Washington, DC

  We have failed to even investigate torturers, yet we have prosecuted and imprisoned millions for lesser offenses. And we allow mass murderers the benefit of constitutional rights that we deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Until policymakers examine and fix these double standards, they will continue to undermine our foreign policy, as well as our domestic criminal justice system.

We now know that the Bush Administration's torture policies proved horrendously counterproductive, in more ways than one: they eroded our allies' trust, undermined the ability of our non-state supporters to credibly defend our goodwill, generated bad intelligence in the form of forced - and predictably false - confessions, and undermined the morale of the professional interrogators who resisted their illegal (and idiotic) orders.

Worse yet, torture drove recruits into the arms of our enemies. According to veteran interrogators from multiple armed services, as well as the FBI, the number one reason militants flocked to Iraq was U.S. torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, CIA black sites, and the various foreign countries to which we continue to outsource torture through the extraordinary rendition program.

It was galling enough when, last year, all three branches of the federal government colluded to sweep evidence of torture under the rug. Confronted by thousands of abusive acts depicted in photos - some as severe as outright rape - DC united to protect its own. Acting at the behest of the CIA's discredited leadership, the administration lobbied Congress to amend a federal statute to grant the Defense Department an extraordinary authority to hide specific evidence of its own criminal trail, and the Supreme Court signed off on the deal.

Now, the double standard has come full circle... twice.

The first has plagued the Obama administration throughout its first year in office, and undermined the legitimacy of both its foreign policy, as well as our criminal justice system. On the one hand, people whose criminality stands hidden in plain sight - the former officials who unapologetically authorized torture, like Cheney, Addington, Bybee, and Yoo - remain free of even investigation, let alone prosecution. On the other hand, people of color face relentless prosecution and vicious penalties for non-violent offenses like drug possession, gambling, or even moving violations.

The second double standard is more recent, equally troubling, and potentially more problematic going forward. On the one hand, charges facing mercenaries apparently guilty of senselessly murdering nearly 20 Iraqis (in a bloody incident that touched off one of the most violent episodes of our six-year occupation) were dismissed by a federal district court recently because the prosecution relied on statements given under promises of immunity, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

On the other hand, the kangaroo courts at Guantanamo Bay we call "military commissions" don't even pretend to honor such rights, or others that are far more fundamental. Mercenaries who commit mass murder with profound international consequences were afforded robust constitutional protections barring the use of statements made under promises of immunity. Meanwhile, detainees held by the U.S. - who have included humanitarian workers and tourists swept up with "the worst of the worse" in the race to find scapegoats - held no right to exclude statements coerced by outright torture until last fall. Nor have they (for the most part) enjoyed the opportunity to assert any rights in impartial courts.

Rather than federal courts defending the rights of the accused against potentially arbitrary imprisonment, detainees plead their cases before biased military commissions seeking pre-ordained outcomes. Rather than exclude "compelled statements" like those of the exonerated Blackwater contractors, the military commissions operating in Guantanamo Bay (and those proposed by some policy analysts as a model for an even broader scheme to operate within the U.S. after the facility in Cuba has closed) invite unreliable evidence routinely rejected by federal courts.

The U.S. military commander in Iraq attempted to explain the federal court's decision with the lame and inaccurate assertion that it offered "a lesson in the rule of law." What the dismissal of the Blackwater contractors' charges actually demonstrates is quite the opposite: law requires consistency, whereas our approach to accountability for war crimes smacks of opportunism.

The imperatives to defend our nation's historical legacy, or the universal moral principles condemning torture, or the international legal system and its bedrock prohibition on torture, have apparently proven too quiet for the deaf ear of Washington institutions. No one seems to care that although torture is an international crime, officials complicit in it remain highly rewarded and occupy prestigious positions in government and the private sector.

But these double standards carry a price, well beyond the reputation and moral standing our nation has already lost.

We wage, in the war on terror, a battle for hearts & minds. And there is no surer way to lose that battle than to violate the rights of detainees, while vindicating those of mercenaries--or to prosecute politically powerless people for innocuous behavior, while praising officials who violate our species' most fundamental shared commitments. Such blatant inconsistency is lost neither on our enemies, nor the billions of individuals targeted by their recruitment efforts.

Officials increasingly wring their heads over a supposed threat of domestic radicalization. It is ephemeral in the first instance, but the concern points to a generally legitimate fear: people of any kind who grow alienated could eventually turn violent.

Some Muslims in America may indeed be growing increasingly alienated - which may seem understandable in the face of policies like "special registration" round-ups, guilt by association, pervasive surveillance, the infiltration of religious institutions and entrapment by ex-convicts paid handsomely by taxpayers, intrusive interrogations and searches, private sector employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes, bullying, and racial & religious profiling by law enforcement authorities. But as a group, we have not renounced the social compact by taking up arms, to any greater extent than former servicemembers could be said to have been categorically radicalized by virtue of some supporting right-wing militia groups like the Aryan Nation.

But while Muslim Americans remain loyal to the U.S., people in other countries have no compact with us to renounce. And they have no reason to accept our military presence except the principles we purport to uphold... at the same time that we overtly violate them without apology.

The strategy that could most effectively hamstring violent extremism abroad is the same one that would most effectively stop disaffected youth in America from turning to violence: applying our principles equally and with consistency. Honestly investigating our nation's record, and prosecuting those individuals responsible for international crimes, would go a long way to reassure observers that we take justice seriously. And allowing the rights and laws in which we have long taken pride to also govern the trials of those we militarily detain would relieve concerns about U.S. human rights abuses, both among international critics and domestic observers targeted by militant propagandists.

At the moment, we continue to fail on each front. Despite the President's pretty words in Cairo last fall, we Americans committed to rule of law and the Constitution remain waiting for that "change [we] can believe in." And it's not just us: the world - and the people over whose hearts & minds we struggle - are watching, too.

I *agree strongly* with all of Buttar's thoughts. I believe one of the lines of thought within DoD was that captured Jihadis would make-up allegations of torture as part of their propaganda war so we were screwed whether it really happened or not, figuring that Muslims would believe other Muslims over Americans any day.

I do not think this is a viable justification at all, but I did agree with that line of thought. Witness the absurd rumors that sweep the Muslim world no matter how outlandish (of Starbucks funding Israel, etc) and you might get it. Also, witness the obscenely inflated casualty reports the Jihadis spout that I personally knew for sure in several instances were outright lies.

So, Mr Buttar: while we should have maintained our own maturity and consistency by all means, do understand that such thinking did not occur in a vacuum the same way you assert that increased radicalism is a reaction to our actions, so were ours a reaction to thiers. The ball bounces both ways. Surely, you're not holding "white" people to a higher standard than you do "brown" people, right?

This article has a lot of truth in it.

Promotions and protection for incompetence and outright unlawful behavior, ...kind of sounds like when the Soviets promoted the people who shot down KAL007.

OmarG >>> I *agree strongly* with all of Buttar's thoughts. I believe one of the lines of thought within DoD was that captured Jihadis would make-up allegations of torture as part of their propaganda war so we were screwed whether it really happened or not, figuring that Muslims would believe other Muslims over Americans any day.

Typical. You can't even read what is being written in front of you and the increasingly fascist workings of your government.

So read this part again. You can stop making out the objective outsiders view as being brainwashed (because we're foolishly not white or more foolishly opposed to war), while the subjective view of a patriot, loyalist and nationalist is now the best measure of what's true.

~ ~ But while Muslim Americans remain loyal to the U.S., people in other countries have no compact with us to renounce. And they have no reason to accept our military presence except the principles we purport to uphold... at the same time that we overtly violate them without apology ~ ~

You're also wrong about starbucks. Starbucks is one of the corporations whose owner donates significantly to Israel as well deals unfairly with poor coffee growers. The international boycott and divestment campaign (which actually supports Palestinian liberation through action) targets them specifically.

>>Starbucks is one of the corporations whose owner donates significantly to Israel

Thus, I am proven correct. That internet rumor was debunked without proof to support it yet you still believe anonymous Muslims over fact and logic.

Also, Starbucks has one of the best Fair Trade policies towards coffee growers. It may not be as socialist as some would like, but its better than most.

Omar: You know this isn't going to make any difference.

@fester: yes, but it would be gratifying to get across the point that when people and countries act collectively like children, they should not expect other people or countries to treat them like adults...sigh.

>>Starbucks is one of the corporations whose owner donates significantly to Israel

Starbucks is a public company. A single person does not own it. If 1 or more of SBUX shareholders happen to be Jewish-American who donate their OWN money to Israel then how is that different from owners of many 7-11s or Dunkin Donuts donating to Pakistan ?

>>> Thus, I am proven correct. That internet rumor was debunked without proof to support it yet you still believe anonymous Muslims over fact and logic.

http://www.inminds.com/boycott-oxfam.html
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/impact/starbucks.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Starbucks/0805_starbucks_greenwashing.htm
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=OtherOpinions&article=1971


Unfortunately, this is a proven and well researched fact. It is precisely BECAUSE Starbucks is publicly listed and such a large corporate giant, that its officers should be politically neutral and the companys overly friendly relationship with Israel is noted!

We have Muslim charitable organisations being banned and funds frozen because they might have links to Hamas (the 80% democratically elected government of Palestine) or Iranian charities. Yet here's a publicly listed company that effectively has a Pro-Israel policy of investment, coupled with what was until recently resolved (though still contentious), an unfair trading relation with a poor farmers in Ethiopia. I had not idea that even and American corporate is given such patriotic support, to deny even proven charges of excesses.

Boycott and divestment is done exactly to target companies that provide effective support for Israel or deal unfairly with poor farmers etc. This is the only leverage that the ordinary world citizens have. And in the case of Starbucks, it is a necessary action.

sharpsand >>> who donate their OWN money to Israel then how is that different from owners of many 7-11s or Dunkin Donuts donating to Pakistan ?

Maybe because Pakistan isn't a racist tyrannical occupying regime like Israel? Because funds from these donations don't directly go to building settlements on an occupied peoples land or legitimises the destruction of the Palestian people? Its brazenly unfair to make such a comparison. Israel drains the UNited States, offers it no real support and is an occupying regime. Pakistan supports the United States does not occupy any poor nation in the name of religious fascism, yet people still think there's parity?

From all the information you have put forward, all I see is that Howard Schultz supports israel and jewish causes as an individual. He does not have to be neutral with his own money. I do not see any info that SBUX as a corporation is funding Israel or any settlements in israel.

Rich and wealthy jewish americans will continue to support israel and jewish causes, same as rich and wealthy arabs and muslims support Palestinian cause.

And you got to be kidding if you want to punish some trade and labor practices of starbucks but in the same breath claim that it is ok to support Pakistan. Go read about the 7-10 year old girls toiling as maids in virtually every middle-class Pakistani home.....some of these stories are quite hot in the news for the last few days. Or maybe read about the religious discrimination against Ahmadis in Pakistan or maybe about the treatment of xtians in Pak. The point here is that jewish americans feel the same way about israel as Pakistanis feel about Pakistan.

>>> From all the information you have put forward, all I see is that Howard Schultz supports israel and jewish causes as an individual.

Do you not understand the objectives of the boycott? Companies trading in and profiting off of the occupation will be boycotted. For that matter, people will not buy Sierra Leone diamonds (people of conscience anyway).

This distinction is a very easy one to understand. During Apartheid, many governments and civil society organisations broke off their relations with first world white South Africa and companies that profiteered from the dispensation (like starbucks does in Israel or through its unfair trade practices). This helped lead to the Economic collapse of the regime as the Apartheid model became economically unviable.

Currently starbucks employs a high ranking supporter of Zionism, and has a history of prejudicing the Palestinian cause. Boycotting the product and the company is within the ambit of any reasonable persons RIGHT too. And it helps isolate those sources of investment (like starbucks) which keep the Israeli economy going. Unfortunately starbucks has done exactly that, and that's a form of war profiteering.

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=818

Sharpsand >>> And you got to be kidding if you want to punish some trade and labor practices of starbucks but in the same breath claim that it is ok to support Pakistan.

Nice twist in the argument. Except, I don't support any form of child labour in Pakistan when I buy my daily cup of coffee?!? I don't fund racist social practices or legitimise racism and religious fascism when I send sadaqah for some or other rural community. AND I can actually change poor labour practices in Pakistan by sending my charitable funds to Pakistan, because I affect the state of development of that society. So your Pakistani parity isn't just weak ... its false too.

I also don't assume that the relationship with the child labour is a political one. Such big leaps in logic and twists in objectives.. you must get tired from all the exercise :-)

The assertions to appreciate are, we must alienate trade partners with Israel, and isolate supporters of Zionism. Its within our right. But to effect positive change, it also happens to be my personal duty. Starbucks avoids the issue of its CEO's support for a racist regime (and major shareholder), and avoids the fact of its substantial investment in Israel. Members of the Congress of South African Trade Unions refused to offload Israeli goods at our harbour. Mostly non-Muslim African workers supporting the victims of occupation in a very real way.

If you support Schultz's officership of a publicly listed company, you definitely have no basis to criticize people who boycott the company and seek out alternative products. The company has committed a MUCH MORE aggregious excess than the customers have.

How far we've gone off the topic. Basically, You've got defence contractors, war profiteers (Iraq and Afghanistan), torture and worse. The current case of Aafia Siddiqui is probably quite telling of the situation. Instead, people are now spinning the arguments to ignore the common US excesses and abuses .. because they don't like Pakistanis? How can you turn a way from the blood on Americans hands, just because you're certain everyone else is somehow worse. And why is it not important to influence those companies, individuals, political parties and governmental organisation .. that actually endorse the violations of these innocent people?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116896§ionid=351020401

Because I'm confident that when push comes to shove over time, the American system does punish these excesses, for at least some of the offenders. Would be nice to get them all, sure, and the wheels of justice turn slowly mostly to prevent arbituary justice that Anarchists just love.

The beauty of America is not that we are perfect, but the beauty of America is that we've constructed a system that *eventually* gets it right because it can change without violent revolution and has 3 branches that often force the other to do what's right. It may be after the fact, but I'm confident that the fact we elected Obama who is reversing what you claim, albeit slowly, demonstrates why the American way manages, stumbles to work pretty darn well. Its am imperfect, highly flawed world and we manage to do well enough.

As of now you have not shown any data suggesting that SBUX as a business supports or funds zionism or Israel.

Information you have presented, shows that an individual employee of SBUX supports, with his private money, some Jewish organisation in Israel. This is same as the Muslims in the USA supporting their families and Islamic organisations back in their Muslim motherlands.

Now consider this from headlines of last few days. Virtually every Pakistani middle-class home has minor girls working as maids. 91% of these girls are sexually abused by their employers. Women in the Muslim societies, and dare I say in many mainstream interpretations of Islam, are treated as 2nd class humans at best and as precious and collectible commodities in the worst case scenario.

So, if some wealthy Jewish individual's support, with his own private money, for some Jewish organisation in Israel means we must punish his employer then we must punish every 7-11 and dunkin donut and cab company in the USA which has a Pakistani or Muslim employee who directly or indirectly funds his woman-hating and child-labor employing family back in his/her motherland.

My issue is not with the principle and rationale of boycott and divestment campaign against Israel. But with your rabid whining against America and selective application of any principals to only Jews.

Perhaps if we Muslims were little more fair and equitable in our criticism and application of all these human rights and principles then the average American will be able to relate and empathise with our causes and complaints.

My issue is not with the principle and rationale of boycott and divestment campaign against Israel. But with your rabid whining against America and selective application of any principals to only Jews.
- Posted by sharpasand

Something I've noticed in several cultures (including most recently the Mexicans I work with) is the automatic denial of any responsibility for having done anything wrong. Even in those rare instances where they're forced to accept responsibility for something, not much happens, so it's not like they have a reasoned mortal fear of punishment. When they are in the process of losing an argument, they are masters at changing the subject. I'm certain this kind of thing couldn't happen on this website...

I can understand this this type of behavior, but I don't understand why it isn't eliminated in all cultures by adulthood. It certainly isn't practical at the societal level.

@fester: What is your experience working and being part of Muslim culture ?

@fester: What is your experience working and being part of Muslim culture ?
- Posted by sharpasand

I'm not, and have never been, a part of the Muslim culture. I'm about as white-bread as they come.

My all-too-rare contacts with Muslims on the other hand, have been very good. I've found the Muslims I've met in person to be uniformly friendly and generous people. I wrote a piece for AltMuslim.com a while ago called "Infidel in the Mosque" which should answer your question.

@sharpasand: its because of honor. People's bling-bling in such cultures largely rests on thier reputation and machoness. Loosing an argument or admitting defeat / failure decreases one honor in the eyes of others. It may not make sense when every individual knows that they themselves are flawed, but give no mercy to others who fail as well. However, all cultures have such devices, some just have it more strongly than others.

Loosing an argument or admitting defeat / failure decreases one honor in the eyes of others. It may not make sense when every individual knows that they themselves are flawed, but give no mercy to others who fail as well.
- Posted by OmarG

How perfectly dreadful. In the classes I teach, I tell my students if they aren't making mistakes they aren't improving.

I wrote a piece for AltMuslim.com a while ago called "Infidel in the Mosque" >>>

HA! I hadn't even noticed that was you. That was a nice piece. I just reread it and noticed down at the bottom your name. You work in a small town between NY and LA. Cute. :)

OmarG >>> The beauty of America is not that we are perfect, but the beauty of America is that we've constructed a system that *eventually* gets it right because it can change without violent revolution and has 3 branches that often force the other to do what's right.

That's something you want to believe, but have typically never shown any inclination to pursue. Reality is that, if its not a US citizen its not perceived as an injustice. I agree that the system is theoretically great, just like an Islamic social system is theoretically great, and a Nazi system is theoreticall great and a communist system is theoreticall great.

That's not the point being argued, its the point that's being avoided that must be raised. i.e. The objective reality of its injustices and its responsibility to be brought to book and to change. And the system currently in place is about as effective as changing its foreign policy or its environmental policy as the Saudi governments is at changing its workers rights policies. You're excusing the impact of the American abuse of power because it can change in the future .. and might even bring someone someday to book if it feels like it. That's about as ethical as giving pitbulls aspirin after dogfights.

And what do you do if the system evidences no just solution that will eventually appear? Have all the bad deeds of American government been brought to book and the course reset? That's not just naive Omar, its a lie. Its also placating yourself that their is no need to effect change in the American agenda, because its got the perfect system. That's baloney and frankly double speak of the extent of the worst of the Soviet communists.