|
Chronology of Islam in America (2013)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
February 2013 - Page Two
30 Major U.S. Companies Spent More on Lobbying than Taxes
Feb 15: Thirty large American corporations spent more money on lobbying than they paid in federal taxes from 2008 to 2010, according to a report from the nonpartisan reform group Public Campaign. All of the companies were profitable at the time. In spite of this, and the massive federal budget deficit, 29 out of the 30 companies featured in the study managed through various legal tax-dodging measures to pay no federal income taxes at all from 2008 through 2010. The lone exception, FedEx (FDX), paid a three-year tax rate of 1%, nowhere near the 35% called for by the federal tax code. In fact, the report explains, the 29 companies that paid no tax actually received tax rebates over those three years, "ranging from $4 million for Corning (GLW) to nearly $5 billion for General Electric (GE)." The total value of the rebates received was nearly $11 billion; combined profits during the same period were $164 billion. The amounts spent on lobbying ranged from $710,000 by Intergrys Energy Group to $84 million by General Electric. Others that spent heavily on lobbyists were PG&E (PCG), Verizon (VZ), Boeing (BA) and FedEx. It all added up to a total of almost half a billion dollars -- $476 million -- over three years. Or, as the report notes, "in other words, roughly $400,000 each day, including weekends." The same firms spent an additional $22 million on donations to federal campaigns. Logically enough, the two biggest contributors were defense contractors: Honeywell International (more than $5 million) and Boeing ($3.85 million). General Electric wasn't far behind ($3.64 million). [Daily Finance/Information Clearing House]
Is the FBI’s Community Outreach Program a Trojan Horse?
Feb 15: In December 2011, the ACLU released FBI documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which showed that San Francisco FBI agents were exploiting community outreach programs for intelligence-gathering purposes. Now it appears FBI agents in Minneapolis have adopted this ruse, and may be using it in even more sinister ways. As the nation’s predominant federal law enforcement agency, the FBI has a duty to communicate with the public—both to provide information about FBI activities and to hear grievances—so it can address specific community concerns. The FBI’s community outreach program, organized under its Office of Public Affairs, was established to fulfill this obligation, and much of its work is laudable. But the FBI documents we received show that at least since 2005, in an increasingly formal and systematic process that lasted well into 2011, the FBI used community outreach programs to collect information about First Amendment-protected activity for intelligence and investigative purposes.
In 2008, the FBI Directorate of Intelligence formalized the intersection of community outreach and intelligence gathering by creating its own “community outreach” files under its Domain Management program (identified by an 800-series case file number), to “enhance the . . . network of contacts with community leaders . . . who can assist the FBI and fellow federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies in combating terrorism.” Under this program, intelligence agents either make their own community outreach presentations, as documented in this 2008 memo, or accompany FBI community outreach specialists to meetings to collect intelligence, as documented in this heavily-redacted 2009 memo. The San Francisco FBI also had a “mosque outreach” program that it exploited in similar ways. In response the FBI issued a press statement quoted in the Los Angeles Times that defended the collection as “within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity,” but also suggested that new rules would prevent repetition. “…Since that time, the FBI has formalized its community relations program to emphasize a greater distinction between outreach and operational activities.” The new rules appear to be an improvement, but only if FBI agents follow them.
A new report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest American-Muslim civil rights organization, indicates they aren’t. On January 30, 2013, CAIR issued a press release welcoming the initiation of an internal FBI investigation into its allegation that two FBI agents threatened and harassed a Somali immigrant in Minnesota in an attempt to coerce him into becoming an informant. The happiness didn’t last long, however. According to a new complaint filed by CAIR, days later an FBI agent arrived unannounced at the doorstep of its Minneapolis chapter director, Lori Saroya. When later contacted by a CAIR representative, the agent claimed that the purpose of the visit was community outreach. Suspicious—based on the ACLU’s reporting on the FBI’s misuse of community outreach and the absence of reports that other homes in the community were visited—a CAIR attorney called the agent back. Here’s how CAIR described the interaction: “When CAIR-MN's [attorney] later called [the agent] and asked if he was assigned to the division’s community outreach program, [the agent] responded that he was not and stated that he is a field law enforcement agent who wanted to speak to a member of Ms. Saroya's household for a ‘meet and greet.”
So once again, it appears FBI agents are improperly exploiting the good will established through its community outreach programs as a method of gaining access to community members for investigative purposes. Trained FBI investigators know that showing up unannounced at someone’s home is intimidating, and they could have contacted Ms. Saroya by telephone or at her office to set up an appointment if the true purpose was a simple “meet and greet” with a member of her household. Coming as it did days after CAIR’s success in triggering an investigation into Minneapolis FBI activity, Ms. Saroya requested Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the visit was an “attempt to intimidate a highly-regarded community leader” after the field office received “negative media attention” as a result of CAIR’s advocacy. We agree that this matter deserves Justice Department scrutiny. The ACLU has previously called on the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate the FBI’s illegal information-collection practices at community events in its San Francisco and Sacramento divisions.
For others who are approached by FBI agents claiming to be engaged in a community outreach effort, this episode provides a good example of how to respond. First, seek legal representation because any statements made to FBI agents, even community outreach agents, may be used against you. And second, be sure your lawyer asks whether the person is assigned to the community outreach program. The agent should be able to provide documentation to verify his role, and should be willing to explain the information collection regulations that will apply to any conversation. Such formality might seem unnecessary, but unfortunately, the FBI already undermined the trust in its community outreach programs. The only way it can recover this trust is for the Justice Department and the Inspector General to conduct full investigations of these FBI practices. Most importantly, the FBI must come clean and engage with the public in a forthright and transparent manner. [Mike German, ACLU, Washington Legislative Office]
Obama, The US And The Muslim World: The Animosity Deepens
Feb 15: In his first inaugural address, back in 2009, Barack Obama announced: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Improving how the US was perceived among the world's 1.6 billion Muslims was not about winning an international popularity contest but was deemed as vital to US national security. Even the Pentagon has long recognized that the primary cause of anti-American Terrorism is the "negative attitude" toward the US: obviously, the reason people in that part of the world want to attack the US - as opposed to Peru or South Africa or China - is because they perceive a reason to do so. Obama's most devoted supporters have long hailed his supposedly unique ability to improve America's standing in that part of the world. In his first of what would be many paeans to Obama, Andrew Sullivan wrote back in 2007 that among Obama's countless assets, "first and foremost [is] his face", which would provide "the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan". Sullivan specifically imagined a "young Pakistani Muslim" seeing Obama as "the new face of America"; instantly, proclaimed Sullivan, "America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm". Obama would be "the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology" because it "proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can". Sullivan made clear why this matters so much: "such a re-branding is not trivial - it's central to an effective war strategy." None of that has happened. In fact, the opposite has taken place: although it seemed impossible to achieve, Obama has presided over an America that, in many respects, is now even more unpopular in the Muslim world than it was under George Bush and Dick Cheney. That is simply a fact. Poll after poll has proven it. In July, 2011, the Washington Post reported: "The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated." Citing a poll of numerous Middle East countries that had just been released, the Post explained: "In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration."
A 2011 Arab American Institute poll found that "US favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings." The same year, a poll of public opinion in Egypt - arguably the most strategically important nation in the region and the site of Obama's 2009 Cairo speech - found pervasively unfavorable views of the US at or even below the levels of the Bush years. A 2012 Pew poll of six predominantly Muslim nations found not only similar or worse perceptions of the US as compared to the Bush years, but also documented that China is vastly more popular in that part of the world than the US. In that region, the US and Israel are still considered, by far, to be the two greatest threats to peace. In sum, while Europeans still adore Obama, the US is more unpopular than ever in the Muslim world. A newly released Gallup poll from Thursday, this one surveying public opinion in Pakistan, provides yet more powerful evidence of this dangerous trend. As Gallup summarized: "more than nine in 10 Pakistanis (92%) disapprove of US leadership and 4% approve, the lowest approval rating Pakistanis have ever given". Worse, "a majority (55%) say interaction between Muslim and Western societies is 'more of a threat' [than a benefit], up significantly from 39% in 2011." Disapproval of the US in this nuclear-armed nation has exploded under Obama to record highs. It is not hard to understand why this is happening. Indeed, the slightest capacity for empathy makes it easy. It is not - as self-loving westerners like to tell themselves - because there is some engrained, inherent, primitive anti-Americanism in these cultures. To the contrary, there is substantial affection for US culture and "the American people" in these same countries, especially among the young.
What accounts for this pervasive hostility toward the US is clear: US actions in their country. As a Rumsfeld-era Pentagon study concluded: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." In particular, it is "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" - justified in the name of stopping Terrorism - that "paradoxically elevate[s] the stature of and support for Islamic radicals". Just consider how Americans view their relentless bombing attacks via drone versus how the rest of the world perceives them. It is not hyperbole to say that America is a rogue nation when it comes to its drone wars, standing almost alone in supporting it. The Pew poll from last June documented that "in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes." The finding was stark: "in 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia." That means that "Americans are the clear outliers on this issue": In sum, if you continually bomb another country and kill their civilians, not only the people of that country but the part of the world that identifies with it will increasingly despise the country doing it. That's the ultimate irony, the most warped paradox, of US discourse on these issues: the very policies that Americans constantly justify by spouting the Terrorism slogan are exactly what causes anti-American hatred and anti-American Terrorism in the first place. The most basic understanding of human nature renders that self-evident, but this polling data indisputably confirms it. [Glenn Greenwald - information Clearing House]
CAIR-AZ Chairman leads prayer on Arizona Senate floor
Feb 17: the Arizona State Senate's prayer invocation was led by Anas Hlayhel - the Chairman of the Arizona Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-AZ.). Hlayhel, who also serves as the part time imam of the Islamic Center of the Northeast Valley led the lawmakers and all those in attendance through the reading of al-Fatiha (the opening chapter of the Holy Quran) in addition to an additional prayer thereafter. CAIR thanked State Senator Katie Hobbs for extending the gracious invitation as well as hosting this momentous event. [CAIR]
Congressman says Americans need guns to protect the nation from Sharia Law
Feb 21: Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told a conservative radio show today that the GOP must oppose gun regulations to protect the country from the threat of “Sharia Law.” Appearing on The Voice of Freedom, Gohmert said he “hoped and prayed” that Congress rejects gun safety legislation, arguing that Americans may need to use the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to avoid succumbing to Muslims: [The Second Amendment] is for our protection and the founders’ quotes make that very very clear and including against a government that would run amuck. We’ve got some people who think Sharia Law should be the law of the land, forget the Constitution. But the guns are there… to make sure all of the rest of the Amendments are followed. Gohmert has a long history of Islamaphobic remarks, most recently joining Rep. Michele Bachmannn’s (R-MN) much maligned effort to investigate the alleged infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into various departments of the U.S. government. [Think Progress]
5 Broken Cameras: ADC Questions US-Israeli Agreement
Feb 22: Today ADC called on the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue an immediate apology to Emad Burnat. Also, ADC formally requested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General to initiate an immediate investigation to determine to what extent CBP officials engaged in racial profiling based on a recent agreement between the US and Israel. As you might already know, immigration officials at Los Angeles International Airport detained the Burnat family as they arrived into Los Angeles yesterday. Burnat is a Palestinian director of the Oscar-nominated documentary “5 Broken Cameras.” Burnat told ADC this morning that he, along with his wife, and their 8 year old son were questioned and threatened with deportation. Burnat told ADC that immigration officials did not apologize to him after his ordeal. “No one apologized to me and my family,” Burnat said, “all the told me was: you are free to go.” Burnat visited the United States six times last year and never faced any issues during previous visits. ADC President Warren David said today: “ADC is concerned that detaining Burnat came a result of a recent agreement between the United States and Israel.” Last week ADC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, demanding that DHS-CBP provide information pertaining to an agreement between CBP’s Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, and the Israeli Tax Authority’s Authorized Economic Operator Program. ADC is inquiring about information being shared under the agreement, and whether that information is being used to racially profile Arab nationals and Arab Americans arriving to the US from abroad. As we know, Customs and Border policies used by Israel are notorious for aggressive profiling techniques, often resulting in extensive secondary searches for individuals of Arab descent. Many US citizens travelling from the US to and from Israel have been forced to strip-searches, and a number of individuals have flatout been denied entry. The practice of using information to target Arab nationals is one used by the US government in the past. ADC has obtained exclusive documents that show how in the 1970’s the implementation of “Operation Boulder” resulted in the profiling of Arab nationals, including Arab Americans. In another FOIA filed by ADC in 2008, results obtained show that the US government shared sensitive information about Arab nationals with other nations. A memo obtained exclusively by ADC dated October 13, 1972 directs the US Embassy, Tel Aviv, to send telegrams to Washington, DC about Arabs residing in Israel or occupied territories visiting the United States. The telegrams contain “brief physical description, estimated date of arrival in the United States, local residence, and individual to be visited in the United States.” The info was furnished to the FBI, and shared with other nations. ADC will continue to address allegations of racial profiling at our borders. [ADC]
Feds looking into Port Orange shooting of Sikh as possible hate crime
Feb 25: The U.S. Department of Justice and police are investigating the shooting of a Port Orange man driving over the Dunlawton Bridge as a hate crime. The victim, 46-year-old Kanwaljit Singh, was driving with his son and wearing a head turban when he was shot at six times by people in a black truck. Two of the bullets struck Singh, who family members say was in the intensive care unit at Halifax Health Medical Center in Daytona Beach. The turban is one of the precepts of his Sikh religion, said Navtej S. Khalsa, regional director of the southeast chapter of the national Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Khalsa said his organization believes the attack on Feb 23, just after 11 p.m. was a hate crime because the shooters probably thought Singh — an American citizen of Indian descent — is from the Middle East. “Since Sept. 11, Sikhs have often been the targets of hate crimes because of their visible outward appearance, primarily the wearing of the turban,” Khalsa said. “In the past three years, hate crimes against Sikhs have risen across the country. Lou Ruffino, a spokesman with the Community Relations Service in Washington, D.C. — under the Department of Justice — confirmed that Mildred Duprey de Robles from the federal agency's Miami office would be looking into the shooting. According to the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, more than 700,000 Sikhs live in the U.S. The turban worn by men represents a commitment to equality and justice. [NewsJournal.Online]
In San Francisco Bay Area, a fragile relationship between Muslims and the FBI
Feb 28: Reservations over how the situation at the (FBI) center in Antioch was handled underscore a sometimes delicate relationship between the F.B.I. and the Muslim population near San Francisco. About a year ago, a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and other groups yielded about 15,000 documents detailing interactions between FBI agents and Muslims in that part of the state. Lawyers and activists said that the documents showed that the F.B.I. had used a mosque outreach program, meant to combat hate crimes directed at Muslims, to gather information about people engaged in lawful activities. News reports followed, along with debates over how the F.B.I. should approach the Muslim population. At the time, F.B.I. officials said those operations were appropriate. But most of the thousands of pages the F.B.I. turned over received little or no attention. Among them were reports that documented a handful of instances in which agents declined to pursue possible hate crimes. Although the F.B.I. requires that agents examine all such claims, not all result in a full investigation. Some lack dependable evidence, and agents may determine that others do not include hate-crime components as defined by federal law.... Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent and now a senior policy counsel for the A.C.L.U. in Washington, said that two instances in which the San Francisco office did not pursue investigations stood out.
One involved a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, who told agents in 2007 that he had received threatening calls from blocked numbers after including his phone number on fliers promoting an antiwar protest. One caller told the student to be “very, very careful,” an F.B.I. report stated and added, “You wouldn’t want an accident to happen to you.” The second used a racial epithet, the agents wrote, and told the caller to blow himself up “before we do it for you.” The report went on to note that F.B.I. records indicated that a person whose name was redacted, apparently the student, had previously written e-mails that “conveyed hatred toward the United States and Israel and support for the Palestinian cause.” A man named Snehal Shingavi said he was the one who had received the threats and spoken with the F.B.I. He said that the agency had not accurately characterized the views he had expressed in e-mails and added that it was improper to catalog political opinions attributed to him. “The linking of my political activity with the decision not to fully investigate the death threats is very troubling,” Mr. Shingavi said.
Also troubling, Mr. German said, was the decision not to start a hate-crime investigation after shots were fired at the Islamic Center of East Bay, given the escalating nature of the attacks there. An investigation, he said, could have solved or deterred crimes and helped foster trust between the F.B.I. and the center. “Here was an opportunity to do something to protect the community,” Mr. German said. “There is concern in the community that the F.B.I. is viewing them through only one lens, as potential suspects.” Mr. Rahman, from the center in Antioch, said that agents began contacting him regularly after the arson there, sometimes taking him to lunch. He was eager to establish a rapport, he said, but became uncomfortable when questions about the fire seemed to give way to questions about the center’s members. “After you’ve been victimized, that is not something you want to hear,” Mr. Rahman said, adding that he cautioned the agents that their work in general would not benefit from such an approach, telling them: “You’re not going to build a relationship this way.” [New York Times]
Return to page one
2013 January February March April May June
July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
|
