http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/Intelligence/2005/12 /27/The_False_Dilemma_o
ChroniclesExtra, Tuesday, December 27, 2005 News & Views by Srdja TRIFKOVIC THE FALSE DILEMMA OF DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE In a long article published on December 15, the New York Times disclosed that soon after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying. Quoting unnamed government officials the paper revealed that, under a presidential order signed in 2002, the NSA has monitored the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of potential terror suspects. A remarkable feature of the 3,800-word article, which focused on the legal, constitutional and operational issues implicit in the case, was its failure to explore the identity of those Americans and others inside the United States who have been subjected to NSAs surveillance. This failure created the impression that just about any American may be subjected to such unwarranted and possibly illegal intrusion. The context of the article implied the possibility that most or all of the targeted persons were Muslims, of course, but it that was not stated. The ensuing controversy was presented by the mass media to the nation through the inflammatory headline, Bush authorized spying on Americans. The Times unwillingness to disclose the exact identity of the NSA eavesdropping subjects, although that information must have been readily available to the paper from its unnamed government sources, is reminiscent of its refusal to disclose the religious identity of tens of thousands of rioters who wreaked havoc in dozens of French suburbs last month. It routinely referred to the youths, or rioters, or angry immigrants. The fact that the rioting immigrant youths were Muslims, overwhelmingly so, was either omitted or treated as incidental to the story. Even when the Times acknowledged that a majority of the youths committing the acts [of violence] are Muslim, that important piece of information was mentioned more than two-thirds into a 1,400-word report and immediately neutered with the assertion that the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. In both cases, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media were guilty of misconstruing reality for reasons rooted in their ideological prejudices and political preferences. Here at home, glossing over the surveillance targets identity has two objectives. First of all, it presents President George W. Bush as an out-of-control autocrat in the making whose hoods may be eavesdropping on any one of us at any time. Were seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, opined Newsweeks Jonathan Alter. Secondly, it also implies that a Muslim who has become a naturalized American citizen is so thoroughly and irrevocably American, that no hyphenated designation or qualifier is called for. Abroad, concealing the rioters identity fits in with the liberal world view that reject the notion that faith can be a prime motivating factor in human affairs, or that importing Muslim immigrants may be in any way disadvantageous for the host country. Having reduced religion, politics and art to narratives and metaphors which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class represented by the New York Times saw the rioters shout of Allahu akbar! as a mere idiosyncrasy that would be cured if the French state gave those youths more jobs, dark-skinned TV anchors, and, of course, lots of affirmative action in employment and education. The optimal strategy for the jihadist activists in the United States would have been to lay low and not to disturb the misperception that all Americans are potential NSA targets. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) did the opposite, however, by declaring that the spying, which included the surveillance of mosques and Muslim homes for radiation, may lead to the perception that we are no longer a nation ruled by law, but instead one in which fear trumps constitutional rights. The message they are sending through these kinds of actions is that being Muslim is sufficient evidence to warrant scrutiny, said CAIRs spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. Other Americans of the same persuasion were equally indignant. Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, director of outreach for Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, called the surveillance another example of unwarranted activityboth unwarranted from the standpoint of spying on Muslims who are only trying to observe their rituals and unwarranted in terms of not having proper judicial review. Mukit Hossain, trustee of the All Dulles Area Muslims Society in Sterling, said the government is harassing the immigrants and citizens but has not found one terrorist. Mr. Hossain is wrong. Had it not been for what he calls harrassment of immigrants and citizens, Brooklyn Bridge may no longer be standing. Iyman Faris, the only named American target of the National Security Agencys secret warrantless wiretap program, was sentenced in October 2003 to 20 years for providing material support and resources to Islamic terrorists. He pleaded guilty to helping plan al Qaeda attacks in the United States after meeting Usama bin Laden at an Afghanistan terror training camp. Faris planned to destroy Brooklyn Bridge by cutting its suspension cables and tried to buy equipment for the attack while appearing to be a law-abiding immigrant. Faris was an American, all right, every bit as American as Messrs. Hossain and Abdul-Malik. Born in Pakistan in 1969, he came to the United States in 1994 and became a U.S. citizen in 1999. For many years he appeared to be a hard-working, independent truck driver, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a news conference, but he led a secret double life and worked in concert with al Qaeda, our enemies, to plot potential attacks against America and our citizens here in his adopted homeland. Adopted indeed: only months after becoming U.S. citizen Faris established links to al Qaeda. In 2000 he traveled from his native Pakistan to Afghanistan where he met bin Laden and senior operational leaders who gave him orders for when he returned to the United States. Emboldened by the controversy, Faris is now considering a lawsuit against President Bush for illegally obtaining information that was used to exact his confession and subsequent conviction. The threat posed by Faris and his ilk today is different in degree to that America faced during the Cold War, but not in kind. It demands a similar response, and the involvement of the NSAat home and abroadis the right and proper part of that response. The legal and constitutional dilemma, such as whether it should spy on Americans at home or not and whether a court warrant is needed or not, is worthy of debate in principle. It is both false and unnecessary under the circumstances. If and when all persons engaged in Islamic activism are excluded from America, there will be no need for any such domestic surveillance. We dont need any legislation to protect CAIRs clients privacy, we need the law that will treat any naturalized citizensm or resident aliens known or suspected adherence to an Islamic world outlook as excludableon political, rather than religious grounds. All Americansreal Americans, that is, and not those who falsely take the oath but preach jihad and Shariawill be spared the worry about Mr. Bush listening in to their phone conversations if Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who preaches jihad, inequality of infidels and women, the establishment of the Sharia law, etc., should be revoked and that person promptly deported to the country of origin. It is to be hoped that such measures would lead to a swift reduction in the number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. The remnant would have to be registered with the Attorney General and subjected to legal limitations and security supervision that applies to cults prone to violence and hate groups. All over the Western world Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host countrys national security. Their message is seditious, incompatible with the the U.S. Constitution and with common decency. Subjecting them to the 24/7, relentless supervision by every government agency needed for the task, and doing it right now, is both necessary and justified. * * * Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor CHRONICLES, 928 N Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103, USA voice (815) 964-5054 fax (815) 964-9403 cell (312) 375-4044 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpTY2A/lzNLAA/yQLSAA/1dTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> =============== Group Moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] page at http://magazine.sorabia.net for more informations about current situation in Serbia http://www.sorabia.net Slusajte GLAS SORABIJE nas talk internet-radio (Serbian Only) http://radio.sorabia.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sorabia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
