I appreciate Greg Luce's expoundment on the issue of the underlying motivations behind Omar Jamal's prosecution. The underlying injustice is based on a combination of the government's motivation and the lack of significance of the alleged false statments. At to the government's motivation, it is clear that the government began its investigation of Jamal after he became an outspoken, visible and controversial figure in the media. Immigration authorities are lying when they deny any connection. Prior Stribune articles which contain these denials also revealed that immigration authorities responded to tips from people in the Somali community communicated after Jamal was in the media. (I cannot find the articles in archive; perhaps someone with more research access can find the earlier articles). It would be impossible for the government to investigate and prosecute all false statements on government documents, and is not even possible to investigate all leads. There are millions of cases relating to immigration documents and tax documents alone. The government singled out Jamal because he is a political activist, and that is what is chilling.
The prosecution is chilling not just the government went after a controversial person, but bascially destroyed him for an act that did not cause any real harm. Although all lies are bad, clearly not all lies are equal. Here are three categories: 1) Despite some of the self-righteous rhetoric on some previous posts, some lies are even justified. Example: agents of an oppressive government go to a citizen's house to inquire about activities of a neighbor in opposing the government. The citizen knows that the neighbor is involved in such activities, but also knows that the neighbor will be imprisoned and tortured for the activities, so he lies and says he doesn't know anything. Does anyone want to argue that such a lie is wrong? An example closer to this situation is a person who lies to get into this country to escape persecution. It is not clear if Jamal fits this description. 2) Another category of lies, however, is a lie that does not harm anyone else. Jamal's alleged false statements would clearly fall into this category. OK, we don't want people to lie, particularly to the government, but in reality, do we really care so much as to make a federal criminal case if it does not make a difference for anyone else? The government can only prosecute a tiny percentage of cases where people lie. Should that tiny percentage be based on lies that are really harmful, or someone exercising a most valued constitutional right to be politically active and question the government. 3) the other general category of lies are those that really do cause harm, such as lying to get money that one is not entitled to, or a government official lying to pursue or cover up a hidden agenda, such as our current leaders blatantly lying to start and pursue a war. It is disturbing that people who so harshly judge Mr. Jamal, do not want to see or acknowledge any contradiction with the same government that vigorously prosecutes alleged lies by a political activist that cause no harm, is responsible for telling lies that cause deaths of at least tens of thousands of people. Jordan Kushner Golden Valley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Luce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: RE: [Mpls] Mpls Somali activist found guilty of immigration fraud > The lens for me is not on the lies and the moral, legal and ethical > complications from the lies, but on how the lies are discovered, who > discovers them, and how they are exploited. I think that was Jordan > Kushner's original intent in raising this issue. > > Omar Jamal was prosecuted likely because he is Omar Jamal--a very public, > sometimes brash, and extremely articulate advocate who is also a person of > color. That draws attention, not only for support but also from the > government, from detractors, and those who are threatened by his public > status. As a result, he suffers greater scrutiny and faces complaints of > all sorts from all sides. I don't know how the INS became aware of > alleged > discrepancies in Omar Jamal's file, but for me, that is the more > interesting > public question than his personal decision to lie. Who wanted action on > this--not action on another less remarkable file--and how did they become > aware of possible discrepancies? > > My point is this: if you are a dissenter or an advocate that raises the > attention of the government and/or angers those who are in positions of > authority or wealth, you will almost always face greater scrutiny for your > actions, whether personal or public. More significantly, your 'file' will > receive an inexplicable sense of importance, which you can attribute to > officials' overt knowledge of your status as a dissenter but also an > unconscious notion that you aren't like all the others, don't toe the > party > line, and actually make a lot of people angry (and add to that these days > the 'celebrity' factor of a person who appears on TV, radio, and in the > news, making it sexy to work on a file of someone who is in the news). > > Those who are in power or connected to those in authority and power will > find their files more protected, their alleged actions surrounded by a > denser layer of doubt, and will find that there is a larger level of > uncooperative administrators who don't believe a good-natured guy like Joe > would lie on a form, or see the real harm in doing so. > > Thus, if you've done wrong in some way somewhere, you may or may not be > discovered. But, if you are a dissenter, that wrong will likely be > exploited later and the snowball of inquiry will grow larger and larger as > it rolls. We've certainly seen that nationally, and now we see it locally > with Omar Jamal. > > I think Omar Jamal is similar to Martha Stewart in one way: the > government > is honest that it uses and legally prosecutes public figures as examples > to > make a point to all others: don't cheat, whether cheating involves taxes, > insider trading, immigration status or whatnot. Omar Jamal differs from > Martha Stewart, however, in that he had the added burden of being > considered > a dissenter. It doesn't forgive his crimes, but it does naturally place > greater scrutiny on his actions, and thus a larger microscope on his > public > and private dealings, sometimes simply in an effort to 'bring him down' so > that he is not such a brash, articulate, and politically threatening > figure. > > Gregory Luce > St. Paul > > > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
