted by the bigoted material they’ve received — fear that the presentations will drive a wedge between the Bureau and the U.S. Muslim communities whose assistance it needs to prevent terrorism...
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Dangerous Lessons in Islamophobia at the FBI (MUST READ)
Posted by
One presentation makes it quite explicit that, in the analyst’s view, the problem is not Islamic “extremism,” but the inherent propensity for violence of Muslims as such:
Read Full Article
One presentation makes it quite explicit that, in the analyst’s view, the problem is not Islamic “extremism,” but the inherent propensity for violence of Muslims as such:
In other words, FBI agents are effectively told that Osama bin Laden was correct, and that a sincere Muslim who understands and practices his faith correctly will naturally be a terrorist. It would be offensive in any context for the government to sponsor this kind of smear session against the enormous peaceful majority of its Muslim citizens, but it’s downright dangerous in light of the vast expansion of FBI surveillance authorities over the past decade...
- There may not be a “radical” threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology.
- The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are mainstream.
- The individual applying these values and practices may likely be simply a pious and devout adherent: i.e., a true believer as opposed to a “radical.”
Read Full Article
FBI Trainer Says Forget ‘Irrelevant’ al-Qaida, Target Islam (video)
Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Wired.com / Danger Room
The FBI has publicly declared that its counterterrorism training seminars linking “mainstream” Muslims to terrorists was a “one time only” affair that began and ended in April 2011. But two months later, the Bureau employee who delivered those controversial briefings gave a similar lecture to a gathering of dozens of law enforcement officials at an FBI-sponsored public-private partnership in New York City.And during that June presentation, the FBI’s William Gawthrop told his audience that the fight against al-Qaida is a “waste,” compared to the threat presented by the ideology of Islam itself.
Since Danger Room published the contents of Gawthrop’s April lecture, top Senators and representatives from Arab- and Muslim-American groups have blasted the FBI for the training documents, which compare Mohammed to a “cult leader.”...
The best strategy for undermining militants, Gawthrop suggested, is to go after Islam itself. To undermine the validity of key Islamic scriptures and key Muslim leaders.
Watch video
New Documents Reveal FBI’s Islamophobic Counterterrorism Training
Counterterrorism agents at the FBI’s training center in Quantico, Virginia are being taught that “devout” Muslims are more likely to be “violent” and that American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers, according to training materials acquired by Wired’s Spencer Ackerman. (In fact, mosques have been found to be a deterrent to the spread of terrorism.)
An FBI spokesperson told Ackerman that the slides were no longer in use but dates on the slides would suggest that they were used at least until March 21.
The documents offer a violent interpretation of Islam in which “Any war against non-believers is justified” and a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.” A particularly blunt slide shows a comparison of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, depicting how they have moderated their “militancy considerations” over time:
The information in the slides is clearly Islamophobic and completely ignores the fact that Islamic extremism, while a national security concern worthy of sober discussion, is a limited problem within the United States and hardly a frequent phenomenon in Muslim communities. A recent Duke terrorism study showed that since 9/11, the U.S. has experienced only 33 deaths from Muslim terrorism while 150,000 murders have occurred during the same time.
Several of the slide presentations are the work of an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop who, in 2006, before he joined the Bureau, gave an interview to WorldNetDaily, in which he said “Muhammad’s mindset is a source for terrorism.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that the FBI has given a stage to noted Islamophobes. In July, Ackerman identified that an FBI terrorism presentation recommended anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer’s book, “The Truth About Mohammed: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.”
READ FULL STORY
An FBI spokesperson told Ackerman that the slides were no longer in use but dates on the slides would suggest that they were used at least until March 21.
The documents offer a violent interpretation of Islam in which “Any war against non-believers is justified” and a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.” A particularly blunt slide shows a comparison of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, depicting how they have moderated their “militancy considerations” over time:
The information in the slides is clearly Islamophobic and completely ignores the fact that Islamic extremism, while a national security concern worthy of sober discussion, is a limited problem within the United States and hardly a frequent phenomenon in Muslim communities. A recent Duke terrorism study showed that since 9/11, the U.S. has experienced only 33 deaths from Muslim terrorism while 150,000 murders have occurred during the same time.
Several of the slide presentations are the work of an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop who, in 2006, before he joined the Bureau, gave an interview to WorldNetDaily, in which he said “Muhammad’s mindset is a source for terrorism.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that the FBI has given a stage to noted Islamophobes. In July, Ackerman identified that an FBI terrorism presentation recommended anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer’s book, “The Truth About Mohammed: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.”
READ FULL STORY
Monday, August 22, 2011
Sikh man claims to be FBI informant, deported over cough medicine
Desi claims to be FBI informant, deported over cough medicine
Bernice Yeung Aug 19, 2011
First Post
In a saga that sounds straight out of a TV crime show, an alleged FBI informant and convenience store clerk named Arvinder Singh sits in an Iowa jail awaiting imminent deportation to India over the sale of cold medicine.
Singh had originally immigrated to the US on a business visa, but he is now being sent back to India because he pled guilty in 2002 to selling a large quantity of cough medicine containing ephedrine, which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
In the years since he immigrated, Singh got married, obtained a green card, and ran a convenience store until he triggered an investigation by immigration authorities that led to deportation proceedings that began in December 2010. Singh has been detained in an Iowa jail for more than six months...
What makes Singh’s deportation case stand out is his claim that he served as a confidential informant to the US government and aided in stateside counterterrorism efforts.
Singh is sikh, and after he was arrested, he was allegedly approached by federal agents. “It was right after 9/11 and he was approached and they said, ‘We are looking for people who look like you in the War against Terror,’” according to attorney Said. “They created this persona for him, gave him checkbooks and checking accounts and they said, ‘Go to these mosques and claim to be Muslim, and pray, and give them money so we can trace the money.”
READ FULL STORY
http://www.firstpost.com/world/desi-claims-to-be-fbi-informant-deported-over-cough-medicine-64098.html
Bernice Yeung Aug 19, 2011
First Post
In a saga that sounds straight out of a TV crime show, an alleged FBI informant and convenience store clerk named Arvinder Singh sits in an Iowa jail awaiting imminent deportation to India over the sale of cold medicine.
Singh had originally immigrated to the US on a business visa, but he is now being sent back to India because he pled guilty in 2002 to selling a large quantity of cough medicine containing ephedrine, which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
In the years since he immigrated, Singh got married, obtained a green card, and ran a convenience store until he triggered an investigation by immigration authorities that led to deportation proceedings that began in December 2010. Singh has been detained in an Iowa jail for more than six months...
What makes Singh’s deportation case stand out is his claim that he served as a confidential informant to the US government and aided in stateside counterterrorism efforts.
Singh is sikh, and after he was arrested, he was allegedly approached by federal agents. “It was right after 9/11 and he was approached and they said, ‘We are looking for people who look like you in the War against Terror,’” according to attorney Said. “They created this persona for him, gave him checkbooks and checking accounts and they said, ‘Go to these mosques and claim to be Muslim, and pray, and give them money so we can trace the money.”
READ FULL STORY
http://www.firstpost.com/world/desi-claims-to-be-fbi-informant-deported-over-cough-medicine-64098.html
Locked Up Abroad—for the FBI
MotherJones
—By Nick Baumann
September/October 2011 Issue
Inside the feds' secret program to have American citizens detained and interrogated by foreign governments.
Learn more about the FBI's version of the rendition program.
A MUST READ
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/proxy-detention-gulet-mohamed
---
—By Nick Baumann
September/October 2011 Issue
Inside the feds' secret program to have American citizens detained and interrogated by foreign governments.
Learn more about the FBI's version of the rendition program.
A MUST READ
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/proxy-detention-gulet-mohamed
---
The Informants
Mother Jones
September/October Issue
—By Trevor Aaronson
The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?
The bureau now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies, some paid as much as $100,000 per case, many of them tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States.
A MUST READ
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
September/October Issue
—By Trevor Aaronson
The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?
The bureau now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies, some paid as much as $100,000 per case, many of them tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States.
A MUST READ
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
Terror Probes Have FBI's Informant Numbers Soaring (NPR)
August 21, 2011
In today's post 9/11 America, there are 15,000 informants working with the FBI. That's nearly three times as many as there were 25 years ago.
Over the years, when there has been a surge in the number of informants the FBI recruits and uses, there's a specific target in the FBI's sights — first organized crime, then drug smuggling, and now counterterrorism.
James Cromitie, center, is led by police officers from a federal building in New York, Thursday, May 21, 2009, after being arrested on charges related to a bombing plot in the Bronx. The arrest of Cromitie and three other Muslim ex-convicts in the alleged homegrown terror plot is renewing fears about the spread of Islamic extremism in the nation's prisons. (AP Photo/Robert Mecea)
Enlarge Robert Mecea/ASSOCIATED PRESS
And while the FBI uses many informants the traditional way — pointing the finger at wrongdoers — a new review of post-9/11 prosecutions reveals the increasing presence of informants in terrorism investigations.
"The informants play larger roles where they acted almost as agent provocateurs, where they provided not only the opportunity for the person to commit this act of terror, but also the means," Mother Jones contributor Trevor Aaronson tells NPR's Laura Sullivan. "Providing them with the plan, with the so-called weapons that were needed to ultimately create the act of terror that these people are them prosecuted for," Aaronson says.
Mother Jones partnered with the University of California-Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program where Trevor Aaronson is an investigative fellow. Aaronson writes about the FBI's informant boom in the current issue of the magazine.
And how are the FBI agents finding so many informants willing to infiltrate mosques and Muslim communities? Sometimes, the money is alluring Aaronson says. In other cases, the money has nothing to do with it at all.
"A big reason, especially within the Muslim community and in counterterrorism investigations is that the FBI is able to use immigration against people," Aaronson says. "If you are going to recruit an informant and you realize that he has an immigration violation, often times the FBI will be able to use that as a form of leverage to say 'well if you work with us, we'll work with the immigration authorities to make sure you're not deported'."
Prevention Or Entrapment
For some critics, this use of coercion by the FBI to recruit informants is questionable. According to Aaronson's article, the FBI denies it blackmails informants, but does acknowledge that the bureau has prevented helpful informants from being deported.
But the larger problem for those opposed the FBI using informants to plan terrorism stings is whether the informants play an overactive role in convincing people to commit acts of terrorism.
"That's exactly the question is whether any of these people would be able to commit this plot or construct this plot on their own," Aaronson tells Sullivan. "The truth is when we looked closely at a lot of these cases the people who are leading these so-called plots or so called terrorist cells are not exactly the smartest people." In addition, informants seek out subjects that tend to be very poor, economically desperate and in some cases have a very elementary understanding of Islam, Aaronson says. "The informant is able to take advantage of that."
And then comes the question of entrapment. "I think in many of these cases nothing would have happened were it not for the FBI going in and making a plot possible," Aaronson says. "But I think it's important to understand that the legal definition of entrapment and what you and I would see as entrapment are very different. There hasn't been a case yet that's met the legal definition of entrapment."
In today's post 9/11 America, there are 15,000 informants working with the FBI. That's nearly three times as many as there were 25 years ago.
Over the years, when there has been a surge in the number of informants the FBI recruits and uses, there's a specific target in the FBI's sights — first organized crime, then drug smuggling, and now counterterrorism.
James Cromitie, center, is led by police officers from a federal building in New York, Thursday, May 21, 2009, after being arrested on charges related to a bombing plot in the Bronx. The arrest of Cromitie and three other Muslim ex-convicts in the alleged homegrown terror plot is renewing fears about the spread of Islamic extremism in the nation's prisons. (AP Photo/Robert Mecea)
Enlarge Robert Mecea/ASSOCIATED PRESS
And while the FBI uses many informants the traditional way — pointing the finger at wrongdoers — a new review of post-9/11 prosecutions reveals the increasing presence of informants in terrorism investigations.
"The informants play larger roles where they acted almost as agent provocateurs, where they provided not only the opportunity for the person to commit this act of terror, but also the means," Mother Jones contributor Trevor Aaronson tells NPR's Laura Sullivan. "Providing them with the plan, with the so-called weapons that were needed to ultimately create the act of terror that these people are them prosecuted for," Aaronson says.
Mother Jones partnered with the University of California-Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program where Trevor Aaronson is an investigative fellow. Aaronson writes about the FBI's informant boom in the current issue of the magazine.
And how are the FBI agents finding so many informants willing to infiltrate mosques and Muslim communities? Sometimes, the money is alluring Aaronson says. In other cases, the money has nothing to do with it at all.
"A big reason, especially within the Muslim community and in counterterrorism investigations is that the FBI is able to use immigration against people," Aaronson says. "If you are going to recruit an informant and you realize that he has an immigration violation, often times the FBI will be able to use that as a form of leverage to say 'well if you work with us, we'll work with the immigration authorities to make sure you're not deported'."
Prevention Or Entrapment
For some critics, this use of coercion by the FBI to recruit informants is questionable. According to Aaronson's article, the FBI denies it blackmails informants, but does acknowledge that the bureau has prevented helpful informants from being deported.
But the larger problem for those opposed the FBI using informants to plan terrorism stings is whether the informants play an overactive role in convincing people to commit acts of terrorism.
"That's exactly the question is whether any of these people would be able to commit this plot or construct this plot on their own," Aaronson tells Sullivan. "The truth is when we looked closely at a lot of these cases the people who are leading these so-called plots or so called terrorist cells are not exactly the smartest people." In addition, informants seek out subjects that tend to be very poor, economically desperate and in some cases have a very elementary understanding of Islam, Aaronson says. "The informant is able to take advantage of that."
And then comes the question of entrapment. "I think in many of these cases nothing would have happened were it not for the FBI going in and making a plot possible," Aaronson says. "But I think it's important to understand that the legal definition of entrapment and what you and I would see as entrapment are very different. There hasn't been a case yet that's met the legal definition of entrapment."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Did U.S. trade freedom for security after 9/11? (AFP)
The Vancouver Sun
Agence France-Presse, August 15, 2011
CHICAGO - Sweeping new policing powers, the tacit acceptance of torture and a backlash against Muslims that has grown fiercer 10 years after the September 11 attacks have made the United States a less free and open society.
The erosion of fundamental American values along with massive — and what some see as disproportionate — expenditures on homeland security and two wars have allowed al-Qaida to accomplish at least some of its goals.
Most Americans don't seem to mind.
A majority of them consistently tell pollsters they are willing to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safer and only about a quarter say torturing terror suspects is never justified.
"The reason that I think a number of people haven't responded as aggressively to things like warrantless wiretapping is because they think it won't happen to them," said Andrea Prasow, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch's U.S. program.
"History shows that's not true. Once government has a power they won't give it back."
Congress is currently considering legislation that would allow indefinite detention without trial — something that used to be as unimaginable as a U.S. president saying "damn right" to waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation."
"That's not where the U.S. was 10 years ago. It was a leader - not perfect - but a leader in promoting human rights," Prasow told AFP.
"Terrorists seek to change a nation or a people, and that has happened."
The response has not been proportional to the threat, said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.
There have only been a handful of successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, the most devastating of which was the 2009 attack on Fort Hood in Texas by an army psychiatrist that left 14 dead and 29 wounded.
That pales in comparison to the toll from drunk driving, which is involved in a third of the more than 30,000 traffic deaths every year.
"We're talking about a threat that will always exist, but doesn't threaten our existence," Wizner said.
"And yet we treat it as if it's equivalent to world war."
The war on terror granted law enforcement unprecedented power to monitor the email, phone calls, financial transactions, library records and Internet browsing of citizens and foreigners alike and store them in massive databases.
Some of those "data sweeps" have reportedly gathered everything from hotel records on more than 300,000 travelers to Las Vegas to the names of anyone who took scuba diving lessons in the San Diego area.
Nowhere has the intrusion of security into daily life been more obvious than in airports — the al-Qaida target of choice — where a controversial new pat-down policy made a minor hero of a man recorded telling a screener "don't touch my junk" last year.
Increased surveillance was both inevitable and necessary in the face of ongoing threats, said Ron Marks, a former CIA official now at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.
"We're not going to go back to before 9/11. The genie is out of the bottle," he said.
"We're going to have to be more intrusive. The question is the degree of intrusiveness and what is the oversight of that."
There is "tremendous sensitivity" among federal investigators over the handling of data gathered in intelligence sweeps, Marks said.
"I'm more concerned about public perceptions than what law enforcement do," he said, pointing to a "loss of flexibility" in tolerating divergent opinions and a deep mistrust of Muslims and Arabs.
Many Republican politicians have both fueled and exploited that mistrust as a "campaign strategy," said Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
The most glaring example is the hysteria drummed up ahead of November's mid-term elections over an Islamic cultural center being built near Ground Zero in New York. Legislation banning Shariah law has also been introduced in over a dozen states.
"Our political discourse has become openly Islamophobic and it is accepted and not challenged by a large percentage of the population," Walid said.
"It's scary to think where this is going."
The burden of America's near decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has also been "borne very unevenly," said Catherine Lutz, an anthropologist at Brown University who co-directs the Cost of War project.
Former president George W. Bush implemented massive tax cuts, leaving future generations to pay for much of the nearly $4 trillion cost of the war on terror.
The elimination of the draft means that the burden of multiple and lengthy deployments has been left to 2.2 million volunteers who largely come from rural areas and lower-income families.
That makes it easy for the remaining 300 million Americans to forget that the nation is at war, especially given that just four per cent of news stories are about Iraq or Afghanistan.
"That's not necessarily a measure of what most Americans are consuming on television," Lutz noted. "That's the news.. (Most are) watching Jersey Shore and Bachelorette. So the circus continues."
© Copyright (c) AFP
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/trade+freedom+security+after/5258713/story.html#ixzz1VDVJbmTT
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/trade+freedom+security+after/5258713/story.html#ixzz1VDUt2aEJ
Agence France-Presse, August 15, 2011
CHICAGO - Sweeping new policing powers, the tacit acceptance of torture and a backlash against Muslims that has grown fiercer 10 years after the September 11 attacks have made the United States a less free and open society.
The erosion of fundamental American values along with massive — and what some see as disproportionate — expenditures on homeland security and two wars have allowed al-Qaida to accomplish at least some of its goals.
Most Americans don't seem to mind.
A majority of them consistently tell pollsters they are willing to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safer and only about a quarter say torturing terror suspects is never justified.
"The reason that I think a number of people haven't responded as aggressively to things like warrantless wiretapping is because they think it won't happen to them," said Andrea Prasow, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch's U.S. program.
"History shows that's not true. Once government has a power they won't give it back."
Congress is currently considering legislation that would allow indefinite detention without trial — something that used to be as unimaginable as a U.S. president saying "damn right" to waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation."
"That's not where the U.S. was 10 years ago. It was a leader - not perfect - but a leader in promoting human rights," Prasow told AFP.
"Terrorists seek to change a nation or a people, and that has happened."
The response has not been proportional to the threat, said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.
There have only been a handful of successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, the most devastating of which was the 2009 attack on Fort Hood in Texas by an army psychiatrist that left 14 dead and 29 wounded.
That pales in comparison to the toll from drunk driving, which is involved in a third of the more than 30,000 traffic deaths every year.
"We're talking about a threat that will always exist, but doesn't threaten our existence," Wizner said.
"And yet we treat it as if it's equivalent to world war."
The war on terror granted law enforcement unprecedented power to monitor the email, phone calls, financial transactions, library records and Internet browsing of citizens and foreigners alike and store them in massive databases.
Some of those "data sweeps" have reportedly gathered everything from hotel records on more than 300,000 travelers to Las Vegas to the names of anyone who took scuba diving lessons in the San Diego area.
Nowhere has the intrusion of security into daily life been more obvious than in airports — the al-Qaida target of choice — where a controversial new pat-down policy made a minor hero of a man recorded telling a screener "don't touch my junk" last year.
Increased surveillance was both inevitable and necessary in the face of ongoing threats, said Ron Marks, a former CIA official now at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.
"We're not going to go back to before 9/11. The genie is out of the bottle," he said.
"We're going to have to be more intrusive. The question is the degree of intrusiveness and what is the oversight of that."
There is "tremendous sensitivity" among federal investigators over the handling of data gathered in intelligence sweeps, Marks said.
"I'm more concerned about public perceptions than what law enforcement do," he said, pointing to a "loss of flexibility" in tolerating divergent opinions and a deep mistrust of Muslims and Arabs.
Many Republican politicians have both fueled and exploited that mistrust as a "campaign strategy," said Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
The most glaring example is the hysteria drummed up ahead of November's mid-term elections over an Islamic cultural center being built near Ground Zero in New York. Legislation banning Shariah law has also been introduced in over a dozen states.
"Our political discourse has become openly Islamophobic and it is accepted and not challenged by a large percentage of the population," Walid said.
"It's scary to think where this is going."
The burden of America's near decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has also been "borne very unevenly," said Catherine Lutz, an anthropologist at Brown University who co-directs the Cost of War project.
Former president George W. Bush implemented massive tax cuts, leaving future generations to pay for much of the nearly $4 trillion cost of the war on terror.
The elimination of the draft means that the burden of multiple and lengthy deployments has been left to 2.2 million volunteers who largely come from rural areas and lower-income families.
That makes it easy for the remaining 300 million Americans to forget that the nation is at war, especially given that just four per cent of news stories are about Iraq or Afghanistan.
"That's not necessarily a measure of what most Americans are consuming on television," Lutz noted. "That's the news.. (Most are) watching Jersey Shore and Bachelorette. So the circus continues."
© Copyright (c) AFP
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/trade+freedom+security+after/5258713/story.html#ixzz1VDVJbmTT
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/trade+freedom+security+after/5258713/story.html#ixzz1VDUt2aEJ
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The most enlightened 6 minutes on YouTube. You must watch
Thom Hartmann: The 10 DAY manhunt for a known terrorist ignored by media
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Rep. Mike Honda: Muslim hearings recall my life in internment camp
Read the commentary below and you will understand why Rep. Honda has been one of my favorite members of Congress. When it comes to civil rights, he gets it, he feels it, and he does something about it. What an inspiring leader.
---
(CNN) -- Who would have thought that my early childhood experience in a Japanese-American internment camp during World War II would offer such useful insight, 65 years later, in determining the direction America is headed? In reflecting on this week's second round of Muslim radicalization hearings, planned by New York Rep. Peter King, I feel as if a mirror is being held up to my life, giving value to lessons learned as a child.
Make no mistake. Growing up in internment Camp Amache in Colorado was no joy ride -- just look at the pictures. We were treated like cattle in those camps. Never mind that we were born in America. Never mind that we were patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind that we were constructively contributing to the American economy. Despite all this, hundreds of thousands of Americans suddenly became the enemy at the height of the war, with no cause, no crime, and no constitutional protection.
We look back, as a nation, and we know this was wrong. We look back and know that this was a result of "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." We look back and know that an entire ethnicity was said to be, and ultimately considered, the enemy. We know that internment happened because few in Washington were brave enough to say "no."
We know all this, and yet our country is now, within my lifetime, repeating the same mistakes from our past. The interned 4-year-old in me is crying out for a course correction so that we do not do to others what we did unjustly to countless Japanese-Americans.
This time, instead of creating an ethnic enemy, Rep. King is creating a religious enemy. Because of prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of Republican leadership, King is targeting the entire Muslim-American community. Similar to my experience, they are become increasingly marginalized and isolated by our policies.
Never mind that many were born in America and have no allegiance to their ancestors' native homeland. Never mind that they are patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind that they are constructively contributing to the American economy. Regardless of all this, millions of Americans have become the new enemy, with no cause and no crime.
There is no question that a congressional hearing, which targets an entire religion, is morally and strategically wrong-headed. First, it is un-American. This is not the America that I know and have helped build as a lifelong public servant. The America that I know has always provided refuge for those fleeing persecution, from early settlers to recent refugees. The America that I know does not hate and discriminate based on race, religion or creed.
Second, it is counterproductive. King is undermining his own objective. In hosting these hearings, King, as chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, has declared, erroneously, that the Muslim-American community does not partner actively enough to prevent acts of violence -- or in the case of prisons, extremism. Despite the offensive and fallacious nature of King's concern, given extensive evidence that contradicts his claim, the Homeland Security chairman's strategy makes future partnerships unpalatable.
In one fell swoop of his discriminatory brush, King, in his apparent attempt to root out radicalization, marginalizes an entire American minority group, making enemies of them all. To add insult to injury, King has quipped (again, speciously) that America has too many mosques and that extremists run 80 percent of them. We can only hope that Rep. King does not completely undermine all the goodwill established across this country between Muslim Americans and law enforcement officials. You can be certain that few will want to work with King going forward.
Don't get me wrong. I support the Homeland Security Committee examining "radicalization" in this country, and in our prisons, provided it is a comprehensive review, not a discriminatory one that targets only one subgroup of America. I support the committee examining "violent extremism" in this country, including an examination of militias and the 30,000-plus gun-related deaths that happen each year. I support a committee chair that is keen to keep our homeland secure.
This is not the case with King. These hearings do little to keep our country secure and do plenty to increase prejudice, discrimination and hate. I thought we learned a lesson or two from my internment camp experience in Colorado. I hope I am not proven wrong.
---
(CNN) -- Who would have thought that my early childhood experience in a Japanese-American internment camp during World War II would offer such useful insight, 65 years later, in determining the direction America is headed? In reflecting on this week's second round of Muslim radicalization hearings, planned by New York Rep. Peter King, I feel as if a mirror is being held up to my life, giving value to lessons learned as a child.
Make no mistake. Growing up in internment Camp Amache in Colorado was no joy ride -- just look at the pictures. We were treated like cattle in those camps. Never mind that we were born in America. Never mind that we were patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind that we were constructively contributing to the American economy. Despite all this, hundreds of thousands of Americans suddenly became the enemy at the height of the war, with no cause, no crime, and no constitutional protection.
We look back, as a nation, and we know this was wrong. We look back and know that this was a result of "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." We look back and know that an entire ethnicity was said to be, and ultimately considered, the enemy. We know that internment happened because few in Washington were brave enough to say "no."
We know all this, and yet our country is now, within my lifetime, repeating the same mistakes from our past. The interned 4-year-old in me is crying out for a course correction so that we do not do to others what we did unjustly to countless Japanese-Americans.
This time, instead of creating an ethnic enemy, Rep. King is creating a religious enemy. Because of prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of Republican leadership, King is targeting the entire Muslim-American community. Similar to my experience, they are become increasingly marginalized and isolated by our policies.
Never mind that many were born in America and have no allegiance to their ancestors' native homeland. Never mind that they are patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind that they are constructively contributing to the American economy. Regardless of all this, millions of Americans have become the new enemy, with no cause and no crime.
There is no question that a congressional hearing, which targets an entire religion, is morally and strategically wrong-headed. First, it is un-American. This is not the America that I know and have helped build as a lifelong public servant. The America that I know has always provided refuge for those fleeing persecution, from early settlers to recent refugees. The America that I know does not hate and discriminate based on race, religion or creed.
Second, it is counterproductive. King is undermining his own objective. In hosting these hearings, King, as chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, has declared, erroneously, that the Muslim-American community does not partner actively enough to prevent acts of violence -- or in the case of prisons, extremism. Despite the offensive and fallacious nature of King's concern, given extensive evidence that contradicts his claim, the Homeland Security chairman's strategy makes future partnerships unpalatable.
In one fell swoop of his discriminatory brush, King, in his apparent attempt to root out radicalization, marginalizes an entire American minority group, making enemies of them all. To add insult to injury, King has quipped (again, speciously) that America has too many mosques and that extremists run 80 percent of them. We can only hope that Rep. King does not completely undermine all the goodwill established across this country between Muslim Americans and law enforcement officials. You can be certain that few will want to work with King going forward.
Don't get me wrong. I support the Homeland Security Committee examining "radicalization" in this country, and in our prisons, provided it is a comprehensive review, not a discriminatory one that targets only one subgroup of America. I support the committee examining "violent extremism" in this country, including an examination of militias and the 30,000-plus gun-related deaths that happen each year. I support a committee chair that is keen to keep our homeland secure.
This is not the case with King. These hearings do little to keep our country secure and do plenty to increase prejudice, discrimination and hate. I thought we learned a lesson or two from my internment camp experience in Colorado. I hope I am not proven wrong.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Muslim supporters protest Villa Park councilwoman (OC Register)
By FRANK SHYONG
Orange County Register
March 22, 2011
VILLA PARK – About 500 demonstrators from various groups marched and chanted slogans against or in support of Councilwoman Deborah Pauly in front of Villa Park City Hall on Tuesday evening.
The majority of demonstrators were Muslim supporters who organized in response to a speech by Pauly last month at a Yorba Linda rally. About 50 people showed up Tuesday night to support Pauly.
The two groups faced off on the walkway in front of City Hall before the council meeting shouting at one another through bullhorns and displaying signs with phrases such as, "I'm a Muslim not a terrorist," and "Deborah Pauly is a patriot."
The protesters also chanted at and over each other: "Deborah Pauly, I'm your neighbor. Why are you such a hater," "No Sharia law," and "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the racism's got to go."
The protest was largely peaceful, but the exchanges among the demonstrators were heated. A pro-Muslim supporter shouted at someone "You don't even know what you're fighting for, you racist pig." The Pauly supporter retorted: "You're a disgrace."...
The demonstrations are a response to a speech Pauly gave at a rally during an Islamic Circle of North America fundraiser Feb. 13, which many have interpreted as anti-Muslim. Her remarks are prominent in a YouTube video created by the Council on American-Islam Relations.
Many of the demonstrators on both sides were at the Feb. 13 protest.
Demonstrators said they're angry that Pauly hasn't apologized, and some demanded an official reprimand. But Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR California, said the main purpose of the rally was to show Pauly that Muslims are supported by the community.
"It would be nice if she apologized for her unbefitting behavior ... but what's more important is what happens after," said Ayloush, referring to a general community reconciliation he hoped would occur...
Giovanni K. Milan, an Arab Christian and Villa Park resident, said that Pauly's comments were narrow-minded and asked for an apology.
"When did the U..S become a Christian society? We are a secular society," said Milan, but his comments were met with laughter by the meeting attendees who appeared to disagree.
"I think we'll look back on this a long time from now and be embarrassed," Milan said.
Orange County Register
March 22, 2011
VILLA PARK – About 500 demonstrators from various groups marched and chanted slogans against or in support of Councilwoman Deborah Pauly in front of Villa Park City Hall on Tuesday evening.
The majority of demonstrators were Muslim supporters who organized in response to a speech by Pauly last month at a Yorba Linda rally. About 50 people showed up Tuesday night to support Pauly.
 |
Syed Yusuf of Anaheim joins hundreds of protestors outside Villa Park City Hall to protest councilmember Deborah Pauly's anti-islam comments. LEONARD ORTIZ, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER |
The protesters also chanted at and over each other: "Deborah Pauly, I'm your neighbor. Why are you such a hater," "No Sharia law," and "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the racism's got to go."
The protest was largely peaceful, but the exchanges among the demonstrators were heated. A pro-Muslim supporter shouted at someone "You don't even know what you're fighting for, you racist pig." The Pauly supporter retorted: "You're a disgrace."...
The demonstrations are a response to a speech Pauly gave at a rally during an Islamic Circle of North America fundraiser Feb. 13, which many have interpreted as anti-Muslim. Her remarks are prominent in a YouTube video created by the Council on American-Islam Relations.
Many of the demonstrators on both sides were at the Feb. 13 protest.
Demonstrators said they're angry that Pauly hasn't apologized, and some demanded an official reprimand. But Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR California, said the main purpose of the rally was to show Pauly that Muslims are supported by the community.
"It would be nice if she apologized for her unbefitting behavior ... but what's more important is what happens after," said Ayloush, referring to a general community reconciliation he hoped would occur...
Giovanni K. Milan, an Arab Christian and Villa Park resident, said that Pauly's comments were narrow-minded and asked for an apology.
"When did the U..S become a Christian society? We are a secular society," said Milan, but his comments were met with laughter by the meeting attendees who appeared to disagree.
"I think we'll look back on this a long time from now and be embarrassed," Milan said.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Rep. King asked to hold hearings on FBI’s illegal surveillance of Muslims
Hussam Ayloush & Ameena Qazi
Jewish Journal
3/8/2011
As Representative Peter King (R-NY) launches congressional hearings on Muslims and radicalization this week, we wonder at the expenditure of time to examine an issue whose conclusion has long been self-evident: that American Muslims have worked tirelessly alongside fellow Americans to uphold and strengthen the time-honored values of religious freedom and equality and to protect our nation against all threats.
To that end, we have joined the U.S. Armed Forces, became police officers, and served as first responders. Muslims also forged stronger ties with law enforcement agencies and the FBI – partnerships rooted in trust and cooperation. For example, Southern California Muslims formed a joint partnership with the FBI called the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee, and similarly partnered with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Orange County Sheriff’s departments, and other local law enforcement agencies.
For us, the reasons for improving relations with law enforcement, particularly the FBI, were clear – to reduce mistrust and suspicion of Muslims, and help Muslims understand how law enforcement works. This in turn led to increased cooperation and helped thwart terror plots, and fewer hate crimes and less religious discrimination of Muslims, all of which stem from unfamiliarity with the Muslim faith.
Despite this history, little congressional attention is given to the fact that the Muslim community’s good faith gestures toward cooperation and trust-building have been met with sweeping FBI fishing expeditions and covert surveillance of Muslim communities.
Relations between Muslims and the FBI grew shaky as more and more Muslim Americans reported being interrogated, and news stories simultaneously highlighted the FBI’s surveillance of Muslims’ lawful First Amendment activities. Even so, the then-FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles field office, Steve Tidwell, assured Irvine mosque-goers in 2006 that the FBI was not monitoring the community.
Then in 2007, a self-proclaimed Muslim convert started making rounds at Southland mosques, advocating terrorist sympathies. Muslim congregants immediately reported the man, Craig Monteilh, to law enforcement when his rhetoric turned violent. One mosque even filed for and received a restraining order against Monteilh. In 2009, an FBI agent’s court testimony confirmed that the FBI had indeed recruited Monteilh as a confidential informant.
Monteilh is but a small piece of a frightening trend of broad FBI surveillance of American Muslims that is unconstitutional, illegal, and counterproductive.
A confidential informant was sent to spy on law-abiding Muslim worshipers, without any suspicion of criminal activity. The only basis for the FBI’s suspicion was the congregants’ religion: Islam. At the behest of the FBI, Monteilh made friends with Muslims, particularly those more observant in their religious practices as well as young Muslim men. Electronic surveillance equipment was installed at several mosques to complement the informant’s surveillance efforts.
The informant, who recorded hundreds of hours of audio and video of individuals for the FBI, says his FBI handlers told him Islam itself was a threat to America.
Monteilh was further instructed to look for vulnerabilities that could be used against Muslims to blackmail them into becoming informants.
The illegal surveillance of Muslims and their houses of worship by a confidential informant, combined with national news reports of surveillance of Muslims and FBI guidelines that allow religion to be considered as a factor in investigations, all indicate some FBI agents’ apparent fixation on criminalizing Islam and its followers. If so, such practice flies in the face of the U. S. Constitution.
Sadly, some of our members have reported shying away from congregational worship, attending mosque programs or engaging in normal recreational activities like camping and hiking, out of fear that such activities may attract unnecessary law enforcement scrutiny. The community fabric is threatened as members have become suspicious of new congregants and converts, thinking they might be the next FBI informant.
Left with no other recourse to rectify the FBI’s wrongful monitoring of a besieged American community, CAIR has partnered with the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson & Renick, LLP, to knock on the doors of the highest authority in justice. We filed a class-action lawsuit two weeks ago, hoping the courts will help put an end to the FBI’s unconstitutional and discriminatory tactics against American Muslims.
As the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee did away with the FBI’s COINTELPRO program from the 1960s and 1970s, we hope that the courts will put a stop to the FBI’s unlawful surveillance of the American Muslim communities. Profiling undermines the Constitutional values meant to guard against religious discrimination, impedes legitimate intelligence-gathering, and wastes our precious tax-payer dollars our government should use to ensure our families’ safety from any foreign or domestic threats.
Perhaps Congressman King’s efforts will be better served by examining how the FBI’s unlawful tactics undermine our nation’s security and our Constitutional freedoms.
Hussam Ayloush is the executive director of the Greater Los Angeles Area office of CAIR, the Council on America-Islamic Relations. Ameena Mirza Qazi is the deputy executive director and staff attorney for CAIR-LA.
Jewish Journal
3/8/2011
As Representative Peter King (R-NY) launches congressional hearings on Muslims and radicalization this week, we wonder at the expenditure of time to examine an issue whose conclusion has long been self-evident: that American Muslims have worked tirelessly alongside fellow Americans to uphold and strengthen the time-honored values of religious freedom and equality and to protect our nation against all threats.
To that end, we have joined the U.S. Armed Forces, became police officers, and served as first responders. Muslims also forged stronger ties with law enforcement agencies and the FBI – partnerships rooted in trust and cooperation. For example, Southern California Muslims formed a joint partnership with the FBI called the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee, and similarly partnered with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Orange County Sheriff’s departments, and other local law enforcement agencies.
For us, the reasons for improving relations with law enforcement, particularly the FBI, were clear – to reduce mistrust and suspicion of Muslims, and help Muslims understand how law enforcement works. This in turn led to increased cooperation and helped thwart terror plots, and fewer hate crimes and less religious discrimination of Muslims, all of which stem from unfamiliarity with the Muslim faith.
Despite this history, little congressional attention is given to the fact that the Muslim community’s good faith gestures toward cooperation and trust-building have been met with sweeping FBI fishing expeditions and covert surveillance of Muslim communities.
Relations between Muslims and the FBI grew shaky as more and more Muslim Americans reported being interrogated, and news stories simultaneously highlighted the FBI’s surveillance of Muslims’ lawful First Amendment activities. Even so, the then-FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles field office, Steve Tidwell, assured Irvine mosque-goers in 2006 that the FBI was not monitoring the community.
Then in 2007, a self-proclaimed Muslim convert started making rounds at Southland mosques, advocating terrorist sympathies. Muslim congregants immediately reported the man, Craig Monteilh, to law enforcement when his rhetoric turned violent. One mosque even filed for and received a restraining order against Monteilh. In 2009, an FBI agent’s court testimony confirmed that the FBI had indeed recruited Monteilh as a confidential informant.
Monteilh is but a small piece of a frightening trend of broad FBI surveillance of American Muslims that is unconstitutional, illegal, and counterproductive.
A confidential informant was sent to spy on law-abiding Muslim worshipers, without any suspicion of criminal activity. The only basis for the FBI’s suspicion was the congregants’ religion: Islam. At the behest of the FBI, Monteilh made friends with Muslims, particularly those more observant in their religious practices as well as young Muslim men. Electronic surveillance equipment was installed at several mosques to complement the informant’s surveillance efforts.
The informant, who recorded hundreds of hours of audio and video of individuals for the FBI, says his FBI handlers told him Islam itself was a threat to America.
Monteilh was further instructed to look for vulnerabilities that could be used against Muslims to blackmail them into becoming informants.
The illegal surveillance of Muslims and their houses of worship by a confidential informant, combined with national news reports of surveillance of Muslims and FBI guidelines that allow religion to be considered as a factor in investigations, all indicate some FBI agents’ apparent fixation on criminalizing Islam and its followers. If so, such practice flies in the face of the U. S. Constitution.
Sadly, some of our members have reported shying away from congregational worship, attending mosque programs or engaging in normal recreational activities like camping and hiking, out of fear that such activities may attract unnecessary law enforcement scrutiny. The community fabric is threatened as members have become suspicious of new congregants and converts, thinking they might be the next FBI informant.
Left with no other recourse to rectify the FBI’s wrongful monitoring of a besieged American community, CAIR has partnered with the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson & Renick, LLP, to knock on the doors of the highest authority in justice. We filed a class-action lawsuit two weeks ago, hoping the courts will help put an end to the FBI’s unconstitutional and discriminatory tactics against American Muslims.
As the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee did away with the FBI’s COINTELPRO program from the 1960s and 1970s, we hope that the courts will put a stop to the FBI’s unlawful surveillance of the American Muslim communities. Profiling undermines the Constitutional values meant to guard against religious discrimination, impedes legitimate intelligence-gathering, and wastes our precious tax-payer dollars our government should use to ensure our families’ safety from any foreign or domestic threats.
Perhaps Congressman King’s efforts will be better served by examining how the FBI’s unlawful tactics undermine our nation’s security and our Constitutional freedoms.
Hussam Ayloush is the executive director of the Greater Los Angeles Area office of CAIR, the Council on America-Islamic Relations. Ameena Mirza Qazi is the deputy executive director and staff attorney for CAIR-LA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)