Washington, DC

  The recent discovery of attempted terrorist plots by Muslims in America has prompted overreaching accusations of radicalization of an entire religious group. As a consequence, pressure is mounting on American Muslim leaders to actively engage in elusively defined counter radicalization. But rather than spend limited resources on programs that assume collective guilt, efforts are better spent tapping existing grievances and redirecting them towards the exercise of constitutionally protected dissent.

Focusing on counter radicalization is misguided for two reasons. First, the current discourse on radicalization comes dangerously close to repeating past mistakes of confusing legal political dissent with illicit activity. Second, there is insufficient evidence of systemic unlawful radicalization of American Muslims.

Most people would agree that adopting violence to propagate a political agenda is radical and warrants punishment. However, in a troubling bout of amnesia, American public discourse has reinvigorated the misuse of the term ‘radical’ to label both criminal activity and unpopular political dissent.

Let’s not repeat past mistakes. During the Red Scare and McCarthyism, immigrants and religious minorities were scapegoats to fears of Communism. By labeling them as radicals, many were deported and imprisoned en masse. Senator McCarthy and his anti-communist crusaders notoriously bullied political opposition by labeling them as radicals to justify heightened scrutiny of their activities and associations. His campaign of suspicion, fueled by strident anti-Semitism, eventually focused on leftist Jewish Americans. Prominent business people, Hollywood celebrities, and ordinary citizens were blacklisted and spied on, leading to irreparable reputational harm and in some cases malicious prosecution.
It was not the first time a religious minority in America was collectively suspected of disloyalty. Nor would it be the last.

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the American Muslim community has been the subject of heightened scrutiny by the government and the public. And with each new allegation of a few individuals’ terrorist activity, the collective suspicion of over 6 million Muslims in America grows. Take for example the case of the American Somali youth who, unbeknownst to their parents, returned to Somalia to fight in the civil war on behalf of a terrorist organization. Indeed, there is evidence that one of them became a suicide bomber. But these are only twenty some individuals out of nearly 100,000 Somalis in America. Nonetheless, the bad acts of a handful from a minority ethnic and religious population have led some government officials and members of the public to conclude a larger problem of radicalization among Muslims.

Consequently, Muslims’ are experiencing an increase in profiling at airports and increased surveillance in their mosques and neighborhoods. They believe their religious leaders are targeted for deportation or coercive tactics by law enforcement, and in the case of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, unlawfully killed. Many American Muslims feel they are treated as a fifth column as their loyalty to America is questioned merely because of the bad acts of a handful of young men. Indeed, their fears are reasonable in light of the findings of a new Gallup Poll in which over fifty percent of Americans held a “not too favorable” or “not favorable at all” view of Islam.

In another unrelated case, five young Muslim men who, again unbeknownst to their families, flew to Pakistan to allegedly join a terrorist organization. Their behavior refueled charges of radicalization among Muslims in America. Putting aside the guilt or innocence of these five individuals, is it fair to impute their acts on 6 million individuals who also happen to be Muslims? Of course not.

Such forms of collective punishment undermine the fundamental American principle that individuals should be accountable for their own behavior and not acts committed by others of the same ethnic, racial, or religious background. This principle was upheld after the uncovering of the Unabomber or the arrest of Timothy McVeigh. All white males were not suddenly suspected of criminal activity. Similarly, when a white male goes on a shooting spree at his workplace or at a post office, the public knows better than to assume all white males are prone to such violence on account of their race or gender. Thus, concluding systemic radicalization of Muslims based on unrelated bad acts of a handful of individuals demonstrates a glaring double standard.

Equally important, labeling people accused of unlawful activity as radicals, as opposed to criminals, risks confusing unpopular political viewpoints with illegal activity. The First Amendment protects dissent, especially unpopular dissent. Being a radical is not illegal so long as one does not violate a specific law – a distinctively American tenet currently upheld by the aptly titled “tea partyers” actively opposed to President Obama and perceived as radical by some Americans. While American Muslims who criticize American policy on whatever grounds, religious or otherwise, are as protected as their outspoken compatriots, Muslims may fear their dissent will be mischaracterized as indicia of unlawful radicalization.

Rather than hastily proclaim radicalization and demand counter radicalizing youth that have no direct link to those accused of engaging in terrorism, youth of all backgrounds should be trained on how to express dissent. These are difficult times for the American people. Americans of all stripes are frustrated, if not disenfranchised, with their government. Our country is spending billions of dollars in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile the unemployment rate is at its highest level in decades, most profoundly among youth. Many Americans, including Muslims, oppose our military involvement abroad on political or religious grounds while others oppose it because they believe the money is better spent on our economy and job creation. However, unlike their compatriots, many American Muslims may not feel at liberty to express their grievances in light of suspicions of their collective radicalization.

Hence community leaders concerned with the alleged terrorist activity of a handful of Muslim youth in America should focus their efforts on teaching youth to channel any grievances they may have into legitimate dissent. Encourage them to speak out and speak freely about their views on the war, the economy, and other policies. Teach them how to legally organize, protest, contact elected officials and participate in grassroots campaigns.

And when they do, the government should not misinterpret their dissent to create a twenty first century version of the Red Scare.

(Photo: Giulio Garavaglia)

Sahar Aziz, as a civil rights lawyer, would do well to become acquainted with a dictionary and look up the definition of 'radical'.
In this country, 'radicals' are known for "both criminal activity and unpopular political dissent", the two being distinct and unrelated.

I agree with Sahar that a counter-radicalization strategy is naive at best.

I do wish to point out that there are two kinds of dissent: loyal dissent and disloyal dissent. Loyal dissent is when Muslims acknowledge that there is a problem, but dissent against a current strategy. Disloyal dissent is when Muslims expect or demand the US to act against its own interests.

You can tell the two apart by examining thier discourse: Are theyt advocating for the US' best interests or are they shilling for the interests of thier homeland or some transnational cause (MAS, cough, cough...). Its pretty easy to figure out which is which.

So, the more disloyal dissent the American public sees, the less they trust us. There is a good amount of loyal dissent out there, and it needs to raise its voice louder and more sensationally than the disloyal dissenters who will take us all down the rabbit hole with thier bona fide radicalism.

Disloyal dissent is when Muslims expect or demand the US to act against its own interests.

>>>>>

I am openly and unapologetically both a disloyal Muslim and a disloyal American citizen. Why? Because I also openly and unapologetically deny that "America's interests" are unilaterally in the best healthy interests of its citizens and that they foster honest and fair and most importantly honorable relations with its fellow nation states. No where, ever, has the United states outlined a list of its "interests" for me to sign off on and agree to. As such, I am under no obligation or compulsion, morally or legally, to support any such clandestine programs or policies. Although I understand that "America's Interests" is a branded piece of jingoism designed to circumvent rational inquiry and discourse amd is an intentionally vague description of a whole wide range of activities, many of which would make its citizens blanche with horor if they knew about it, just as it has a large portion of the world's citizenry.

@Akenanubis: I think we already know that about you... ;-)

An example based on what I think is Common Sense (the book itself is pretty cool, too):

Loyal Dissent = "We shoulnd't invade Iraq because there are better ways of fighting Al-Qaeda"

Disloyal Dissent = "We shouldn't invade Iraq because Saddam is good to go and he SHOULD flip off The Man!"

I think our security and prosperity are worthy interests.

Akenanubis: Your failure to automatically queue-up behind some jingoistic, excuse me: 'patriotic', line of reasoning shows you to be about as patriotic an American as we get.

Maybe it's just my lack of testosterone tyat keeps me from getting to hot and sweaty below the belt over the "my team can cream yer team" shtick. I do ownder though, after all the billions of wastewd dollars and a destroyed econmy, how that "prosperity" part is working out. Those who are resistig American's "interests" in a variety of ways are far too numerous and growing for the US to lock down, even with the help of so-called allies who despise it and only comply through compulsion. What was the defiition of a bully again? What we have to destasbilize is the rising number of Americans who find their only satisfaction and fulfillment through vicarious and impotent association with a bully. Much like parasitic worms who feed on the offal of sharks and other predators.

@Akenanubis: Its the nature of the game. And quite frankly, its better to either be the small guy who never rises, or if you do rise, then don't get knocked off the throne, because once you do, everyone will come out get a piece of the former king of the mountain. We've long since become King of the Mountain after Europe imnploded after 2 world wars and at least 2 centuries of explicit colonialism. We may as well stay there since the Chinese are doing and shall do things much worse without even token efforts at advocating Human Rights and the other good things that the Pax Americana encourages to spread.

While there is a down side to our dominance, there are upsides, too. Lets encourage the benefits instead of trying to tear ourselves down which will only lead to a Chinese Pro-Consul eventually censoring all your writing...

Let me offer a footnote on why I am not patriotic. I do not believe in patriotism. I find id a very dangerous and nebulous state of mind that is wholly dictated by the whims of those in power and its heroes and enemies, targets and sucesses vary with political expediency. It compels agreement rhough fear of ostracism and it appeals to solely to the emotions. As such, I am passionately opposed to it in all its forms and manifestations.

The dominance is over sport. Just watch. And the Dominance was never yours anyway. Your use of the vacarious "ours" bristles with the very points I am making. Thank you.

This is niether patriotism nor living vacariously; its called being a Citizen in a participatory democracy. We vote, we pay taxes and some of us defend this country, therefore it is "Ours". Therefore, if the state to which we are citizens is dominant, then we too share the burdens and responsibilities of that dominance, whether you like it or not. No amount of disavowel or disassociating yourself from it will help you nor the situation at hand.

The situation at hand is perfectly fine and proceeding beautifully in a very organic fashion, a natural fashion.. It's nothing more or less than the birth pangs of the dominated cultures and economies sloughing off the DOMINANCE of yet another empire. Been going on for thousands of years. I support it. That's the way the game is. Right. Everything gets old and decadent and gray, eventually. And eventually the rest of the world will get it right for them to succceed until the next young bunch of turks comes along the challenge them.

>>>>>
the burdens and responsibilities of that dominance>>>>>

This line is particularly nice. Go ahead and relax, the rest of the world is old enough now to shoulder some of that burden, probably the "white man's burden" and help out a bit with those chores and responsibilities.

@Akenanubis: There is always a hierarchy in human affairs and people / groups / states are always jockeying to move up in that hierarchy. Some will always have power over others for some reason or the other.

>>sloughing off the DOMINANCE of yet another empire.

Only to be replaced by another: China, or Russia or perhaps even India. I think you would approve only as long as they are not white!

So, if its not us on top, it will be someone else. That's just a fact of life at all levels of human society. I don't even think its possible for us as humans to ignore our animal side / evolutionary biology and get into some Utopian Star-Trek like world peace.

>>Everything gets old and decadent and gray, eventually.

Yup; entropy, the cycle of history, Allah's sunnah; whatever one feels like calling it.

>>> There is always a hierarchy in human affairs and people / groups / states are always jockeying to move up in that hierarchy. Some will always have power over others for some reason or the other.>>>

Oh absolutely. I know this, definitely part of human nature. I have no problem with that. Never once has anyone on this site heard me wailing for a world where it's just one big happy family holding hands and singing kumbaya. Power is always in a state of flux. And I think that keeps things interesting. I think what bothers me is when I hear the janitor beating his chest about the achievements of the CEOs of his company. How much credit can he take for it? It smacks of the toothless guy in a trailor in a vacant lot ranting about the superiority of the white race. What did he contribute to it.

>>sloughing off the DOMINANCE of yet another empire.

Only to be replaced by another: China, or Russia or perhaps even India. I think you would approve only as long as they are not white!>>>

No, I don't really care what color they are. But I always sense that White has a special warm spot in your heart. Maybe that's what I respond to. Your posts always reek of it. Dominance. Again, it's generally important to those whose only access to it is vocariously through the power of others. What do you personally have dominance and superiority over in your own life and among the people you know? Who are your peers? Are they powerful global players who effect real change in the world? Do we read about you and them in the news as other than "boots on the ground" taking orders from somebody else? It's a rhetorical question, but something to think about.

But I always sense that White has a special warm spot in your heart. Maybe that's what I respond to. Your posts always reek of it. Dominance.
- Posted by Akenanubis

You are mistaken here. It seems to me Omar simply refuses to take personal responsibility for the failings, or whining, of others. This is not a zero sum game. The current dominance of this nation-state does not imply we are better than or control anyone else. Perhaps you might recall how the U.S. got kicked out of the Philippines. It wasn't with their dramatically superior military force.

It is not my, or our, fault is people feel inferior for some reason.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
- Eleanor Roosevelt

OmarG >>> Loyal Dissent = "We shoulnd't invade Iraq because there are better ways of fighting Al-Qaeda"
>>> Disloyal Dissent = "We shouldn't invade Iraq because Saddam is good to go and he SHOULD flip off The Man!"

One word ... Ethics. Akenas BRILLIANT words blew your whole assertion out of the water.

Akena >>> I understand that "America's Interests" is a branded piece of jingoism designed to circumvent rational inquiry and discourse ...

Its precisely what is considered American, that defines American interest for you. I've taken some pointers from your own comments in the past and this issue of Loyalty. Not speaking English, not supporting the soldiers, not hating the Taliban/Afghan/Pashtun or other enemies the US has made, not having complete faith in the system, aligning yourself with non-Americans ... that is what you define as opposed to "Americas interest". It turns out that Americas Interest is YOUR OWN PERSONAL interest and identity. Empathy is not.

Secondly, lets look at what people don't talk about as much as the things that they do. The elephants in the room, are also good points of reference for what is considered "disloyal".

They don't talk about the CIA, private contractors or the military industrial complex (as American as apple pie) that may very well be responsible for the worsening condition. They don't talk about the way mainstream culture has stopped distinguishing between dissenters and radicals. They don't talk about the secret prisons or other governments excesses. They don't talk about the impact of the Copenhagen failures or Doha trade talks. They don't talk about wanting for others what they want for themselves, or the troubling support for Israel...

Loyal vs Diloyal ... What a mickey mouse assertion. Personally, Common sense is more about being reasonable, rational, and logical than it is about being a commoner.

So ... are these ex-CIA men, corporate profiteers, and racist bigots not disloyal ... because they further Americas interests and don't dissent?

>>> Similarly, when a white male goes on a shooting spree at his workplace or at a post office, the public knows better than to assume all white males are prone to such violence on account of their race or gender.

This is the same argument that has been made by many advocates for social justice in the US for many decades. Its not a new idea. I find it disingenuous when Muslims cry blue murder over a personal experience, but lend no support when others have been having it. Weren't we instructed to reach out to the victims of injustice regardless of religion or whether we've experienced it or not? When Muslims stop referring to the genocide of the Native Americans and start reaching out to the surviving struggling communities, then maybe I can have my faith restored in our claims to Islamic identity.


I really liked this article. Just came across it. About reforming congress. Dissent ... yes. But I'd like to know why exactly loyal Americans would disagree with the premise? It effectively says that democracy in the US has been broken.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig/print

P.S. The khmer rouge incident is burnt into my memory because of the power of the movie "the killing fields". This article really got me thinking about the domino effects of violence.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145576/could_u.s._air_strikes_push_pakistan_into_khmer_rouge_type_genocide?page=entire

Your comments are typical of the transnationalist crowd, and her remarks, while dignified and representative of her own opinions, are typically brilliant mostly in the eyes of those who live in far-left never-neverland. I know you believe that states are oh-so yesterday, and you want to ascend to a higher, global level of consciousness. I wish you well in that quest, Mr Quixote. I can see the next windmill just now...

>>are these ex-CIA men, corporate profiteers, and racist bigots not disloyal

Yes, they most certainly are traitors when thier actions have harmed the nation. What did you expect to hear, or was that you being on a soapbox?

Your comments are typical of the transnationalist crowd, and her remarks, while dignified and representative of her own opinions, are typically brilliant mostly in the eyes of those who live in far-left never-neverland.>>>>

Amd your comments and rhetoric are unfailingly taken from the Limbaugh/Palin chapbook. I am kind of disappointed though that you couldn't fit the phrase "tree-hugger" in there somewhere. And when the discourse begins to stray beyond single point bullets, you default to The Big Monkey Always Wins, and that's The Game. And that is true too. Only sometimes bigger monkeys come along or smatter, or more desperate, smaller monkeys band together. Bye bye big monkey. But I actually do have complete faith that the Palin/Limbaugh/Omar crowd will win the White House one day because of the devaluation of education that levels the playing field to, well Sarah Palin. Then the EU and other friends like China and Russia will have to put the US in its place. Sadly, not before a few hundred Bombs for Jezuz get flung around.

Discussions here only seems to interest 3 key people!1

that tells you all!!

I rest my case!!

Discussions here only seems to interest 3 key people!1

that tells you all!!

I rest my case!!
>>>>>

Yeah, well, what case is that? Nobody is stopping anyone from posting. And it's 4 people, not three. Not long ago there were several really nasty snarky people that just posted lots of long winded posts a day spewing hatred and foul language. That might have driven a lot of other people off. Just a hunch.