|
Chronology of Islam in America (2013)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
August 2013
Thanks to NSA surveillance, Americans are more worried about civil liberties than terrorism
August 1: Senate Judiciary Committee Last week's narrow House vote against the Amash Amendment, which was aimed at stopping the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' phone records, reflects a narrow split among the general public. The vote was 217 to 205, meaning that 49 percent of the legislators who participated wanted to end the program, while 51 percent wanted it to continue. Similarly, the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted over the weekend, found that 44 percent of Americans oppose "the government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts," while 50 percent support it; the rest were undecided or declined to answer. A month ago in the same survey, 48 percent were in favor and 47 percent were opposed. While that shift suggests a slight increase in support for NSA surveillance, the new survey also found that 47 percent of Americans worry that counterterrorism policies "have gone too far in restricting civil liberties," compared to 35 percent who worry that they "have not gone far enough to protect the country." According to Pew, "This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004." [Reason]
Joint Terrorism Task Force interrogates couple after Google search pressure cookers, backpacks
August 2: It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday (July 31, 2013) morning. Little did we know our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things was creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history. Most of it was innocent enough. I had researched pressure cookers. My husband was looking for a backpack. And maybe in another time those two things together would have seemed innocuous, but we are in “these times” now. And in these times, when things like the Boston bombing happen, you spend a lot of time on the internet reading about it and, if you are my exceedingly curious news junkie of a twenty-year-old son, you click a lot of links when you read the myriad of stories. Which might not raise any red flags. Because who wasn’t reading those stories? Who wasn’t clicking those links? But my son’s reading habits combined with my search for a pressure cooker and my husband’s search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters. That’s how I imagine it played out, anyhow. Lots of bells and whistles and a crowd of task force workers huddled around a computer screen looking at our Google history. [Michele Catalano – ICH]
Interfaith Iftar Dinner at the Oklahoma State Capitol aims to build bridges of connection
August 3: Celebrate the diversity of Oklahoma and find the courage to build bridges of connection with people who are different. That was the message shared by University of Central Oklahoma President Don Betz at the third annual Oklahoma State Capitol Interfaith Iftar Dinner last week at the state Capitol.The event, held in the Capitol's second-floor rotunda, drew a crowd of about 225 to join with Muslims as they prepared to break their Ramadan fast with dinner and sweet dates, a fruit traditionally eaten at sunset. During Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting, observant Muslims abstain from food, drink and sensual pleasures from dawn to sunset. Iftar is the meal they eat at sunset. The event was co-hosted by state Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, Sen. John Sparks, R-Norman, and Sen. Tom Ivester, D-Sayre. Virgin, who hosted the first two Capitol Iftar events, said the dinner was one of her favorite activities because of the interfaith fellowship. “We get to reflect on how we are all alike, rather than how we are different,” she said. Betz, as the evening's keynote speaker, said members of the crowd were helping to shape the face of Oklahoma. “Your interest sends a crucial message well beyond these chambers that this is not a state that is stagnant ... and that change is crucial.” [The Oklahoman]
Oak Creek: An act of home-grown terrorism
August 3: It's been a year since Wade Michael Page opened fire at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Since then, some basic facts about Page have come to light. We now know that he was involved with white supremacy groups and that he was the founding member and vocalist for a neo-Nazi band. A former soldier, he had been heard to disparage Muslims, calling them "towel heads." Even Page's body served as a temple for his racist beliefs, bearing a tattoo of the number "14." Among white supremacists, this stands for a 14-word credo coined by one of their heroes, David Lane: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The terrorist threat posed by neo-Nazi groups in the United States is real and deadly. Yet even in the aftermath of Oak Creek, it is not taken all that seriously. A single congressional hearing was held in the weeks after the attack, but little came of it. Yes, the FBI will soon track hate crimes committed against Sikhs, just as it does for Muslims, Jews, atheists and others. But no comprehensive investigation of this home-grown threat has occurred. On the other hand, the targeting of religious minorities continues. The New York Police Department continues to scrutinize Muslim student groups and mosques, even when it has no evidence of wrongdoing. And Sikh men are still subject to secondary searches or pat-downs every time they travel because turbans are considered a potential security threat under Transportation Security Administration guidelines. I often wonder what a young child thinks when he sees a Sikh traveler singled out and separated from his peers. It's hard to break down stereotypes when those who look different are treated differently. [Arjun Sethi - Los Angeles Times ]
More states move anti-Sharia laws
August 4: Besides North Carolina six other states — Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee — have already enacted similar legislation since 2010, and at least 25 have introduced such measures, according to the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project. One exception to this trend is Missouri. In June, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed a foreign law bill, saying it would make international adoptions more difficult. Many of the bills, including North Carolina's, would apply only in situations in which invoking foreign law would violate a person's constitutional rights. "They exist purely to create a conversation around what sharia is," said Corey Saylor, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The wave of state action began in Oklahoma in 2010, when a voter initiative to prohibit sharia in state courts passed with 70% of the popular vote. In 2012, a federal circuit court struck down the measure. [USA Today]
U.S. judge permanently bans Oklahoma Islamic law vote
August 14: A federal judge today prohibited Oklahoma officials from certifying the results of a 2010 statewide election that approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange permanently enjoined the State Election Board and its secretary, Paul Ziriax, from certifying results of the vote in which State Question 755 was approved by Oklahoma voters. The measure was passed with 70 percent of the vote on Nov. 2, 2010. Muneer Awad, former executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, challenged the constitutional amendment in a lawsuit that claimed it would stigmatize his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law. CAIR's current executive director, Adam Soltani, said the decision reinforces a ruling Miles-LaGrange almost three years ago in which she approved a temporary restraining order barring certification of the election's results. That decision was later upheld by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. [NewsOK]
GPS Tracking and Secret Policies
August 16: This week brought fresh revelations about the National Security Agency’s sloppy and invasive collection of phone data on Americans and others, as reported first by The Washington Post. In another realm of surveillance — the government’s broad use of location tracking devices — the Justice Department was in federal court yesterday defending its refusal to release memos containing information about its policies governing the use of GPS and other potentially invasive technologies. The American Civil Liberties Union had brought the lawsuit to demand that the department make the memos public. The documents were prepared after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Jones, which held that placement of a hidden tracking device on a suspect’s car constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. That case left lots of questions unanswered, including whether GPS tracking always requires a warrant based on probable cause, and how the Fourth Amendment applies to tracking someone 24/7 with cellphone location technology. After the decision was released, the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Andrew Weissmann, mentioned in a public talk that the government was issuing memos containing official guidance for federal agents and prosecutors on when they can use tracking technology and how the Jones decision applies to other types of techniques, beyond GPS. The public has a right to know the government’s policies on these matters. There is very good reason to be concerned about the government’s interpretation of its police powers, especially given the Obama administration’s insensitivity to privacy in its mass collection of phone data in the national security sphere.
When the A.C.L.U. filed a request for the memos under the Freedom of Information Act, the Justice Department responded by handing over copies with the text nearly entirely blanked out, prompting the lawsuit. The Justice Department claims that the memos were prepared anticipating litigation and are exempt from disclosure because they are a lawyer’s work product. But to the extent Mr. Weissmann accurately represented the memos, they also amount to statements of official policy, not merely exchanges by lawyers on legal theories, which the work-product exception is meant to protect. Our strong hunch is that there is material in the memos that can and should be revealed without harm to law enforcement or the appropriate discussion of confidential legal strategies. At Thursday’s hearing, Judge William Pauley III said he would personally review the documents before deciding whether they should be released. It is distressing that the administration, which claims to welcome a debate over the government’s surveillance practices, time and again refuses to be transparent about those practices. Instead of awaiting a court order, the administration should release the tracking memos on its own. [The New York Times Editorial Board]
GPS Tracking and Secret Policies
August 16: This week brought fresh revelations about the National Security Agency’s sloppy and invasive collection of phone data on Americans and others, as reported first by The Washington Post. In another realm of surveillance — the government’s broad use of location tracking devices — the Justice Department was in federal court yesterday defending its refusal to release memos containing information about its policies governing the use of GPS and other potentially invasive technologies. The American Civil Liberties Union had brought the lawsuit to demand that the department make the memos public. The documents were prepared after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Jones, which held that placement of a hidden tracking device on a suspect’s car constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. That case left lots of questions unanswered, including whether GPS tracking always requires a warrant based on probable cause, and how the Fourth Amendment applies to tracking someone 24/7 with cellphone location technology. After the decision was released, the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Andrew Weissmann, mentioned in a public talk that the government was issuing memos containing official guidance for federal agents and prosecutors on when they can use tracking technology and how the Jones decision applies to other types of techniques, beyond GPS. The public has a right to know the government’s policies on these matters. There is very good reason to be concerned about the government’s interpretation of its police powers, especially given the Obama administration’s insensitivity to privacy in its mass collection of phone data in the national security sphere.
When the A.C.L.U. filed a request for the memos under the Freedom of Information Act, the Justice Department responded by handing over copies with the text nearly entirely blanked out, prompting the lawsuit. The Justice Department claims that the memos were prepared anticipating litigation and are exempt from disclosure because they are a lawyer’s work product. But to the extent Mr. Weissmann accurately represented the memos, they also amount to statements of official policy, not merely exchanges by lawyers on legal theories, which the work-product exception is meant to protect. Our strong hunch is that there is material in the memos that can and should be revealed without harm to law enforcement or the appropriate discussion of confidential legal strategies. At Thursday’s hearing, Judge William Pauley III said he would personally review the documents before deciding whether they should be released. It is distressing that the administration, which claims to welcome a debate over the government’s surveillance practices, time and again refuses to be transparent about those practices. Instead of awaiting a court order, the administration should release the tracking memos on its own. [The New York Times Editorial Board]
Continued on next page
2013 January February March April May June
July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
|
