by Edward
we interrupt our self-imposed hiatus to bring you the following rant:
Despite the likes of the so-called comedian Michael Graham, who still refuses to apologize for calling Islam a “terrorist organization” on his radio show, US Muslims are responding to the growing tension since the attacks in London with restraint, maturity, and a very clear message about where they stand:
Top U.S. Muslim scholars issued a “fatwa,” or religious edict, against terrorism on Thursday and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence.
The fatwa was part of efforts by U.S. Muslims to counter perceived links between Islam and terrorism and avert any negative backlash after this month’s bombings by suspected Islamic extremists in London and Egypt.
“Having our religious scholars side by side with our community leaders leaves no room for anybody to suggest that Islam and Muslims condone or support any forms or acts of terrorism,” said Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, one of the groups which announced the fatwa.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said it was the first time Muslims in North America had issued an anti-terrorism edict, although they had repeatedly condemned such acts of violence.
Specifically, the edict states:
It is ‘haram’ [forbidden] for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians,” he quoted the ruling as saying.
Personally, I expect the rhetoric to get uglier before it gets better. There are folks who’ve been chomping at the bit to get dangerously binary about the issue, including this hack, arguing that subway riders shouldn’t be inconvenienced for their own safety unless they fit his perceived profile:
[T]he New York Police Department has advised subway riders to be alert for “people” in bulky clothes who sweat or fiddle nervously with bags.
Well, a lot of people wear bulky clothes. A lot of people fiddle with their bags. And for that matter, a lot of people sweat. Could the Police Department be any more general in describing the traits of an Islamic suicide bomber? Could its advice be more useless?
Truth be told, commuters need to be most aware of young men praying to Allah and smelling like flower water.
Excuse me, sir. I don’t understand what you’re mumbling…are you praying to Allah? And what’s that cologne you’re wearing?
If there’s one sure way to ensure more moderates join the radicals, it’s ill-concieved, fear-mongering crap like this. America’s Muslims are doing their part. The least the rest of the nation can do is agree to the minor inconviences that show our fellow citizens we’re all in this together.
I was listening to the Pat Campbell show this morning on the way into work, and Campbell actually had a local imam taking calls. Amazing, the equanimity of the man, considering some of the callers. One guy told him the Muslims, all Muslims, had an agenda and were not to be trusted. The imam calmly told him that he was wrong, that there were Muslims serving our country in the armed forces, and that basically he needed to get out more.
But I take issue with this moderates-joining-the-radicals thing, Edward. Is there a point where you’d do that which you excoriate others for doing?
But I take issue with this moderates-joining-the-radicals thing, Edward. Is there a point where you’d do that which you excoriate others for doing?
What does that mean?
But I take issue with this moderates-joining-the-radicals thing, Edward. Is there a point where you’d do that which you excoriate others for doing?
I’m sure there’s a point we all would Slarti.
Muslims already go through their daily lives looking over their shoulders somewhat in the US. Being Muslim has never made you popular in this country. I’ve had conversations with very secular Muslims and watched them suggest that if vigilantes start attacking their families randomly, they wouldn’t know where else to turn except the radicals. They sure as hell don’t want to do that, but if the attack on them is indiscriminate, what choice do they have? Offer themselves up for the slaughter?
Great to see you back here, even for a day!
This idiot works for a Disney-owned station, maybe time for some of us to let the Mouse House know that Looney Tunes work best in cartoons.
thanks wilfred…
by the way all, wilfred has a great post on Graham on Liberal Street Fighter.
It is nice to see you back here, Edward. Come back when you have time. And in the meantime, please stay away from explosives.
I’m kidding. Really.
Personally, I don’t think the random searches are going to do a thing to deter any suicide bombers that might be around. Suppose you were a suicide bomber and a policeperson challanged you. What would you do? Blow yourself (and him/her) up, of course. Maybe you wouldn’t detonate in the ideal position, but Allah (or Christ, or whomever) gives partial credit, right?
Be that as it may, however, if there are going to be searches, there should be searches of everyone. Edward has already mentioned the primary reason for this: to make the searches a thing that people in New York all have to put up with, like midtown traffic and rude cabbies, rather than marking out one subpopulation as a suspicious group to be harassed. Apart from that, however, if only young Arabic men are getting searched, then al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that wants a bomb to go off in a subway just has to recruit a few women or non-Arabic people to take on the role of suicide bomber. The shoe bomber was Jamaican and English. The Russian subway bombers were women. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were white Christian men. Still think only Islamic men need to be searched?
Edward: welcome back!
And this is wonderful news.
Personally, I don’t think the random searches are going to do a thing to deter any suicide bombers that might be around.
Exactly right. This also applies to lots of other “anti-terrorism” procedures.
At Logan airport here, and I suppose lots of other airports, you are not allowed to stop your car at the terminal, even for a minute, literally, to pick up a passenger you are meeting. This is alleged to guard against terrorists. But what terrorist with a trunk full of explosives is going to meekly drive away from the terminal because the state trooper waves him off?
Too many of these measures are purely for show or, worse, are simply an excuse for those who like to exercise authority over others to do so with no good reason.
“Muslims already go through their daily lives looking over their shoulders somewhat in the US. Being Muslim has never made you popular in this country. I’ve had conversations with very secular Muslims and watched them suggest that if vigilantes start attacking their families randomly, they wouldn’t know where else to turn except the radicals. They sure as hell don’t want to do that, but if the attack on them is indiscriminate, what choice do they have? Offer themselves up for the slaughter?”
Well, there are a large number of useful things they could be doing before it got anywhere near that point. Which is precisely why the fatwa is a nice thing finally. A large reason terrorists can function is that they travel in communities which support them informally. If you can contribute to an atmosphere where that would be intolerable (something that many Muslims can contribute to) that would be a huge step.
“Too many of these measures are purely for show or, worse, are simply an excuse for those who like to exercise authority over others to do so with no good reason.”
I’m not quite so cynical about it, though I admit this mindset certainly exists. I suspect that many obvious (but useless) steps are taken because government officials don’t have a great idea about what should be done, but they don’t dare be seen doing nothing while they try to figure it out.
A large reason terrorists can function is that they travel in communities which support them informally.
I’ll agree to this and go one step further. I do feel that moderate Muslims aren’t as good at being vocal about how they feel as other minorities are (and certainly not as good as the radicals are). Irshad Manji being a good exception. I don’t know if that’s cultural or not, but I know that one-on-one, they’re very clear about their stand.
If we have random searches on entering the subway, where does it stop? Searches on entering movie theaters? Restaurants? Shopping malls? Walking along the sidewalk?
That’s aside from the point that in New York people can just refuse to be searched and leave, which is presumably what any would-be terrorist will do, and then go in through a different entrance.
In a similar move, 120 Canadian immans issued a strongly worded condemnation of islamic terrorism last Thursday and endorsed the British Sunni fatwa that had been issued shortly before. (I have no idea if formally endorsing a fatwa is the equivalent of actually issuing one).
If we have random searches on entering the subway, where does it stop? Searches on entering movie theaters? Restaurants? Shopping malls? Walking along the sidewalk?
I don’t think they’re a good idea either, but if they’re going to happen, they need to be a burden for everyone, not just those who fit a profile.
The fact that many New Yorkers went up and offered to be searched, however, tells me folks cling to measures like this to reassure them they’re safer.
“I don’t think they’re a good idea either, but if they’re going to happen, they need to be a burden for everyone, not just those who fit a profile.”
This I can’t agree with. They can be a bad idea, I’m probably ok with not doing them. But if you do them, they most certainly should not be random. They should be targeted. That would be the whole point of bothering with them if it isn’t to be just a pure “see, we’re doing something” exercise.
The fact that many New Yorkers went up and offered to be searched, however, tells me folks cling to measures like this to reassure them they’re safer.
Which, of course, they aren’t, for the many reasons already pointed out. And any misguidedly-patriotic dingus who volunteers to be searched is a) a fool for merrily waiving his or her civil liberties, paving a pathway for more of this time-wasting stuff, and b) a bigger fool for distracting police from the admittedly small possibility of spotting and searching an actual threat.
agree totally Phil
I’ve vowed to walk to the next station if I’m asked to open my bags. I don’t like it at all.
Sebastian, I disagree with your opinion on this for two reasons. First, it’s silly to assume terrorists would continue to use bombers who match the profile being targeted, so assertions that the police action would be more effective that way doesn’t ring true to me. Second, this will create more rather than less tension, not only among Muslims (or Brazilians) but among other commuters who see someone who in their minds fits the profile NOT be searched.
I can’t see any scenario in which profiling makes sense.
Profiling is the worst of all possible worlds. As there haven’t been any US nationals who’ve bombed the US (at least no Muslim ones), I’m guessing that there are a very small number of people willing to be bombers in the US. If you profile based purely on race/religion, you will create a suspect class that has reason to view the government with suspicion. You impose a cost on a community that in not very much more of a threat than the general community, and then, in the future, will openly wonder why they don’t appreciate the larger community more. You will not, however, catch terrorists; they will look for unguarded targets.
Although I guess it’s possible the Muslim community will respond to the targeted searches with flowers and candy.
“Looney Tunes” are a creation of Warner Brothers, not Disney.
Although I guess it’s possible the Muslim community will respond to the targeted searches with flowers and candy.
Classic.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
now, since we are in GSAVE, and here in the US we’ve been attacked by the Unabomber, McVeigh, Randolph and Reid recently, how is it exactly “reasonable” to profile?
“First, it’s silly to assume terrorists would continue to use bombers who match the profile being targeted, so assertions that the police action would be more effective that way doesn’t ring true to me. Second, this will create more rather than less tension, not only among Muslims (or Brazilians) but among other commuters who see someone who in their minds fits the profile NOT be searched.”
I don’t think just anyone is available, so I’m not totally sure that the Islamist terrorists can just switch away from their profile. But if they can, then sure it would be useless and therefore unhelpful. But if they can switch so easily such would be unhelpful because the profile was useless not because random searches are inherently better than targeted searches. In other words, I’m totally willing to accept that such searches are a virtually useless measure and therefore abandon them altogether. I’m not willing to argue BOTH that searches are effective and that random searches are therefore the way to go because it is almost impossible that uninformed searches would be better than informed ones. Searching Korean grandmothers isn’t going to help. It just isn’t addressing the problem.
I totally agree that the searches are likely to cause more short term tension. And if the average Muslim response to that is “I should be mad at the US and perhaps support terrorists in my community” rather than “I should be mad at the terrorists and create a help create a community where they are not supported” then they are likely to be really bad. But if that is true, there is also some serious work that the Muslim community ought to be doing itself because it has MUCH more serious problems than previously admitted by the Muslim community.
Which is why this fatwa is encouraging, though severely late. It suggests that some in the Muslim-American community are moving beyond speaking against terrorism to actually denouncing it in the sense of being willing to change their own community to stop the support which the terrorists need–and thus far have been getting. It is a great first step.
It’s at least as silly to assume otherwise. In fact, they have no incentive to change tactics unless we change ours. We change nothing; they change nothing, and they remain as effective as before.
SH:
And if the average Muslim response to that is “I should be mad at the US and perhaps support terrorists in my community” rather than….because it has MUCH more serious problems than previously admitted by the Muslim community.
This is precisely the argument that has been used to justify aggressive policing (relative to the policing of other races) of African-Americans. (1) There is a higher percentage chance that any African-American has committed a crime than any white American. (2)This does not mean that they should regard the government with suspicion. (3)If they want to be treated better by the authorities, they need to improve their own community.
My general sense is that this has been bad for police relationships with African-American communities. Moreover, the moral argument for collective punishment (i.e., disparate treatment because of the behavior of someone from your race) escapes me. This seems bad on both the policy ends and the ideal justifications.
If the police have specific allegations about a potential terrorist, they should stop and search as necessary. But general target searches are bad, bad policy. Living in an open society means accepting a number of risks. If people want to put together a federal program to help others who are unwilling to accept such risks find more congenial climes, fine. There are a number of countries where the security/freedom set point favors more security. But I’m really unwilling to give up my open society.
Do we actually know the 7/7 bombers were suicide bombers? That simultaneous detonation still strikes me as screwy; do the police know for sure that the guys carrying the bombs detonated them, or did they find remote-trigger devices?
The reason I ask this is that, if terrorists are using unwitting mules – people who think they’re on a practice run, or that they’re going to leave the bombs and get away before detonation – a psy-ops campaign might be able to drive a wedge between terrorist masterminds and their followers.
Remember, at least some of the 9/11 hijackers didn’t know they were on a suicide mission. Atta only told his more trusted co-conspirators what the real plan was.
In Iraq, suicide bombers consider themselves soldiers: dying in battle is part of the accepted role. In Palestine, terrorist groups use that same mystique (fighting for a Palestinian state) and they also recruit people who are freshly grief-stricken. What I’m getting at is that the mindset of a suicide bomber in Iraq or Palestine is possibly very different from someone in London, or Paris, or the US.
Take it as a given that a suicide bomber isn’t just crazy, but is a special variety of crazy that wants to go out in a blaze of glory and take as many people as possible along, too. There just can’t be all that many people of that particular pathology in non-war zones – and how many of them are also functional enough to be reliable conspirators?
If terrorists are using mules, it might be a worthwhile tactic to make a big deal of that. Say, an ad campaign that doesn’t appeal to higher values, but instead makes a point of how terrorists are playing people for fools, using them, lying to them, letting them pay the ultimate price without even “doing them the honor” of telling them. Something like “They think you’re a patsy. They don’t respect or value you; they’re laughing at you, even as they pack the bomb in your bag and pat you on the shoulder.”
Something like that might not do much. But it might, as I said, drive a wedge between the terrorist controllers and the kids who have some romantic notion of what they’re getting involved in. Might make it harder for the terrorists to recruit people.
Something like that might not do much. But it might, as I said, drive a wedge between the terrorist controllers and the kids who have some romantic notion of what they’re getting involved in. Might make it harder for the terrorists to recruit people.
It is for comments like this, among other reasons, that I still read ObWi.
It’s at least as silly to assume otherwise. In fact, they have no incentive to change tactics unless we change ours. We change nothing; they change nothing, and they remain as effective as before.
But we avoid the social and monetary costs of implementing an measure that pisses off a segment of honest Americans in exchange for momentary, at best, protection.
Despite the likes of the so-called comedian Michael Graham
Say what you will, but Michael Graham has worked hard to get where he is today. Once he was merely a small-town contrarian with a grudge against South Carolina public radio, a column in the local free weekly, and a fetish for H.L. Mencken (after whom he named one of his daughters).
Say what you will, but Michael Graham has worked hard to get where he is today.
That’s the saddest thing I’ve read all week.
Pshaw! He’s done good for a boy from Oral Roberts University. And hereabouts he’s practically a celebrity. I used to run into him now and then. In person Graham reminds me a little of Jared from the Subway commercials, with, of course, the Republican Party replacing the six-inch chicken teriyaki in his esteem.
sorry for poking fun at your friend Paul, but his opinion piece is astonishingly offensive and poorly thought-out, IMO. If you run into him again, ask him to keep in mind that his medium is powerful (just ask the Tutsis in Rwanda) and he needs to respect it more.
with, of course, the Republican Party replacing the six-inch chicken teriyaki in his esteem.
Did anyone else’s mind go to a bad, bad place?
sorry for poking fun at your friend Paul
Needed more smilies, obviously. Graham has worked hard, too bad it’s only on perfecting his P.J. O’Rourke-meets-Michael Savage act. Graham’s rise from small-town “angry guy” columnist, to middling professional pundit, largely on the strength of his snark, outrage, and political connections–I imagine his avid support for the SCGOP in general and this administration in particular haven’t hurt him–is a lesson in 21st century media.
Slightly OT, I think it is *great* news that the UK police have rounded up four guys that they think are the most recent batch of would-be bombers. It could all change, of course, but if they have the right guys, this is *fabulous*. The sort of break our side should catch more often.
And, yes, I thought it was a damned shame that they killed that Brazilian guy. Worth reading Daniel Davies’ post on the MBA guide to shooting people–sane, rueful sense.
Still–very good news if they have some of the right guys.
On the issue of targeted (profiled) searches versus random, I think targeted searches would actually be easier for potential terrorists to evade. If one knows that such and such a person is likely to be searched, the answer to how to smuggle something (such as a bomb onto a subway) is obvious: use a person who does not fit the profile. This could be done either by recruiting people who don’t look like a US-Americans or Brit’s idea of who a suicide bomber is (ie someone white, female, older), altering the bomber’s appearance in a way that makes them look non-suspicious (ie have them wear a uniform), or use mules (ie have the bomber offer a homeless person $5 to take a package downtown). If anyone might be searched then none of the above would work, but any of them would be likely to work against a police force told to watch out only for young Arabic men.
If anyone might be searched then none of the above would work, but any of them would be likely to work against a police force told to watch out only for young Arabic men.
As Bruce Schneier puts it, if you create two paths through security, one easy and one hard, you invite attackers to try to take the easy path.
A “moderate” who can be driven into the arms of extremism by an intemperate letter to the editor was never all that moderate to begin with. Do we really all have to be on our best behavior, lest the moderate Muslims start strapping on bomb vests?
And while it may seem nice to have a fatwah against terrorism, the real problem here is the extremism inherent in the idea that a fatwah can immediately and totally alter the actions of Muslims on an issue as fundamental as whether it’s OK to murder civillians. That’s the sort of absolutism that gave us terrorism to begin with. What if another imam comes along with a new fatwah that says, hey, terrorism is OK?
What is needed is not a fatwa from a particular leader or group of leaders, but the simple, widespread condemnation of terrorism by Muslims at the grass-roots level — not because any imam ordered them to, but simply because on a personal level they find it immoral.