Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Critics Condemn Islam Hearings as Witch Hunts

Controversial hearings on extremist Islam in the United States, spearheaded by Homeland Security chair Rep. Peter King, are raising red flags among Muslim-Americans, civil rights groups, and within the Obama administration as well.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

On the eve of a controversial hearing by lawmakers on extremist Islam in the United States, civil rights and Muslim- American groups are warning of its potential repercussions, which they say may undermine the very intent of the proceeding.

The House of Representatives' Committee on Homeland Security, spearheaded by Republican Peter King, will meet here Thursday morning to discuss the "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response" in the first of a series of contentious hearings about home-grown terrorist threats.

"His [King's] approach is going to radicalize the young people," said Muhammad Salim Akhtar, head of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, at a press conference Wednesday, which included 11 Muslim-American and civil liberties groups.

"The focus of the hearings should be of greater concern for the message they send overseas as well as to communities at home," echoed Paul Pillar, director of graduate studies at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program and a former CIA analyst for the Middle East and South Asia, in a blog post Tuesday.

"They will be widely read as an indication that U.S. postures and policies that are ostensibly aimed at combating terrorism are really more about combating Muslims," he warned in the 'National Interest'. "And that reading will in turn stir more anti-Americanism among Muslims."

President Barack Obama's administration dispatched deputy national security advisor Denis McDonough to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society on Sunday, where he made statements that seemed designed to counter these potential readings.

"[O]f the violent extremists we've captured or arrested, and who falsely claim to be fighting in the name of Islam, we know that they all share one thing: They all believe that the United States is somehow at war with Islam, and that this justifies violence against Americans," he told the audience of about 200.

"[W]e are actively and aggressively undermining that ideology," McDonough declared. "We're exposing the lie that America and Islam are somehow in conflict. That is why President Obama has stated time and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam."

Stoking Xenophobia

"[I]nstead of condemning whole communities, we need to join with those communities to help them protect themselves as well," McDonough continued. "We must resolve that, in our determination to protect our nation, we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few."

Critics have called Thursday's meeting "inappropriate", "counterproductive" and a "witch-hunt".

Alejandro Beutel, Government and Policy Analyst for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said at the same press conference Wednesday that the hearing was "political theatre rather than actual problem-solving", with King "putting an entire religion on trial".

Critics fear that the hearings will fuel the rising tide of xenophobia that has flooded the nation recently, which last year contributed to highly-publicized hostility against an Islamic community centre to be built near Ground Zero, malicious attacks against mosques throughout the country and the proposal of a "Burn the Koran Day".

"[The] hearings, as currently proposed, do a disservice to the seriousness of the topic of 'domestic terrorism' and are likely to contribute to a public backlash against Muslim Americans," wrote the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 200 organizations – in a letter to King dated Feb. 4.

In prior statements and in a series of media interviews leading up to Thursday's hearing, King has erroneously claimed that 80 to 85 percent of mosques are controlled by radical Islamists – a claim that has been widely debunked. He has also alleged that Muslim community leaders are uncooperative with law enforcement and impede the process of finding and exposing potential extremists.

"Our community organizations have, for a long time, been playing a frontline role," countered Beutel. Instead of rhetoric, "[w]e need to let the data lead the discourse," he argued, citing a joint Duke University and University of North Carolina report that found that 40 percent of terrorist suspects apprehended since the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks were reported to authorities by fellow Muslims.

"We believe that these [King's] baseless accusations will put the Muslim population in danger," Naeem Baig, vice president of Public Affairs for the Islamic Circle of North America, told reporters Wednesday.

Misplaced Priorities

Many groups have urged that the hearings be cancelled. Instead, Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, argued in the New York Times Tuesday that the proceedings should take place and be used as "an opportunity to educate Americans about [the Muslim] community's diversity and faith".

"Muslims should embrace the chance to explain their beliefs fully and clearly. We have nothing to hide," Ahmed said. "But members of Congress also need to act responsibly. They should avoid broad accusations, and be aware that the hearings will be closely followed worldwide."

"We're not in denial in our community that something is going on. There are bad elements in every community" explained Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, representing the Council of Muslim Organizations in Wednesday's press conference. The issue is King's approach, the speakers contended.

"Congress simply has no business examining Americans' religious or political beliefs in official hearings – even if these beliefs are considered 'radical' by some," 42 civil liberties and free speech organizations wrote in a letter to King and other leading lawmakers dated Tuesday.

"Fear and misunderstanding should not drive our government policies," asserted the rights groups, which included the ACLU, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Friends of the Earth.

Meanwhile, accused of scape-goating and fear-mongering, King defends the hearings as "essential", while supporters claim they are overdue.

"It should be no surprise that such [critical] groups have been aggressively vilifying the chairman as a 'racist' and 'bigot', assailing his choice of witnesses, including an authentic Muslim reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and denouncing the whole hearing enterprise as an example of 'Islamophobia' and McCarthyism," wrote Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, in the Washington Times Tuesday.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, has been selected by President Trump to replace National Security Adviser McMaster, marking a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

The Institute for the Study of War is a D.C.-based counterinsurgency think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

New NSA John Bolton represents an existential threat to the Iran nuclear deal and any hopes for peace in the region.

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.