You are on page 1of 531

Case: Muslim Informants

Story:
They will come for you.
Imagine the FBI busting down your door in the middle of family dinner and
threatening to deport you to a random foreign country if you dont give up
your friends darkest secrets - worse, secrets you just dont have. This
scenario might seem ridiculous - after all, the FBI is the good guy, right? They
only do the right thing, dont they? But this story is frighteningly common
among Muslim communities, where the FBI consistently disrespects and
violates rights of American citizens just like you because of an illegitimate
fear of terrorism. The fear of that threat is pretty prevalent. Terrorism, the
people say! We could all die! Actually, you are more likely to die from a
refrigerator falling on top of you than being killed by an Islamic Extremist
here at home. And throughout history, we see that if we let the government
marginalize and dehumanize a minority, they end up compromising basic
human rights for all.
The FBI is abusing their informants and the communities they spy on
right now - especially in Muslim communities, where their efforts are
particularly harmful and ineffective. We are taking steps to make
their processes more efficient and more effective.
There are three specific parts to our plan.
1. Plan will create Congressional Oversight of the FBIs Domestic
Terrorist Informants and Judicial oversight of the Section 6 Visa
program
Basically, we are making sure that the FBI has a system of accountability in
using and respecting informants in a system that as of now not conducive to
producing actionable intelligence or respecting the communities it is
surveilling. Using non-executive branches to check the FBI will decrease their
abuse of power.
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required from all Muslim
informant operations.
Strict scrutiny is a standard higher than that of reasonable doubt. In this way,
we will ensure that the FBI only uses informants in cases where it is
absolutely critical to national security. The FBI will now have to be more
stringent and sure about its plans before carrying them out.

3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation of Muslim


informants and instead to grant them Section 6 Visa protection with
an explanation of the program.
Our plan fixes an existing program called the Section 6 Visa, commonly called
the snitch visa. It allows reformed terrorists with credible intelligence to
help the FBI in exchange for a visa. Right now, there are not an adequate
number of those visas available and the application process has too many
steps, leading the FBI to disregard the visa in favor of using coercive and
dehumanizing tactics to recruit informants, estranging the Muslim community
and failing to acquire actionable counterterrorism intelligence.

In all, our plan helps the FBI do its job in a more respectful and efficient way.

1AC- Affirmative

Plan
The United States federal government will substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance by limiting the
governments use of informants in Muslim communities.
These limits will be implemented in 3 specific planks.
1. Plan will reform Congressional Oversight of the FBIs
Domestic Terrorist Informants and Judicial Review of
the Section 6 Visa program
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required to
conduct all Muslim informant operations.
3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation
of Muslim informants and instead grant them Section
6 Visa protection with an explanation of the program.

Contention 1: Inherency
A. Oversight of Informants Ineffective in the status quo
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Despite the FBIs long history of problematic relationships with informants,39

both Congress and the Department of Justicethe FBIs


parent agencyprovide very little oversight of FBI
informants.

The lack of transparency, control, and accountability give the FBI almost unlimited power over how it recruits,

handles, and rewards informants.40 In particular, because of the greater secrecy afforded to national security investigations, the use of
terrorism informants presents unique problems not present in traditional, nonterrorism use of informants.

The use of informants in terrorism investigations differs


in several ways from their use in the investigation of
domestic crimes like smuggling, prostitution, and financial impropriety.
Although the FBI has41been using informants to conduct investigations
since the agencys inception, informants were traditionally used
to investigate victimless crimes
such as white-collar crimes42 and crimes dealing with

prostitution, drugs, and corruption.43 Informants proved especially useful in those cases because all parties to the crime were usually guilty
and not likely to inform authorities, making it difficult for law enforcement agents to discover the crime on their own.44 Consequently, because
individuals already part of the criminal organization or conspiracy had the trust and confidence of the organization and could provide the most

FBI has generally recruited


informants in these investigations from the inside.
useful information to law enforcement over a longer period of time, the

The FBIs Top

Echelon informant program, for example, sought to recruit high-ranking members of the mafia as informants.45 Notably, however, even the
FBIs traditional method of recruiting informants from within the criminal organizations resulted in false intelligence and botched cases.46
While there are no detailed studies on the differences between terrorism informants and traditional informants because the FBI keeps most of
this information confidential,47 broad observations can still be made. First, the FBIs preventative stance on terrorism has significantly

After 9/11, the FBI drastically


49
expanded the use of informants
from around 1,500 in
51
1975 to an estimated 15,000 today .
increased reliance on informants intelligence.48

Informants have become the number one tool for

52

preventing terrorist acts.


Second, law enforcement dealings with terrorism informants receive greater deference from courts and other
limiting actors because terrorism is considered a national security matter instead of simply a domestic law enforcement matter.53 The
executive branch has greater control over national security and foreign intelligence matters than over domestic law enforcement, an area
traditionally reserved to the states. 54 Thus, the post-9/11 characterization of terrorism as a national security matter results in courts affording
more leeway to terrorism investigations than domestic criminal investigations.55 In other words, the federal government is afforded more
secrecy in matters of national security.56 Hence, because the government can invoke national security concerns to keep information about the
informant and handler privileged, there is less regulation governing the recruitment and handling of terrorism informants than traditional
criminal informants.57

recent terrorism
investigations raise the question of whether the alleged
terrorist crimes would have occurred without law
59
enforcement instigating the terrorist activities.
Third, while false and inaccurate intelligence has generally been a problem with informants,58

Informants in these

cases aggressively instigated the defendants participation in the plot.

60

Recruiting informants who lack ties to terrorist organizations may

61

be at the root of this problem, because they lack predetermined targets known to be involved in terrorist groups.
Without these targets,
informants under pressure to avoid deportation or other immigration consequences, for example, are more likely to produce false
information.

62

Further complicating this issue, the government has suffered from credibility problems in terrorism investigations for not

always fulfilling the promises made to informants.

63

One FBI informant, a Yemeni citizen named Mohamed Alanssi, set himself on fire in

64

front of the White House after alleging that the FBI had broken numerous promises to him.
Governmental credibility is critical to
maintaining a relationship of trust between law enforcement and informants, and thereby facilitates the gathering of credible intelligence.

Due to the vast number of terrorism informants

today,

the secrecy underlying the

the recruitment
and use of informants in terrorism investigations present
unique problems to the FBI.
investigations,65 and the potential for false intelligence,

Because of increased confidentiality surrounding national security issues,

the government has the means and incentives to shield the true extent of its recruitment and use of terrorism informants from courts and the

more oversight over the FBIs


dealings with terrorism informants is needed.
public.66 To increase accountability and lessen the risk of abuse

Notably, some limits on the

FBIs use of informants do exist. However, given the secrecy surrounding national security concerns, whether these limits apply in terrorism
investigations remains unclear.

B. Post 9/11 United States Federal Governments lust


for information has pushed FBI informant policy into
counterproductive tactics
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Using the threat of immigration consequences like


deportation to produce terrorism intelligence presents novel
problems for the intelligence gathering process and the
informants. When individuals are pressured into becoming informants by
the threat of deportation, which may remove them from their family and all
sources of support, the decision essentially becomes a Hobsons choice.16

Informants recruited in this manner who also lack

17

legitimate ties to foreign terrorist organizations have an


enormous incentive to fabricate information to fulfill
18
their end of the agreement and avoid deportation.
Attorney

Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained, Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim immigrants to spy on their
own communities or give false testimony with the threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do not
cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19

individuals may
feel they must offer up something to the government to
avoid being removed from their families, jobs, and lives.
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be unreliable,20 because these

The threat of false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of

false intelligence may


encourage ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim and
22
Middle Eastern communities,
entrapment21 by agent provocateurs,

chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence resources.

Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation,
removal, or exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals
who have been in the country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence reduction or lessened charges and who can
enforce his or her bargain with the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration benefits has no way of enforcing
these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration violations.27 Finally, according
to some reported cases, the government has failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after receiving their
cooperation.28
With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29 than informants recruited through monetary incentives or

there is greater incentive for informants


30
flipped via immigration violations to provide
unreliable information.
promises of sentence reductions

Furthermore, due to the latitude afforded to the executive branch in national

security matters, there is a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism informants than for other types of informants.31
Immigration status offers a valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from individuals who otherwise would not be
forthcoming. However, this method for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately applied to situations where
the informants lack useful connections to terrorist groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for informants, and increased
ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI recruits terrorism informants with immigration threats and rewards are
needed.

C. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the


status quo
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
While the FBI appears to recruit most terrorism informants through informal
means, an existing visa program already formally offers

immigration benefits to informants in exchange for their


cooperation with terrorism investigations .

As part of the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were willing to

However, given the small number of S6 visas issued, the program likely fails to meet the FBIs
intelligence recruitment needs.
cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33

The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34 do not match up


with the number of informants (fifteen thousand) used
by the FBI.

35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of

Justices Rewards for Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to
the S-6 visa is further restricted by the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is returned to his or her home
country.37 Since

the FBI

has long used immigration law as an incentive to compel

it has little motivation to use a


rewards program that presents additional barriers. The
terrorism informants to act,

stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa explain its ongoing


underuse.38

D. Current Congressional oversight is dysfunctional and


needs to be strengthened
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)
But you will recall that during the debate on the 9/11 bill in March, you and I supported the sense of the Senate provision calling on the
Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on intelligence reform, specifically
on congressional reform of fiscal oversight of intelligence, which is why I believe we're here today. Even though the Senate has adopted
some of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on congressional reform, this most important area, in my view, has not been addressed.

strengthening congressional
oversight may be among the most difficult and important, further
stating that congressional oversight of intelligence and
counterterrorism is now dysfunctional. The recommendation of the Commission to deal with that
The 9/11 Commission stated that, of all our recommendations,

dysfunction was to consolidate authorization and appropriations in a single committee.

E. The United States uses Otherization and the concept


of domination and subordination to justify extreme
domestic discrimination in surveillance and foreign
attacks
Jamal 08 (Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil
Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans, Race and Arab
Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects, 2008,
https://books.google.com/books?

id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+
and+After+9/11:+From+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA
GoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab
%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From%20Invisible
%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)

An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.


According to this logic, Americans in favor of infringing on
Muslim and Arab American civil liberties do so because they
hold negative views about an entire people. These
negative views are fed by a variety of misperceptions and
stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had

been popularly constructed as an irrational,


terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy Other
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has consistently
justified intervention in the Muslim world along similar lines.
When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and Muslim world
as inherently undemocratic owing to fundamental value
differences between us and them, they promote an
environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the racialization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the overwhelming support
for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005). In this chapter I move
beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race relations are strictly
structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of racialization that
incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the

racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the


consistent deployment of an us versus them
mentality, excessively propped up for the justification of military campaigns in the
Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims is not simply contingent on phenotypical
differences; rather, this racialization of difference is driven by a perceived clash of values and
exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process of othering is based on assumptions
about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on assumptions about culture
and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial divides; instead, it conforms to the
process of racialization that has characterized the ways in which the dominant elements in
society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more generally. The racialization of Arabs

in a society that is
already constructed along racial lines, any perceived
difference between the dominant mainstream and a minority
Other tends to conform to racisms framework. This othering
and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,

process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis--vis other groups
along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on differences in
appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are exacerbated by
popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other, especially after

9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently been questioned
since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area believe that Arabs
and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims and Arabs across
the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were behind the
attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating from
mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks have
received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
asked whether Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area
ranked them as the least trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or
not trust for whites; 24 percent have little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no
trust for Muslims and Arabs. Not only are Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat
treated with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate from the Middle East. They
are presumed to be operating against us. The binary construction of us versus them is
not new to American social relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the
United States have been constructed through the binary lens of the

dominant and

the subordinate,

a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,


the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this dichotomy: we,
whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such interactions
with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly
when it involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization
of Arabs and Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they
different at home, but their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United
States has utilized the construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign
abroad. The second process of racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority
Other. The very process of rendering the Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined
group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab

Otherness is determined is through a


process by which the dominant social group claims
moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an
Americans, the way that

essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is
not the modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and
civilizational heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.

Contention 2 Harms
A. The Current policy promotes Islamophobia through
Religious and Ethnic profiling
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

In addition to eroding the First Amendments free speech rights of Muslims


and Middle Easterners, the FBIs informant surveillance tactics also
inappropriately target these religious and ethnic group s. Most of
the organizations designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State
Department are Muslim or Arab groups. Many post-9/11 policies, like the
extensive detention of Muslims and Middle Easterners, indicate that the

federal government views Muslims and Middle Eastern


immigrants as potential terrorists. Popular perception of Muslims has
moved in the same direction, with huge opposition, for example, to the
construction of an Islamic community centerPark 51near the site of
the World Trade Center in New York. Other examples include state laws
banning the use of Shariah law in judicial decisions and Islamophobia rising
in the United States and abroad. By sending immigrant informants into
mosques and religious and ethnic communities with little more than a vague
directive to find terrorists, the FBI perpetuates ethnic profiling and the
conflation of Islam and terrorism. In recruiting terrorism informants from
the immigrant population, the FBI puts an ethnic and religious face
on terrorism, and perpetuates the popular perception of what terrorists
look like. Sending these informants into mosques and immigrant communities

greatly increases the chances that alleged suspects fit the


ethnic and religious stereotypes of terrorists. Put differently, if an
informant is assigned to surveil a mosque, the chances of the informant
bringing back a non-Muslim or non-Middle Eastern suspect are low.
This surveillance policy becomes a vicious cycle. The FBI recruits immigrant individuals from suspect communities to become informants,
pressures them into producing terrorism suspects that fit the popular perception of what terrorists are like, and then prosecutes these

. Ethnic and
religious profiling further alienates Muslim and Middle Eastern
communities, and deepens their mistrust for government. Additionally, by
suspected terrorists. All this reinforces the public conflation of immigrants, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and terrorists

predisposing many Americans to view Muslims, immigrants, and Middle Easterners as potential terrorist threats, ethnic and religious profiling
may also bias juries in terrorism prosecutions.97 Although suspects often claim entrapment as a defense, after 9/11 the

entrapment defense has never been successfully used in terrorism


cases. In fact, many, if not most, terrorism cases never reach the jury because the chances of successfully defending against terrorism
charges after 9/11 are almost nonexistent. Popular stereotypes concerning Muslims and Middle Easterners play a role in this. Although the use
of immigration law in recruiting informants is only one of many factors contributing to this harmful cycle, the use of coercive tactics like
immigration law to recruit informants creates a higher risk of unfounded terrorism prosecutions against innocent individuals who do not pose a
risk. Consequently, this fuels the public perception that a stereotypical terrorist is a Middle Easterner or Muslim.

To the FBI it was never meant to be actual surveillance,


its a rigged operation to create terrorists
Harris 12 (Paul Harris, 3-20-2012, "The ex-FBI informant with a change of
heart: 'There is no real hunt. It's fixed'," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant)
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time,

They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go


ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year
as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern
Californian mosques. It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of
the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years
after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to
defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted
they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as
did he shy away from recording their pillow talk. "

suspicious. Monteilh

was involved in one of the most


controversial tactics: the use of "confidential informants" in
so-called entrapment cases.

This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist "attacks" at the request or under the

close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation
to net suspects. In the case of the Newburgh Four where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx a confidential informant offered
$250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack. In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base,
one informant's criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot .

Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if


their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying
game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is
exactly what happens. "The way the FBI conducts their
operations, It is all about entrapment
There is no real hunt. It's fixed," he said.
I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It's such a joke, a

real joke.

But Monteilh has regrets now about his involvement in

Monteilh said the FBI should


publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in Orange
County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. "They don't have the humility to admit a mistake," he said. Monteilh's story sounds like
a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles,

something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian alter ego, called Farouk Aziz.
In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County the long stretch of suburbia south of LA and pretended to convert to Islam.

He

was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their


conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told
Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers. Yet, far from
succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported
Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency. Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He
is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game
intimately well. By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time
in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks. It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. "It was a bad time in my
life," he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on
undercover drug and organised crime cases. Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul
Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him. Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County.
"Paul Allen said: 'Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America'," Monteilh said. The operation
began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center

Monteilh began
circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer
or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as
possible to talk to him. "Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that
point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: 'OK, now start to ask questions'."
Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of
of Irvine, he converted to Islam. Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation.

his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do
about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American
foreign policy. He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a
martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at
trapping people in condemning statements. "The skill is that I am going to get you to say something. I am
the chats were recorded. In scenes out of a James Bond movie, Monteilh
said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt. At other
times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings. Monteilh left his keys in
offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of recording
conversations that took place when he was not there. He did it so often that he earned a reputation with
other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI handlers
at least once a week. He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense debriefing. Monteilh says he
was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County's Muslim population. He said the
cornering you to say "jihad"," he said. Of course,

FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover potential
militants. Secondly, they could also use any information Monteilh
discovered like an affair or someone being gay to turn targeted
people into becoming FBI informants themselves. None of it seemed to
unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and recording them. At one hotel
meeting,

agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense breadth of Operation Flex
by saying simply: "Kevin is God." Monteilh's own attitude evolved into something very similar. "I

and any concerns over civil rights

was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You began to have a certain arrogance
about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: 'You are an untouchable'," he said. But it was not always easy. "I started at 4am. I ended at 9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work
Farouk took over. Craig did not exist," he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more than $11,000 a month. But he was

Monteilh ended up traumatising the


community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about suicide bombers or his claims to have
wrong about being untouchable. Far from uncovering radical terror networks,

Monteilh was instead reported to the FBI as a


potentially dangerous extremist.
access to weapons,

A restraining order was also taken out against him in June 2007,

asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz. But the story did not end there. In
circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation was over. He also ended up in jail
after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh

What is not in doubt is


that Monteilh's identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI brought a case
against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County. The evidence
included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden "an angel".
That was Monteilh's work and he outed himself to the press to the shock of
the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that Farouk Aziz
the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier had in fact been
an undercover FBI operative. Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up and the FBI
was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. "I built the whole
relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about jihad a lot," he
said. The FBI's charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped. Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the FBI. Amazingly, after
claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)

first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with them again to campaign for their
civil liberties.

Structural racism is a controlling impact that shapes how


violence and inequality are distributed in society, its
responsible for forms of everyday violence
Lawrence and Keleher, 2004
Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities
POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism By Keith Lawrence, Aspen Institute on
Community Change and Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center at UC
Berkeley For the Race and Public Policy Conference 2004,
http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf,
/Bingham-MB

Structural Racism in the U.S. is


the normalization and legitimization of an array of
dynamics historical, cultural, institutional and
interpersonal that routinely advantage whites while
producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for
people of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity,
primarily characterized by white supremacy the
preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people
at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Arab and other racially oppressed
people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the
entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all
aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics,
economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism
is the most profound and pervasive form of racism
all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal,
internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.
Indicators/Manifestations: The key indicators of structural
racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities,
treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they
are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to
locate in a particular institution because it involves the
reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms,
Structural Racism Definition:

past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism:
Individual or internalized racism lies within individuals. These
are private manifestations of racism that reside inside the
individual. Examples include prejudice, xenophobia,
internalized oppression and privilege, and beliefs about race
influenced by the dominant culture. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism occurs within and between institutions.
Institutional racism is discriminatory treatment, unfair
policies and inequitable opportunities and impacts, based on
race, produced and perpetuated by institutions (schools,
mass media, etc.). Individuals within institutions take on the
power of the institution when they act in ways that
advantage and disadvantage people, based on race .
We must reject every instance of racism
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p. 155156

The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and


powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust: the effects of uncontrolled
power privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will

the walls of racism


can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable
fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of
individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be
destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of
those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the
walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems
to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries of national
inevitably destroy us. But we have also seen that

and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent


aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction, may be
reaching a point of no return. A small and predominately white minority of the
global population derives its power and privilege from the suffering of the

For the sake of the world and


ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
vast majority of peoples of color.

B. Status quo policies create hostility with Muslim


community and increase the threat of terrorism
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks,
and that national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a

the FBI
with little concern for the actual gravity of the original threat posed by the
specific target and direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations security. Instead,

suspectcreates

an elaborate terrorism plot for the


surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11,
many individuals who showed no signs of violence or
extremism prior to involvement with informants and
government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.

101 Until the informants provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the

proper connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance
appear successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover, Professor David A. Harris
claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it
poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law

Having community members report


suspicious information to the FBI may be a more
effective way of obtaining reliable terrorism intelligence
from these communities.
enforcement and Muslim communities.102

103 For example, in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to

informant involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented had
law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor, David
Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to
continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of connection to terrorist
organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the
Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies to directly enforce immigration
laws.109 However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct
and adverse ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just
as Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police
and other authorities.115

C. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the status


quo means that Muslims are dehumanized others

Joshi 06
(Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University, The
Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
The racialization of religion occurs through multiple processes, involves
multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization
results in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity and
thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static view of an
ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam are three
different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted
differently. While one could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for
black, Korean, or Chinese Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the

The construction of identity most often


involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves
identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of
othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing
certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate
it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined by
United States racial and religious norms, respectively.3

reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative power of
whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white nonChristians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves
historically and socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness
are intimately linked and where Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.

The concept of the other justifies violence,


stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and
internalized oppression
Joshi 06 (Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University,
The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
Racial meaning is extended to a religion, a religious group, or a belief system that had previously been racially unclassified. Particular faiths come to be considered not for their worldwide practice by diverse
peoples, but rather in direct association with colors of skin, textures of hair, and other phenotypical features that may characterize communities of believers. The process ultimately goes beyond phenotype, and
results in a group of people being identified, based on shared ethnicity and nationality, as being of a particular religion. In the context of the historical moment, social values and political

human beings
ascribe social meaning to certain biological
characteristics in order to differentiate, to exclude,
and to dominate.
presumptions are connected to the racialized religion. Within the unique context of their own time and place,

This process occurs not in a vacuum but in specific conditions that render the distinctions relevant in a particular

historical

moment. Because racial systems of classification are intimately linked to systems of power and authority, these social categories take on everyday importance in social, ideological, and economic

contexts. Most obviously, they become fodder for those who perpetuate physical violence based on race. Bu t

more subtly, these categories become a part of our cultural vocabulary: our shared

the racialization of Islam


intersects with the Wests encounters with enemies
whose ideological identity is intimately linked to their
interpretation and use of Islam.
assumptions, our media buzz, and our humor. In the present day, for example,

As a result, brown-skinned, non-Christian Americans become more (or less) than just an other

within the society; they become an other who is associated with a foreign enemy. They go from merely being a minority to being viewed as a potential fifth column10 due to their presumed connection with and
loyalty to this enemy. The impact of this process on South Asian Americanson those unlucky adults who have been beaten or slain in post-September 11 backlash attacks and on those many children and

The
racialization of religion locates certain religious
populations within the social strata of U.S. society by
applying ideological forces in conjunction with social and
political relations of domination .
adolescents who must laugh off or fight back against assumptions that they or their relatives are affiliated with terrorismare described in greater detail in the next section.

The racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism has Orientalist

underpinnings (Said, 1978).11 American society created an image of South Asiannessand of the South Asian religions before it even encountered them physically. The
writings of the Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both of whose more philosophical works were influenced by the Bhagavad Gita, were the
vehicle for this encounter (Eck, 2001). The West created the East as a site of difference. . . reified in the anthropological mode where strange tongues, other beliefs, [and] centuries old (read unchanging) religions. .
. mark out the community (Hutnyk, 1999, p. 132). In an early example of Americans conflating immigrants religions with their place of origin, 17th-century Sikh immigrants were known as Hindoos (Jensen,
1988). The sense of danger that historically characterized Europes post-Crusade view of the Muslim world was again projected onto Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile, Britains approach to Hindu-majority India,
always characterized by sentiments more proprietary than conflict-laden (Said, 1978), was transformed into the new American commodification of things Indian. Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism therefore become not

and Muslims, Hindus, and


and thereby diminished in

merely non-Christian they become the villainous, anachronistic religions of the East. Both Indians as a race and ethnicity

Sikhs as religions were othered


the American minds eye. This othering, in turn, has
consequences for these minority groups in the U.S .

South Asian Americans face what Pharr (1988)

identifies as the common elements of oppression; In relation to a defined norm, which both buttresses and is buttressed by institutional and economic power, out-group members suffer violence and the threat of
violence, stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and internalized oppression. In the act of defining Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism as deviant, and thereby excluding them from society, white American

enables individual
members of the in group to rationalize (and to perpetuate) the
Christians represent themselves as benevolent. This in/out group phenomenon reinforces Christian hegemony at the institutional and cultural levels, and

exclusion of religious others.

Dehumanization outweighs all


Montagu and Matson 83
Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American Studies at University of
Hawaii [Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, http://64.233.187.104/search?
q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www.cross-x.com/vb/archive/index.php/t939595.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en]

The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine


(psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its
lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts
apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason, this sickness of the
soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Its more
conventional name, of course, is dehumanization

Contention 3 Solvency
A. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads
to cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB

Perhaps the main difficulty with trying to reform the


entrapment defense to curtail informant excesses is that
many informant-driven prosecutions reflect entrenched
institutional and societal prejudices. The time has almost
certainly come to call for not merely a curative or more
objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt
to the policy of using informants to investigate
terrorism-related cases where no articulable
suspicion exists. That is not to say that informants cannot play a role
in helping create that legally required suspicion, but rather that it is both
dangerous and unjust to allow them to play the same role as
an undercover officer (302) without providing genuine
oversight by agents who have some understanding of the
language, culture, and motivations of the community from
which a suspect originates. None of the prosecutions discussed here
involved a supervising agent who seemed to have had any linguistic, cultural,
or regional expertise that the agent could have used to challenge an

Even in cases where a defendant's


links to or knowledge of terrorism exist independently of the
informant, the discretionless use of informants is too
problematic to justify its existence. (303) Given that
informant use preys on groups that have been racialized as
terrorists, the use of informants in its current form
should end, much like what happened to the FBI's
COINTELPRO operation, which featured similar use of
informant's version of events.

informants to spy on dissident groups within the United


States in the 1960s and 1970s. (304) Then, as now, informants
often acted as provocateurs who drummed up prosecutions for crimes that
would not have existed but for their involvement. The use of cooperators,
however controversial in its own right, involves, at least in theory, a criminal
conspiracy already in existence, not one that an informant created. Stated

there is a vast difference between 1) sending


someone who has no law enforcement training to look for
people from the Arab and Muslim community to see if they
would be interested in a vaguely defined terrorist plot
(especially when the informant offers money in return) and
2) enlisting an individual who was once part of a conspiracy
or group to offer inside information (even if for money). The
former operates in the hopes that focusing on a particular
community will uncover terrorism, based on a general
stereotype that that community has a propensity to engage
in such activity. Theoretically, the latter at the very least has some inside
information that would reflect the existence of terrorist activity. Calling for
an end to the use of informants in terrorism prosecutions
should not be perceived as drastic. The vast majority of
Arabs and Muslims in the United States are not terrorists and
the law generally disfavors guilt by association. (305)
Furthermore, a recent study indicates that MuslimAmericans are eager to cooperate with law
enforcement when they perceive the police to be a
legitimate authority whose practices are imbued with
fairness and procedural justice. (306) It is axiomatic that
voluntary cooperation from the Muslim community with law
enforcement to combat suspicious activity would be far
superior to the current informant-driven practice. Eliminating
informant use would certainly go a long way toward
enhancing law enforcement's legitimacy in the eyes of the
Arab and Muslim communities, but will require a hard look at the
differently,

preconceived notions fueling the phenomenon.

B. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to


Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014
Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 79-2014, Racial Profiling Reported in NSA, FBI Surveillance," US News & World
Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/09/racial-profilingreported-in-nsa-fbi-surveillance, Accessed: 6-28-2015, /Bingham-MB

There is a risk of radicalization among citizens Americans,


evidenced by some who have gone to fight jihads in Syria
and Somalia, but mass shootings carried out by U.S. citizens of various
racial backgrounds occurs much more often, says Vanda Felbab-Brown, a
senior fellow on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Since 1982, there

We have seen
very little domestic terrorism in the U.S., FelbabBrown says. This lack of terrorism is due in part to the
willingness of the Islamic community to cooperate
with law enforcement to identify possible radical threats,
out of gratitude that the U.S. is a stable, secure country
compared with the Middle East, she says. That could go
sour if law enforcement becomes too aggressive, too
extreme, she says. The FBIs ability to spy on U.S. citizens
even government employees and those without criminal records will
expand this summer when its new facial recognition
database becomes fully operational. The new database
called Next Generation Identification system, or NGI, will
include photos of anybody who sends images as part of an
application for a job that requires fingerprinting or a
background check. The Muslim-Americans monitored by the
government included Nihad Awad, the executive director and
have been at least 70 mass shootings across the U.S.

founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy and


civil rights organizations. The group has been represented by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation represents the CAIR Foundation in a case challenging the
NSAs mass collection of Americans call records. These disclosures yet

demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to


the governments activities to ensure that its surveillance
stays within the bounds of law and the Constitution,
said a blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once
again

again demonstrate the need for immediate and


comprehensive surveillance law reform."
C. Status quo surveillance policies create a chilling effect
on Muslim American populations. Only adopting a strict
scrutiny standard for domestic surveillance solves.
Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law,
May 2015; BA, University of California, Irvine, "The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be:
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment Rights, Chapman Law
Review 18 Chap. L. Rev. 577, Spring, 2015, SMahajan)

Muslim American Associational Rights Infringed The jurisprudence on


associational rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first assessing
whether government conduct rises to the kind of level that merits strict
scrutiny, and then deciding whether the compelling interest and narrowly tailored
elements of the strict scrutiny test itself are met. As established by case law,
government conduct that may have the effect of curtailing the
freedom to associate should be subjected to strict scrutiny .108 Such
effects have included economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of
physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility . 109 The Ninth
Circuit provided more relevant examples of suppression of religious
expression, including (1) withdrawal by congregants from actively
participating, (2) decline in financial support or donations , (3) congregants
reluctance in seeking religious counseling or being open during prayer , (4)
diversion of clergies or religious leaders time from congregation duties to
dealing with the effects of surveillance , and (5) fear or apprehension of
conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a negative impact on
congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance has exhibited
similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers, demonstrating the need for
strict scrutiny application of the government programs aimed at
widespread Muslim surveillance. Like the curtailment the Court found in Patterson,
Muslim Americans in regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the loss of
business; diminished or affected employment opportunities ;111 other
manifestations of public hostility such as stigma;112 and the enabling or
furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims 113 because of the specter left
upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114 Moreover, the
surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly ominous mark on the
community through the governments use of informants to infiltrate mosques ,
Muslim Student Associations on college campuses, and the Muslim
community in general.

D. Multicultural education can deconstruct the other to


rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the Unicorn.
Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the Race
Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter

The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism,


an approach that affirms the value of diversity as a method
of combating racial oppression. Since the late 1980s,
learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a
cornerstone of educational practice in many British,
Canadian, and American schools. The goal of such
multicultural education is not simply to become
familiar with the traditions of other cultures, but to
"enable empathy," to "generat[e] cross-cultural
understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495).
Part of this understanding stems from the creation of
"positive racial images" (97); celebrating Black
History Month, teaching about the role of Islamic
scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as
codebreakers for the U.S. Army during World War II
would all be examples of multicultural antiracism practice.
proponents of multiculturalism believe that, by learning
about the culture of other races, or learning about
positive role models of members of previously
ignored groups, students will learn to rid themselves
of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.
E. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight
serves the security interests of the United States
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Offering S-6 visas to immigrant informants with established


connections to terrorist organizations in exchange for their
cooperation would be a legitimate way for the FBI to reward these
informants. Further, informants would be able to rely on the FBIs

promise and seek review should the agreement go awry. Gaining


informants trust and lessening the coercive aspect of
recruitment would lead to more trustworthy intelligence,
and thereby enhance national security. A larger but less
committed group of informants characterized by the current
underused S-6 visa programdoes the country little good.
Likewise, the indiscriminate and widespread surveillance
of Muslims and Middle Easterners damages American
communities and reifies assumptions and stereotypes
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These
assumptions may also blind law enforcement to real threats
taking place in non- Muslim or non-Middle Eastern communities.
Expanding and modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small,
poorly designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that
better procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing
more oversight for FBI informant use and restricting
practices that contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would
improve Muslim and Middle Eastern communities
confidence in and cooperation with the government. This,
in turn, would encourage communities to effectively work with
law enforcement and report suspicious activities. Information
offered from within a community is more likely to be accurate,272
leading to more counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance
national security and less waste of law enforcement resources on
bogus threats.273 In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6
visa program to better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding
informants and procuring credible intelligence on real threats.
Reform would allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its
resources, and would afford informants a fairer
agreement changes that would better serve the security
interests of the United States

G. Reformed congressional Oversight it vital to


intelligence and to combat executive circumvention
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html


)

I understand full well that a separate Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence may not be the preference of this Committee. It was not
the recommendation of the commission. But ways have to be found to bring greater focus and additional resources to the oversight of

increase the opportunity


and likelihood of robust congressional oversight of the intelligence
community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight
of the intelligence community is more important than ever and why
congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the
United States will without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military
force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride
largely on what the intelligence tells us. It is vitally important that the
intelligence community get it right. Oversight is vitally important to
help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has provided broad authorities to the
executive branch to conduct investigations and collect data .
Enhanced collection capabilities and data mining pose high risks to
civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our liberties, the
Congress must conduct robust oversight over the exercise of the
authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform also needs
congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching since 1947, is not easy to
implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100 different directions . The
executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and guidance from the Congress are
necessary to sustain reform. Sustained oversight is necessary
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that

. Chairman Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very

difficult question of access to information. That's not a new problem in the Congress. That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been fighting for more information from the intelligence
community. When I was Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that except the only way to get the
attention of the executive is to withhold the money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the Members to
exercise, if they will do it. If you want access to information and the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our
Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight
hearings during this year thus far. That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and
balances our Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties .

Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its
oversight committees are powerful and active . Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our
Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties
and makes our policies better. Strong oversight keeps our country
safe and free. I appreciate your time and attention, and look forward to your questions.

After our plan is passed we will:


1. End the discriminatory Informant policy and replace it
with both strict scrutiny and the S-6 Visa policy
2. End the Dehumanization of the 15,000 Current Muslim
Informants (Strict Scrutiny and Congressional oversight)
3. Take Significant steps to end the dehumanization of the
Muslim Community by taking away a tool used to otherize,
discriminate, and create stereotypes against them (Strict
Scrutiny)
4. Gain better intelligence to combat real terrorism
through both the S-6 Visa as well as the trust repaired
with the Muslim Community. (S-6, Strict Scrutiny)
5. Create better oversight of the FBI to combat
circumvention (Congressional Oversight)
6. Combat Islamophobia by bringing it up in a debate
space and beginning to deconstruct its causes. (Plan)

Contention 4: Framework
We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging
Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.
A. A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the
judge to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our
project is key to the process of activism, awareness. the
only productive start is challenging the culture of the
American security state
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]

What brings together these different systems of racial oppressionmass


incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportationis a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of
the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also an
assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe. In this sense,
security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation of
the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the notion of security, social and
economic anxieties generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social
compact have been channeled toward the Black or Brown street criminal,
welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this
homeland in need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white
domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by mythical frontier
enemies, hidden subversives, and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland
coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the
heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is
gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in
this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave

Surveillance practices themselves


have also often been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and
1970s, the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971
rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.

and stole classified documents managed to expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down.
(But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar
techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement,
and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance
in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that
regulated the New York Police Departments spying on political activities .

Those concerns began


to be swept aside in the 1980s with the War on Drugs and, especially, later
with the War on Terror. While significant sections of the public may have
consented to the security state, those who have been among its greatest
victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the
Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a period of

revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real


change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will need to
be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again be easily
defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they
have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.

The result has been a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains constrained within a public
debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal
reforms and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such
initiatives are likely to bring little change because they fail to
confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance system. On
the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government
surveillance can be fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While
encryption tools are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need to
monitor an individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus.
Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers

what should be a debate


about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits .69
Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of state surveillance
that do not adequately fit the current situation such as George Orwells discussion of
concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,

totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the
type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the
current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The
argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.

For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, left-wing campaigners, radical


journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian . But this level of
scrutiny is not faced by the general public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore
quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an

What we have
instead today in the United States is total
surveillance, not on everyone, but on very specific
groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or
political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to as
the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience:
undifferentiated mass population subject to government control.

Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of
average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid intelligence targets, you are not of interest to
us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or

national
security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that
they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this
average person must also express no political views critical of the status quo.
Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of
encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do
little more than reassure technologists, while racialized populations and
political dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This is why the
political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment, it points to the ways that

most effective challenges to the national security state have come


not from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots
campaigning by the racialized groups most affected. In New York, the
campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos
and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of stop and frisk. In
Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland Security-funded Domain
Awareness Center was successful because various constituencies were able to
unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor, Muslims, and Blacks .
Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled
communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups

while the national security


state aims to create fear and to divide people,
activists can organize and build alliances across race
lines to overcome that fear. To the extent that the national
defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,

security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental


rights activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and whistleblowers,
these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security
state. But understanding the centrality of race and empire to national security
surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white
dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis that we can see the beginnings
of an effective multiracial opposition to the surveillance state and empire.

B. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an


educational space such as debate is a gateway to larger
political actions.
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important . As one
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I am convinced

student said racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically.

Our work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge


against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom

discussions and
general teaching form a very important contribution to
this work of anti racism in education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts;
the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a way that engages students and
leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues

The student voice, that critiques


mainstream thinking as found in the media and
for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work . I argue


that teaching and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical
consciousness necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows,
these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for
bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social
justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
practices and the curriculum, because: if

we are not working for equity in our teaching and


learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic racism, when racist
attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and
physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).

The point of studying racism, therefore, is

to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that:
Education

can enlighten students and promote positive attitudes .

Education settings can be the first arena in which battles


can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed.

C. Education in debate is critical to begin deconstructing


Islamophobia we need engaged dialogue on the question
of discrimination in order to challenge internal
stereotypes and ignorance
Esposito 11 (John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies
and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism
in the 21st Century, January 6 2011,
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf)

9/11 made the international community more aware of the critical importance
of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in Europe and America, the Muslim world and
beyond as well as international organizations like the United Nations and Organization of the Islamic
Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic
Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political, religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the

Centers like Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin


Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have been active in
Washington and globally, speaking, briefing, and writing for a broad audience
of university, government, media and corporate audiences. Education in our
schools, universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues that
train the next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and
citizens is critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate,
silence alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out
Alliance of Civilizations.

against ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam,


discrimination, hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims
must be turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would
this discourse and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets? Islamophobia
can have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas policy in Iraq,
from war to post-war reconstruction, was affected by the extent to which
Islam and Muslim religious leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen
through the distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
fundamentalism. Therefore, the potential roles of Shii religious leaders and institutions were
unforeseen or underestimated, and then feared; the belief that Iranian Shii would control Iraqi Shii, leading
to a Qom-Najaf axis, failed to appreciate and understand the diversity of Shii leadership.

By voting affirmative you as a judge are rewarding the


Affs efforts to both reject racism as well as challenge the
current Islamophobic policies and mindsets in an
educational setting such as debate

1AC- Ashok

Contention 1: Framework
We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging
Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.
A. A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the
judge to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our
project is key to the process of activism, awareness. the
only productive start is challenging the culture of the
American security state
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]

What brings together these different systems of racial


oppressionmass incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportation
is a security logic that holds the imperial state as
necessary to keeping American families (coded white) safe
from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of the last
few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep
us safe. In this sense, security has become the new
psychological wage to aid the reallocation of the welfare
states social wage toward homeland security and to win
support for empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the
notion of security, social and economic anxieties generated by the unraveling
of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward the Black or
Brown street criminal, welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has
argued,

since 9/11,

this homeland in need of security has been

symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once
again threatened by mythical frontier enemies , hidden subversives,
and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of
capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and
sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden
debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of
various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist

Surveillance practices themselves have also often been the target of


organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s, the surveillance state was
pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke
agitation.

into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to expose
COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never
brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example
in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on
government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police Departments spying
on political activities.

Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s with

While
significant sections of the public may have consented to the
security state, those who have been among its greatest
victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror.

campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the


Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a
period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance.

if real change is to be brought about, the racial history of


surveillance will need to be fully confrontedor opposition to
surveillance will once again be easily defeated by racial
security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they have laid out the
Yet

depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.

has been a

The result

generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how

but that alarm remains constrained within a public


debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal
reforms and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such
initiatives are likely to bring little change because they fail to
confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance system. On
the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government
surveillance can be fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While
intrusive surveillance is in our society,

encryption

tools

are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need

do nothing to unravel the larger


surveillance apparatus. Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns
to monitor an individual,

they

about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon

what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a


question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of
images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situation
Valley,

such as George Orwells discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that
Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to
Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have
soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big

For those in certain targeted groups


Muslims, left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance
certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general
public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite different from the classic images of
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.

surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated mass population subject to

What we have instead today in the United


States is total surveillance, not on everyone, but on
very specific groups of people, defined by their race,
religion, or political ideology: people that NSA
officials refer to as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy
government control.

director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there
and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be
the basis for targeting a whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this

national security surveillance can draw entire


communities into its web, while reassuring average people (code for the
normative white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of
the national security state, this average person must also express no political
comment, it points to the ways that

views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national
security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But

reassure technologists,
while racialized populations and political dissenters continue
to experience massive surveillance. This is why the most
effective challenges to the national security state
have come not from legal reformers or technologists
but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized
groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against
the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial
profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates
by themselves these

are likely to do little more than

of stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people,
the poor, Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after

while
the national security state aims to create fear and to
divide people, activists can organize and build
alliances across race lines to overcome that fear. To the
a campaign that united various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,

extent that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar
movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards
opposition to the national security state. But understanding the centrality of
race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for
unity across different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim,
Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis
that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the
surveillance state and empire.

B. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an


educational space such as debate is a gateway to larger
political actions.
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important . As one
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I am convinced

student said racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically.

Our work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge


against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom

discussions and
general teaching form a very important contribution to
this work of anti racism in education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts;
the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a way that engages students and
leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues

The student voice, that critiques


mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work . I argue
for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

that teaching and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical
consciousness necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows,
these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for
bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social
justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
practices and the curriculum, because: if

we are not working for equity in our teaching and


learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic racism, when racist
attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and
physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).

The point of studying racism, therefore, is

to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that:
Education

can enlighten students and promote positive attitudes .

Education settings can be the first arena in which battles


can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed.

C. Education in debate is critical to begin deconstructing


Islamophobia we need engaged dialogue on the question
of discrimination in order to challenge internal
stereotypes and ignorance
Esposito 11 (John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies
and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism
in the 21st Century, January 6 2011,
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf)

9/11 made the international community more aware of the


critical importance of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in
Europe and America, the Muslim world and beyond as well as international organizations like the United
Nations and Organization of the Islamic Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote
intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political,

Centers like
Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have
been active in Washington and globally, speaking, briefing,
and writing for a broad audience of university, government,
media and corporate audiences. Education in our schools,
religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the Alliance of Civilizations.

that train the


next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and citizens is
critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate, silence
alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out against
ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam, discrimination,
hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims must be
turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would this discourse
universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues

Islamophobia can
have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas
policy in Iraq, from war to post-war reconstruction, was
affected by the extent to which Islam and Muslim religious
leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen through the
distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
fundamentalism. Therefore, the potential roles of Shii religious leaders and institutions were
and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets?

unforeseen or underestimated, and then feared; the belief that Iranian Shii would control Iraqi Shii, leading
to a Qom-Najaf axis, failed to appreciate and understand the diversity of Shii leadership.

By voting affirmative you as a judge are rewarding the


Affs efforts to both reject racism as well as challenge the
current Islamophobic policies and mindsets in an
educational setting such as debate

Plan
The United States federal government will substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance by limiting the
governments use of informants in Muslim communities.
These limits will be implemented in 3 specific planks.
4. Plan will reform Congressional Oversight of the FBIs
Domestic Terrorist Informants and Judicial Oversight
of the Section 6 Visa program
5. A strict scrutiny standard will be required to
conduct all Muslim informant operations.
6. The United States will no longer threaten deportation
of Muslim informants and instead grant them Section
6 Visa protection with an explanation of the program.

Contention 2 Inherency
B. Post 9/11 United States Federal Governments lust
for information has pushed FBI informant policy into
counterproductive tactics
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Using the threat of immigration consequences like


deportation to produce terrorism intelligence presents novel
problems for the intelligence gathering process and the
informants. When individuals are pressured into becoming informants by
the threat of deportation, which may remove them from their family and all
sources of support, the decision essentially becomes a Hobsons choice.16

Informants recruited in this manner who also lack


17
legitimate ties to foreign terrorist organizations have an
enormous incentive to fabricate information to fulfill
18
their end of the agreement and avoid deportation.
Attorney

Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained, Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim immigrants to spy on their
own communities or give false testimony with the threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do not
cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19

individuals may
feel they must offer up something to the government to
avoid being removed from their families, jobs, and lives.
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be unreliable,20 because these

The threat of false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of

false intelligence may


encourage ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim and
22
Middle Eastern communities,
entrapment21 by agent provocateurs,

chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence resources.

Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation,
removal, or exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals
who have been in the country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence reduction or lessened charges and who can
enforce his or her bargain with the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration benefits has no way of enforcing
these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration violations.27 Finally, according
to some reported cases, the government has failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after receiving their
cooperation.28 With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29 than informants recruited through monetary
incentives or promises of sentence reductions

there is greater incentive for

30

informants flipped via immigration violations to


provide unreliable information.

Furthermore, due to the latitude afforded to the executive

branch in national security matters, there is a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism informants than for other
types of informants.31 Immigration status offers a valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from individuals who
otherwise would not be forthcoming. However, this method for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately
applied to situations where the informants lack useful connections to terrorist groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for
informants, and increased ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI recruits terrorism informants with immigration
threats and rewards are needed.

B. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the


status quo
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
While the FBI appears to recruit most terrorism informants through informal

an existing visa program already formally offers


immigration benefits to informants in exchange for their
cooperation with terrorism investigations .
means,

As part of the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were willing to

However, given the small number of S6 visas issued, the program likely fails to meet the FBIs
intelligence recruitment needs.
cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33

The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34

do not match up
with the number of informants (fifteen thousand) used
by the FBI.

35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of

Justices Rewards for Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to
the S-6 visa is further restricted by the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is returned to his or her home
country.37 Since

the FBI

has long used immigration law as an incentive to compel

it has little motivation to use a


rewards program that presents additional barriers. The
terrorism informants to act,

stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa explain its ongoing


underuse.38

C. Current Congressional oversight is dysfunctional and


needs to be strengthened
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)
But you will recall that during the debate on the 9/11 bill in March, you and I supported the sense of the Senate provision calling on the
Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on intelligence reform, specifically
on congressional reform of fiscal oversight of intelligence, which is why I believe we're here today. Even though the Senate has adopted
some of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on congressional reform, this most important area, in my view, has not been addressed.

strengthening congressional
oversight may be among the most difficult and important, further
stating that congressional oversight of intelligence and
counterterrorism is now dysfunctional. The recommendation of the Commission to deal with that
The 9/11 Commission stated that, of all our recommendations,

dysfunction was to consolidate authorization and appropriations in a single committee.

D. The United States uses Otherization and the concept


of domination and subordination to justify extreme
domestic discrimination in surveillance and foreign
attacks
Jamal 08 (Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil
Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans, Race and Arab
Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects, 2008,
https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+
and+After+9/11:+From+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA
GoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab
%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From%20Invisible
%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)

An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.


According to this logic, Americans in favor of infringing on
Muslim and Arab American civil liberties do so because they
hold negative views about an entire people. These
negative views are fed by a variety of misperceptions and
stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had

been popularly constructed as an irrational,


terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy Other
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has consistently
justified intervention in the Muslim world along similar lines.
When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and Muslim world
as inherently undemocratic owing to fundamental value

differences between us and them, they promote an


environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the racialization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the overwhelming support
for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005). In this chapter I move
beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race relations are strictly
structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of racialization that
incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the

racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the


consistent deployment of an us versus them
mentality, excessively propped up for the justification of military campaigns in the
Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims is not simply contingent on phenotypical
differences; rather, this racialization of difference is driven by a perceived clash of values and
exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process of othering is based on assumptions
about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on assumptions about culture
and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial divides; instead, it conforms to the
process of racialization that has characterized the ways in which the dominant elements in
society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more generally. The racialization of Arabs

in a society that is
already constructed along racial lines, any perceived
difference between the dominant mainstream and a minority
Other tends to conform to racisms framework. This othering
and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,

process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis--vis other groups
along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on differences in
appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are exacerbated by
popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other, especially after
9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently been questioned
since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area believe that Arabs
and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims and Arabs across
the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were behind the
attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating from
mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks have
received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
asked whether Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area
ranked them as the least trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or
not trust for whites; 24 percent have little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no
trust for Muslims and Arabs. Not only are Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat
treated with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate from the Middle East. They
are presumed to be operating against us. The binary construction of us versus them is
not new to American social relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the
United States have been constructed through the binary lens of the

the subordinate,

dominant and

a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,


the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this dichotomy: we,
whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such interactions
with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly
when it involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization
of Arabs and Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they
different at home, but their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United
States has utilized the construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign
abroad. The second process of racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority
Other. The very process of rendering the Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined

group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab

Otherness is determined is through a


process by which the dominant social group claims
moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an
Americans, the way that

essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is
not the modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and
civilizational heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.

Contention 3 Harms
A. The Current policy promotes Islamophobia through
Religious and Ethnic profiling
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
In addition to eroding the First Amendments free speech rights of Muslims
and Middle Easterners, the FBIs informant surveillance tactics also
inappropriately target these religious and ethnic group s. Most of
the organizations designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State
Department are Muslim or Arab groups. Many post-9/11 policies, like the
extensive detention of Muslims and Middle Easterners, indicate that the

federal government views Muslims and Middle Eastern


immigrants as potential terrorists. Popular perception of Muslims has
moved in the same direction, with huge opposition, for example, to the
construction of an Islamic community centerPark 51near the site of
the World Trade Center in New York. Other examples include state laws
banning the use of Shariah law in judicial decisions and Islamophobia rising
in the United States and abroad. By sending immigrant informants into
mosques and religious and ethnic communities with little more than a vague
directive to find terrorists, the FBI perpetuates ethnic profiling and the
conflation of Islam and terrorism. In recruiting terrorism informants from
the immigrant population, the FBI puts an ethnic and religious face
on terrorism, and perpetuates the popular perception of what terrorists
look like. Sending these informants into mosques and immigrant communities

greatly increases the chances that alleged suspects fit the


ethnic and religious stereotypes of terrorists. Put differently, if an
informant is assigned to surveil a mosque, the chances of the informant
bringing back a non-Muslim or non-Middle Eastern suspect are low.
This surveillance policy becomes a vicious cycle. The FBI recruits immigrant individuals from suspect communities to become informants,
pressures them into producing terrorism suspects that fit the popular perception of what terrorists are like, and then prosecutes these

. Ethnic and
religious profiling further alienates Muslim and Middle Eastern
communities, and deepens their mistrust for government. Additionally, by
suspected terrorists. All this reinforces the public conflation of immigrants, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and terrorists

predisposing many Americans to view Muslims, immigrants, and Middle Easterners as potential terrorist threats, ethnic and religious profiling
may also bias juries in terrorism prosecutions.97 Although suspects often claim entrapment as a defense, after 9/11 the

entrapment defense has never been successfully used in terrorism


cases. In fact, many, if not most, terrorism cases never reach the jury because the chances of successfully defending against terrorism

charges after 9/11 are almost nonexistent. Popular stereotypes concerning Muslims and Middle Easterners play a role in this. Although the use
of immigration law in recruiting informants is only one of many factors contributing to this harmful cycle, the use of coercive tactics like
immigration law to recruit informants creates a higher risk of unfounded terrorism prosecutions against innocent individuals who do not pose a
risk. Consequently, this fuels the public perception that a stereotypical terrorist is a Middle Easterner or Muslim.

To the FBI it was never meant to be actual surveillance,


its a rigged operation to create terrorists
Harris 12 (Paul Harris, 3-20-2012, "The ex-FBI informant with a change of
heart: 'There is no real hunt. It's fixed'," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant)
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time,

They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go


ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year
as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern
Californian mosques. It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of
the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years
after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to
defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted
they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as
did he shy away from recording their pillow talk. "

suspicious. Monteilh

was involved in one of the most


controversial tactics: the use of "confidential informants" in
so-called entrapment cases.

This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist "attacks" at the request or under the

close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation
to net suspects. In the case of the Newburgh Four where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx a confidential informant offered
$250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack. In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base,
one informant's criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot .

Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if


their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying
game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is
exactly what happens. "The way the FBI conducts their
operations, It is all about entrapment
I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It's such a joke, a

real joke.

There is no real hunt. It's fixed," he said.

But Monteilh has regrets now about his

Monteilh said the FBI


should publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in
Orange County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. "They don't have the humility to admit a mistake," he said. Monteilh's story
involvement in a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles,

sounds like something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian alter ego, called
Farouk Aziz. In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County the long stretch of suburbia south of LA and pretended to convert to

He was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their


conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told
Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers. Yet, far from
Islam.

succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported
Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency. Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He
is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game
intimately well. By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time
in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks. It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. "It was a bad time in my
life," he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on
undercover drug and organised crime cases. Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul
Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him. Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County.
"Paul Allen said: 'Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America'," Monteilh said. The operation
began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center

Monteilh began
circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer
or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as
of Irvine, he converted to Islam. Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation.

possible to talk to him. "Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that
point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: 'OK, now start to ask questions'."
Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of

his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do
about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American
foreign policy. He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a
martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at

trapping people in condemning statements.

"The skill is that I am going to get you to say

the chats were recorded. In scenes out of a James Bond movie,


Monteilh said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt.
At other times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings. Monteilh left
his keys in offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of
recording conversations that took place when he was not there. He did it so often that he
earned a reputation with other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI
handlers at least once a week. He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense
something. I am cornering you to say "jihad"," he said. Of course,

debriefing. Monteilh says he was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County's Muslim population.

He said the FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover

potential militants. Secondly, they could also use any information


Monteilh discovered like an affair or someone being gay to turn
targeted people into becoming FBI informants themselves. None of it
seemed to unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and
agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense
breadth of Operation Flex and any concerns over civil rights by saying simply: "Kevin is God." Monteilh's own attitude evolved
recording them. At one hotel meeting,

into something very similar. "I was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You
began to have a certain arrogance about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: 'You are an untouchable'," he said. But it was not always easy. "I started at 4am. I ended at
9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work Farouk took over. Craig did not exist," he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more
than $11,000 a month. But he was wrong about being untouchable. Far from uncovering radical terror networks,

Monteilh ended up

traumatising the community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about

Monteilh was instead reported to


the FBI as a potentially dangerous extremist.
suicide bombers or his claims to have access to weapons,

A restraining order was also

taken out against him in June 2007, asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz.
But the story did not end there. In circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation
was over. He also ended up in jail after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth

What
is not in doubt is that Monteilh's identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI
brought a case against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County.
The evidence included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden
"an angel". That was Monteilh's work and he outed himself to the press to the
shock of the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that
Farouk Aziz the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier had
in fact been an undercover FBI operative. Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up
and the FBI was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. "I
built the whole relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about
jihad a lot," he said. The FBI's charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped. Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit
hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)

against the FBI. Amazingly, after first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with
them again to campaign for their civil liberties.

Structural racism is a controlling impact that shapes how


violence and inequality are distributed in society, its
responsible for forms of everyday violence
Lawrence and Keleher, 2004
Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities
POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism By Keith Lawrence, Aspen Institute on
Community Change and Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center at UC
Berkeley For the Race and Public Policy Conference 2004,
http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf,
/Bingham-MB

Structural Racism in the U.S. is


the normalization and legitimization of an array of
dynamics historical, cultural, institutional and
interpersonal that routinely advantage whites while
producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for
people of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity,
primarily characterized by white supremacy the
preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people
at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Arab and other racially oppressed
people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the
entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all
aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics,
economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism
is the most profound and pervasive form of racism
all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal,
internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.
Indicators/Manifestations: The key indicators of structural
racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities,
treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they
are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to
locate in a particular institution because it involves the
reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms,
past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism:
Individual or internalized racism lies within individuals. These
Structural Racism Definition:

are private manifestations of racism that reside inside the


individual. Examples include prejudice, xenophobia,
internalized oppression and privilege, and beliefs about race
influenced by the dominant culture. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism occurs within and between institutions.
Institutional racism is discriminatory treatment, unfair
policies and inequitable opportunities and impacts, based on
race, produced and perpetuated by institutions (schools,
mass media, etc.). Individuals within institutions take on the
power of the institution when they act in ways that
advantage and disadvantage people, based on race .
We must reject every instance of racism
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p.
155-156

The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and


powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust: the effects of uncontrolled
power privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will

the walls of racism


can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable
fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of
individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be
destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of
those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the
walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems
to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries of national
inevitably destroy us. But we have also seen that

and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent


aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction, may be
reaching a point of no return. A small and predominately white minority of the
global population derives its power and privilege from the suffering of the

For the sake of the world and


ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
vast majority of peoples of color.

B. Status quo policies create hostility with Muslim


community and increase the threat of terrorism
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks,
and that national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a
specific target and direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations security. Instead,

the FBI

with little concern for the actual gravity of the original threat posed by the
suspectcreates

an elaborate terrorism plot for the


surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11, many
individuals who showed no signs of violence or
extremism prior to involvement with informants and
government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.
101 Until the informants provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the

proper connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance
appear successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover, Professor David A. Harris
claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it
poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law

Having community members report


suspicious information to the FBI may be a more
effective way of obtaining reliable terrorism intelligence
from these communities.
enforcement and Muslim communities.102

103 For example, in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to

informant involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented had
law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor, David
Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to
continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of connection to terrorist
organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the
Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies to directly enforce immigration
laws.109 However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct
and adverse ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just
as Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police
and other authorities.115

C. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the status


quo means that Muslims are dehumanized others
Joshi 06
(Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University, The
Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &

Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
The racialization of religion occurs through multiple processes, involves
multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization
results in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity and
thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static view of an
ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam are three
different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted
differently. While one could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for
black, Korean, or Chinese Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the

The construction of identity most often


involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves
identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of
othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing
certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate
it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined by
United States racial and religious norms, respectively.3

reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative power of
whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white nonChristians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves
historically and socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness
are intimately linked and where Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.

The concept of the other justifies violence,


stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and
internalized oppression
Joshi 06 (Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University,
The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
Racial meaning is extended to a religion, a religious group, or a belief system that had previously been racially unclassified. Particular faiths come to be considered not for their worldwide practice by diverse
peoples, but rather in direct association with colors of skin, textures of hair, and other phenotypical features that may characterize communities of believers. The process ultimately goes beyond phenotype, and
results in a group of people being identified, based on shared ethnicity and nationality, as being of a particular religion. In the context

of the historical moment, social values and political

human beings
ascribe social meaning to certain biological
characteristics in order to differentiate, to exclude,
and to dominate.
presumptions are connected to the racialized religion. Within the unique context of their own time and place,

This process occurs not in a vacuum but in specific conditions that render the distinctions relevant in a particular

historical

moment. Because racial systems of classification are intimately linked to systems of power and authority, these social categories take on everyday importance in social, ideological, and economic

contexts. Most obviously, they become fodder for those who perpetuate physical violence based on race. Bu t

more subtly, these categories become a part of our cultural vocabulary: our shared

the racialization of Islam


intersects with the Wests encounters with enemies
whose ideological identity is intimately linked to their
interpretation and use of Islam.
assumptions, our media buzz, and our humor. In the present day, for example,

As a result, brown-skinned, non-Christian Americans become more (or less) than just an other

within the society; they become an other who is associated with a foreign enemy. They go from merely being a minority to being viewed as a potential fifth column10 due to their presumed connection with and
loyalty to this enemy. The impact of this process on South Asian Americanson those unlucky adults who have been beaten or slain in post-September 11 backlash attacks and on those many children and

The
racialization of religion locates certain religious
adolescents who must laugh off or fight back against assumptions that they or their relatives are affiliated with terrorismare described in greater detail in the next section.

populations within the social strata of U.S. society by


applying ideological forces in conjunction with social and
political relations of domination .
The racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism has Orientalist

underpinnings (Said, 1978).11 American society created an image of South Asiannessand of the South Asian religions before it even encountered them physically. The
writings of the Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both of whose more philosophical works were influenced by the Bhagavad Gita, were the
vehicle for this encounter (Eck, 2001). The West created the East as a site of difference. . . reified in the anthropological mode where strange tongues, other beliefs, [and] centuries old (read unchanging) religions. .
. mark out the community (Hutnyk, 1999, p. 132). In an early example of Americans conflating immigrants religions with their place of origin, 17th-century Sikh immigrants were known as Hindoos (Jensen,
1988). The sense of danger that historically characterized Europes post-Crusade view of the Muslim world was again projected onto Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile, Britains approach to Hindu-majority India,
always characterized by sentiments more proprietary than conflict-laden (Said, 1978), was transformed into the new American commodification of things Indian. Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism therefore become not

merely non-Christian they become the villainous, anachronistic religions of the East. Both Indians as a race and ethnicity

and Muslims, Hindus,

and Sikhs as religions were othered and thereby


diminished in the American minds eye. This othering,
in turn, has consequences for these minority groups in

the U.S.

South Asian Americans face what Pharr (1988) identifies as the common elements of oppression; In relation to a defined norm, which both buttresses and is buttressed by institutional

and economic power, out-group members suffer violence and the threat of violence, stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and internalized oppression. In the act of defining Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism as
deviant, and thereby excluding them from society, white American Christians represent themselves as benevolent. This in/out group phenomenon reinforces Christian hegemony at the institutional and cultural

enables individual members of the in group to


rationalize (and to perpetuate) the exclusion of religious
others.
levels, and

Dehumanization outweighs all


Montagu and Matson 83
Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American Studies at University of
Hawaii [Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, http://64.233.187.104/search?
q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www.cross-x.com/vb/archive/index.php/t939595.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en]

The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine


(psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its
lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts
apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason, this sickness of the
soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Its more
conventional name, of course, is dehumanization

D. Congressional Oversight Needs to change


ACLU, 13 (American Civil Liberty Union, September 2013, UNLEASHED
AND UNACCOUNTABLE
The FBIs Unchecked Abuse of Authority,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountablefbi-report.pdf)

Congress must intensify its oversight of all FBI policies and


practices, particularly those that implicate Americans constitutional

rights. The collection, retention, and sharing of personally identifying


information about Americans without facts establishing a reasonable
indication of criminal activity poses serious risks to liberty and
democracy, and the evidence of abuse is overwhelming. The lessons of
the past have been ignored and we are increasingly seeing a return to
abusive intelligence operations that target protest groups and religious
and racial minorities. Congress must particularly examine FBI activities
abroad, where Americans due process rights and safety are at
greatest risk

Contention 4 Solvency
B. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads
to cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB

Perhaps the main difficulty with trying to reform the


entrapment defense to curtail informant excesses is that
many informant-driven prosecutions reflect entrenched
institutional and societal prejudices. The time has almost
certainly come to call for not merely a curative or more
objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt to
the policy of using informants to investigate
terrorism-related cases where no articulable
suspicion exists. That is not to say that informants cannot play a role
in helping create that legally required suspicion, but rather that it is both
dangerous and unjust to allow them to play the same role as
an undercover officer (302) without providing genuine
oversight by agents who have some understanding of the
language, culture, and motivations of the community from
which a suspect originates. None of the prosecutions discussed here
involved a supervising agent who seemed to have had any linguistic, cultural,
or regional expertise that the agent could have used to challenge an

Even in cases where a defendant's


links to or knowledge of terrorism exist independently of the
informant, the discretionless use of informants is too
problematic to justify its existence. (303) Given that
informant use preys on groups that have been racialized as
terrorists, the use of informants in its current form
should end, much like what happened to the FBI's
COINTELPRO operation, which featured similar use of
informant's version of events.

informants to spy on dissident groups within the United


States in the 1960s and 1970s. (304) Then, as now, informants
often acted as provocateurs who drummed up prosecutions for crimes that
would not have existed but for their involvement. The use of cooperators,
however controversial in its own right, involves, at least in theory, a criminal
conspiracy already in existence, not one that an informant created. Stated

there is a vast difference between 1) sending


someone who has no law enforcement training to look for
people from the Arab and Muslim community to see if they
would be interested in a vaguely defined terrorist plot
(especially when the informant offers money in return) and
2) enlisting an individual who was once part of a conspiracy
or group to offer inside information (even if for money ). The
former operates in the hopes that focusing on a particular
community will uncover terrorism, based on a general
stereotype that that community has a propensity to engage
in such activity. Theoretically, the latter at the very least has some inside
information that would reflect the existence of terrorist activity. Calling for
an end to the use of informants in terrorism prosecutions
should not be perceived as drastic. The vast majority of
Arabs and Muslims in the United States are not terrorists and
the law generally disfavors guilt by association. (305)
Furthermore, a recent study indicates that MuslimAmericans are eager to cooperate with law
enforcement when they perceive the police to be a
legitimate authority whose practices are imbued with
fairness and procedural justice. (306) It is axiomatic that
voluntary cooperation from the Muslim community with law
enforcement to combat suspicious activity would be far
superior to the current informant-driven practice. Eliminating
informant use would certainly go a long way toward
enhancing law enforcement's legitimacy in the eyes of the
Arab and Muslim communities, but will require a hard look at the
differently,

preconceived notions fueling the phenomenon.

C. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to


Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014
Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 79-2014, Racial Profiling Reported in NSA, FBI Surveillance," US News & World
Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/09/racial-profilingreported-in-nsa-fbi-surveillance, Accessed: 6-28-2015, /Bingham-MB

There is a risk of radicalization among citizens Americans,


evidenced by some who have gone to fight jihads in Syria
and Somalia, but mass shootings carried out by U.S. citizens of various
racial backgrounds occurs much more often, says Vanda Felbab-Brown, a
senior fellow on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Since 1982, there

We have seen
very little domestic terrorism in the U.S., FelbabBrown says. This lack of terrorism is due in part to the
willingness of the Islamic community to cooperate
with law enforcement to identify possible radical threats,
out of gratitude that the U.S. is a stable, secure country
compared with the Middle East, she says. That could go
sour if law enforcement becomes too aggressive, too
extreme, she says. The FBIs ability to spy on U.S. citizens
even government employees and those without criminal records will
expand this summer when its new facial recognition
database becomes fully operational. The new database
called Next Generation Identification system, or NGI, will
include photos of anybody who sends images as part of an
application for a job that requires fingerprinting or a
background check. The Muslim-Americans monitored by the
government included Nihad Awad, the executive director and
have been at least 70 mass shootings across the U.S.

founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy and


civil rights organizations. The group has been represented by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation represents the CAIR Foundation in a case challenging the
NSAs mass collection of Americans call records. These disclosures yet
again demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to the

that its surveillance stays


within the bounds of law and the Constitution, said a
blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once again
governments activities to ensure

demonstrate the need for immediate and comprehensive


surveillance law reform."
C. Status quo surveillance policies create a chilling effect
on Muslim American populations. Only adopting a strict
scrutiny standard for domestic surveillance solves.
Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law,
May 2015; BA, University of California, Irvine, "The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be:
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment Rights, Chapman Law
Review 18 Chap. L. Rev. 577, Spring, 2015, SMahajan)

Muslim American Associational Rights Infringed The jurisprudence on


associational rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first assessing
whether government conduct rises to the kind of level that merits strict
scrutiny, and then deciding whether the compelling interest and narrowly tailored
elements of the strict scrutiny test itself are met. As established by case law,
government conduct that may have the effect of curtailing the
freedom to associate should be subjected to strict scrutiny .108 Such
effects have included economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of
physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility . 109 The Ninth
Circuit provided more relevant examples of suppression of religious
expression, including (1) withdrawal by congregants from actively
participating, (2) decline in financial support or donations , (3) congregants
reluctance in seeking religious counseling or being open during prayer , (4)
diversion of clergies or religious leaders time from congregation duties to
dealing with the effects of surveillance , and (5) fear or apprehension of
conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a negative impact on
congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance has exhibited
similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers, demonstrating the need for
strict scrutiny application of the government programs aimed at
widespread Muslim surveillance. Like the curtailment the Court found in Patterson,
Muslim Americans in regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the loss of
business; diminished or affected employment opportunities ;111 other
manifestations of public hostility such as stigma;112 and the enabling or
furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims 113 because of the specter left
upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114 Moreover, the
surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly ominous mark on the
community through the governments use of informants to infiltrate mosques,
Muslim Student Associations on college campuses, and the Muslim
community in general.

D. Multicultural education can deconstruct the other to


rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the Unicorn.
Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the Race
Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter

The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism,


an approach that affirms the value of diversity as a method
of combating racial oppression. Since the late 1980s,
learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a
cornerstone of educational practice in many British,
Canadian, and American schools. The goal of such
multicultural education is not simply to become
familiar with the traditions of other cultures, but to
"enable empathy," to "generat[e] cross-cultural
understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495).
Part of this understanding stems from the creation of
"positive racial images" (97); celebrating Black
History Month, teaching about the role of Islamic
scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as
codebreakers for the U.S. Army during World War II
would all be examples of multicultural antiracism practice.
proponents of multiculturalism believe that, by learning
about the culture of other races, or learning about
positive role models of members of previously
ignored groups, students will learn to rid themselves
of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.
E. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight
serves the security interests of the United States
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Offering S-6 visas to immigrant informants with established


connections to terrorist organizations in exchange for their
cooperation would be a legitimate way for the FBI to reward these

informants. Further, informants would be able to rely on the FBIs


promise and seek review should the agreement go awry . Gaining
informants trust and lessening the coercive aspect of
recruitment would lead to more trustworthy intelligence,
and thereby enhance national security. A larger but less
committed group of informants characterized by the current
underused S-6 visa programdoes the country little good.
Likewise, the indiscriminate and widespread surveillance
of Muslims and Middle Easterners damages American
communities and reifies assumptions and stereotypes
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These assumptions may
also blind law enforcement to real threats taking place in nonMuslim or non-Middle Eastern communities. Expanding and
modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small, poorly
designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that better
procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing more
oversight for FBI informant use and restricting practices that
contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would improve
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities confidence in
and cooperation with the government. This, in turn, would
encourage communities to effectively work with law enforcement
and report suspicious activities. Information offered from within a
community is more likely to be accurate,272 leading to more
counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance national security and
less waste of law enforcement resources on bogus threats.273
In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6 visa program to
better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding informants and
procuring credible intelligence on real threats. Reform would
allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its resources,
and would afford informants a fairer agreement changes
that would better serve the security interests of the
United States

F. Judicial review is important and does not threaten


national security as well as increases transparency.
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration
Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7)

Finally, individuals who agree to provide information in exchange for an S-6 visa should not be forced to waive their right to a deportation
hearing. Currently, informants must knowingly waive their rights to any deportation hearings and appeals should deportation proceedings
occur. They must also waive their rights to contest their detention pending deportation until lawful permanent resident status is obtained.267
Strikingly, informants relinquish all access to judicial review if their applications are mishandled or forgotten and they subsequently face
deportation. In the past, informants have alleged that the FBI has mismanaged and reneged on promises, including immigration promises.268

Allowing judicial review of the S-6 visa process would help lift the
veil of secrecy under which the FBI operates. Furthermore, through
redaction or other methods that preserve informants identities,
judicial review could be carried out without threatening national
security.269 Another benefit of this requirement would be increased transparency in the
way the FBI recruits informants. Wider use of the S-6 visa, as well as greater judicial review, would allow the
government to ascertain the number of individuals enlisted by the FBI as counterterrorism informants . This may further
help curb informant mishandling, a problem that plagues the agency. Because informants would still be
required to provide critical and reliable intelligence, the FBI would be required to articulate clear predicates for recruiting individuals, such as a
close relationship between an individual and a known member of a foreign terrorist organization. This, in turn, would provide due process and
could vindicate informants rights

G. Reformed congressional Oversight it vital to


intelligence and to combat executive circumvention
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)

I understand full well that a separate Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence may not be the preference of this Committee. It was not
the recommendation of the commission. But ways have to be found to bring greater focus and additional resources to the oversight of

increase the opportunity


and likelihood of robust congressional oversight of the intelligence
community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight
of the intelligence community is more important than ever and why
congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the
United States will without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military
force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride
largely on what the intelligence tells us. It is vitally important that the
intelligence community get it right. Oversight is vitally important to
help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has
provided broad authorities to the executive branch to conduct
investigations and collect data. Enhanced collection capabilities and data
mining pose high risks to civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our
liberties, the Congress must conduct robust oversight over the
exercise of the authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform
also needs congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that

since 1947, is not easy to implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100

. The executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and
oversight is necessary. Chairman
Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very difficult
question of access to information. That's not a new problem in the Congress.
different directions

guidance from the Congress are necessary to sustain reform. Sustained

That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been
fighting for more information from the intelligence community. When I was
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle
every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that
except the only way to get the attention of the executive is to withhold the
money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The
checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the
Members to exercise, if they will do it. If you want access to information and
the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll
get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our
Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight
committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a
moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight hearings
during this year thus far. That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just
extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended
for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our Constitution
requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties.
Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its
oversight committees are powerful and active. Strong oversight provides the
checks and balances our Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the
Congress protects our liberties and makes our policies better. Strong
oversight keeps our country safe and free. I appreciate your time and
attention, and look forward to your questions.

Contention 4: Framework
We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging
Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.
A. A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the
judge to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our
project is key to the process of activism, awareness. the
only productive start is challenging the culture of the
American security state
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]

What brings together these different systems of racial


oppressionmass incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportation
is a security logic that holds the imperial state as
necessary to keeping American families (coded white) safe
from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of the last
few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep
us safe. In this sense, security has become the new
psychological wage to aid the reallocation of the welfare
states social wage toward homeland security and to win
support for empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the
notion of security, social and economic anxieties generated by the unraveling
of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward the Black or
Brown street criminal, welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has
argued,

since 9/11,

this homeland in need of security has been

symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once
again threatened by mythical frontier enemies , hidden subversives,
and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of
capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and
sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden
debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of
various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist

Surveillance practices themselves have also often been the target of


organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s, the surveillance state was
pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke
agitation.

into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to expose
COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never
brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example
in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on
government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police Departments spying
on political activities.

Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s with

While
significant sections of the public may have consented to the
security state, those who have been among its greatest
victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror.

campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the


Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a
period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance.

if real change is to be brought about, the racial history of


surveillance will need to be fully confrontedor opposition to
surveillance will once again be easily defeated by racial
security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they have laid out the
Yet

depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.

has been a

The result

generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how

but that alarm remains constrained within a public


debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal
reforms and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such
initiatives are likely to bring little change because they fail to
confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance system. On
the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government
surveillance can be fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While
intrusive surveillance is in our society,

encryption

tools

are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need

do nothing to unravel the larger


surveillance apparatus. Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns
to monitor an individual,

they

about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon

what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a


question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of
images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situation
Valley,

such as George Orwells discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that
Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to
Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have
soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big

For those in certain targeted groups


Muslims, left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance
certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general
public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite different from the classic images of
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.

surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated mass population subject to

What we have instead today in the United


States is total surveillance, not on everyone, but on
very specific groups of people, defined by their race,
religion, or political ideology: people that NSA
officials refer to as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy
government control.

director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there
and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be
the basis for targeting a whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this

national security surveillance can draw entire


communities into its web, while reassuring average people (code for the
normative white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of
the national security state, this average person must also express no political
comment, it points to the ways that

views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national
security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But

reassure technologists,
while racialized populations and political dissenters continue
to experience massive surveillance. This is why the most
effective challenges to the national security state
have come not from legal reformers or technologists
but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized
groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against
the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial
profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates
by themselves these

are likely to do little more than

of stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people,
the poor, Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after

while
the national security state aims to create fear and to
divide people, activists can organize and build
alliances across race lines to overcome that fear. To the
a campaign that united various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,

extent that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar
movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards
opposition to the national security state. But understanding the centrality of
race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for
unity across different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim,
Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis
that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the
surveillance state and empire.

B. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an


educational space such as debate is a gateway to larger
political actions.
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important . As one
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I am convinced

student said racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically.

Our work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge


against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom

discussions and
general teaching form a very important contribution to
this work of anti racism in education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts;
the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a way that engages students and
leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues

The student voice, that critiques


mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work . I argue
for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

that teaching and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical
consciousness necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows,
these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for
bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social
justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
practices and the curriculum, because: if

we are not working for equity in our teaching and


learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic racism, when racist
attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and
physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).

The point of studying racism, therefore, is

to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that:
Education

can enlighten students and promote positive attitudes .

Education settings can be the first arena in which battles


can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed.

C. Education in debate is critical to begin deconstructing


Islamophobia we need engaged dialogue on the question
of discrimination in order to challenge internal
stereotypes and ignorance
Esposito 11 (John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies
and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism
in the 21st Century, January 6 2011,
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf)

9/11 made the international community more aware of the


critical importance of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in
Europe and America, the Muslim world and beyond as well as international organizations like the United
Nations and Organization of the Islamic Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote
intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political,

Centers like
Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have
been active in Washington and globally, speaking, briefing,
and writing for a broad audience of university, government,
media and corporate audiences. Education in our schools,
religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the Alliance of Civilizations.

that train the


next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and citizens is
critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate, silence
alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out against
ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam, discrimination,
hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims must be
turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would this discourse
universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues

Islamophobia can
have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas
policy in Iraq, from war to post-war reconstruction, was
affected by the extent to which Islam and Muslim religious
leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen through the
distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
fundamentalism. Therefore, the potential roles of Shii religious leaders and institutions were
and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets?

unforeseen or underestimated, and then feared; the belief that Iranian Shii would control Iraqi Shii, leading
to a Qom-Najaf axis, failed to appreciate and understand the diversity of Shii leadership.

By voting affirmative you as a judge are rewarding the


Affs efforts to both reject racism as well as challenge the
current Islamophobic policies and mindsets in an
educational setting such as debate
The Debate space is key to analyze questions of
oppression
Reid-Brinkley, 08 (Dr. Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, professor at the University of Georgia
focusing on racial studies, argument and performance, and black feminist theory, she is also the director of
debate, The Harsh Realities of" acting Black": How African-American Policy Debaters Negotiate
Representation Through Racial Performance and Style, https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/reidbrinkley_shanara_r_200805_phd.pdf

The attempts at educational reform are not limited to institutional actors such
as the local, state, and federal governments . Non-profit organizations dedicated to alleviating the black/white
achievement gap have also proliferated. One such organization, the Urban Debate League, claims that Urban Debate Leagues have proven to increase literacy scores by
25%, to improve grade-point averages by 8 to 10%, to achieve high school graduation rates of nearly 100%, and to produce college matriculation rates of 71 to 91%. The
UDL program is housed in over fourteen American cities and targets inner city youths of color to increase their access to debate training. Such training of students defined
as at risk is designed to offset the negative statistics associated with black educational achievement. The program has been fairly successful and has received wide scale
media attention. The success of the program has also generated renewed interest amongst college debate programs in increasing direct efforts at recruitment of racial and
ethnic minorities. The UDL program creates a substantial pool of racial minorities with debate training coming out of high school, that college debate directors may tap to

The debate community serves as a microcosm of the broader


educational space within which racial ideologies are operating. It is a space in
which academic achievement is performed according to the intelligibility of
ones race, gender, class, and sexuality. As policy debate is intellectually
rigorous and has historically been closed to those marked by social
difference, it offers a unique opportunity to engage the impact of
desegregation and diversification of American education . How are black students integrated into a
diversify their own teams.

competitive educational community from which they have traditionally been excluded? How are they represented in public and media discourse about their participation,

If racial ideology is perpetuated within discourse


through the stereotype, then mapping the intelligibility of the stereotype
within public discourse and the attempts to resist such intelligibility is a
critical tool in the battle to end racial domination.
and how do they rhetorically respond to such representations?

Convincing 1AC

Overview
Imagine the FBI busting down your door in the middle of family dinner and
threatening to deport you to a random foreign country if you dont give up
your friends darkest secrets - worse, secrets you just dont have. This
scenario might seem ridiculous - after all, the FBI is the good guy, right? But
this story is frighteningly common among Muslim communities, where the FBI
consistently disrespects and violates their rights because of an illegitimate
fear of terrorism.
The FBI is abusing their informants and the communities they spy on
right now - especially in Muslim communities, where their efforts are
particularly harmful and ineffective. We are taking steps to make
their processes more efficient and more effective.
There are three specific parts to our plan.
1. Plan will create Congressional Oversight of the FBIs Domestic
Terrorist Informants and Judicial review of the Section 6 Visa
program
Basically, we are making sure that the FBI has a system of accountability in
using and respecting informants in a system that as of now not conducive to
producing actionable intelligence or respecting the communities it is
surveilling. Using non-executive branches to check the FBI will decrease their
abuse of power.
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required from all Muslim
informant operations.
Strict scrutiny is a standard higher than that of reasonable doubt. In this way,
we will ensure that the FBI only uses informants in cases where it is
absolutely critical to national security. The FBI will now have to be more
stringent and sure about its plans before carrying them out.
3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation of Muslim
informants and instead to grant them Section 6 Visa protection with
an explanation of the program.
Our plan fixes an existing program called the Section 6 Visa. It allows
reformed terrorists with credible intelligence to help the FBI in exchange for a
visa. Right now, there are not an adequate number of those visas available

and the application process has too many steps, leading the FBI to disregard
the visa in favor of using coercive and dehumanizing tactics to recruit
informants, estranging the Muslim community and failing to acquire
actionable counterterrorism intelligence.

Contention 1 Inherency
A. The FBIs Use of informants
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Despite the FBIs long history of problematic relationships with informants,39

both Congress and the Department of Justicethe FBIs


parent agencyprovide very little oversight of FBI
informants. The lack of transparency, control, and accountability give the
FBI almost unlimited power over how it recruits, handles, and rewards
informants.40 In particular, because of the greater secrecy afforded to
national security investigations, the use of terrorism informants presents
unique problems not present in traditional, nonterrorism use of informants.
The use of informants in terrorism investigations differs in several ways from their use in the investigation
of domestic crimes like smuggling, prostitution, and financial impropriety. Although the FBI has41been
using informants to conduct investigations since the agencys inception, informants were traditionally used
to investigate victimless crimes such as white-collar crimes42 and crimes dealing with prostitution,
drugs, and corruption.43 Informants proved especially useful in those cases because all parties to the
crime were usually guilty and not likely to inform authorities, making it difficult for law enforcement agents
to discover the crime on their own.44 Consequently, because individuals already part of the criminal
organization or conspiracy had the trust and confidence of the organization and could provide the most
useful information to law enforcement over a longer period of time, the FBI has generally recruited

informant program, for


example, sought to recruit high-ranking members of the mafia as
informants.45 Notably, however, even the FBIs traditional method of
recruiting informants from within the criminal organizations resulted in false
intelligence and botched cases.46
informants in these investigations from the inside. The FBIs Top Echelon

While there are no detailed studies on the differences between terrorism


informants and traditional informants because the FBI keeps most of this
information confidential,47 broad observations can still be made. First, the
FBIs preventative stance on terrorism has significantly increased reliance on
informants intelligence.48 After

9/11, the FBI drastically


expanded the use of informants49 from around 1,500 in
51
1975 to an estimated 15,000 today . Informants have become the
number one tool for preventing terrorist acts.

52

Second, law enforcement dealings with terrorism informants receive greater


deference from courts and other limiting actors because terrorism is

considered a national security matter instead of simply a domestic law


enforcement matter.53 The executive branch has greater control over
national security and foreign intelligence matters than over domestic law
enforcement, an area traditionally reserved to the states. 54 Thus, the post9/11 characterization of terrorism as a national security matter results in
courts affording more leeway to terrorism investigations than domestic
criminal investigations.55 In other words, the federal government is afforded
more secrecy in matters of national security.56 Hence, because the
government can invoke national security concerns to keep information about
the informant and handler privileged, there is less regulation governing the
recruitment and handling of terrorism informants than traditional criminal
informants.57
Third, while false and inaccurate intelligence has generally been a problem
with informants,58 recent terrorism investigations raise the question of
whether the alleged terrorist crimes would have occurred without law
enforcement instigating the terrorist activities.59 Informants in these cases
60

aggressively instigated the defendants participation in the plot. Recruiting


informants who lack ties to terrorist organizations may be at the root of this
problem, because they lack predetermined targets known to be involved in
61

terrorist groups. Without these targets, informants under pressure to avoid


deportation or other immigration consequences, for example, are more likely
62

to produce false information. Further complicating this issue, the


government has suffered from credibility problems in terrorism investigations
63

for not always fulfilling the promises made to informants. One FBI
informant, a Yemeni citizen named Mohamed Alanssi, set himself on fire in
front of the White House after alleging that the FBI had broken numerous
64

promises to him. Governmental credibility is critical to maintaining a


relationship of trust between law enforcement and informants, and thereby
facilitates the gathering of credible intelligence.
Due to the vast number of terrorism informants

today,

the secrecy

the
recruitment and use of informants in terrorism investigations
present unique problems to the FBI. Because of increased
underlying the investigations,65 and the potential for false intelligence,

confidentiality surrounding national security issues, the government has the


means and incentives to shield the true extent of its recruitment and use of
terrorism informants from courts and the public.66 To increase accountability
and lessen the risk of abuse, more oversight over the FBIs

dealings with terrorism informants is needed.

Notably, some

limits on the FBIs use of informants do exist. However, given the secrecy
surrounding national security concerns, whether these limits apply in

terrorism investigations remains unclear.

B. Post 9/11 United States Federal Governments lust


for information has pushed FBI informant policy into
counterproductive tactics
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Using the threat of immigration consequences like


deportation to produce terrorism intelligence presents novel
problems for the intelligence gathering process and the
informants. When individuals are pressured into becoming informants by
the threat of deportation, which may remove them from their family and all
sources of support, the decision essentially becomes a Hobsons choice.16

Informants recruited in this manner who also lack


17
legitimate ties to foreign terrorist organizations have an
enormous incentive to fabricate information to fulfill
18
their end of the agreement and avoid deportation.
Attorney Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained,
Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim
immigrants to spy on their own communities or give false testimony with the
threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do
not cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim
community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be

individuals may feel they must offer


up something to the government to avoid being
removed from their families, jobs, and lives. The threat of
unreliable,20 because these

false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of entrapment21 by


agent provocateurs, false intelligence may encourage ethnic

and religious profiling of Muslim and Middle Eastern

communities,

22

chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence

resources. Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection


to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no
statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation, removal, or
exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to
leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals who have been in the
country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence
reduction or lessened charges and who can enforce his or her bargain with
the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration
benefits has no way of enforcing these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth
Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration
violations.27 Finally, according to some reported cases, the government has
failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after
receiving their cooperation.28
With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29
than informants recruited through monetary incentives or promises of
sentence reductions, there is greater incentive for informants flipped

30

via

immigration violations to provide unreliable information. Furthermore, due to the


latitude afforded to the executive branch in national security matters, there is

a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism


informants than for other types of informants.31 Immigration status offers a
valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from
individuals who otherwise would not be forthcoming. However, this method
for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately
applied to situations where the informants lack useful connections to terrorist
groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for informants, and
increased ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI
recruits terrorism informants with immigration threats and rewards are
needed.

C. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the


status quo
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives

and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
While the FBI appears to recruit most terrorism informants through informal

an existing visa program already formally offers


immigration benefits to informants in exchange for their
cooperation with terrorism investigations . As part of the
means,

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress


specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were
willing to cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33 However, given

the small number of S-6 visas issued, the program likely


fails to meet the FBIs intelligence recruitment needs.
The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34

do not match up
with the number of informants (fifteen thousand) used
by the FBI.35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also
meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of Justices Rewards for
Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward
terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to the S-6 visa is further restricted by
the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is
returned to his or her home country.37 Since

the FBI has long used immigration law as an

incentive to compel terrorism informants to act, it has little motivation to use a rewards program that
presents additional barriers. The

stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa

explain its ongoing underuse.38

Contention 2 Harms
A. The Muslim community is dehumanized by structural
Islamophobia In the status quo
Lazare, 15 (Sarah Lazare, On Both Sides of Atlantic, Muslims Organizing
to Reject Dehumanization, December 22, 2015,
http://www.mintpressnews.com/on-both-sides-of-atlantic-muslims-organizingto-reject-dehumanization/212255/ )

Amid rising anti-Muslim attacks across the United States, many from

within targeted
communities are calling on U.S. society to address the root causes of
this violence by examining deep and structural Islamophobia,
manifested in modern U.S. historyfrom the War on Terror to the 2016 presidential race . For some
of us [Muslims], organizing and resisting against this system of antiMuslim violence is survival, Darakshan Raja, co-founder of the Muslim American Womens
Policy Forum and program manager for the Washington Peace Center, told Common Dreams. It is
emotionally exhausting and traumatizing to live in a world where a
core part of our identity, Muslim, is consistently dehumanized . That
dehumanization is not a new phenomenon. In my mind, what Donald Trump is talking about has already
been policy for the past 14 years, Dr. Maha Hillal, executive director of the National Coalition to Protect

There are numerous ways that Muslims have


been targeted under the guise of national security . Raja echoed this point, saying: I
would like for the broader U.S. society to recognize that anti-Muslim violence is structural ,
Civil Freedoms, told Common Dreams.

said Raja. It is an extension of the systems of oppression that America is built upon. It is codified in
policies and laws that make up the War on Terror, which we all fund through our tax dollars, Raja

The collective blame, hate violence, and dehumanization


Muslims experience must be seen as an extension of state violence .
continued.

These systems of violence can only sustain themselves if we continue to accept the dehumanization of
communities.

A simple start to rejecting anti-Muslim violence is rejecting


our dehumanization. From New York to San Francisco to Washington, D.C., Arab and Muslim
communities have been at the forefront of efforts to counter rising Islamophobia, which is perhaps most
explicitly on display in the presidential campaign of Trump, who has invoked the U.S. internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II to justify his call to ban non-American Muslims. Meanwhile, the
U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations announced Monday that member organizations plan to focus on voter
drives, as well as organize a National Open Mosque Day designed to help increase interactions between
American Muslims and citizens of other faiths and backgrounds. In a statement emailed to Common
Dreams, the Councilwhose members include the Council on American-Islamic Relations and United
Muslim Reliefsaid it will also seek to increase emergency preparedness for Islamic institutions and
individual Muslims to address the rising number of hate incidents nationwide. Some

argue that
such discussion also requires an examination of state violence already
perpetrated by the U.S. government. As Deepa Kumar, professor and author of Islamophobia
and the Politics of Empire, recently pointed out, Trump need not have looked to 1942, or earlier, for a
historical precedent. His internment proposal has already been in process, albeit in different forms, since
9/11, with tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants and citizens having passed through the prison-industrial

Mosques, community
centers, and even childrens sports leagues have been subjected to
surveillance, notes Kumar. Despite the fact that not even one of these 1,200 was found to have
complex. Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama,

connections to 9/11 or terrorism, the pattern of detention and deportation has only grown since then.
And in what one commentator called taking a page from Donald Trump, lawmakers recently passed a

measure to formalize visa waiver discrimination against Iranian, Iraqi, Sudanese, and Syrian Americans.
According to Hillal, now is a critical time to construct

a counter-narrative that exists


outside of the system of white supremacy, where we can talk about our own
stories from our own experiences. And Raja explained, Some of the ways we are organizing
includes rebuilding community, investing in grassroots work, holding educational forums, self-care, and
unpacking internalized Islamophobia. Parallel organizing, meanwhile, is taking place across the Atlantic
Ocean. Over 100 organizations last week issued a joint statement calling on the French government to lift
the countrys state of emergencywhich is set to expire February 26, but according to President Francois
Hollande, could be extended. Groups including the French Human Rights League and the Collective
against Islamophobia blasted the measure for depriving Muslims and other communities of the right to
protest and allowing police to conduct discriminatory raids and arrests. The missive demands an
immediate halt to arbitrary searches and arrests that have swept homes, mosques, restaurants, and more
since the Paris attacks of November 13. Whats more, Muslims within French society have filed at least 20
complaints against the government, arguing that their rights were violated under the countrys state of
emergency, including through unlawful detentions. The raids have disproportionately targeted people of
Islamic faith with overt brutality, Yasser Louati, spokesman for the Collective against Islamophobia in
France, said in a recent interview. Weve collected evidence of 50 cases of abuse and these are just the
ones we know about where police hurled racist abuse at families, women were assaulted and one even
miscarried.

Structural racism is a controlling impact that shapes how


violence and inequality are distributed in society, its
responsible for forms of everyday violence
Lawrence and Keleher, 2004
Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities
POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism By Keith Lawrence, Aspen Institute on
Community Change and Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center at UC
Berkeley For the Race and Public Policy Conference 2004,
http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf,
/Bingham-MB

Structural Racism in the U.S. is the


normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics
historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal that
routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and
chronic adverse outcomes for people of color. It is a system
of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized by white
supremacy the preferential treatment, privilege and power
for white people at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian,
Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab and other racially
oppressed people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses
the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused
in all aspects of society, including our history, culture,
politics, economics and our entire social fabric. Structural
Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of racism
Structural Racism Definition:

all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal,


internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.
Indicators/Manifestations: The key indicators of structural
racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities,
treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they
are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to
locate in a particular institution because it involves the
reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms,
past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism: Individual
or internalized racism lies within individuals. These are
private manifestations of racism that reside inside the
individual. Examples include prejudice, xenophobia,
internalized oppression and privilege, and beliefs about race
influenced by the dominant culture. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism occurs within and between institutions.
Institutional racism is discriminatory treatment, unfair
policies and inequitable opportunities and impacts, based on
race, produced and perpetuated by institutions (schools,
mass media, etc.). Individuals within institutions take on the
power of the institution when they act in ways that
advantage and disadvantage people, based on race.
We must reject every instance of racism
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p. 155156

The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and


powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust: the effects of uncontrolled
power privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will

the walls of racism


can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable
fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of
inevitably destroy us. But we have also seen that

individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be


destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of
those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the
walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems
to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries of national
and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent
aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction, may be
reaching a point of no return. A small and predominately white minority of the
global population derives its power and privilege from the suffering of the

For the sake of the world and


ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
vast majority of peoples of color.

B. Status quo policies create hostility with Muslim


community
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law
and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and that
national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These
arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a specific target and
direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations
security. Instead, the FBIwith little concern for the actual gravity of the
original threat posed by the suspect creates

an elaborate
terrorism plot for the surveillance targets to participate
in.100 After 9/11, many individuals who showed no signs of
violence or extremism prior to involvement with
informants and government-created plots have been
prosecuted under terrorism charges.101 Until the informants
provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the proper
connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although
orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance appear
successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from
focusing on real targets.

Moreover, Professor David A. Harris claims that the unregulated use of


informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do
great damage because it poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source
of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed
102

Having
community members report suspicious information to
the FBI may be a more effective way of obtaining reliable
103
terrorism intelligence from these communities. For example,
between law enforcement and Muslim communities.

in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to informant
involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and
104
identify the subjects.
In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
105
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.
A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented
had law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in
106
Nigeria.
As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor,
David Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San
Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance
107
only serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.
Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack
of connection to terrorist organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy
108
Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.
The 287(g) initiative, named
after the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into
memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies
109
to directly enforce immigration laws.
However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using
110
287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,
as the 287(g)
111
initiative had originally envisioned.
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as
112
possible regardless of the severity of the crime.
Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct and adverse
ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public
places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the police and
other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113

These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions


114
with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.
Just as
Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting
when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread
distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with
115
police and other authorities.

C. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the status


quo means that Muslims are dehumanized others
Joshi 06
(Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University, The
Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
The racialization of religion occurs through multiple processes, involves
multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization
results in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity and
thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static view of an
ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam are three
different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes,
racialization affects each religious group that is targeted differently. While one
could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with
whitenesswith distinctive designations for black, Korean, or Chinese
Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because
whiteness and Christianity function as the United States racial and religious
norms, respectively.3 The construction of identity most often involves
establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves identifying
others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978 ). The process of othering entails a
dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing certain characteristics to a population in order to
categorize and differentiate it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they

and its other or others are, to a great


extent, each defined by reference to the other, by what each is not. For
reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the
normative power of whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem,
that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white
non-Christians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of
South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves historically and
socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed
as a society where Christianity and whiteness are intimately linked and where
Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other
religions and races are measured.
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm

Dehumanization outweighs all


Montagu and Matson 83
Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American Studies at University of
Hawaii [Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, http://64.233.187.104/search?
q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www.cross-x.com/vb/archive/index.php/t939595.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en]

The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine


(psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its
lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts
apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason, this sickness of the
soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Its more
conventional name, of course, is dehumanization

Contention 3 Solvency
A. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads to
cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB

Perhaps the main difficulty with trying to reform the


entrapment defense to curtail informant excesses is that
many informant-driven prosecutions reflect entrenched
institutional and societal prejudices. The time has almost
certainly come to call for not merely a curative or more
objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt
to the policy of using informants to investigate
terrorism-related cases where no articulable
suspicion exists. That is not to say that informants cannot play a role
in helping create that legally required suspicion, but rather that it is both
dangerous and unjust to allow them to play the same role as
an undercover officer (302) without providing genuine
oversight by agents who have some understanding of the
language, culture, and motivations of the community from
which a suspect originates. None of the prosecutions discussed here
involved a supervising agent who seemed to have had any linguistic, cultural,
or regional expertise that the agent could have used to challenge an

Even in cases where a defendant's


links to or knowledge of terrorism exist independently of the
informant, the discretionless use of informants is too
problematic to justify its existence. (303) Given that
informant use preys on groups that have been racialized as
terrorists, the use of informants in its current form
should end, much like what happened to the FBI's
COINTELPRO operation, which featured similar use of
informant's version of events.

informants to spy on dissident groups within the United


States in the 1960s and 1970s. (304) Then, as now, informants
often acted as provocateurs who drummed up prosecutions for crimes that
would not have existed but for their involvement. The use of cooperators,
however controversial in its own right, involves, at least in theory, a criminal
conspiracy already in existence, not one that an informant created. Stated

there is a vast difference between 1) sending


someone who has no law enforcement training to look for
people from the Arab and Muslim community to see if they
would be interested in a vaguely defined terrorist plot
(especially when the informant offers money in return) and
2) enlisting an individual who was once part of a conspiracy
or group to offer inside information (even if for money). The
former operates in the hopes that focusing on a particular
community will uncover terrorism, based on a general
stereotype that that community has a propensity to engage
in such activity. Theoretically, the latter at the very least has some inside
information that would reflect the existence of terrorist activity. Calling for
an end to the use of informants in terrorism prosecutions
should not be perceived as drastic. The vast majority of
Arabs and Muslims in the United States are not terrorists and
the law generally disfavors guilt by association. (305)
Furthermore, a recent study indicates that MuslimAmericans are eager to cooperate with law
enforcement when they perceive the police to be a
legitimate authority whose practices are imbued with
fairness and procedural justice. (306) It is axiomatic that
voluntary cooperation from the Muslim community with law
enforcement to combat suspicious activity would be far
superior to the current informant-driven practice. Eliminating
informant use would certainly go a long way toward
enhancing law enforcement's legitimacy in the eyes of the
Arab and Muslim communities, but will require a hard look at the
differently,

preconceived notions fueling the phenomenon.

B. The strict scrutiny standard would immediately


declare the most invasive and abusive Islamophobic
policies un-Constitutional and reduce the executional
ability of these agencies solves both federal and
local discrimination
Love 2012 [Erik, (Assistant Professor of Sociology @
Dickinson College), "NYPD: Whose side are you on?",
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding,
http://www.ispu.org/GetArticles/48/2461/Publications.aspx,
Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
Despite the recent outpouring of support of these
discriminatory programmes, a federal investigation of the
NYPD's practices is sorely needed. It's likely that if the NYPD's
crudely constructed policies of religious and racial profiling were
brought into the courts, the judicial principle of strict scrutiny
would definitively show that the NYPD had grossly violated the
constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Strict
scrutiny is the standard applied by the courts to determine whether
the government can move beyond constitutional limits due to
extraordinary circumstances.

It's called "strict" because the


government must rise to a tripartite standard: first, it must
prove that it has a compelling interest; second, that the policy is
narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and, finally, the
policy must use the least restrictive means to achieve
that interest. Preventing terrorism is, undoubtedly, a
compelling state interest. But spying on anyone who happens to be
in a mosque or restaurant cannot possibly be "narrowly tailored ".
Similarly, a programme so paranoid that it spied on its own anti-terrorism
partners and kept track of any Muslim who changed their name clearly isn't
the "least restrictive means" towards achieving the goal of anti-terrorism.

The case for proving that the NYPD has violated the
constitution appears easy to prove in a court. The inability of
Muslim American and civil liberties advocates to get these
programmes into the courts, so far, is another sign of
political oppression. What might be even worse than the
flagrant violation of civil rights, however, is that the NYPD
programme is likely to make New York and the rest of the

country less safe from terrorism. The best scholarship on


terrorism suggests that devout Muslims are very unlikely to
join up with terrorists. A February 2012 report from the
Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security
concluded that terrorism from Muslim Americans was a
"miniscule threat to public safety". An earlier report from the
same centre found that Muslim American "practices"
effectively "prevent radicalisation".
B. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to
Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014
Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 79-2014, Racial Profiling Reported in NSA, FBI Surveillance," US News & World
Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/09/racial-profilingreported-in-nsa-fbi-surveillance, Accessed: 6-28-2015, /Bingham-MB

There is a risk of radicalization among citizens Americans,


evidenced by some who have gone to fight jihads in Syria
and Somalia, but mass shootings carried out by U.S. citizens of various
racial backgrounds occurs much more often, says Vanda Felbab-Brown, a
senior fellow on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Since 1982, there

We have seen
very little domestic terrorism in the U.S., FelbabBrown says. This lack of terrorism is due in part to the
willingness of the Islamic community to cooperate
with law enforcement to identify possible radical threats,
out of gratitude that the U.S. is a stable, secure country
compared with the Middle East, she says. That could go
sour if law enforcement becomes too aggressive, too
extreme, she says. The FBIs ability to spy on U.S. citizens
even government employees and those without criminal records will
expand this summer when its new facial recognition
database becomes fully operational. The new database
called Next Generation Identification system, or NGI, will
include photos of anybody who sends images as part of an
have been at least 70 mass shootings across the U.S.

application for a job that requires fingerprinting or a


background check. The Muslim-Americans monitored by the
government included Nihad Awad, the executive director and
founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy and
civil rights organizations. The group has been represented by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation represents the CAIR Foundation in a case challenging the
NSAs mass collection of Americans call records. These disclosures yet

demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to


the governments activities to ensure that its surveillance
stays within the bounds of law and the Constitution,
said a blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once
again demonstrate the need for immediate and
comprehensive surveillance law reform."
again

C. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight


serves the security interests of the United States
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Offering S-6 visas to immigrant informants with established


connections to terrorist organizations in exchange for their
cooperation would be a legitimate way for the FBI to reward these
informants. Further, informants would be able to rely on the FBIs
promise and seek review should the agreement go awry. Gaining
informants trust and lessening the coercive aspect of
recruitment would lead to more trustworthy intelligence,
and thereby enhance national security. A larger but less
committed group of informants characterized by the current
underused S-6 visa programdoes the country little good.
Likewise, the indiscriminate and widespread surveillance
of Muslims and Middle Easterners damages American
communities and reifies assumptions and stereotypes
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These

assumptions may also blind law enforcement to real threats


taking place in non- Muslim or non-Middle Eastern communities.
Expanding and modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small,
poorly designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that
better procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing
more oversight for FBI informant use and restricting
practices that contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would
improve Muslim and Middle Eastern communities
confidence in and cooperation with the government. This,
in turn, would encourage communities to effectively work with
law enforcement and report suspicious activities. Information
offered from within a community is more likely to be accurate,272
leading to more counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance
national security and less waste of law enforcement resources on
bogus threats.273 In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6
visa program to better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding
informants and procuring credible intelligence on real threats.
Reform would allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its
resources, and would afford informants a fairer
agreement changes that would better serve the security
interests of the United States

Contention 4: Framework
We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging
Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.
A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the judge
to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our project is
key to the process of activism, awareness. the only
productive start is challenging the culture of the
American security state
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]

What brings together these different systems of racial oppressionmass


incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportationis a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of
the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also an
assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe. In this sense,
security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation of
the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the notion of security, social and
economic anxieties generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social
compact have been channeled toward the Black or Brown street criminal,
welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this
homeland in need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white
domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by mythical frontier
enemies, hidden subversives, and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland
coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the
heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is
gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in
this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave

Surveillance practices themselves


have also often been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and
1970s, the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971
rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.

and stole classified documents managed to expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down.
(But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar
techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement,
and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance
in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that
regulated the New York Police Departments spying on political activities .

Those concerns began


to be swept aside in the 1980s with the War on Drugs and, especially, later
with the War on Terror. While significant sections of the public may have
consented to the security state, those who have been among its greatest
victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the
Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a period of
revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real

change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will need to


be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again be easily
defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they
have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.

The result has been a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains constrained within a public
debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal
reforms and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such
initiatives are likely to bring little change because they fail to
confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance system. On
the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government
surveillance can be fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While
encryption tools are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need to
monitor an individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus.
Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers

what should be a debate


about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits .69
Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of state surveillance
that do not adequately fit the current situation such as George Orwells discussion of
concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,

totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the
type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the
current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The
argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.

For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, left-wing campaigners, radical


journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian . But this level of
scrutiny is not faced by the general public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore
quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an

What we have
instead today in the United States is total
surveillance, not on everyone, but on very specific
groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or
political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to as
the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience:
undifferentiated mass population subject to government control.

Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of
average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid intelligence targets, you are not of interest to
us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or
political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment, it points to the ways that

national

security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that
they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this
average person must also express no political views critical of the status quo.
Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of
encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do
little more than reassure technologists, while racialized populations and
political dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This is why the
most effective challenges to the national security state have come

not from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots


campaigning by the racialized groups most affected. In New York, the
campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos
and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of stop and frisk. In
Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland Security-funded Domain
Awareness Center was successful because various constituencies were able to
unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor, Muslims, and Blacks .
Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled
communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups

while the national security


state aims to create fear and to divide people,
activists can organize and build alliances across race
lines to overcome that fear. To the extent that the national
defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,

security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental


rights activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and whistleblowers,
these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security
state. But understanding the centrality of race and empire to national security
surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white
dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis that we can see the beginnings
of an effective multiracial opposition to the surveillance state and empire.

By voting affirmative you as a judge are rewarding the


Affs efforts to both reject racism as well as challenge the
current Islamophobic policies and mindsets in an
educational setting such as debate

Advantage: Otherization
Structure:
Muslims characterized as the other in the status quo.
Otherization justifies the war on terror.
By improving the stigma against Muslim Americans
We decrease the War on Terror, saving lives.

Extend Josie 6 Otherization Card from 1AC


The War on Terror relies on the constructed image of the
Other against the dignified and moral force of US
hegemonyrecreates violence, biopower, and colonialism
Crowe, 7researcher at York Centre for International and Security Studies,
York University, (L.A., "The Fuzzy Dream: Discourse, Historical myths, and
Militarized (in)Security - Interrogating dangerous myths of Afghanistan and
the West", www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/Croweloricrowe.pdf)//twemchen
These elements of oppositional binaries is closely related to the second element: contemporary discourse has developed
from and further perpetuates a particular ideology that emmanates from a neo-liberal capitalist and imperial agenda that
is founded upon neo-colonialist attitudes and assumptions. The

US campaign to fight terrorism,


initiated after September 11th explains Nahla Abdo has crystallized all the ideological
underpinnings of colonial and imperial policies towards the constructed
other.82 This emerges in the heroism myth mentioned above; for example, Debrix explains
how narratives around humanitarianism serve an ideological purpose in that it contributes to the reinforcement of
neoliberal policies in pathological regions of the international landscape.83 It also emerges in the militarization myth,

neoliberal globalisation relies on the institutionalization of neocolonialism and the commodification and (re)colonization of labor via militarized
strategies of imperial politics. That is, as Agathangelou and Ling point out, Neoliberal economics enables
insofar as

globalized militarization.84 Embedded in this normalization of neo-colonial frames are the elements of linearity and thus
assumed rationality of reasoning in the West. As Canada stepped up its role in direct combat operations (which included
an increase of combat troops, fighter jets, and tanks with long-range firing capacities85), Stephen Harper appealed to
troop morale on the ground in Afghanistan, stating: Canada and the international community are determined to take a
failed state and create a "democratic, prosperous and modern country."86 (my italics) Proposed solutions to the conflict(s)
in Afghanistan have been framed and justified not only as saving backwards Afghanistan but also as generously bringing
it into the modern, capitalist, neoliberal age. Moreover, this element represents an continuity of colonial power, presenting
the one correct truth or resolution, emmanating from the objective gaze of the problem-solving Western world.

Representations of Afghanistan present Western voices as the authority and


the potential progress such authority can bring to the East as naturally desirable. This
rationality also presumes an inherent value of Western methodology (including
statistical analysis, quantification of data, etc) and devalues alternative epistemologies including
those of the Afghan people. This is problematic for several reasons: 1) It forecloses and discourages
thinking outside the box and instead relies upon the masters tools
which include violent military force, the installation of a democratic regime, peacekeeping, and
reconstruction and foreign aid alternative strategies are deemed radical, unworkable, and anti-American; 2) it
prioritizes numbers and statitistics over lived experiences . By relying on
tallies of deaths, percetages of voters, and numbers of insurgents for example, the experiences of those living in the
region are obfuscated and devalued, and;

3)it reproduces a colonial hierarchy of

knowledge production. Old colonial narratives of have re-surfaced with renewed


vigor in the case of Afghanistan is contingent on and mutually reinforced by opposing
narratives of a civilized and developed West . For example: Consider the language which is
being usedCalling the perpetrators evildoers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on
destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy. They hate freedom, we are told. Every person of colour, and I
would want to say also every Aboriginal person, will recognize that language. The language of us versus them, of

This
colonizer/colonized dichotomy is key to the civilisational justification the
US administration pursues (We wage war to save civilization itself88) which, as Agathangelou and
civilization versus the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy.87

Ling explain, is motivated by a constructed medieval evil that threatens American freedom and democracy, the
apotheosis of modern civilization, and therefore must be disciplined/civilized. In his Speech to Congress on September 21,
2001, Bush portrays the irrational Other as Evil and retributive seeking to destroy the developed, secure prosperous
and civilized free world: These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of lifeAl Qaeda is to
terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world, and imposing its radical

This production of othering and re-institutionalization of


colonial discourse has been enabled by and facilitated culture clash
explanations.90 The danger of such theories, warns Razack, lies not only in their
decontextualization and dehistoricization, but also on its reliance on the
Enlightenment narrative and notions of European moral superiority that
justify the use of force. This is evident in the unproblematic way in which
outside forces have assumed a right of interference in the region spanning from the 18th
beliefs on people everywhere.89

century when imperial powers demarcated the Durrand Line (which created a border between British India and
Afghanistan with the goal of making Afghanistan an effective buffer statefor British Imperial interests91) to the American
intervention that began in the Cold War, followed by the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans, Canadians and British
today. In fact, The Wests practical engagement in Afghanistan reveals how it has served to reporoduce this neo-colonial
myth as well as the complexities and paradoxes which simultaneously de-stabilize that myth. During the cold war, the
Soviet and the Americans used Afghanistan as the battleground for power, choosing to sponsor and condemn various
regimes as they saw fit; this history of foreign engagement contributed to state fragmentation, underdevelopment, and
the self-sustaining war-economy that persist today. An example of this is the use of rentier incomes during the early
1900s that were used as a means of control and coercion.92

The United States uses otherization and the concept of


domination and subordination to justify extreme domestic
discrimination in surveillance and foreign attacks
Jamal 08 (Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil
Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans, Race and Arab
Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects, 2008,
https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+
and+After+9/11:+From+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA
GoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab
%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From%20Invisible
%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)

An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.


According to this logic, Americans in favor of infringing on
Muslim and Arab American civil liberties do so because they
hold negative views about an entire people. These
negative views are fed by a variety of misperceptions and
stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had been popularly

constructed as an irrational, terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy

long before 9/11. American foreign policy has


consistently justified intervention in the Muslim world along
similar lines. When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and
Muslim world as inherently undemocratic owing to
fundamental value differences between us and them,
they promote an environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the
Other

racialization of Arab and Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the
overwhelming support for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005).
In this chapter I move beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race
relations are strictly structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of
racialization that incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the

racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the consistent


deployment of an us versus them mentality, excessively propped up for
the justification of military campaigns in the Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims
is not simply contingent on phenotypical differences; rather, this racialization of difference is
driven by a perceived clash of values and exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process
of othering is based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not
based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial
divides; instead, it conforms to the process of racialization that has characterized the ways in
which the dominant elements in society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more
generally. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,

in a society that is already constructed along racial lines, any


perceived difference between the dominant mainstream and
a minority Other tends to conform to racisms framework.
This othering process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis-vis other groups along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on
differences in appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are
exacerbated by popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other,
especially after 9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently
been questioned since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area
believe that Arabs and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims
and Arabs across the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were
behind the attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating
from mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks
have received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
asked whether Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area
ranked them as the least trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or
not trust for whites; 24 percent have little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no
trust for Muslims and Arabs. Not only are Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat
treated with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate from the Middle East. They
are presumed to be operating against us. The binary construction of us versus them is
not new to American social relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the
United States have been constructed through the binary lens of the

the subordinate,

dominant and

a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,


the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this dichotomy: we,
whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such interactions
with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly
when it involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization

of Arabs and Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they
different at home, but their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United
States has utilized the construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign
abroad. The second process of racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority
Other. The very process of rendering the Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined
group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab

Otherness is determined is through a


process by which the dominant social group claims
moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an
Americans, the way that

essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is
not the modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and
civilizational heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.

Muslim communities cooperation is key to war on terror


and terror threats are real- from president Obama himself
President Obama, 15 (Transcript Obama san Bernardino ISIS
Address, Barack Obama, December 6th, 2015, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/transcript-obama-san-bernardinoisis-address/

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken
from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads;
daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family. Tonight, I want to talk with
you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what
happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife.
So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy

the two of them had gone down the dark path of


radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war
against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of
here at home. But it is clear that

terrorism, designed to kill innocent people. President Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' President Obama: 'This was an act of
terrorism' 01:15 Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've

Intelligence and law


enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and
overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued
hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure .

terrorist networks overseas -- disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda's
leadership. Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing
complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common
in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as

groups like ISIL grew stronger

amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance
between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San
Bernardino killers. For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this

know how real the danger is. As


Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the
American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves
office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because

with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in
Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

The threat from terrorism is real

Well, here's what I want you to know:


, but we will overcome it. We will
destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into
fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing
upon every aspect of American power. Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is
necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our
closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will
help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and
Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces
who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that
are working on the ground. Third,

we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's

operations -- to disrupt plots,

cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing

with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -- and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious
ideology that ISIL promotes online. Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -- and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all. This is our strategy to
destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy
to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in
San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Now, here at home, we
have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What
could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like
the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill. Next, we should put in
place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do
exactly that. Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered
our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight. My fellow Americans, these
are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria.
That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can
maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits. The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special Forces, and working
with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die

We cannot turn against one another by letting


this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is
what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and
killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more
than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic
Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast
majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to
succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities
as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through
suspicion and hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim
for another decade on foreign soil. Here's what else we cannot do.

communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue
working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against
not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect,

, it
is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject
discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject
proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road,
we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends
and human dignity. But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization

and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of
our country. We have to remember that. President Obama: 'Freedom is more powerful than fear' President Obama: 'Freedom is
more powerful than fear' 02:15 My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of

. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity

history
-- that no matter who you are, or where you
come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this
political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let's make sure we never
forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether
war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long
as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail. Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of
America.

2AC Case

Biopower/Colonialism
1. The War on Terror relies on the constructed image
of the Other against the dignified and moral force of
US hegemonyrecreates violence, biopower, and
colonialism
Crowe, 7researcher at York Centre for International and Security Studies,
York University, (L.A., "The Fuzzy Dream: Discourse, Historical myths, and
Militarized (in)Security - Interrogating dangerous myths of Afghanistan and
the West", www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/Croweloricrowe.pdf)//twemchen
These elements of oppositional binaries is closely related to the second element: contemporary discourse has developed
from and further perpetuates a particular ideology that emmanates from a neo-liberal capitalist and imperial agenda that
is founded upon neo-colonialist attitudes and assumptions. The

US campaign to fight terrorism,


crystallized all the ideological
underpinnings of colonial and imperial policies towards the constructed
other.82 This emerges in the heroism myth mentioned above; for example, Debrix explains
initiated after September 11th explains Nahla Abdo has

how narratives around humanitarianism serve an ideological purpose in that it contributes to the reinforcement of
neoliberal policies in pathological regions of the international landscape.83 It also emerges in the militarization myth,

neoliberal globalisation relies on the institutionalization of neocolonialism and the commodification and (re)colonization of labor via militarized
strategies of imperial politics. That is, as Agathangelou and Ling point out, Neoliberal economics enables
insofar as

globalized militarization.84 Embedded in this normalization of neo-colonial frames are the elements of linearity and thus
assumed rationality of reasoning in the West. As Canada stepped up its role in direct combat operations (which included
an increase of combat troops, fighter jets, and tanks with long-range firing capacities85), Stephen Harper appealed to
troop morale on the ground in Afghanistan, stating: Canada and the international community are determined to take a
failed state and create a "democratic, prosperous and modern country."86 (my italics) Proposed solutions to the conflict(s)
in Afghanistan have been framed and justified not only as saving backwards Afghanistan but also as generously bringing
it into the modern, capitalist, neoliberal age. Moreover, this element represents an continuity of colonial power, presenting
the one correct truth or resolution, emmanating from the objective gaze of the problem-solving Western world.

Representations of Afghanistan present Western voices as the authority and


the potential progress such authority can bring to the East as naturally desirable. This
rationality also presumes an inherent value of Western methodology (including
statistical analysis, quantification of data, etc) and devalues alternative epistemologies including
those of the Afghan people. This is problematic for several reasons: 1) It forecloses and discourages
thinking outside the box and instead relies upon the masters tools
which include violent military force, the installation of a democratic regime, peacekeeping, and
reconstruction and foreign aid alternative strategies are deemed radical, unworkable, and anti-American; 2) it
prioritizes numbers and statitistics over lived experiences . By relying on
tallies of deaths, percetages of voters, and numbers of insurgents for example, the experiences of those living in the

3)it reproduces a colonial hierarchy of


knowledge production. Old colonial narratives of have re-surfaced with renewed
vigor in the case of Afghanistan is contingent on and mutually reinforced by opposing
narratives of a civilized and developed West . For example: Consider the language which is
region are obfuscated and devalued, and;

being usedCalling the perpetrators evildoers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on
destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy. They hate freedom, we are told. Every person of colour, and I
would want to say also every Aboriginal person, will recognize that language. The language of us versus them, of

This
colonizer/colonized dichotomy is key to the civilisational justification the
US administration pursues (We wage war to save civilization itself88) which, as Agathangelou and
civilization versus the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy.87

Ling explain, is motivated by a constructed medieval evil that threatens American freedom and democracy, the

apotheosis of modern civilization, and therefore must be disciplined/civilized. In his Speech to Congress on September 21,
2001, Bush portrays the irrational Other as Evil and retributive seeking to destroy the developed, secure prosperous
and civilized free world: These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of lifeAl Qaeda is to
terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world, and imposing its radical

This production of othering and re-institutionalization of


colonial discourse has been enabled by and facilitated culture clash
explanations.90 The danger of such theories, warns Razack, lies not only in their
decontextualization and dehistoricization, but also on its reliance on the
Enlightenment narrative and notions of European moral superiority that
justify the use of force. This is evident in the unproblematic way in which
outside forces have assumed a right of interference in the region spanning from the 18th
beliefs on people everywhere.89

century when imperial powers demarcated the Durrand Line (which created a border between British India and
Afghanistan with the goal of making Afghanistan an effective buffer statefor British Imperial interests91) to the American
intervention that began in the Cold War, followed by the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans, Canadians and British
today. In fact, The Wests practical engagement in Afghanistan reveals how it has served to reporoduce this neo-colonial
myth as well as the complexities and paradoxes which simultaneously de-stabilize that myth. During the cold war, the
Soviet and the Americans used Afghanistan as the battleground for power, choosing to sponsor and condemn various
regimes as they saw fit; this history of foreign engagement contributed to state fragmentation, underdevelopment, and
the self-sustaining war-economy that persist today. An example of this is the use of rentier incomes during the early
1900s that were used as a means of control and coercion.92

2. Racism makes war and genocide the permanent


conditions of society while simultaneously making it
invisible- society internalizes it
Mendieta 02 (Eduardo Mendieta, PhD and Associate professor of
Stonybrook School of Philosophy, To make live and to let die Foucault on
Racism Meeting of the Foucault Circle, 4/25/02 APA Central Division Meeting)
This is where racism intervenes, not from without, exogenously, but from
within, constitutively. For the emergence of biopower as the form of a new
form of political rationality, entails the inscription within the very logic of the
modern state the logic of racism. For racism grants, and here I am quoting:
the conditions for the acceptability of putting to death in a society
of normalization. Where there is a society of normalization, where there is a
power that is, in all of its surface and in first instance, and first line, a biopower, racism is indispensable as a condition to be able to put to
death someone, in order to be able to put to death others. The
homicidal [meurtrire] function of the state, to the degree that the
state functions on the modality of bio-power, can only be assured by
racism (Foucault 1997, 227) To use the formulations from his 1982 lecture
The Political Technology of Individuals which incidentally, echo his 1979
Tanner Lectures the power of the state after the 18th century, a power which
is enacted through the police, and is enacted over the population, is a power
over living beings, and as such it is a biopolitics. And, to quote more directly,
since the population is nothing more than what the state takes care of for its
own sake, of course, the state is entitled to slaughter it, if necessary. So the
reverse of biopolitics is thanatopolitics. (Foucault 2000, 416). Racism, is the
thanatopolitics of the biopolitics of the total state. They are two sides of one
same political technology, one same political rationality: the management of
life, the life of a population, the tending to the continuum of life of a people.
And with the inscription of racism within the state of biopower, the long

history of war that Foucault has been telling in these dazzling lectures has
made a new turn: the war of peoples, a war against invaders, imperials
colonizers, which turned into a war of races, to then turn into a war of
classes, has now turned into the war of a race, a biological unit, against its
polluters and threats. Racism is the means by which bourgeois political
power, biopower, re-kindles the fires of war within civil society.
Racism normalizes and medicalizes war. Racism makes war the
permanent condition of society, while at the same time masking its
weapons of death and torture. As I wrote somewhere else, racism
banalizes genocide by making quotidian the lynching of suspect threats to
the health of the social body. Racism makes the killing of the other, of
others, an everyday occurrence by internalizing and normalizing the
war of society against its enemies. To protect society entails we be ready
to kill its threats, its foes, and if we understand society as a unity of life, as a
continuum of the living, then these threat and foes are biological in nature.

3. That culminates in violence, war, and genocide.


Foucault 78 (Michel late philosopher, History of Sexuality An
Introduction Vol. 1, Vintage Books, p. 135-137) **We do not agree with this
authors use of gendered language
For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was
the right to decide life and death. In a formal sense, it derived no doubt from
the ancient patria potestas that granted the father of the Roman family the
right to "dispose" of the life of his children and his slaves; just as he had
given them life, so he could take it away. By the time the right of life and
death was framed by the classical theoreticians, it was in a considerably
diminished form. It was no longer considered that this power of the
sovereign over his (their) subjects could be exercised in an absolute
and unconditional way, but only in cases where the sovereign's very
existence was in jeopardy: a sort of right of rejoinder. If he were
threatened by external enemies who sought to over-throw him or contest his
rights, he could then legitimately wage war, and require his subjects to take
part in the defense of the state; without "directly proposing their death," he
was empowered to "expose their life": in this sense, he wielded an "indirect"
power over them of life and death.' But if someone dared to rise up against
him and transgress his laws, then he could exercise a direct power over the
offender's life: as punishment, the latter would be put to death. Viewed in this
way, the power of life and death was not an absolute privilege: it was
conditioned by the defense of the sovereign, and his own survival. Must we
follow Hobbes in seeing it as the transfer to the prince of the natural right
possessed by every individual to defend his life even if this meant the death
of others? Or should it be regarded as a specific right that was manifested
with the formation of that new juridical being, the sovereign?' In any case, in
its modern form-relative and limited-as in its ancient and absolute form, the
right of life and death is a dissymmetrical one. The sovereign exercised
his (their) right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by

refraining from killing; he (they)evidenced his power over life only


through the death he was capable of requiring. The right which was
formulated as the "power of life and death" was in reality the right
to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all, was the sword. Perhaps this
juridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power
was exercised mainly as a means of deduction (prelevement), a subtraction
mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products,
goods and services, labor and blood, levied on the subjects. Power in this
instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and
ultimately life itself; it culminated, in the privilege to seize hold of life in order
to suppress it. Since the classical age the West has undergone a very
profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. "Deduction"
has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element
among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and
organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them
grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them,
making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift
in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the
exigencies of a life-administering power and to define itself accordingly.
This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now
manifested as simply the reverse of the right of the social body to
ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody
as they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being
equal, never before did regimes visit such holocausts on their own
populations. But this formidable power of death -and this is perhaps what
accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly
expanded its limits -now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that
exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize,
and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive
regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who
must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of
everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of
wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have
become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the
race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars,
causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the
circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward
all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that
terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of
survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the
power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to
guarantee an individual's continued existence. The principle underlying the
tactics of battle-that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on livinghas become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the
existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at
stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the
dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the

ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at


the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale
phenomena of population.

Circumvention
Circumvention contributes to the cycle of civic ignorancethat causes authoritarianism in the name of national
security
Glennon 14 (Michael J, professor of international law at Tufts Universitys
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Legal Counsel to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (1977-1980), Fulbright Distinguished Professor of
International and Constitutional Law, Vytautus Magnus University School of
Law, Kaunas, Lithuania (1998); a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. (2001-2002); Thomas Hawkins
Johnson Visiting Scholar at the United States Military Academy, West Point
(2005); Director of Studies at the Hague Academy of International Law
(2006); and professeur invit at the University of Paris II (Panthon-Assas)
from 2006 to 2012., consultant to congressional committees, the U.S. State
Department, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, member of the
American Law Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Board of
Editors of the American Journal of International Law, Michael J., Torturing the
Rule of Law, http://nationalinterest.org/files/digital-edition/%5Buser-lastlogin-raw%5D/134%20Digital%20Edition.pdf, EC)
That root cause is difficult to discuss in a democracy, for it lies in the
electorates own deficiencies. This is the second great obstacle the reform proposals confront;
on this point Bagehots and Madisons theories converge. Bagehot argued that when the
public becomes too sophisticated to be misled any longer about who holds
governmental power but not informed enough to play a genuine role in
governance, the whole structure will fall to the earth, in his phrase. Madison,
contrary to popular belief, did not suggest that the system that he and his colleagues
designed was self-correcting. The Framers did not believe that merely setting ambition against
ambition within the government would by itself save the people from autocracy. They believed that
this competition for power would not occur absent an informed and
engaged public what Robert Dahl has called the adequate citizen, the
citizen able and willing to undertake the responsibilities required to make democracy work. Thomas
Jefferson spoke for many of the Framers. He said: If

a nation expects to be ignorant and


free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Competition between institutions was thus written into the constitutional architecture not as a substitute
for civic virtuethere is none but as a backstop, as an additional safeguard to forestall the rise of
autocracy. But that backstop was not freestanding: it, too, depended upon an electorate possessed of civic

In the early days of the


Republic, public-policy issues were less intricate, and the franchise was de
jure or de facto more restricted. A smaller electorate was more capable of
mastering the more straightforward issues it faced. As Louis Henkin pointed out,
virtue. If anything, the essentiality of civic virtue has grown over the years.

however, the United States has since changed gradually from a republic to a democracyan ultrademocracy, Bagehot believed. The problems government has faced over the years have become more

a greater base of civic knowledge has thus become indispensable


for responsible participation in the process of governance. Yet a cursory
glance at consistent survey results confirms what former Supreme Court
justice David Souter has described today as the publics pervasive civic
complex, and

ignorance. The numbers are sobering. A 2011 Newsweek survey showed that 80 percent of
Americans did not know who was president during World War I; 40 percent did not know whom the United
States fought in World War II; and 29 percent could not identify the current vice president of the United

Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of
the Supreme Court. One poll has found that 71 percent of Americans believe that
Iran already has nuclear weapons. In 2006, at the height of U.S. military involvement in the
States.

region, 88 percent of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia,

Ilya Somins fine


book Democracy and Political Ignorance analyzes the problem in depth. The
and 63 percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East.

great conundrum is that the publics ignorance does not derive from stupidityaverage raw iq scores
actually have increased in recent decadesso much as it derives from simple rationality :

Why spend
time and energy learning about national-security policies that cannot be
changed? That is the nub of the negative feedback loop in which the United
States is now locked. Resuscitating the Madisonian institutions requires an
informed, engaged electorate, but voters have little incentive to be informed
or engaged if they believe that their efforts would be for naught and as they
become more uninformed and unengaged, they have all the more reason to
continue on that path. The Madisonian institutions thus continue to atrophy,
the power of the Trumanite network continues to grow and the public
continues to disengage. Should this trend continue, and there is scant
reason to believe it will not, it takes no great prescience to see what lies
ahead: outward symbols and rituals of national security governance that appear
largely the same, concealing a Trumanite network that takes on the role of a silent directorate, and

like the British monarchy and House of Lords, quietly and


gradually are transformed into museum pieces.
Madisonian institutions that,

General
No circumvention bureaucratic forces and leaks
William Saletan 13, writes about politics, science, technology, and other
stuff for Slate and the author of Bearing Right, The Taming of the Spook,
6/1/2013, The Slate,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/nsa_his
tory_how_bureaucrats_leaks_and_courts_tamed_government_surveillance.ht
ml ||RS
In January 2007, the Presidents Surveillance Program officially ceased . At that
point, according to the report, delivery of email and phone-call content to NSA from the major telecom
companies ended. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act. That law, as the Guardian and
other critics note, facilitated NSA surveillance. But it also mandated the NSA Inspector Generals report. In
2009, Obama took over the White House and began to tighten the oversight. Briefings were extended

In 2011, bulk collection of Internet metadata stopped. That


doesnt mean phone or Internet surveillance has ended altogether . It hasnt. It
doesnt mean such programs wont be abused or that theyre sufficiently supervised. But it does
suggest two things. First, contrary to libertarian dogma, government
surveillance doesnt always expand. Bureaucratic forcesrules, politics,
personal integrity, and finite resourcestend to impose limits and
layers of oversight. Second, contrary to government dogma, leaks are a
crucial part of this ecosystem of restraint. Without that December 2005 Times
more widely to Congress.

story, theres no January 2006 briefing of the full FISC, and the programs reliance on presidential rather

Without Snowden,
Congress wouldnt be reexamining the NSA or filing bills to keep the agency
in check. And we wouldnt be able to read the inspector generals report in the Guardian. Thats what I
than court approval surely would have continued for more than a year.

learned from reading this history of the surveillance program. For the most part, the government has tried
to do the right thing. Little by little, it has made
Snowden, for all his flaws, is part of the cleansing.

progress in cleaning itself up . And

Circumvention Causes Trade Backlash


Other countries trying to circumvent the NSA violates international trade law.
(Bysarah Lazare, a staff writer for Common Dreams., 4-10-2014, "US: EU
Circumvention of NSA Spying Would Violate Trade Law," Common Dreams,
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/04/10/us-eu-circumvention-nsaspying-would-violate-trade-law)//Colt45
Following Edward Snowden's revelations that the U.S. is spying on people and
governments across the world, European Union countries have floated
proposals to build a Europe-centric communications system designed to
bypass NSA surveillance. But on Friday, the top U.S. trade negotiating body
charged that such a move would violate international trade law. "Recent
proposals from countries within the European Union to create a Europe-only
electronic network (dubbed a 'Schengen cloud' by advocates) or to create
national-only electronic networks could potentially lead to effective exclusion
or discrimination against foreign service suppliers that are directly offering
network services, or dependent on them," states a report released Friday by
the office of U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. The USTR takes aim

at the German state-backed Deutsche Telekom for advocating laws to stop


European electronics data from being routed outside the EU in a bid to
protect privacy. The report slams this approach as "draconian" and charges
that it "appears to be a means of providing protectionist advantage to EUbased ICT suppliers."

Judicial
Judicial Review protects against FBI circumvention as well as reduces
surveillance of Muslim communities
Stabile 2014

(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting
Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law
Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7)

Greater use of the S-6 visa would ensure judicial review of government
practices by forcing the FBI to be more careful about following procedures in
recruiting and dealing with informants. Changes to the S-6 visa program that provides
material witness visas to informants with intelligence about terrorist activities could formalize the use of
immigration rewards for terrorism intelligence in ways that would benefit the FBI and potential

reduce the unnecessary and harmful surveillance of


Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. In order for the S-6 visa to become a useful tool
informants, and could help

for the FBI without compromising civil liberties, the S-6 visa must be more readily available, easier to
grant, and carefully tailored.

The Supreme Court can effectively force compliance with


the rule of law
Wu 6 [Edieth, Associate Dean and Professor, Thurgood Marshall School of
Law. 2006. DOMESTIC SPYING AND WHY AMERICA SHOULD AVOID THE
SLIPPERY SLOPE Review of Law and Social Justice.
http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/Wu_Final.pdf//jweide
man]
Americans expect their government,
especially the president, to respect the rule of law. That is, they expect all
branches of governmentjudiciary, executive, and legislativeto act as
checks and balances. The judiciary branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is
emphatically the arm of government with the province and duty to say what
the law is.60 And in the context of executive power, the Court has long since
made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President.61 For
example, the Supreme Court was recently asked to use [the Padilla] case to
define the extent of presidential power over U.S. citizens who are detained on
American soil on suspicion of terrorism.62 The Court exercised its authority
to end [the] unusual stalemate between the executive and judiciary
branches by ordering Padillas transfer from military to civilian custody .63
FISA, of course, specifically permits an undeniably larger role for the
judiciary when U.S. persons, such as Padilla, are or may be concerned.64 In such a case, courts limit executive
Although not an enumerated constitutional right,

discretion by approv[ing] surveillance of U.S. persons [only if] the Government can show that [the target] knowingly
engaged in clandestine intelligence activities which involve or may involve a [criminal] violation . . . or knowingly

In
addition to directly limiting executive discretion, the judiciary is in a unique
position to indirectly elicit executive compliance with the established rule of
law by raising public consciousness of an issue . Throughout history, the
judiciary has raised public consciousness by vociferously adhering to the rule
of law, thereby forcing the executive into de facto compliance.66
commits, prepares to commit, or aids in the preparation or commission of, acts of sabotage or terrorism.65

Congressional
Structural reform like the plan is able to reign in the
executive branch.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and
representation professor with the Phil Lind Chair, and
Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, Secrecy and negligence: How
Congress lost control of domestic surveillance
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf,
p.1-2, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
We describe and explain Congresss deliberative failure on phone and
Internet surveillance policy. We show that along with a lack of consistent
public concern for privacy, and the increasing tendency toward partisan
gridlock, Congresss institutional methods for dealing with secret surveillance
programs have undermined its capacity to deliberate and act effectively with
respect to those programs. Although the current political environment is
hardly conducive to addressing such problems, we discuss long-term goals for
institutional reform to enhance this capacity. We see no easy or decisive
institutional fix. But without some structural change, the prospects
look dim for maintaining significant limitations on investigatory
intrusion in an era of overwhelming concern for security.

Congress is willing to enforce theyve taken up the issue


of surveillance. Prefer the most recent evidence.
Yahoo News 15 Yahoo News, Byline Scott Bomboy, 2015 (USA
Freedom Act signed, so whats next for NSA spying?, Yahoo News, June 3 rd,
Available Online at http://news.yahoo.com/usa-freedom-act-signed-next-nsaspying-111450759.html, Accessed 06-08-2015)
Surveillance will certainly continue under other parts of the act and under
other government programs designed to combat terrorism. But the fight in
Congress may just be getting started.
The New York Times says that Senator Mike Lee and Senator Pat Leahy are
moving on to targeting the government program that allows e-mails older
than six months to be read by investigators. Congressional reformers may
also seek to limit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And there is debate in the House and Senate about other spying provisions.
Some of us dont think USA Freedom sufficiently ends bulk metadata
collection. In fact, [the government] will still contend after the act passes that
they can bulk collect all of the websites and emails and all that content, said

Representative Thomas Massie. Read it closely, its only about your phone
calls.

Congress is prepared to enforce surveillance legislation


debate over USA Freedom Act proves.
Buffalo News 15 Buffalo News Editorial Board, 2015 (Freedom Act
recognizes privacy rights without endangering national security, Buffalo
News, June 5th, Available Online at
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/buffalo-news-editorials/freedom-actrecognizes-privacy-rights-without-endangering-national-security-20150605,
Accessed 06-08-2015)
The ensuing debate was appropriately loud and passionate. The main
problems with the program were determined to be its secrecy and lack of
sufficient oversight to ensure that the NSA was not overstepping its legal
bounds. The collection of metadata, itself, was also troubling, even though
the NSA wasnt listening to the content of calls. Rather the agency was
analyzing the data and attempting to match it with known or suspected
terrorist activities. In that, there may be value. The sifting of data can still
take place, as long as the NSA gets a court order to access records held by
the phone companies.
The continuing need for aggressive government action against terrorism
should, at this point, go without saying. The important point was to determine
how government surveillance should work, not whether it was needed. It was
also true, though, that the Patriot Act was passed during the post-9/11 fever
that gripped the country, including government. Nearly 14 years later, it was
time to consider the issue at least somewhat more dispassionately.
The change seems to be a plausible one, though the test of that is yet to
come. The United States has not suffered a single foreign-born terrorist attack
since 2001 and it is fair to conclude that the telephone surveillance program
may have played some role in that.
The Patriot Act escaped close scrutiny until the Snowden revelations. Thats
just one of the reasons that the USA Freedom Act needs to be closely
monitored. Congress needs to satisfy itself that the NSA and any other
agencies involved are complying with the new law, which President
Obama signed on Tuesday night, but it also needs to verify with those
agencies that the law is doing the job intended and in a way that serves the
legitimate interests of national security.
Still, its good to see that Congress was able to evaluate the Patriot Act in a
way that was inclusive of all interested parties and to produce what looks like
a workable compromise. Its what Congress is supposed to do and what
it hasnt done for far too long.

Congressional action on Section 215 demonstrates that


Congress has stepped up to the plate to enforce antisurveillance measures prefer the most recent evidence.
This is a sea change in behavior that will lead to
aggressive enforcement on other Executive surveillance
issues.
Buttar 15 Shahid Buttar, constitutional lawyer and executive director of
the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, 2015 (Senate Moves to Check
Executive Spying Power, The Progressive, May 27 th, Available Online at
http://progressive.org/news/2015/05/188151/senate-moves-check-executivespying-power, Accessed 06-07-2015)
A revolution came to Washington in the wee hours of Saturday morning, just
after the stroke of midnight. After 15 years of congressional deference to
mass surveillance, Congress finally took actionironically, by failing to
take actionand did its job to check and balance executive power.
On May 23, after a hard-fought congressional debate, the Senate effectively
allowed portions of the notorious Patriot Act to expire as previously
scheduled, appropriately rejecting a compromise branded as the Freedom
Act.
It is the first time Congress has meaningfully checked and balanced the
national security agencies since 2001. It will not be the last.
Where Did This Come From?
Congress approved the Patriot Act in 2001 with neither debate nor an
understanding of what it entailed. Since then, it has acceptedfrom both the
Bush and the Obama administrationssecret legal interpretations contorting
statutes into mass surveillance programs recently held illegal by a federal
appellate court, as well as lies under oath by senior officials aiming to hide
domestic spying programs from congressional and public oversight.
The American people have never gone along quietly.
During the Bush administration, years before the Edward Snowden
revelations amplified mass outrage in 2013, nearly 500 cities and eight states
issued official declarations decrying mass surveillance. Cities from Lexington,
Massachusetts to Bisbee, Arizona (including others in between like New York
City, Los Angeles and Dallas), and states as politically diverse as California
and Idaho raised their voices.
Since the Snowden revelations, Americans from coast to coast have taken
action to challenge domestic spying. We have taken action online, from online
petitions shaming the absent chair of a crucial congressional oversight
committee, to campaigns promoting mass encryption to force constitutional
compliance on the agencies technologically, despite their disdain for legal
limits. We have taken action in the streets, outside NSA headquarters, outside

the White House, at rallies on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures. We
have fought back with music, sculpture, DJ mixes, poetry and comedy.
While the domestic phone metadata program's days may be numbered, this
drama is just beginning. Hawks may force another Senate vote on Section
215 on the eve of the phone dragnet's expiration. Beyond their desperate
effort to save the program, the Freedom Act's rejection paves the way for
further surveillance reform to address other legal authorities under which
unconstitutional and ineffective domestic spying will continue even after this
authority finally expires.

Congress has power over agencies


Michaels 8, Acting Professor, UCLA School of Law. Law Clerk to the Hon.
David H. Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, 2005-06. Law Clerk to the Hon. Guido
Calabresi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004-05. J.D., Yale Law
School, 2003. (August 2008, Jon D. Michaels, CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, All
the President's Spies: Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in the War on
Terror, 96 Calif. L. Rev. 901, Lexis)
Armed with data far more detailed and more timely than what it currently
receives, n227 Congress could decide to hold hearings (in camera, if
necessary to preserve classified information) to investigate programs that it
suspects are misguided, insufficiently attentive to privacy concerns, overly
burdensome to the corporations, or exploitative of the status differentials that
make it legally easier for the private sector to collect information and give it
to the government than for the intelligence agencies to obtain the data in the
first place. n228 Congress could also hold up confirmation votes on nominees
as leverage to force the Executive to make concessions. n229 Or, it could defund a given [*954] program, which it has previously done when it
disapproved of an intelligence or national-security operation. n230 (It should
be underscored, of course, that even a minority within Congress can wield
tremendous influence, by insisting on various amendments to critical bills, by
itself trying to hold up nominees, or, at least in the Senate, by filibustering.)
The appropriations power n231 may be particularly potent in the intelligence
budgetary arena. Intelligence budgets are treated differently from much of
the rest of the overall federal budget, n232and to the extent intelligence line
appropriations can remain classified yet be subject to programmatic-level
revisions, Congress would have both the dexterity and political cover to
exercise aggressively its co-ordinate powers over intelligence policy. That is,
the ability to tinker with funding streams on a regular basis gives the
legislature a means of acting promptly upon its concerns.n233 What is more,
the concomitant opportunity to appropriate in a manner largely occluded
from the public gives lawmakers the political freedom to challenge imprudent
intelligence policies with less fear of being harshly punished at election time
for their so-called "soft-on-terrorism" vote - a fear that routinely prevents

many a member from voting against (publicly recorded) military-spending


bills. When a vote to deny military appropriations is taken as an article of
disloyalty, as it often is, representatives lose perhaps the most
straightforward and valuable means of influencing foreign policy. n234 None
of this is, of course, to say that Congress [*955] will need to scrutinize every
penny spent on intelligence matters. Most operations, like most expenditures
in the larger budget or, say, most military promotions requiring Senate
confirmation, will be approved as a matter of course. n235 But the option to
affect funding when necessary to redirect misguided policy is not an
inconsequential one.

Congress has power over surveillancefunding,


jurisdiction, and leaks
Riley and Schneider 10 John Riley is an Assistant Professor at the
Political Science Department at Kutztown University. Mary Kate Schneider is a
research assistant; Mary Kate Schneider is a Ph.D. Candidate, Political
Science, University of Maryland, Keith Gregory Logan is the editor of the
book, He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at
Kutztown University (April 2010, John Riley and Mary Kate Schneider, Praeger
Security International, Book Title: Homeland Security and Intelligence,
Chapter Title: Congressional Oversight of U.S. Intelligence, p.173)
Legislative Leverage: how Congress Influences the Intelligence Community
There are three key mechanisms through which Congress can exert leverage
over the IC. Foremost, Congress controls the flow of resources from the U.S.
government to the intelligence agencies, is responsible for reviewing the
agencies budgets, and appropriates and authorizes funds through the annual
Intelligence Authorization Act. Thus, Congress can threaten to withhold funds
from the IC, and the intelligence community is obligated to justify its
expenses to Congress. Although this sometimes smacks of
micromanagement,1 such leverage is a powerful tool in ensuring
accountability, serving as both carrot and stick.
A second mechanism through which Congress influences the intelligence
community is legalthat is, Congress has both the power and the obligation
to pass legislation that authorizes, constrains, or otherwise affects the
operations of intelligence agencies. Additionally, Congress is charged with
the responsibility to monitor the ICs adherence to these laws and to the U.S.
Constitution.
Third, Congress can shape the actions of the IC through the power to go
public2 Although leaking classified information would appear to be a threat
to national security, S. Res. 400 (the resolution that created the Senates
intelligence oversight committee) includes provisions through which Congress
can declassify information despite opposition from the executive branch.3
Congress has never exercised these formal procedures, but at least one

former director of central intelligence (DCI) has been accused of leaking


information after a congressional hearing and then blaming the leak on
congress.4

The church committee proves congressional effectiveness


Langston 15 Law Clerk to Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell, U.S.
Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.(Spring 2015, Marc B. Langston,
TEXAS A&M LAW REVIEW, REDISCOVERING CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE
OVERSIGHT: IS ANOTHER CHURCH COMMITTEE POSSIBLE WITHOUT FRANK
CHURCH?, Lexis)
Church led the Church Committee to conduct an unprecedented investigation
of intelligence agencies, yielding myriad controversial secrets. His experience
in opposing the executive branch over issues such as the Vietnam War
encapsulated his requests for cooperation with a formidable coating of
confidence. Just as Watergate had provided the political will to create the
Church Committee, Church harnessed the secrets of the intelligence agencies
to precipitate sweeping reforms and ensure permanent
congressional intelligence oversight.
By reviewing this Article's brief summary of Church's political background and
key aspects of the Church Committee's work, one hopefully gleans a model
for congressional intelligence oversight that is a persuasive alternative to the
status quo, wherein congressional intelligence oversight committees defer
heavily to the executive branch and offer few protections against government
misconduct. As Church $=P487 envisioned, "Congress being a political animal
will exercise its surveillance with whatever diligence the political climate of
the time makes for." n401 The recent shortcomings of
congressional intelligence oversight committees may spawn a renewed
interest in returning to a less-deferential posture.

War powers prove congressional effectiveness


Pitt 15, J.D. Candidate, 2016, Fordham University School of Law (April 2015, Celdon Pitt, Fordham Law
Review, FAIR TRADE: THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO RECOVER CAPTURED U.S. SERVICEMEMBERS AND THE

Congress repeatedly has tried to check


the President's ability to wage war, using assorted means to at least oversee - if
not attempt to seize outright control of - the executive branch's conduct of military operations. n135
RECENT PRISONER EXCHANGE WITH THE TALIBAN, Lexis)

The White House has offered various reactions to these methods, ranging from unchallenged acceptance,

n136 Two primary methods, appropriations riders


and the [*2853] implementation of requirements for congressional notification
and consultation, have emerged as both the most effective and the most
popular congressional tools for checking the President's war powers . This section
to grudging acquiescence, to blatant disregard.

will describe several of the ways in which Congress has used these tools to attempt to shape national
security policy. 1. Appropriations Riders As a Means of Congressional Oversight: The Boland Amendments

Appropriations riders, which contain specific conditions on


the grant of funds and are inserted as amendments to large spending bills,
give Congress an opportunity to more narrowly tailor the use of federal
money. n137 As one scholar notes, this dimension of the power of the purse has been
"one of the major factors in shaping and restricting presidential decision
and the Iran-Contra Affair

making with respect to the commitment of forces abroad ." n138 Congress has
traditionally given the President much more discretion over the use of funds
during times of emergency or conventional war than under circumstances of
indefinite conflict or terrorist threat. n139 Riders to defense spending bills therefore have
become more common over the last fifty years, as Congress has sought to exercise more control over
small wars and covert activity. n140 The Iran-Contra Affair combined all of these elements and sparked a
broader debate about the role of "restrictive national security appropriations" in shaping defense policy.

n141 The Reagan Administration's attempts to overthrow the Communist Sandinista regime in
Nicaragua in the early 1980s were scandalous for several reasons. n142 Congress, concerned
over reports that the White House was raising and training the anti-Sandinista
Contra movement without appropriate oversight, passed an initial spending
restriction in 1982. n143 This amendment to the DOD Appropriations Act prohibited the use of
funds for military equipment, training, or other activities in support of any group not part of the Nicaraguan

n144 Under the leadership of House Intelligence Committee Chair Edward Boland,
Congress gradually tightened funding restrictions over the next [*2854] several years.
n145 Congress eliminated all funding by 1984, declaring that no money designated for intelligence
armed forces.

activities "may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting,
directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization,
movement, or individual."

n146 President Reagan signed these provisions into law without objection.

n147 Despite these restrictions, staff members of the National Security Council (a group known as "the
Enterprise") channeled money to the Contras as part of a larger scheme to also free U.S. hostages being
held in Lebanon by Iranian-backed forces. n148 The Iran-Contra Affair prompted Congress to initiate an
investigation into the executive branch's apparent deceit and resolve potential constitutional issues.

n149 The congressional committee concluded that the Enterprise executed a covert Contra aid program
by raising "private and non-appropriated money[] and without the accountability or restrictions imposed by
law on the CIA." n150 Moreover, this was a program "that Congress thought it had prohibited." n151
Aside from the conviction of one member of the Enterprise for the commission of several minor offenses,
no legal consequences stemmed from the Iran-Contra Affair. n152 Congress issued a series of
recommendations at the end of its report, reminding the White House that "Congress is the partner, not
the adversary of the executive branch, in the formulation of policy" and calling for a more rigid system of

n153 2. Consultation and Notification Requirements A


second method of congressional control over defense policy is the enactment
of consultation and notification requirements, either through attachment to a
spending bill or as stand-alone legislation . n154 When the political system is functioning
presidential findings related to covert action.

as designed, the formal framework of consultation and notification is often complemented by a less rigid,
more ad hoc consultative process between the executive and legislative branches that is "an essential
unwritten ingredient in the national security process." n155 [*2855] Congress also must strike a balance
between fulfilling its role as a representative body and observing the need for limited transparency in the
national security context. n156 This section will examine two recent efforts by Congress to control
presidential discretion through the use of reporting requirements. a. The War Powers Resolution Spurred

the War Powers Resolution was "the


product of almost four decades of bipartisan effort to recapture legislative
authority that had drifted to the President." n157 The resolution declared that any
foreign introduction of U.S. armed forces without a declaration of war would
require the President to submit a report to congressional leaders within fortyeight hours. n158 The report must contain details about, at a minimum, the circumstances leading to
by the mission creep of U.S. involvement in Vietnam,

the deployment, the constitutional and legislative authority under which the President is conducting the
military operation, and an estimation of the involvement's scope and duration. n159 This reporting
requirement remains in effect for the duration of the engagement, during which the President must submit

n160 Furthermore, the engagement must cease after sixty days


unless Congress has declared war, been incapacitated, or voted to delay the deadline. n161 The War
updates at least every six months.

Powers Resolution was controversial during its enactment and has been applied unevenly since. n162
The first test came in 1975, when President Gerald Ford initially sought authorization to evacuate the
remaining U.S. personnel from Cambodia and South Vietnam, but, after growing impatient with
congressional delays, unilaterally approved the evacuations under his executive authority to protect
American lives. n163 Two missions to recover captured Americans, from the Mayaguez commercial ship
under President Ford and the U.S. embassy in Iran under President Carter, have complied with the
reporting requirements in letter but not in spirit. n164 In both cases, the White House circumvented
[*2856] congressional input by waiting to file the report until after the engagement had either ceased or

n165 b. Intelligence Oversight Congress possesses similar


tools for oversight of the intelligence community. n166 Passed in the wake of
revelations about counterproductive covert actions in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the
Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 n167 prohibits the President from
authorizing a covert action without first making a formal determination that
"such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives
of the United States and is important to the national security of the United
States." n168 This finding must be submitted in writing to the congressional
intelligence oversight committees prior to the initiation of the covert action ,
"reached the point of no return."

unless the President determines that "it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary
circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States." n169 In that case, the President may inform
only the chairs and ranking minority members of each intelligence committee, as well as the majority and
minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, as long as he provides a written justification for doing
so.

n170 If the President complies with neither of these options, he still must inform the intelligence
n171

committees "in a timely fashion," along with providing justification for not notifying them earlier.

Agencies listen to congress


Rosenbach and Peritz 9 Eric Rosenbach is the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, earlier worked at the
Harvard Kennedy S;chool as the Executive Director of the Belfer Center for
International Affairs. He managed the Center's operations, taught graduatelevel classes; Aki J. Peritz is an Associate at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
(7/18/2009, Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz, Belfer Center at Harvard,
Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf)
Although the Constitution gives the executive branch preeminence in dealing with intelligence matters,
Article I nevertheless provides Congress with an important oversight role. However, Congressional
oversight into intelligence issues is a complex task, requiring a sophisticated understanding of the issues.
The floor debate for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided a clear example of the difficulties
Congress faces when trying to modify intelligence legislation. Members, for reasons of classification or
technical complexity, did not share a common understanding of the law, let alone how it should be

Congresss most important source of


leverage is the power to authorize programs and appropriate funds . During the
adjusted.

Authorization and Appropriation:

authorization and appropriations process, Congress can signal its intelligence and policy priorities through
both the allocation of funds and the inclusion of non budget-related clauses in the authorization and

the ICs top leaders, including the Director of


National Intelligence and the CIA Director, are nominated by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. This sometimes grueling process forces the White
House to carefully select its nominees and provides an opportunity for Senate
input on both the individuals and issues related to intelligence policy. In recent
appropriations bills. Nominations: Many of

years, the Senate has withheld confirmation until the executive branch agreed to share additional
information on key areas of congressional oversight of intelligence activities. Congressional Hearings:

Congress invitesand, in some cases, compelshigh-ranking members of the executive


branch to appear before Congress to ask them targeted questions intended to
create more transparent and effective IC operations. As noted previously, however, the
power of this tool depends in large part on Congresss awareness of IC activities.

Investigations:

Congress has responded to perceived intelligence abuses or failures by


forming committees and mandating commissions to determine what went
wrong and how it might be corrected. In the 1970s, the Church and Pike Committees
served this function. More recently, the SSCI conducted extensive investigations
on prewar intelligence relating to Iraq. Treaty Ratification: Treaty ratification is a constitutional
power of the Senate. Although few treaties relate directly to intelligence matters, members of the
SSCI can use the treaty ratification process to indirectly press related national
security policy issues. Government Accountability Office (GAO): The GAO is the
investigative arm of Congress, particularly focused on budget-related issues.
As a non-partisan, objective audit and evaluation agency, the GAO gives
financial oversight capabilities to Congress . However, classification and security clearance
hurdles set by the White House may limit the power of the GAO to investigate intelligence-related topics.

Congress can guarantee the executives abide by the law


Welling 12 assistant-professor at Groningen University. (August 2012,
George M. Welling, Oversight Powers of Congress,
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/government-1991/the-legislative-branchthe-reach-of-congress/oversight-powers-of-congress.php)
Congress' oversight function takes many forms: committee inquiries and
hearings; formal consultations with and reports from the executive; Senate
advice and consent for executive nominations and treaties; House impeachment proceedings and
subsequent Senate trials; House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that

informal meetings
between legislators and executive officials; congressional membership on governmental
commissions; and studies by congressional committees and support agencies
such as the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office or the
Office of Technology Assessment -- all arms of Congress. The oversight power of
Congress has helped to force officials out of office , change policies and provide
new statutory controls over the executive. In 1949, for example, probes by special
Senate investigating subcommittees revealed corruption among high officials
in the Truman administration. This resulted in the reorganization of certain agencies and the
formation of a special White House commission to study corruption in the government. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee's televised hearings in the late 196Os helped to
mobilize opposition to the Vietnam War . Congress' 1973 Watergate
investigation exposed White House officials who illegally used their positions
for political advantage, and the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment
proceedings against President Richard Nixon the following year ended his presidency.
Select committee inquiries in 1975 and 1976 identified serious abuses by
intelligence agencies and initiated new legislation to control certain
intelligence activities. In 1983, congressional inquiry into a proposal to
consolidate border inspection operations of the U.S. Customs Service and the
the president becomes disabled, or the office of the vice president falls vacant;

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service raised questions about the


executive's authority to make such a change without new legislation. In 1987,
oversight efforts disclosed statutory violations in the executive branch's
secret arms sales to Iran and the diversion of arms profits to anti-government forces in Nicaragua,
known as the contras. Congressional findings resulted in proposed legislation to
prevent similar occurrences. Oversight power is an essential check in
monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy .

Oversight controls agencies-CIA proves


Knott 5

Assistant Professor at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia - See more
at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/380#sthash.hQ6e0msn.dpuf (8/8/2005, Stephen F. Knott, History
News Network, Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA,
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/380)
The story of how the executive branch lost its control over the CIA is well known, but deserves a retelling,
since it is often presented incompletely. In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate, and revelations of CIA

Congress moved in the mid-1970s to reassert


its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert
action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement
that rogue agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional
intelligence oversight argued that openness and accountability were the
cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy, and it was believed that Congress,
due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive
branch. Spurred on by the sensational revelations of the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and
assassination plots and domestic spying,

the Pike Committee in the House, both bodies established permanent intelligence committees.
It is still widely believed that the Church and Pike reforms were an attempt to cure a cancerous growth
on the Constitution that had developed during the Cold War, an era which witnessed an increasing reliance
on executive secrecy and the creation of a private army for the president in the form of the CIA. Senator
Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States back to
the genius of the Founding Fathers. This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents
from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the
national interest. President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress in 1790, requested a
Contingency Fund, or secret service fund, as one member of Congress described it. Washington was
given this fund, in the amount of $40,000, a sizable sum in the early 1790s. The president was not
required to report how he spent this money, he merely had to divulge the amount of money spent, without
revealing to whom or for what reasons it had been spent. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew
Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, all authorized clandestine operations out of this fund, and did not report the
details to Congress. This pattern persisted until the mid-1970s with little or no change, other than the
increasing size and bureaucratization of the nations intelligence apparatus in the twentieth century. The
real aberration occurred in the mid-1970s when the United States granted its legislative branch the
greatest control over intelligence matters of any Western nation, and overturned the system which had

damage done to the CIA by this


congressional oversight regime is quite extensive . The committees increased
the number of CIA officials subject to Senate confirmation, condemned the agency
prevailed in the United States since the Founding. The

for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters,
insisted that the United States not engage or assist in any coup which may harm a foreign leader, and
overwhelmed the agency with interminable requests for briefings (some 600 alone in 1996). The
committees exercised line by line authority over the CIAs budget and established an Inspector Generals
office within the agency, requiring this official to share his information with them, causing the agency to
refrain from operations with the slightest potential for controversy. The CIA was also a victim of the
renowned congressional practice of pork barrel politics. The intelligence committees forced the agency to
accept high priced technology that just happened to be manufactured in a committee members district.
On some occasions, members of

Congress threatened to leak information in order to

derail covert operations they found personally repugnant. Leaks are a recurring
problem, as some member of Congress, or some staff member, demonstrated in the aftermath of the
September 11th attack. President Bushs criticism of members of Congress was fully justified, despite the
protests from Capitol Hill. Leaks have occurred repeatedly since the mid-1970s, and in very few cases has
the offending party been disciplined. One of the Founding Fathers of the new oversight regime, former
Representative Leo Ryan, held that leaks were an important tool in checking the secret government. In
the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to
unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human assets. Just a short while ago these same legislators were
leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to
ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had
threatened to go public with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel
the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine
epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it
is an illusion that tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no
example. It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank
Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not fight fire with fire . . .
evil with evil. Another convert is Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who led the charge in the mid1990s to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory characters. Torricelli rallied to the defense of State
Department employee Robert Nuccio, who leaked classified material dealing with CIA operations in
Guatemala to Torricelli, who in turn held a press conference and revealed the information to the media. It
was these revelations that led to congressional restrictions on the ability of agents in the field to deal with
bad people. Torricelli is now calling for a thorough inquiry into what he calls the intelligence
communitys stunning failure. There is almost universal agreement that the CIA remains overly reliant
on technological tools in gathering information on very human, very political, problems. Yet Congress is
partly responsible for this, for the intelligence committees (with the support of some in the executive
branch, particularly in the Carter and Clinton administrations) were determined to keep Americas hands
clean. Technology was safer -- it kept us at a distance from the dirty stuff. The sad reality is that a CIA
operative with any hope of infiltrating a terrorist cell would need to demonstrate his bona fides in any
number of reprehensible ways. These are unpleasant thoughts to contemplate, and they certainly do not fit
our conception of the way the world ought to work. But America cannot have it both ways -- it cannot
expect to deter an Osama bin Laden and keep its hands clean at the same time. Presidents need options
short of war to handle this type of threat. While the old CIA may have been noted for the cowboy

the new CIA is, in the words of one critic, composed of


cautious bureaucrats who avoid the risks that come with taking action, who
fill out every form in triplicate and put the emphasis on audit rather than
action. Congressional meddling is primarily responsible for this new CIA ethos,
swagger of its personnel,

transforming it from an agency willing to take risks, and act at times in a Machiavellian manner, into just
another sclerotic Washington bureaucracy. This cautious, legalistic attitude has crippled the agencys
effectiveness and will not change unless the oversight committees of Congress acknowledge the uniquely
executive character of intelligence and covert operations, and start to dismantle the cumbersome
oversight apparatus erected during the last twenty five years.

Dehumanization
THERE ARE 10 STAGES OF GENOCIDE AND WE ARE ON THE
FOURTH, GENOCIDE IN INEVITABLE IF WE DONT DO
SOMETHING NOW
Stanton, President, Genocide Watch, No date (The Ten Stages
of Genocide, The International Alliance to End Genocide, Gregory H. Stanton,
Gregory H. Stanton is the Research Professor in Genocide Studies and
Prevention at the George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United
States. He is best known for his work in the area of genocide studies, No
Date. http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html )

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are


predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear.
Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process. 1.
CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into us and them by ethnicity,
race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi,
are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend
ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The
Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a
common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early

. 2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to


the classifications. We name people Jews or Gypsies, or distinguish them by colors or
dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily
result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be
forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people
prevention of genocide

from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate
speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if
unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980s, code-words replaced
them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply
enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for

3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and


political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless
group may not be accorded full civil rights or even citizenship . Examples
Jews

include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by

Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in


is another example

the government and by universities.

Burma
. Prevention against discrimination means full political empowerment and citizenship rights for
all groups in a society. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion should be outlawed. Individuals should have the

. 4. DEHUMANIZATION: One
group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals,
vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion
against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this
right to sue the state, corporations, and other individuals if their rights are violated.

dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for
countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate
speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign
finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly

5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the


state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal
(Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are
often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in these militias should
punished.

be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of
countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda

. 6.

POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing
propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets
moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators own
group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders
or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups dtat by

7. PREPARATION: Victims are identified


and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity.
Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is
expropriated. They are often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and
starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N. Security
extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.

Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for
its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of

. 8. PERSECUTION

refugees to come
: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity.
Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is

they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported


into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and
starved. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part
often expropriated. Sometimes

of a group. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N.
Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to
prepare for its self-defense. Humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of

8. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass


killing legally called genocide. It is extermination to the killers
because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is
refugees to come.

sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by
groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). At this stage, only rapid and
overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed
international protection. (An unsafe safe area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response
Force, or regional forces -- should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a
multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. is paralyzed, regional alliances must act. It is time to recognize that the
international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to
intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene

. 9.

DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the
surest indicators of further genocidal massacres . The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass
graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the
witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often
blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern
until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured
and a tribunal is established to try them. The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the
evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunals, or an international tribunal to try the
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or an International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and
prosecute them, some may be brought to justice.

1. Dehumanization links to ethnicity and justifies mass


genocide
Haslam 06 (Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology at University of Melbourne,
Dehumanization: An Integrative Review, Personality and Social Psychology Review
Vol. 10, No. 3, 252-264, 2006, http://psr.sagepub.com/content/10/3/252.full.pdf, al)
Dehumanization is arguably most often mentioned in relation to ethnicity, race, and
related topics such as immigration and genocide. It is in this paradigmatic context of
intergroup conflict that some groups are claimed to dehumanize others, and these
dehumanizing images have been widely investigated. A historical catalogue is offered
by Jahoda (1999), who examined the many ways in which ethnic and racial others
have been represented, both in popular culture and in scholarship, as barbarians who
lack culture, self-restraint, moral sensibility, and cognitive capacity. Excesses often
accompany these deficiencies: The savage has brutish appetites for violence and sex, is
impulsive and prone to criminality, and can tolerate unusual amounts of pain. A

consistent theme in this work is the likening of people to animals . In racist descriptions
Africans are compared to apes and sometimes explicitly denied membership of the human species. Other
groups are compared to dogs, pigs, rats, parasites, or insects. Visual depictions caricature physical
features to make ethnic others look animal-like. At other times, they are likened to children, their lack of
rationality, shame, and sophistication seen patronizingly as innocence rather than bestiality.

Dehumanization is frequently examined in connection with genocidal conflicts (Chalk &


Jonassohn, 1990; Kelman, 1976). A primary focus is the ways in which Jews in the Holocaust,
Bosnians in the Balkan wars, and Tutsis in Rwanda were dehumanized both during
the violence by its perpetrators and beforehand through ideologies that likened the
victims to vermin. Similar animal metaphors are common in images of immigrants
(O'Brien, 2003a), who are seen as polluting threats to the social order.

2. Dehumanization enables genocides and massacres


because people disengage their own morals because
the inferior are inhuman
Haslam et al. 07 (Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology at University of Melbourne,
Stephen Loughnan, Lecturer in Experimental & Social Psychology at the University of
Edinburgh, Catherine Reynolds, Vanderbilt University graduate, Samuel Wilson,
Research Fellow at the Swinburne Leadership Institute at Swinburne University,
Dehumanization: A New Perspective, Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
11/15/07,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samuel_Wilson4/publication/227548001_Dehuma
nization_A_New_Perspective/links/00b49515e3a917f285000000.pdf, al)
Evidence of inhumanity is not hard to find in recent history. People are killed, tortured, abused, and

The psychological basis of cruelty


and indifference is complex, of course, but one possible mechanism is that
exploited, and their suffering is often ignored or even relished.

inhumane actions are easier to perpetrate when their victims are


seen as less than human. If they are barbarians, then we may act barbarously
toward them, and if they are just distant abstractions then we may
inflict harm on them without being troubled by pangs of conscience
or fellow feeling. The idea that people are sometimes denied their proper
humanness is usually referred to as dehumanization. Sometimes it is starkly
and shockingly obvious, as when ethnic groups are explicitly likened to nonhumans such as vermin or
apes, or when they are accorded a lesser degree of humanity, as when African Americans were once
officially declared to be worth three fifths of a person. At other times dehumanization may be more
implicit, as when people are represented in objectifying ways or when the degrading behavior that is
directed toward them implies that the actor does not consider them fully human. Over the past three
decades, social psychologists have made important contributions to the study of dehumanization. Their
analyses generally place the phenomenon in the context of intergroup violence and antagonism. Kelman

dehumanization plays a key role in sanctioned mass


violence, such as genocides and massacres, because it weakens
moral restraints on violent behavior. In a similar vein, Opotow (1990) proposed that
dehumanizing others is one form of moral exclusion, a process that
places others outside the boundary in which moral vales, rules, and
considerations of fairness apply (p. 1). Bar-Tal (2000) examined the ideological
(1976) argued that

supports of moral exclusion, describing dehumanization as one of several forms of


delegitimizing belief. These shared beliefs portray out-groups in an extremely
negative and often emotionally overheated manner, and serve to reinforce the ingroups superiority and justify its aggression. Bandura (2002) refined the analysis of
moral exclusion by presenting dehumanization as a process in which

people disengage their moral self-sanctions, thereby relieving them of


feelings of guilt over their aggressive actions and empathy for their victims. Consistent
with this view, Bandura and his colleagues found that people behave more harshly toward others who are
divested of human qualities (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975) and that moral disengagement
partially accounts for aggressive behavior among children (Bandura, Barbarelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
2001). Schwartz and Struch (1989) noted how imputing different basic values to other groups leads them
to be seen as less human and promotes aggression toward them These classic works on the psychology of
dehumanization have some obvious family resemblances. All of them place aggression front and center in

dehumanization enables, disinhibits, and justifies violent


and otherwise aggressive behavior. All of them present
dehumanization as something that occurs primarily in extreme
contexts of antagonism and conflict, such as genocide and
interethnic strife. Most of them, with the partial exception of Banduras work, present
their analysis:

dehumanization as an intergroup phenomenon in which groups are denied human attributes or labelled as
nonhumans. This view of dehumanization as an extreme phenomenon closely linked to intergroup violence
has helped to advance our understanding of human evil, but recent developments in the field have moved

subtle forms of dehumanization are


also apparent in everyday social perception, can occur in the
absence of intense conflict or aggression, and can be observed
outside of group contexts, in peoples understandings of the self and
its distinctiveness from others.
in a new direction. Their main message is that

3. Dehumanization destroys the value to Life and


outweighs all calculable impacts
Berube 97 Professor of Communication Studies and
Associate Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies
at
University of South Carolina
[David M., NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm]
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on
the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society
is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be
called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the
holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and
dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of
man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to
quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is
safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities
which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual
benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools
which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,

environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people


become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any
and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable
for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

4. Dehumanization make nuclear war inevitable


KOVEL 1988

(Joel, Distinguished Professor of Social Studies at Bard University, White Racism: A Psychohistory,

1988, p. xxix-xxx)

As people become dehumanized, the states become more powerful and warlike.
Metaracism signifies the triumph of technical reasoning in the racial sphere. The same technocracy applies to
militarization in general, where it has led to the inexorable drive toward thermonuclear weaponry and the transformation

There is an indubitable although largely obscure, link between


the inner dynamic of a society, including its racism, and the external
projection of social violence. Both involve actions taken toward an Other , a term
of the state into the nuclear state.

we may define as the negation of the socially affirmed self. Communist, black, Jewall have been Other to the white

The Jew has, for a while at least, stepped outside of the role thanks to the
integration of Israel within the nations of the West, leaving the black and the Communist to suffer the
West.

respective technocratic violences of metaracism and thermonuclear deterrence. Since the initial writing of WHITE
RACISM, these closely linked phenomena have grown enormously. Of course, there is a major, cataclysmic difference
between the types of technocratic domination. Metaracism can be played out quite a while longer. Indeed, since it is a
racism that proceeds on the basis of anti-racism, it appears capable of a vastly greater degree of integration than either
dominative or aversive racism, at least under the firmly entrenched conditions of late capitalist society.

Thermonuclear deterrence, on the other hand, has already decayed into the
apocalyptic logic of first-strike capability (or counterforce means of pursing nuclear war), which
threatens to put an end to history itself. Thus the nuclear crisis is now the leading item on the
global agenda. If it is not resolved civilization will be exterminated while if it is resolved, the terms of society and the

the
disposition of racism will play a key role in the outcome of the nuclear crisis .
state will undoubtedly be greatly altered. This will of course profoundly affect the racial situation. At the same time

For one thing, the effectiveness of an antinuclear movement will depend heavily on its ability to involve people of all races
in contrast to its present makeup, which is almost entirely white and middle class. To achieve such mobilization and
carry it through, however, the movement will have to be able to make the linkages between militarization and racial
oppression very clearly and forcefully. For if the third, and last world war becomes thermonuclear, it will most likely be in
a place defined by racial oppositions.

Dehumanization = domination, slavery, and every form of


evil
Katz in ;97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany
Law Journal)
It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have
committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a
people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to
the cruelty that was or will be visited upon him. For example, in almost all wars,
hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by
separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human
status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial
segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of
social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the
subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
poverty and misery of others.

Dehumanization Bad-Leads to nuke war


Union of International Associations Database selected:
World Problems - Issues 9-29-00 http://db.uia.org
There is an increasing tendency towards dehumanization as a response to many
facets of modern life. Certain features of the preparations for nuclear war are
particularly conducive to this reaction. In turn, dehumanization may increase the risk
of nuclear warfare by inhibiting some of the psychological deterrents to it. Even
under conditions of present conventional warfare, only a fraction of military personnel
comes into face-to-face contact with the enemy. With increasing automation of
weapon systems, there will be even less room for sympathy or empathy that
might attenuate the suffering inflicted on others .

Dehumanization bad- Leads to war


Maiese, Scholar at CU-Boulder, 2003
(Maiese, Michelle. "Dehumanization." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and
Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted:
July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/>.)
While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they
form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the
level of dehumanization. Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior,
and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically
acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not
surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a
conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may
seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as
morally unthinkable before. Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other
side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent
to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to
relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their
underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives. Indeed,
dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and
genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the
destruction of millions of people.[9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda,
Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia. It is thought that the psychological process of
dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the
development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between
conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.

5. Dehumanization does the Worst harm, especially when


it comes to government oppression
Zarat, 12 (Dehumanization is the deepest of all injuries. First
commented by Anthony Zarat on an article of Gay marriage and was then
posted by the editors of The Good Men Project. The Good Man Project,
http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/dehumanization-is-the-deepest-ofall-injuries/)

This article is a big moral problem for me. I am tempted to say nothing.
However, people who say nothing are the majority of names on my 2012
Santas naughty list, and I dont want to be one of them. So, here goes. For
king and country. I have been swimming in the conservative fish bowl for
three years now. Naturally I have run across a significant number of people
who do not agree with marriage equality. I estimate that 30% of all
conservatives believe that marriage equality is wrong. I do not have a
problem with these 30%. Ill explain why later. The remaining 70% of
conservativesI have a problem with them. They agree that orientation is an
identity issue (who you are, not what you do). When pressed, most agree
that marriage equality is an equal protection under the law issue. But they
dont want to weaken their side, so they say nothing. This, I have a problem
with. The conservative camp suffers from a very strong feeling of
marginalization and isolation. This has created a powerful us versus them
undercurrent that is, occasionally, stronger than the right and wrong
morality. This is saying something, because conservatives (on average) have
very strong feelings about right and wrong. When it comes to one issue (only
one), I think all persons must set partisanship aside and realize that there is
one kind of harm that outweighs all tactical advantage and all strategic
posturing: >>> Dehumanization is the greatest harm that there is <<< I
understand the tears of your daughter. Dehumanization is the deepest of all
injuries. The greatest harm that bad government inflicts on its citizens is
denial of equal protection to a group of people because of who they are (their
identity). This brings us back to the 30% of conservatives, who liberals think
of as the enemy. They are not. They dont understand. They think that
orientation is a choice, an activity, a thing that people do. A friend of mine
replied to my equal protection argument by saying someone who
vacations in Scandinavia does not have a right to equal protection of
sunshine. See? This guy can be reached. The other person, the shoulder
shrugger who says forget it, we are held together by Kleenex and spit as it
isthis is the problem. - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/commentof-the-day/dehumanization-is-the-deepest-of-allinjuries/#sthash.oFm3U5id.dpuf

6. Dehumanization destroys the value to life and


outweighs all calculable impacts
Berube 97 (Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of
NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina [David
M., NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm])
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on
the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record --

and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society
is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be
called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the
holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and
dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of
man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to
quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is
safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities
which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual
benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools
which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become
things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and
every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for
every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

Dehumanization = domination, slavery, and every form of


evil
Katz 97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany
Law Journal)
It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive
groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior.
Once a person (or a people) has been characterized as sub-human, there
appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will be visited upon
him. For example, in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired
to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy from the human
race, by casting them as unworthy of human status. This same rationalization
has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial segregation, economic
exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of social misfits
and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the subjugation of
women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
poverty and misery of others.

7. Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars


Vinulan-Arellano 03. [Katharine, March 22 yonip.com Stop Dehumanization of People
to Stop Wars http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/nomorewars.html]

In war time, dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and


brainwashing. By portraying the enemy as less than human, it is much easier
to motivate your troops to rape, torture or kill. Ethnic cleansing or genocide
would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings
belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. Throughout
history, groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. Slaves,
Negroes, Jews, and now, Muslims. Up to now, women are dehumanized in

many societies -- they are made sexual objects, treated as second-class


human beings. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the
prevailing, successful dehumanization of women, worldwide. During wars,
mass rape of women is common.

Definition of Islamophobia
Definition of Islamophobia
Ali et al. 11 (Wajahat, Wajahat Ali is a writer and co-host of Al Jazeera America's social media
driven talk show The Stream. He is the author of the play The Domestic Crusaders and lead author of the
investigative report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America. The Roots of the
Islamophobia Network in America Center for American Progress. August)

An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims


that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias,
discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from
social, political, and civic life.

Another Definition of Islamophobia


CAIR 07

(Council of America-Islamic Relations http://www.cair.com/issues/islamophobia/is- lamophobia.aspx)

Islamophobia refers to unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam.


Such fear and hostility leads to discrimination against Muslims,
exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social process,
stereotyping, the presumption of guilt by association, and finally hate
crimes...Islamo- phobia has resulted in the general and unquestioned
acceptance of the following:

Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.

Islam does not share common values with other major faiths.

Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric


and irrational.

Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.

Islam is a violent political ideology.

Epistemology
1. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an
educational space is a gateway to beating racism and
larger political actions.
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important. As one
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I am convinced

student said racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically.

Our work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge


against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general
teaching form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in
education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should
make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My
goal is to teach in a way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues

The student
voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching
and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing anti-racist campaign in
university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows, these
educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for bigger
political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social justice
that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
practices and the curriculum, because: if

we are not working for equity in our


teaching and learning environments, theneducators are
inadvertently maintaining the status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom
where critical race exchanges and dialogues take place is a classroom where
students and teachers can be transformed. Transformative social justice
education calls on people to develop social, political and personal awareness
of the damages of racism and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times
of Islamophobic racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30

The point of
studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for
people have been racially abused and physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).

me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as
asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that: Education

can enlighten students and


promote positive attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in
which battles can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed. (162)

2. Deconstructing and interrogating flawed


assumptions behind Islamophobia is critical to
establish a transformative and liberatory pedagogy
that enables us as agents to challenge racist
dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]

there
was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical response to address and
challenge the rampant Islamophobia affecting the realities of Muslims from all
walks of life and social conditions . Among the most vulnerable were children
and youth, who received little support from schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a
routine basis. Most schools were reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral
arena of crisis management. Among the school districts that I was in contact with, there was a clear
resistance to addressing or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In
As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as September 12 that

fact, the discursive language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were encountering on a day-to-day basis
did not even exist within the educational discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism
part of an all-too-common denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency at all. In fact, it was not a part
of the language or conceptual constructs commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and

I realized the urgency to map a new epistemological and


pedagogical terrain by creating an educational framework for addressing
Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based educational frameworks, one
could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools to address issues of racism,
classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and anti-Semitism. However, the
discursive foundations for dealing with Islamophobia and the accompanying
educational resources simply did not exist. Developing a new framework to
fill this gap involved coining a new term: Anti-Islamophobia Education.
Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims as the result of
Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions that would take
place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a methodology for conducting antiIslamophobia education, it was necessary to develop some discursive foundations,
arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and create an understanding of what it
was that we sought to challenge and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of
antiracist pedagogy.

Islamophobia is often loosely translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However,
this definition presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a more holistic

Islamophobic attitudes are, in fact, part of a


rational system of power and domination that manifests as individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression . The idea
that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion, simply stems from
ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and policies to claim a
space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and
oppression, which operates on multiple social, ideological, and systemic
analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,

levels. Therefore, to capture the complex dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and acknowledge that these
attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such practices as name-calling or
personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural conditions of inequality regulated through such

These exclusionary
practices are shored up by specific ideological underpinnings, among them
the purveyed notions designed to pathologize Muslims as terrorists and
impending threats to public safety. Understanding the dimensions of how
systems of oppression such as Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically,
and systemically became a key component of developing educational tools
that would help build the critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these
dynamics. From a discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism
institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or housing opportunities.

framework5 that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have mapped some

This includes the need to reclaim


the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists
and suicide bombers to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming
the stage requires adopting a pedagogical approach that shifts the popular
media discourse away from the negative, essentialized referents and tropes
of abject Otherness ascribed to Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counterkey epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6

narrative in order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations narratives typically being purveyed in
order to present a more nuanced, reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that Muslim
individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .

Another foundational aspect of


anti-Islamophobia education involves interrogating the systemic mechanisms
through which Islamophobia is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the
dynamics of power in society that sustain social inequality . Racial profiling, which targets
groups on the basis of their race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities. In schools, the practice of color-coded streaming,
whereby a disproportionate number of racially and ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic

Negative perceptions held by teachers


and guidance counselors toward racialized students have often led to
assumptions of failure or limited chances for success, based on such false
stereotypes as the notion that Islam doesnt value education for girls or
Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are relayed to
students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and lead to lower
expectations being placed upon youth from specific communities.7
Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop challenges to
these systems of domination is part of building a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving greater social justice in
both schools and society. Another key goal of anti-Islamophobia education involves the
need to demystify stereotypes. Since 9/11, renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have
level streams, is another example of institutionalized racism.

permeated the representation of Muslims in media and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad

Deconstructing and demystifying


these stereotypes is vital to helping students develop a critical literacy of the
politics of media and image-making. Critically examining the destructive
impact of how these images create the social and ideological divide between
us and them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
women are seen as the primary markers of the Muslim world.

3. We ought to use the debate round as a site to


formulate counter-hegemonic strategies of
knowledge production- the plan offered a substantial
challenge to the Islamophobic tendencies guiding US
federal policy- violence has manifested itself in
scholarship, and combatting that is a necessary
precondition to breaking it down in reality
Jones 99

(Richard, Professor International Politics @ Aberystwyth University, Security, Strategy, and


Critical Theory, p. 155-162, wcp)

The central political task of the intellectuals is to aid in the construction of a


counterhegemony and thus undermine the prevailing patterns of discourse and
interaction that make up the currently dominant hegemony . This task is accomplished
through educational activity, because, as Gramsci argues, every relationship of
hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350). Discussing the
relationship of the philosophy of praxis to political practice, Gramsci claims: It [the theory] does not tend
to leave the simple in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher
conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and simple it is not in order to
restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to
construct an intellectual-moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the
mass and not only of small intellectual groups. (Gramsci 1971: 332-333). According to Gramsci, this
attempt to construct an alternative intellectual-moral bloc should take place under the auspices of the
Communist Party a body he described as the modern prince. Just as Niccolo Machiavelli hoped to see a
prince unite Italy, rid the country of foreign barbarians, and create a virtu-ous state, Gramsci believed that
the modern price could lead the working class on its journey toward its revolutionary destiny of an
emancipated society (Gramsci 1971: 125-205). Gramscis relative optimism about the possibility of
progressive theorists playing a constructive role in emancipatory political practice was predicated on his
belief in the existence of a universal class (a class whose emancipation would inevitably presage the
emancipation of humanity itself) with revolutionary potential. It was a gradual loss of faith in this axiom
that led Horkheimer and Adorno to their extremely pessimistic prognosis about the possibilities of
progressive social change. But does a loss of faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat
necessarily lead to the kind of quietism ultimately embraced by the first generation of the Frankfurt
School? The conflict that erupted in the 1960s between them and their more radical students suggests not.
Indeed, contemporary critical theorists claim that the deprivileging of the role of the proletariat in the
struggle for emancipation is actually a positive move. Class remains a very important axis of domination in
society, but it is not the only such axis (Fraser 1995). Nor is it valid to reduce all other forms of domination
for example, in the case of gender to class relations, as orthodox Marxists tend to do. To recognize
these points is not only a first step toward the development of an analysis of forms of exploitation and
exclusion within society that is more attuned to social reality; it is also a realization that there are other
forms of emancipatory politics than those associated with class conflict.1 This in turn suggests new
possibilities and problems for emancipatory theory. Furthermore, the abandonment of faith in revolutionary
parties is also a positive development. The history of the European left during the twentieth century
provides myriad examples of the ways in which the fetishization of party organizations has led to
bureaucratic immobility and the confusion of means with ends (see, for example, Salvadori 1990). The
failure of the Bolshevik experiment illustrates how disciplined, vanguard parties are an ideal vehicle for
totalitarian domination (Serge 1984). Faith in the infallible party has obviously been the source of
strength and comfort to many in this period and, as the experience of the southern Wales coalfield
demonstrates, has inspired brave and progressive behavior (see, for example, the account of support for
the Spanish Republic in Francis 1984). But such parties have so often been the enemies of emancipation
that they should be treated with the utmost caution. Parties are necessary, but their fetishization is

History furnishes examples of progressive developments that have


been positively influenced by organic intellectuals operating outside the bounds of a
particular party structure (G. Williams 1984). Some of these developments have occurred
in the particularly intractable realm of security . These examples may be considered
as resources of hope for critical security studies (R. Williams 1989). They illustrate that
ideas are important or, more correctly, that change is the product of the dialectical
interaction of ideas and material reality. One clear security-related example of the role of
potentially disastrous.

critical thinking and critical thinkers in aiding and abetting progressive social change is the experience of

the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time the ideas of dissident defense
intellectuals (the alternative defense school) encouraged and drew strength from peace
activism. Together they had an effect not only on short-term policy but on the
dominant discourses of strategy and security, a far more important result in the long
run. The synergy between critical security intellectuals and critical social movements and the potential
influence of both working in tandem can be witnessed particularly clearly in the fate of
common security. As Thomas Risse-Kappen points out, the term common security originated in the
contribution of peace researchers to the German security debate of the 1970s (Risse-Kappen 1994: 186ff.);
it was subsequently popularized by the Palme Commission report (Independent Commission on

Initially, mainstream defense intellectuals dismissed


the concept as hopelessly idealistic; it certainly had no place in their allegedly hardheaded and
realist view of the world. However, notions of common security were taken up by a number
of different intellectuals communities, including the liberal arms control community in the United
Disarmament and Security Issues 1982).

States, Western European peace researchers, security specialists in the center-left political parties of
Western Europe, and Soviet institutchiks members of the influential policy institutes in the Soviet Union
such as the United States of America and Canada Institute (Landau 1996: 52-54; Risse-Kappen 1994: 196-

able to take advantage of


public pressure exerted through social movements in order to gain broader
acceptance for common security. In Germany, for example, in response to social movement
200; Kaldor 1995; Spencer 1995). These communities were subsequently

pressure, German social organizations such as churches and trade unions quickly supported the ideas
promoted by peace researchers and the SPD (Risse-Kappen 1994: 207).

Similar pressures even had

an effect on the Reagan administration. As Risse-Kappen notes: When the Reagan administration
brought hard-liners into power, the US arms control community was removed from policy influence. It was
the American peace movement and what became known as the freeze campaign
that revived the arms control process together with pressure from the European allies. (RisseKappen 1994: 205; also Cortright 1993: 90-110). Although it would be difficult to sustain a claim that the
combination of critical movements and intellectuals persuaded the Reagan government to adopt the

it did at least have a


substantial impact on ameliorating U.S. behavior. The most dramatic and certainly the
most unexpected impact of alternative defense ideas was felt in the Soviet Union. Through various
rhetoric and substance of common security in its entirety, it is clear that

East-West links, which included arms control institutions, Pugwash conferences, interparty contacts, and

a coterie of Soviet policy analysts and advisers were drawn


toward common security and such attendant notions as nonoffensive defense (these links are
even direct personal links,

detailed in Evangelista 1995; Kaldor 1995; Checkel 1993; Risse-Kappen 1994; Landau 1996 and Spencer
1995 concentrate on the role of the Pugwash conferences). This group, including Palme Commission
member Georgii Arbatov, Pugwash attendee Andrei Kokoshin , and Sergei Karaganov, a senior adviser who
was in regular contact with the Western peace researchers Anders Boserup and Lutz Unterseher (Risse-

then influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachevs subsequent


new
Soviet leadership had a strong interest in alleviating tensions in East-West relations in
order to facilitate much-needed domestic reforms (the interaction of ideas and material
reality). But what is significant is that the Soviets commitment to common security led to
significant changes in force sizes and postures. These in turn aided in the winding
down of the Cold War, the end of Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and even
the collapse of Russian control over much of the territory of the former Soviet Union .
Kappen 1994: 203),

championing of common security may be attributed to several factors. It is clear, for example, that

At the present time, in marked contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, common security is part of the
common sense of security discourse. As MccGwire points out, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) (a common defense pact) is using the rhetoric of common security in order to justify its expansion

This points to an interesting and potentially important


aspect of the impact of ideas on politics. As concepts such as common security, and
collective security before it (Claude 1984: 223-260), are adopted by governments and military
services, they inevitably become somewhat debased. The hope is that enough of the
residual meaning can survive to shift the parameters of the debate in a potentially
into Eastern Europe (MccGwire 1997).

progressive direction. Moreover, the adoption of the concept of common security by official circles
provides critics with a useful tool for (immanently) critiquing aspects of security policy (as MccGwire 1997
demonsrates in relation to NATO expansion). The example of common security is highly instructive. First, it

critical intellectuals can be politically engaged and play a role a significant


in making the world a better and safer place. Second, it points to potential
future addressees for critical international theory in general, and critical security
studies in particular. Third, it also underlines the role of ideas in the evolution in
society. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES AND THE THEORY-PRACTICE NEXUS Although most proponents of
indicates that
one at that

critical security studies reject aspects of Gramscis theory of organic intellectuals, in particular his
exclusive concentration on class and his emphasis on the guiding role of the party, the desire for
engagement and relevance must remain at the heart of their project. The example of the peace movement
suggests that critical theorists can still play the role of organic intellectuals and that this organic
relationship need not confine itself to a single class; it can involve alignment with different coalitions of
social movements that campaign on an issue or a series of issues pertinent to the struggle for

Said captures this broader orientation


when he suggests that critical intellectuals are always tied to and ought to remain
an organic part of an ongoing experience in society: of the poor, the disadvantaged, the
emancipation (Shaw 1994b; R. Walker 1994). Edward

voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless (Said 1994: 84). In the specific case of critical security

this means placing the experience of those men and women and communities
for whom the present world order is a cause of insecurity rather than security at the
center of the agenda and making suffering humanity rather than raison detat the
prism through which problems are viewed. Here the project stands full-square within the critical
theory tradition. If all theory is for someone and for some purpose, then critical
security studies is for the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless, and its
purpose is their emancipation. The theoretical implications of this orientation have already
been discussed in the previous chapters. They involve a fundamental reconceptualization of
security with a shift in referent object and a broadening of the range of issues
considered as a legitimate part of the discourse. They also involve a reconceptualization of strategy
within this expanded notion of security. But the question remains at the conceptual level of
how these alternative types of theorizing even if they are self-consciously aligned to the
studies,

practices of critical or new social movements, such as peace activism, the struggle for human rights, and
the survival of minority cultures can become a force for the direction of action. Again,
Gramscis work is insightful. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci advances a sophisticated analysis of how
dominant discourses play a vital role in upholding particular political and economic orders, or, in Gramscis
terminology, historic blocs (Gramsci 1971: 323-377). Gramsci adopted Machiavellis view of power as a
centaur, ahlf man, half beast: a mixture of consent and coercion. Consent is produced and reproduced by a
ruling hegemony that holds sway through civil society and takes on the status of common sense; it
becomes subconsciously accepted and even regarded as beyond question. Obviously, for Gramsci, there is
nothing immutable about the values that permeate society; they can and do change. In the social realm,
ideas and institutions that were once seen as natural and beyond question (i.e., commonsensical) in the
West, such as feudalism and slavery, are now seen as anachronistic, unjust, and unacceptable. In Marxs
well-worn phrase, All that is solid melts into the air. Gramscis intention is to harness this potential for
change and ensure that it moves in the direction of emancipation. To do this he suggests a strategy of a
war of position (Gramsci 1971: 229-239). Gramsci argues that in states with developed civil societies,

social change
requires a slow, incremental, even molecular, struggle to break down the prevailing
hegemony and construct an alternative counterhegemony to take its place. Organic
such as those in Western liberal democracies, any successful attempt at progressive

intellectuals have a crucial role to play in this process by helping to undermine the natural,
commonsense, internalized nature of the status quo. This in turn helps create political space within
which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed and new historic blocs created. I contend that
Gramscis strategy of a war of position suggests an appropriate model for proponents of critical security
studies to adopt in relating their theorizing to political practice. THE TASKS OF CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES

If the project of critical security studies is conceived in terms of war of position, then
the main task of those intellectuals who align themselves with the enterprise is to
attempt to undermine the prevailing hegemonic security discourse. This may be
accomplished by utilizing specialist information and expertise to engage in an immanent
critique of the prevailing security regimes, that is, comparing the justifications of those

regimes with actual outcomes. When this is attempted in the security field, the
prevailing structures and regimes are found to fail grievously on their own terms.
Such an approach also involves challenging the pronouncements of those
intellectuals, traditional or organic, whose views serve to legitimate, and hence
reproduce, the prevailing world order. This challenge entails teasing out the often
subconscious and certainly unexamined assumptions that underlie their arguments
while drawing attention to the normative viewpoints that are smuggled into
mainstream thinking about security behind its positivist faade. In this sense,
proponents of critical security studies approximate to Foucaults notion of specific
intellectuals who use their expert knowledge to challenge the prevailing regime of
truth (Foucault 1980: 132). However, critical theorists might wish to reformulate this sentiment along
more familiar Quaker lines of speaking truth to power (this sentiment is also central to Said 1994) or
even along the eisteddfod lines of speaking truth against the world. Of course, traditional strategists can,
and indeed do, sometimes claim a similar role. Colin S. Gray, for example, states that strategists must be
prepared to speak truth to power (Gray 1982a: 193). But the difference between Gray and proponents of
critical security studies is that, whereas the former seeks to influence policymakers in particular directions
without questioning the basis of their power, the latter aim at a thoroughgoing critique of all that

critical theorists base their critique


on the presupposition, elegantly stated by Adorno, that the need to lend suffering a
voice is the precondition of all truth (cited in Jameson 1990: 66). The aim of critical security
traditional security studies has taken for granted. Furthermore,

studies in attempting to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy is ultimately educational. As Gramsci notes,
every relationship of hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350; see also

by criticizing the hegemonic


discourse and advancing alternative conceptions of security based on different
understandings of human potentialities, the approach is simultaneously playing apart in
eroding the legitimacy of the ruling historic bloc and contributing to the development
of a counterhegemonic position. There are a number of avenues of avenues open to critical
security specialists in pursuing this educational strategy. As teachers, they can try to foster and
encourage skepticism toward accepted wisdom and open minds to other possibilities.
They can also take advantage of the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the media for
instant pundistry to forward alternative views onto a broader stage. Nancy Fraser
argues: As teachers, we try to foster an emergent pedagogical counterculture . As
critical public intellectuals we try to inject our perspectives into whatever cultural or
political public spheres we have access to (Fraser 1989: 11). Perhaps significantly, support for
this type of emancipatory strategy can even be found in the work of the ultrapessimistic Adorno, who
argues: In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when
delusions were healed not by focused propaganda, but, in the final analysis, because
scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root
of the delusion. (cited in Kellner 1992: vii) Such unobtrusive yet insistent work does not in itself
create the social change to which Adorno alludes. The conceptual and the practical dangers of
collapsing practice into theory must be guarded against. Rather, through their
educational activities, proponent of critical security studies should aim to provide
support for those social movements that promote emancipatory social change . By
providing a critique of the prevailing order and legitimating alternative views, critical
theorists can perform a valuable role in supporting the struggles of social
movements. That said, the role of theorists is not to direct and instruct those movements with which
the discussion of critical pedagogy in Neufeld 1995: 116-121). Thus,

they are aligned; instead, the relationship is reciprocal. The experience of the European, North American,
and Antipodean peace movements of the 1980s shows how influential social movements can become
when their efforts are harnessed to the intellectual and educational activity of critical thinkers. For

Pugh cites the


importance of the visits of critical intellectuals such as Helen Caldicott and Richard Falk
in changing the countrys political climate and encouraging the growth of the
antinuclear movement (Pugh 1989: 108; see also Cortright 1993: 5-13). In the 1980s peace
example, in his account of New Zealands antinuclear stance in the 1980s, Michael C.

movements and critical intellectuals interested in issues of security and strategy drew strength and succor

from each others efforts. If such critical social movements do not exist, then this creates obvious
difficulties for the critical theorist. But even under these circumstances, the theorist need not abandon all
hope of an eventual orientation toward practice. Once again, the peace movement of the 1980s provides
evidence of the possibilities. At that time, the movement benefited from the intellectual work undertaken
in the lean years of the peace movement in the late 1970s. Some of the theories and concepts developed
then, such as common security and nonoffensive defense, were eventually taken up even in the Kremlin
and played a significant role in defusing the second Cold War. Those ideas developed in the 1970s can be
seen in Adornian terms of the a message in a bottle, but in this case, contra Adornos expectations, they
were picked up and used to support a program of emancipatory political practice. Obviously, one would be
nave to understate the difficulties facing those attempting to develop alternative critical approaches
within academia. Some of these problems have been alluded to already and involve the structural
constraints of academic life itself. Said argues that many problems are caused by what he describes as the

Academics are now so


constrained by the requirements of job security and marketability that they are
extremely risk-averse. It pays in all senses to stick with the crowd and avoid the
exposed limb by following the prevalent disciplinary preoccupations , publish in certain
prescribed journals, and so on. The result is the navel gazing so prevalent in the study of
international relations and the seeming inability of security specialists to deal with
the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War (Kristensen 1997 highlights the
search of U.S. nuclear planners for new targets for old weapons ). And, of course, the
pressures for conformism are heightened in the field of security studies when
governments have a very real interest in marginalizing dissent . Nevertheless,
opportunities for critical thinking do exist, and this thinking can connect with the
practices of social movements and become a force for the direction of action. The
growing mmphasizedmngmation of academic life (Said 1994: 49-62).

experience of the 1980s, when, in the depths of the second Cold War, critical thinkers risked demonization
and in some countries far worse in order to challenge received wisdom, thus arguably playing a crucial role
in the very survival of the human race, should act as both an inspiration and a challenge to critical security
studies.

4. Individual epistemological interrogation is keyinternalized racist stereotypes and implicit biases


require active challenging
Feingold and Lorang 2012 [Jonathon (J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law) and Karen
(J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law), Defusing Implicit Bias, UCLA Law Review Discourse 2012,
LexisNexis, AX]

accusations of racial profiling often require or rely on


evidence of conscious intent. Though presumptively unconstitutional, racial [*220] profiling is
Like allegations of racism,

often justified on policy grounds as a rational form of racial discrimination. Racial profiling is rational in the
sense that it relies on perceived statistical correlations between a particular racial group and a

For instance, when New York officials conduct covert


surveillance on Muslim communities, the decision is based on a conscious
belief that the targeted individuals are more likely to engage in terrorism than
the general population. Understood in this way, a successful claim of racial profiling requires proof
of a conscious decision to discriminate against the targeted group because of their race. These
examples of racism defenses and racism allegations illustrate the central role
that evidence of conscious intent plays in our public dialogue. Even within the
disparate treatment theory of racial discrimination, however, such an approach fails to
take into account recent findings from the fields of psychology and
social cognition that complicate the way we may think about racially
motivated acts. These findings reveal that implicit biases, often undetectable
through introspection [*221] and self-reporting, cause us to treat others differently
because of their race. To gain a more accurate sense of the role played by implicit biases, we
corresponding trait or behavior.

explicit and implicit


biases are the result of social cognitions. n73 Cognitions are thoughts or
feelings, and "[a] social cognition is a thought or feeling about a person or a
social group, such as a racial group." n74 Explicit biases are thoughts or
feelings that we are aware of and are able to identify through introspection. n75 We
commonly, though not always, "agree with and endorse our explicit [biases]." n76 Racism
begin by disaggregating the concepts of explicit and implicit biases. Both

allegations, and the corresponding racism defenses, often reflect our familiarity with explicit biases.
Racism defenses regularly rely on the type of evidence offered by Zimmerman's father, while those
alleging racism correspondingly search for the smoking-gun quote or document that will reveal racist
intent. n77 The national focus on Zimmerman's possible use of the pejorative term "coon" provides one

Implicit bias research shows


that traditional understandings of conscious intent fail to tell the
whole story. Implicit biases "pop[] into mind quickly and automatically
without conscious volition." n79 Unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are difficult to
identify because of introspective limitations and our own self-monitoring. n80 In
fact, we are usually unaware of, or mistaken about, the sources of our implicit biases and
the influence they have on our judgment and behavior. n81 Implicit biases
may actually include "thought[s] or feeling[s] that we would reject
as inaccurate or inappropriate upon self-reflection." n82 This disassociation
between implicit and explicit biases means that we may honestly believe we hold positive
[*222] attitudes about a particular racial group, yet we simultaneously hold
negative attitudes toward that same group at an implicit level . n83 This explains
such example of evidence common to a racism allegation. n78

why being Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial household, having Black friends, and honestly professing
antiracist ideals does not preclude the possibility that an individual might hold implicit negative attitudes
about Blacks. To circumvent challenges posed by our inability to access implicit biases, psy-chological tests
have been designed to measure our unconscious cognitions. These tests have relied on various linguistic
cues, physiological responses, microfacial movements, neurological activity, and "reaction times when
completing various tasks." n84 Perhaps the most well-known test is the Implicit Association Test (IAT),
which measures reaction times for sorting stimuli into categories. n85 The IAT consistently reveals "implicit
attitudes in favor of one social group over another." n86 For many Americans, implicit biases manifest "in
the form of negative beliefs (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) against racial minorities." n87 Because
many people hold implicit biases, the real question becomes whether these biases influence or predict
behavior. Jerry Kang summarizes the prevailing wisdom on this point: There is now persuasive evidence

implicit bias against a social category, as measured by instruments such as the IAT,
predicts disparate behavior toward individuals mapped to that category. This
occurs notwithstanding contrary explicit commitments in favor of racial equality. In
other words, even if our sincere self-reports of bias score zero, we would
still engage in disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of
race, consistent with our racial schemas. Controlled, deliberative,
rational processes are not the only forces guiding our behavior. That we
that

are not even aware of, much less intending, such race-contingent behavior does not magically erase the
harm. n88 [*223] In fact, studies have shown that "[a]utomatic associations influence behavior by both
professionals and laypeople in employment, medical, voting, law enforcement, and countless other

most troubling, and especially relevant to Trayvon's death, evidence suggests


police officers and private citizens unconsciously rely on race when
making decisions about whether or not to shoot. n90 Part III proceeds by detailing the potentially
contexts." n89 Perhaps
that

deadly combination of implicit bias and guns.

5. Centering our praxis in this space is key


---interrogating Islamophobia in educational settings
is critical to establishing a critical consciousness that
enables larger political projects
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student
comments, I am convinced that the work of anti-racism in university classrooms is
fundamentally important. As one student said racism is real. Through racism people
suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically. Our
work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge against
racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general teaching
form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in education.
There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As
educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a
way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that

The
student voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching and
learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting
point. And who knows, these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story)
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In
conclusion I endorse social justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in JohnsonBailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom practices and the
curriculum, because: if we are not working for equity in our teaching and
learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic
racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence , in August and September 2010
alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and physically attacked
(Institute of Race Relations 2010). The point of studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the
anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van
Driel 2004) that: Education can enlighten students and promote positive
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which
battles can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that
our attention should be directed. (162)
surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

6. Deconstructing and interrogating flawed


assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables
agency and challenges racist dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]

As an anti-racism scholar and educator , fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as
September 12 that there was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical
response to address and challenge the rampant Islamophobia
affecting the realities of Muslims from all walks of life and social conditions .
Among the most vulnerable were children and youth , who received little support from
schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a routine basis. Most schools were
reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral arena of crisis management. Among

there was a clear resistance to addressing


or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In fact, the discursive
language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were
encountering on a day-to-day basis did not even exist within the educational
discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism part of an all-toocommon denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency
at all. In fact, it was not a part of the language or conceptual constructs
commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
antiracist pedagogy. I realized the urgency to map a new
epistemological and pedagogical terrain by creating an educational
framework for addressing Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based
educational frameworks, one could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools
to address issues of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and antiSemitism. However, the discursive foundations for dealing with
Islamophobia and the accompanying educational resources simply
did not exist. Developing a new framework to fill this gap involved coining a new term: AntiIslamophobia Education. Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims
as the result of Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions
that would take place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a
methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary
to develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and
create an understanding of what it was that we sought to challenge
and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of Islamophobia is often loosely
the school districts that I was in contact with,

translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However, this definition
presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a

Islamophobic attitudes are, in


fact, part of a rational system of power and domination that manifests as
individual, ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression .
The idea that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion,
more holistic analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,

simply stems from ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and
policies to claim a space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and oppression, which operates

to capture the complex


dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and
acknowledge that these attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such
on multiple social, ideological, and systemic levels. Therefore,

practices as name-calling or personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural
conditions of inequality regulated through such institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or

exclusionary practices are shored up by specific


ideological underpinnings, among them the purveyed notions designed to
pathologize Muslims as terrorists and impending threats to public safety.
Understanding the dimensions of how systems of oppression such as
Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically, and systemically became a key
component of developing educational tools that would help build the
critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these dynamics. From a
housing opportunities. These

discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism framework5


that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have
mapped some key epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6 This includes the need to
reclaim the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists and suicide bombers
to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming

the stage requires adopting a


pedagogical approach that shifts the popular media discourse away from the
negative, essentialized referents and tropes of abject Otherness ascribed to
Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counter-narrative in
order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations
narratives typically being purveyed in order to present a more nuanced,
reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that
Muslim individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of anti-Islamophobia education involves
interrogating the systemic mechanisms through which Islamophobia
is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the dynamics of power in society
that sustain social inequality. Racial profiling, which targets groups on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities . In
schools, the practice of color-coded streaming, whereby a disproportionate number of racially and
ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic level streams, is another example of

Negative perceptions held by teachers and guidance


counselors toward racialized students have often led to assumptions of failure
or limited chances for success, based on such false stereotypes as the notion that Islam
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are
relayed to students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and
lead to lower expectations being placed upon youth from specific
communities.7 Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop
challenges to these systems of domination is part of building a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving
greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiinstitutionalized racism.

Islamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,


renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have permeated the representation of Muslims in media
and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad women are seen as the primary markers

Deconstructing and demystifying these stereotypes is vital to


helping students develop a critical literacy of the politics of media
and image-making. Critically examining the destructive impact of how
these images create the social and ideological divide between us and
them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
of the Muslim world.

7. Epistemological interrogation solves the identity of


the Muslim as a terrorist is a social construct
contingent on the contemporary security State by
questioning this dominant paradigm the affirmative
paves the road to a more inclusive tomorrow
Bhambra and Margee 2010 [Gurminder K Bhambra* and Victoria Margee**,
*Professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, **School of Humanities at the University of Brighton,
Identity Politics and the Need for a Tomorrow, April 10 2010,
http://www.academia.edu/471824/Identity_Politics_and_the_Need_for_a_Tomorrow_, AX]

alternative models of identity and community are required from


those put forward by essentialist theories, and that these are offered by the work of two
We suggest that

theorists, Satya Mohanty and Lynn Hankinson Nelson. Mohantys ([1993] 2000)post-positivist, realist
theorisation of identity suggests a way through the impasses of essentialism, while avoiding the excesses
of the postmodernism that Bramen, among others, derides as a proposed alternative to identity politics.

identities must be understood as theoretical


constructions that enable subjects to read the world in particular ways ; as such,
substantial claims about identity are, in fact, implicit explanations of the social
world and its constitutive relations of power. Experience that from which identity is
For Mohanty ([1993]2000),

usually thought to derive is not something that simply occurs, or announces its meaning and significance

experience is always a work of interpretation that is


collectively produced(Scott 1991).Mohantys work resonates with that of Nelson (1993), who
in a self-evident fashion: rather,

similarly insists upon the communal nature of meaning or knowledge-making. Rejecting both
foundationalist views of knowledge and the postmodern alternative which announces the death of the
subject and the impossibility of epistemology, Nelson argues instead that,

it is not individuals

who are the agents of epistemology, but communities.

Since it is not possible for an

individual to know something that another individual could not also (possibly) know ,

it must be that
the ability to make sense of the world proceeds from shared conceptual
frameworks and practices. Thus, it is the community that is the generator and
repository of knowledge. Bringing Mohantys work on identity as theoretical construction together
with Nelsons work on epistemological communities therefore suggests that, identity is one of
the knowledges that is produced and enabled for and by individuals
in the context of the communities within which they exist. The postpositivist reformulation of experience is necessary here as it privileges
understandings that emerge through the processing of experience in the
context of negotiated premises about the world, over experience itself
producing self-evident knowledge (self-evident, however, only to the one who has had the
experience). This distinction is crucial for, if it is not the experience of, for example, sexual
discrimination that makes one a feminist, but rather, the paradigm through

which one attempts to understand acts of sexual discrimination , then it is not


necessary to have actually had the experience oneself in order to make the
identification feminist. If being a feminist is not a given fact of a particular social (and/or
biological) location that is, being designated female but is, in Mohantys terms, an achieve-ment
that is, something worked towards through a process of analysis and interpretation then two implications
follow. First, that not all women are feminists. Second, that feminism is some-thing that is achievable by
men. 3 While it is accepted that experiences are not merely theoretical or conceptual constructs which can

there is some-thing
politically self-defeating about insisting that one can only understand an
experience (or then comment upon it) if one has actually had the experience oneself .
As Rege (1998) argues, to privilege knowledge claims on the basis of direct
experience, or then on claims of authenticity, can lead to a narrow identity politics that
limits the emancipatory potential of the movements or organisations making
such claims. Further, if it is not possible to understand an experience one has
not had, then what point is there in listening to each other ? Following Said, such a
view seems to authorise privileged groups to ignore the discourses of
disadvantaged ones, or, we would add, to place exclusive responsibility for
addressing injustice with the oppressed themselves. Indeed, as Rege suggests,
reluctance to speak about the experience of others has led to an assumption
on the part of some white feminists that confronting racism is the sole
responsibility of black feminists, just as today issues of caste become the sole responsibility
be transferred from one person to another with transparency, we think that

of the dalit womens organisations (Rege 1998).Her argument for a dalit feminist standpoint, then, is not

a call for others to educate


themselves about the histories, the preferred social relations and utopias and
the struggles of the marginalised (Rege 1998). This, she argues, allows their cause
to become our cause, not as a form of appropriation of their
struggle, but through the transformation of subjectivities that enables a
recognition that their struggle is also our struggle . Following Rege, we suggest that
social processes can facilitate the understanding of experiences, thus making
those experiences the possible object of analysis and action for all, while
recognising that they are not equally available or powerful for all subjects. 4
Understandings of identity as given and essential , then, we suggest, need to give
way to understandings which accept them as socially constructed and
contingent on the work of particular, overlapping, epistemological
communities that agree that this or that is a viable and recognised identity. Such an
understanding avoids what Bramen identifies as the postmodern excesses of post-racial
theory, where in this world without borders (rac-ism is real, but race is not) one can be anything one
made in terms solely of the experiences of dalit women, but rather

wants to be: a black kid in Harlem can be Croatian-American, if that is what he chooses, and a white kid
from Iowa can be Korean-American(2002: 6). Unconstrained choice is not possible to the extent that, as
Nelson (1993) argues, the concept of the epistemological com-munity requires any individual knowledge
claim to sustain itself in relation to standards of evaluation that already exist and that are social. Any claim
to identity, then, would have to be recognised by particular communities as valid in order to be successful. This further shifts the discussion beyond the limitations of essentialist accounts of identity by
recognising that the communities that confer identity are constituted through their shared epistemological
frameworks and not necessarily by shared characteristics of their members conceived of as irreducible. 5

the epistemological community that enables us to identify our-selves as


feminists is one that is built up out of a broadly agreed upon paradigm for
interpreting the world and the relations between the sexes: it is not one that is
premised upon possessing the physical attribute of being a woman or upon sharing the same
experiences. Since at least the 1970s, a key aspect of black and/or postcolonial feminism has been to
Hence,

identify the problems associated with such assumptions (see, for discussion, Rege 1998, 2000).We believe

it is the identification of injustice which calls forth action and


thus allows for the construction of healthy solidarities. 6 While it is
accepted that there may be important differences between those who recognise
the injustice of disadvantage while being , in some respects, its beneficiary (for
that

example, men, white people, brahmins), and those who recognise the injustice from the position of being

we would privilege the importance of a


shared political commitment to equality as the basis for negotiating
such differences. Our argument here is that thinking through identity claims
from the basis of understanding them as epistemological
communities militates against exclusionary politics (and its associated
problems) since the emphasis comes to be on participation in a shared
epistemological and political project as opposed to notions of fixed
characteristics the focus is on the activities individuals participate in rather
than the characteristics they are deemed to possess. Identity is thus defined
further as a function of activity located in particular social locations (understood as
the complex of objective forces that influence the conditions in which one lives) rather than of
nature or origin (Mohanty 1995:109-10). As such, the communities that enable
identity should not be conceived of as imagined since they are
produced by very real actions, practices and projects.
at its effect (women, ethnic minorities, dalits),

8. Islamophobia has built cultural barriers all around us


which manifest themselves in everyday
discrimination against Muslims. We have all become
complicit in the construction of misunderstanding
and fear of Muslim culture the only way out is to
question our cultural and educational practices
Samman 8 (Khaldoun Samman, Associate Professor of Sociology at Macalester College,
Strategies for Decentering Islamophobia, Spring 2008,
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~crg2/faultlines/FL08.pdf)
The case of the unflushed toilet demonstrates how even the seemingly innocuous subject of bathroom

When polarized
distinctionswhat Samman refers to as cultural-binariesare drawn between two
worlds, the results can be cultural isolation, misunderstanding, and fear. A
more sobering example of this is the criticism and negative attention that has
been directed at Muslim communities for purportedly endorsing practices
such as female honor killings. This practice has been framed as a purely
Islamic phenomenon, and consequentially one that does not exist in the West .
etiquette, calls into question the reflexive judgments we make about one another.

An analysis of U.S. criminal statistics however, reveals that 1/3 of female murders were committed by a

Viewed in this light, an honor killing loses its divisive


power as a uniquely Muslim atrocity . We are forced instead into questioning
our own cultural practices and identities. The victimization of young women is
no longer a uniquely Muslim crime, but rather, a human one. Profesor Samman
believes that it is only by discarding the epistemologies of cultural binaries
of us and them, Orient and Occidentwill we be able to move
beyond the politics of fear and diviseness that has come to dominate
our public and political discourse.
boyfriend, husband, or lover.

9. Education in debate is critical to begin


deconstructing Islamophobia we need engaged
dialogue on the question of discrimination in order to
challenge internal stereotypes and ignorance
Esposito 11 (John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies
and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism
in the 21st Century, January 6 2011,
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf)

9/11 made the international community more aware of the critical importance
of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in Europe and America, the Muslim world and
beyond as well as international organizations like the United Nations and Organization of the Islamic
Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic
Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political, religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the

Centers like Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin


Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have been active in
Washington and globally, speaking, briefing, and writing for a broad audience
of university, government, media and corporate audiences. Education in our
schools, universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues that
train the next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and
citizens is critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate,
silence alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out
against ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam,
discrimination, hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims
must be turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would
this discourse and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets? Islamophobia
can have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas policy in Iraq,
from war to post-war reconstruction, was affected by the extent to which
Islam and Muslim religious leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen
through the distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
fundamentalism. Therefore, the potential roles of Shii religious leaders and institutions were
Alliance of Civilizations.

unforeseen or underestimated, and then feared; the belief that Iranian Shii would control Iraqi Shii, leading
to a Qom-Najaf axis, failed to appreciate and understand the diversity of Shii leadership.

Extra Topical
We Meet:
Our policy action does nothing more than curtail surveillance. All three of the
planks in our plan are specifically designed to provide a comprehensive,
precise, and actionable plan to affirm the resolution.
The direct consequence of that action is solving dehumanization and relations
with the Muslim community, but our plan itself is most definitely not extra
topical. It directly affirms the resolution we substantially curtail the United
States Federal Governments domestic surveillance but the correlation is
that we solve for the rest of the harms stated. We claim no specific
advantage to the planks themselves in our plan but we have constructed it
in such a way that it solves for everything else.

Counter definition:
Extra T definition:
Policy Debate 101 pdf, National Speech and Debate Association (Everything
You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here )
One sub-issue is Extra Topicality, or the concept that the plan does MORE
than is allowed by the Resolution. Extra-T might be implicated if the plan
replaces the withdrawn troops into a different theater of operation and
claims advantages from doing so

Counter Interpretation:
Because the negative cannot articulate the exact advantage we are
proclaiming for the extra planks in our plan and because we simply do not
claim a specific advantage from that part in our plan we meet the inverse of
our definition that the planks of our plan are not extra-topical because they
do not claim an advantage.

If they dont read this T in the 1NC: Isnt topicality supposed to be


an A-Priory issue? If it is then why was it not run in the 1NC? They are abusing
their use of T by not bringing it up in their first speech, putting more pressure
on the 1AR when they obviously dont really care about it. They have proven
This T argument is not A-Priory. They are trying to bind us, but really all
they are proving is our aff it not extra topical, because they have to set it
up in order to try to convince you.

Plank One:
Congressional Oversight is vital to curtailing surveillance
because without congressional oversight of the FBI they
will circumvent (and have been doing so) and they will not
actually curtail their surveillance. The only way to actually
curtail surveillance is to create congressional and judicial
oversight.
Multiple ways that agencies can circumvent legislationspecifically the FBI will continue surveillance regardless of
what the plan does
Ackerman, 2015
(Spencer Ackerman is an editor/ reporter for the US News in New York. Full Date: June 1, 2015. Fears NSA
will seek to undermine surveillance reform; Privacy advocates are wary of covert legal acrobatics from the
NSA similar to those deployed post-9/11 to circumvent congressional authority
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date Accessed- 7/15/15. Anshul Nanda)

National Security Agency will attempt to weaken new


restrictions on the bulk collection of Americans' phone and email records with a
barrage of creative legal wrangles, as the first major reform of US surveillance powers in a
Privacy advocates fear the

generation looked likely to be a foregone conclusion on Monday. Related: Bush-era surveillance powers
expire as US prepares to roll back NSA power The USA Freedom Act, a bill banning the NSA from collecting
US phone data in bulk and compelling disclosure of any novel legal arguments for widespread surveillance
before a secret court, has already been passed by the House of Representatives and on Sunday night the
Senate voted 77 to 17 to proceed to debate on it. Between that bill and a landmark recent ruling from a
federal appeals court that rejected a longstanding government justification for bulk surveillance, civil
libertarians think they stand a chance at stopping attempts by intelligence lawyers to undermine reform in
secret. Attorneys for the intelligence agencies react scornfully to the suggestion that they will stretch their
authorities to the breaking point. Yet reformers remember that such legal tactics during the George W Bush
administration allowed the NSA to shoehorn bulk phone records collection into the Patriot Act. Rand Paul,
the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate who was key to allowing sweeping US
surveillance powers to lapse on Sunday night, warned that NSA lawyers would now make mincemeat of the
USA Freedom Act's prohibitions on bulk phone records collection by taking an expansive view of the bill's
definitions, thanks to a pliant, secret surveillance court. "My

fear, though, is that the people


who interpret this work at a place known as the rubber stamp factory, the
Fisa [court]," Paul said on the Senate floor on Sunday. Paul's Democratic ally, Senator Ron Wyden,
warned the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration against attempting to unravel NSA

intelligence committee has taught me to always be vigilant


for secret interpretations of the law and new surveillance techniques that
Congress doesn't know about, " Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee, told the
Guardian. "Americans were rightly outraged when they learned that US intelligence agencies
relied on secret law to monitor millions of law-abiding US citizens. The
American people are now on high alert for new secret interpretations of the
law, and intelligence agencies and the Justice Department would do well to
keep that lesson in mind." The USA Freedom Act is supposed to prevent what Wyden calls "
reform. "My time on the

secret law ". It contains a provision requiring congressional notification in the event of a novel legal

US
government permitted the NSA to circumvent the Fisa court entirely. Not a
interpretation presented to the secret Fisa court overseeing surveillance. Yet in recent memory, the

single Fisa court judge was aware of Stellar Wind, the NSA's post-9/11
constellation of bulk surveillance programs , from 2001 to 2004. Energetic legal tactics
followed to fit the programs under existing legal authorities after internal controversy or outright exposure.

continuation of a bulk domestic internet metadata collection program


risked the mass resignation of Justice Department officials in 2004 , an internal
When the

NSA draft history records that attorneys found a different legal rationale that " essentially gave NSA the
same authority to collect bulk internet metadata that it had ". After a New York Times story in 2005
revealed the existence of the bulk domestic phone records program, attorneys for the US Justice
Department and NSA argued, with the blessing of the Fisa court, that Section 215 of the Patriot Act
authorized it all along - precisely the contention that the second circuit court of appeals rejected in May.

NSA
lawyers will undermine surveillance reform. Robert Litt, the senior lawyer for director of
Despite that recent history, veteran intelligence attorneys reacted with scorn to the idea that

national intelligence, James Clapper, said during a public appearance last month that creating a banned
bulk surveillance program was " not going to happen ". "The whole notion that NSA is just evilly
determined to read the law in a fashion contrary to its intent is bullshit, of the sort that the Guardian and
the left - but I repeat myself - have fallen in love with. The interpretation of 215 that supported the bulk
collection program was creative but not beyond reason, and it was upheld by many judges," said the

referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This


is the section that permits US law enforcement and surveillance agencies to
collect business records and expired at midnight, almost two years after the
former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker,

whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the Guardian that the Patriot Act was secretly being used to
justify the collection of phone records from millions of Americans. With one exception, the judges that
upheld the interpretation sat on the non-adversarial Fisa court, a body that approves nearly all government
surveillance requests and modifies about a quarter of them substantially. The exception was reversed by
the second circuit court of appeals. Baker, speaking before the Senate voted, predicted: "I don't think
anyone at NSA is going to invest in looking for ways to defy congressional intent if USA Freedom is
adopted." The USA Freedom Act,

a compromise bill, would not have an impact on the


vast majority of NSA surveillance. It would not stop any overseas-focused
surveillance program, no matter how broad in scope, nor would it end the
NSA's dragnets of Americans' international communications authorized by a
different law. Other bulk domestic surveillance programs, like the one the Drug Enforcement
Agency operated, would not be impacted. The rise of what activists have come to call
"bulky" surveillance, like the "large collections" of Americans' electronic communications records the FBI
gets to collect under the Patriot Act, continue unabated - or, at least, will, once the USA Freedom Act
passes and restores the Patriot Act powers that lapsed at midnight on Sunday. Related: FBI used Patriot
Act to obtain 'large collections' of Americans' data, DoJ finds That collection, recently confirmed by a
largely overlooked Justice Department inspector general's report, points to a slipperiness in shuttering
surveillance programs - one that creates opportunities for clever lawyers. The Guardian revealed in 2013
that Barack Obama had permitted the NSA to collect domestic internet metadata in bulk until 2011. Yet
even as Obama closed down that NSA program, the Justice Department inspector general confirms that by

FBI was already collecting the same "electronic communications"


metadata under a different authority. It is unclear as yet how the FBI transformed
that authority, passed by Congress for the collection of "business records", into large2009, the

scale collection of Americans' email, text, instant message, internet-protocol and other records. And a

similar power to for the FBI gather domestic internet metadata, obtained
through non-judicial subpoenas called "National Security Letters" , also exists in a
different, non-expiring part of the Patriot Act. Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU,
expressed confidence that the second circuit court of appeals' decision last month would effectively step
into the breach. The panel found that legal authorities permitting the collection of data "relevant" to an
investigation cannot allow the government to gather data in bulk - setting a potentially prohibitive
precedent for other bulk-collection programs. "We don't know what kinds of bulk-collection programs the

conduct
bulk collection of internet metadata, phone records, and financial records. If
similar programs are still in place, the ruling will force the government to
reconsider them, and probably to end them," said Jaffer, whose organization brought the
government still has in place, but in the past it's used authorities other than Section 215 to

suit that the second circuit considered. Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert at the Cato Institute, was
more cautious. "The second circuit ruling establishes that a 'relevance' standard is not completely
unlimited - it doesn't cover getting hundreds of millions of people's records, without any concrete
connection to a specific inquiry - but doesn't provide much guidance beyond that as to where the line is,"
Sanchez said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the government argued, in secret, that nearly anything short of
that scale is still allowed, nor if the same Fisa court that authorized the bulk telephone program, in
defiance of any common sense reading of the statutory language, went along with it."

Plank Three
S-6 Visas and the removal of deportation from the FBIs
toolbox is vital to curtailing surveillance because once the
S-6 visas are implemented, the only way for the FBI to use
informants is through the visa program: one that is
checked by the Secretary of State and the Attorney
general. Because not all of the current informants are
eligible for the S-6 visa (because they do not actually
have any information for the FBI) the raw number of
informants will go down. This will curtail surveillance,
because less informants means less surveillance.
S-6 visa Granting process
Ester, Report for Congress, 05
(Karma Ester, Technical Information Specialist
Domestic Social Policy Division, CRS Report for Congress, January 19, 2005)

The S-6 category of classification may be granted to an alien who the


Attorney General and Secretary of State have determined
possesses critical, reliable information concerning a terrorist
organization, operation, or enterprise, and who is willing to supply or has
supplied information to federal law enforcement authorities or to a federal
court. The Attorney General and Secretary must also determine that the alien
has been or will be placed in danger as a result of providing information, and
is eligible to receive a cash reward under 36(a) of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956.7 The number of informants admitted under
this classification may not exceed 50 in any fiscal year. No terrorist
informants have been admitted under the S-6 category since 1996.

ARGUMENTS FOR EXTRA-TOPICAL PLAN PLANKS


Judge, please put every single one of these standards and
voters on your flow. Failure for the neg to forget or not
win even one of these arguments will immediately win us
extra topicality and not make it a vote for neg. I would
Also like to point out that just because we are arguing
extra topical good does not mean we admit to being extra
topical. It is both more answers on the flow as well as a
failsafe incase you, the judge, somehow agrees that we
are extra topical.
ALLOWING EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS ALLOWS US TO FIND
THE BEST POLICY.
The purpose of any policy debate should be to find the best policy. If topical
action, accompanied by non-topical action constitutes the best policy, a
rational decision-maker would endorse both. The resolution is still justified as
long as it is part of the optimal policy package.

Not a reason to reject:


Even if the Plan takes more action than specifically mandated by the
resolved, It isnt exclusive. There is no word such as only In there

THIS IS THE MOST REAL WORLD.


Members of Congress attach riders to the main part of a bill. Public policy
scholars often advocate provisions designed to ameliorate the potential side
effects of their primary policies.

MAKING EXTRA-TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE INTERFERES


WITH FINDING THE BEST POLICY.
The goal of policy debate is to find the best policy. Theories which discourage
the affirmative from writing its plan in the way in which it thinks is best
undermines this goal. Not only are clearly extra-topical planks discouraged,
marginally topical plan planks are as well.

EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS DON'T CREATE EXTRA-TOPICAL


ADVANTAGES.
Extra-topical provisions are essentially neutral ground they can potentially be
included in either team's policy package Extra-topical planks can be used
only to answer DAs, not to generate an advantage. It can remove minuses
but never create an independent plus.

LOSS OF RESOLUTIONAL FOCUS ISN'T A PROBLEM.


By nature, arguments expand away from the initial core topic focus. This is
true of advantages, disadvantages, and counterplans. Plan spikes may
eliminate some of the less germane generics, resulting in more topic specific
focus.

THE RESOLUTION SERVES MAINLY TO INITIATE


DISCUSSION.
It only serves as a problem area from which the advantage generating
elements of the affirmative plan must derive.

JURISDICTION IS A FLAWED ANALOGY.


The topic doesn't define the jurisdiction of the judge; otherwise, s/he could
never vote for non-topical counterplans. Also, the jurisdictional view
transforms topicality into a "risk" issue. If one needed to go beyond his or her
jurisdiction to prevent nuclear war, s/he should probably do so.

DIVISION OF GROUND IS NOT A PROBLEM.


Focus on the plan also divides ground. The affirmative has the ground defined
by its plan, the negative all ground competitive with that plan. In fact, since
plan focus legitimizes topical counterplans, negative ground is increased.
Extra-topical planks also provide negative ground because the negative can
run disadvantages to the spikes.

EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS ARE RECIPROCAL WITH THE


ABILITY OF THE NEGATIVE TO COUNTERPLAN.

The counterplan attempts to create a world where the plan would be


undesirable, the spike one in which it would be a good idea. The spike,
therefore, is no more utopian than the counterplan. If utopianism of either
spikes or counterplans is deemed a problem, the answer is to establish
limiting standards of fiat, based on agent, literature context, or policy realism.

THE RESOLUTION NEED ONLY BE SUFFICIENT TO CREATE


AN ADVANTAGE; IT NEED NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO FEND OFF
ALL DA'S.
The spike proves the DA is not intrinsic to the resolution.

NOTICE/FAIRNESS ISN'T A PROBLEM.


The number of spikes to any DA is not unlimited. Since the negative offers the
DA, they should be prepared for potential ways of solving it. The affirmative
also has no "notice" about what non-topical counterplans they can expect,
but they're expected to defend against all solutions to their advantage. Plan
focus expands negative ground by allowing topical counterplans.

FIAT DOESN'T EXCLUSIVELY DERIVE FROM "SHOULD."


If it did, no non-topical counterplans could be considered. Saying something
"should" be done always assumes some context. The affirmative argues the
topical parts of the plan should be done within the context of the other
changes the plan enacts.

ABUSE POTENTIAL OF EXTRA-TOPICAL SPIKES IS LIMITED.


They must be in the 1AC; they can't be abandoned, and the affirmative can't
win on the spike alone. Overly utopian spikes can be limited by other fiat
standards parallel to those on counterplans.

EXTRA-TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE

TIME ALLOCATION EFFECTS AREN'T A REASON FOR A


BALLOT.
Debaters make arguments to get favorable time tradeoffs all the time. Every
debater in every round drops certain arguments

Punishment is a poor argument paradigm. It requires suspension of the


normal process of policy evaluation, so it should only be used against the
worst offenses, such as evidence falsification.

The punishment is excessive to the crime. If the extra-topical plank is


dropped from the round, the negative can then run the disadvantage it was
intended to answer.

The affirmative has also had to invest time in debating this issue. It hasn't
given them that much of an advantage.

Compared to the total round, the time distortion is small. This single
argument shouldn't be allowed to determine the whole debate.

ANALOGIES SUPPORT THE AFFIRMATIVE.


Courts sometimes strike down parts of a bill.

Elimination of the extra-topical plank could be regarded as a floor


amendment.

the analogy of counterplan competitiveness supports. Each part of the


counterplan must be competitive, not just the counterplan as a whole.

THE SEND THE PLAN BACK TO COMMITTEE ANALOGY IS


FLAWED.

The debate encompasses the whole policy process. We can imagine that the
plan was sent back to committee and returned to the floor within the scope of
the round.

Slavish reliance on legislative analogies is foolish. The judge is simply


endorsing or rejecting the plan at the end of the round, and s/he can easily
choose to just endorse its topical elements.

CHEAP SHOT NIT PICKING OF PLANS WOULD RESULT FROM


MAKING EXTRA-TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE.
The negative would have a huge incentive to root through plans looking for
something that is topically suspect. Funding and enforcement provisions
could always be challenged. The result is too much debate about topicality at
the expense of substantive policy.

Effects T
We Meet:
Our plan can be done immediately after passing and will, in fact, curtail
surveillance. This is what our entire aff it about.

If they read Extra Topical first:


They are just grasping at straws, trying to trick you, the judge, into voting for
something insignificant and untrue just because they have no other ground to
convince you on. If they cannot decide whether or not our plan is extra
topical or effects topical they obviously do not understand the round or our
affirmative.

If they dont read this T in the 1NC:


Isnt topicality supposed to be an A-Priory issue? If it is then why was it not
run in the 1NC? They are abusing their use of T by not bringing it up in their
first speech, putting more pressure on the 1AR when they obviously dont
really care about it. They have proven This T argument is not A-Priory. They
are trying to bind us, but really all they are proving is our aff it not effects
topical, because they have to set it up in order to try to convince you.

Counter Definition:
Policy Debate 101 pdf, NSDA (Everything You Need to Know About Policy
Debate: You Learned Here National Speech and Debate Association)

A second sub-issue Effects Topicality (FX), or that the plan achieves a


topical re- sult only indirectly, not directly. The problem is that the FX plan
takes too many steps to reach a topical result, and because too many steps
were taken, the plan should be rejected as being too unpredictable and
hence, unfair, for the negative to be prepared to meaningful- ly or
educationally debate.

Counter Interpretation:
We are directly topical. I would like to point out that our definition does not
mention planks but rather the entire plan. If passed, our plan will curtail
surveillance by using the strict scrutiny standard, having congressional
oversight to block circumvention, and using the s-6 visa to decrease the
number of informants. We have 3 different examples of how our plan will
curtail surveillance. They have none in opposition.

Counter Standards:
Judge, please put every single one of these standards and
voters on your flow. Failure for the neg to forget or not
win even one of these arguments will immediately win us
effects topicality and not make it a vote for neg. I would
like to point out that just because we are arguing effects
topical good does not mean we admit to being effects
topical. It is both more answers on the flow as well as a
failsafe incase you, the judge, somehow agrees that we
are extra topical.
You have Disads that have internal links, why can the Aff
not have internal links as well?
More Real world- Everything is judged by its effects in policy making,
policy is consequentialist even for topicality.

Increase ground- every step I take gives the Neg more ground for
Disads and CPs because there is more substance to my case. They have more
content to criticize, not less.

No abuse: I dont actually take enough steps to result in realized abuse to


the neg. Dont vote on potential its like voting for a potential disadvantage.

Increases Education: We can learn more from effectual topicality by


opening everyones eyes to alternate causation

Enforcement: effects will always exist in the form of enforcement, thats


where Fiat comes in and makes us topical by assuming all our claims happen.

AT: Politics

Uniqueness Alt Triggers


There so many other unpopular plans in front of Congress that could be
divisive. Gun control, abortion, and industry regulations could all be incredibly
divisive.

Amount of Bills brought to congress every year


Gov track.us 2015 (Bills by Final Status
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics )
Congress: Enacted Laws, Passed Resolutions, Got A Vote, Failed Legislation,
Vetoed Bills (w/o Override) ,Other Legislation TOTAL 114th Jan 6, 2015
-present 93, 1% ,350 ,5% ,302 4% ,13 0% 3 0% 6,869 90%
7,630

Link Plan Popular


1. Muslim surveillance unpopular
Muslim Advocates, 4-15-2014, Timeline of Advocacy Against NYPD
Muslim Spying Program," Muslim Advocates,
http://www.muslimadvocates.org/timeline-of-muslim-advocates-advocacyagainst-nypd-muslim-spying-program/, Accessed: 7-1-2015, /Bingham-MB

The New York City Police Department had been spying on American Muslims
without any suspicion of wrongdoing for almost ten years when the program
was exposed by a group of investigative journalists. Unwarranted attention
by law enforcement is not new to Muslim communities throughout the
country, but the details revealed of the NYPDs massive surveillance program
were truly unprecedented. Civil rights, interfaith, and Muslim community
groups, as well as members of Congress, immediately began criticizing the
NYPDs practices and called for them to end. As soon as the program
became public, Muslim Advocates launched a legal and public advocacy
campaign that has included two public records requests, which turned into
litigation, letters calling for an investigation to three State Attorneys General
and the U.S. Attorney General, and the first lawsuit challenging the program
as unconstitutional. As NYPD Commissioner William Bratton announced the
dismantling of the unit that carried out the spying program, Muslim
Advocates will be holding him accountable to that promise by continuing its
legal and public advocacy campaign and seeking verification that the
Department discontinues its practice of monitoring law-abiding Muslims.

2. Plan popular
Julia A. Shearson (executive director of the Cleveland Chapter of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations) Tracked by Spies and Informers
March 24, 2009
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/03/tracked_by_spies_and_informer
s.html

Most Americans likely want to be free of prowling informants and


provocateurs such as Monteilh. In fact, the average American, born with
liberty in his gut, has never much liked a government that snoops.
Although we want our government to investigate crime and to prevent
terrorism, we expect those investigations to stay within narrow
Constitutional limits. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an
instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for
the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and
interests" and as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is
not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful
master." It is not certain whether Washington or Henry would approve of the

FBI's renewed domestic intelligence powers, but it is certain they would


want the Congress and the new attorney general to monitor the FBI
through strict oversight.

3. Plan popular civil rights advocacy groups


Associated Press, 4-16-2014, End of NYPDs Muslim spying program
applauded by some," No Publication, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/end-ofnypds-muslim-spying-program-applauded-by-some/, Accessed: 7-1-2015,
/Bingham-MB

NEW YORK - Muslim groups and civil liberties advocates applauded the
decision by New York Police Department officials to disband a controversial
unit that tracked the daily lives of Muslims as part of efforts to detect terror
threats, but said there were concerns about whether other problematic
practices remained in place. The Demographics Unit, conceived with the help
of a CIA agent working with the NYPD, assembled databases on where
Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Plainclothes officers infiltrated
Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and
catalogued Muslims in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.
NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis confirmed Tuesday that detectives assigned
to the unit had been transferred to other duties within the department's
Intelligence Division. Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab
American Association of New York, said she was among a group of advocates
at a private meeting last week with police at which the department's new
intelligence chief, John Miller, first indicated the unit - renamed the Zone
Assessment Unit - wasn't viable. She applauded the decision but said there's
still concern about the police use of informants to infiltrate mosques without
specific evidence of crime. "This was definitely a part of the big puzzle that
we're trying to get dismantled," Sarsour said. But, she added, "This doesn't
necessarily prove to us yet that these very problematic practices are going to
end." Another person at the meeting, Fahd Ahmed, legal and policy director
of Desis Rising Up and Moving, called the decision "a small step." He
questioned what had happened to the information gathered by the unit. "The
concern wasn't just about the fact that this data was being collected secretly
- it was about the fact that this data was being collected at all," he said. The
NYPD's decision to disband the unit was first reported in The New York Times.
An ongoing review of the division by new Police Commissioner William
Bratton found that the same information collected by the unit could be better
collected through direct contact with community groups, officials said. In a
statement, Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, called the move "a critical step
forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they
serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real
bad guys." Since taking office, de Blasio has taken other steps toward
changing how the police department operates, like ending the city's appeal of
a judge's ruling ordering major reforms to the department's implementation

of a controversial street stop policy including the implementation of the firstever inspector general for the NYPD. After a series of stories by The
Associated Press detailing the extent of the NYPD's surveillance of Muslims,
two civil rights lawsuits were filed challenging the activities as
unconstitutional because they focused on people's religion, national origin
and race. Former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had defended the
surveillance tactics, saying officers observed legal guidelines while
attempting to create an early warning system for terrorism. But in a
deposition made public in 2012, an NYPD chief testified that the unit's work
had never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation in the
previous six years. In Washington, 34 members of Congress had demanded a
federal investigation into the NYPD's actions. Attorney General Eric Holder
said he was disturbed by reports about the operations, and the Department
of Justice said it was reviewing complaints received from Muslims and their
supporters. The AP's reporting also prompted an investigation by the CIA's
inspector general. That internal inquiry concluded that the CIA, which is
prohibited from domestic spying, hadn't broken any laws, but it criticized the
agency for allowing an officer assigned to the NYPD to operate without
sufficient supervision. The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and
the California-based Muslim Advocates, which represented eight Muslims
from New Jersey in a 2012 lawsuit challenging the spying program, welcomed
the unit's dismantling but expressed concern it wouldn't stop the surveillance
in Muslim communities. "But nothing in the city's announcement definitively
suggests they will put an end to broad surveillance practices, which would
continue to be illegal regardless of which department within the NYPD might
be engaged in it," they said in a statement.

Impacts:
Extinction or climate change do NOT outweigh dehumanization.

Emily Stabile Credibility


Credibility http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/Attorneys/EmilyStabile.shtml
Emily Stabile joined Phillips & Cohen after graduating from the University of
California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). She was a Notes & Comments
Editor for the California Law Review and an Events Editor for the Berkeley
Journal of Gender, Law & Justice.
She has worked on qui tam cases involving healthcare fraud, government
procurement and the mortgage industry as well as whistleblower claims filed
under the IRS whistleblower program. While in law school, she worked as a
law clerk for the Human Rights Commission for San Francisco. She also
volunteered at the East Bay Community Law Center Tenants Rights
Workshop in Berkeley, California.
She is bar qualified in California

In-Round Abuse Only


1. Voting on potential abuse punishes me for something
that I might have done or something that someone
might do at some time. This forces the judge to vote
on something has did not happened in this round.
The judge only has jurisdiction over what actually
happens in the round, meaning unless abuse is
demonstrated there is no reason to vote. My
opponents arguments justify the judge voting for a
debater for arguments that would have turned my
case if they had been made.
2. This argument is infinitely regressive. There is
always the possibility for an argument to become
abusive later in the round. There is no way for the
judge to verify in the round if abuse will occur that
determination can only happen after the fact. Any
decision by the judge on what could happen would
thus, be outright intervention.
3. My opponent says that you are creating a norm if you
accept my argument but you can turn that. By voting
for this theory argument you legitimize debaters
twisting their opponents arguments in order to
construct an abuse story just so they can win on
theory. This destroys the purpose of theory to act, as
a check on abuse because its over use would render
it useless to that end. Meaning in order to ensure
that theory remains relevant we must have a check
on how far theory can go, in round abuse is that line.
4. If the ballot really influences debate practices the
judge should not vote on potential abuse. If the
punishment for actual abuse and potential abuse are
exactly the same the purpose of theory to act as a
check is destroyed. If debaters will be punished for
what they could do they have an incentive to actually
be abusive in round because it gives them the
strategic benefit that my opponent thinks is abusive
and there is no disadvantage.

5. Dont punish me for the mistakes that my opponent


makes. The fact that they cannot demonstrate actual
abuse only shows that they could not come up with
substantive answers to the position so they created
a scenario where abuse might occur. I should not be
punished for their inability to formulate responses
and for their strategic mistakes.

Inherency
1. We dont know politicians motives for proposing or not proposing a
plan if we did, we would be pretty much magical.
2. Our plan has never been presented to Congress in the form we have
given it. What we are saying with our plan popular cards is that if it
were to be presented, it would be extremely popular.
3. This debate should not be whether the plan is even popular or not,
which it is, but whether it should be passed. That is the purpose of fiat.
4. The status quo fails to solve the harms we have stated.
5. The status quo is insufficient at gleaning the best counter-terrorism
information.
6. Extend 1AC inherency cards we have them for a reason

What the FBI Does Now


The FBI goes to extremes to spy on the private lives of
innocent Muslims former informant Craig Monteilhs
story proves
Rahel Gebreye, March 2015, "Former Informant: FBI Encouraged Me To
Sleep With Muslim Women For Intel," Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/04/fbi-informant-craigmonteilh_n_680026.html
To Muslim mosque members in the Los Angeles area, Craig Monteilh was
a French Syrian looking to reconnect to his Islamic roots But behind the
devout facade
Monteilh was spying for the FBI, which instructed
him to go as far as sleeping with Muslim women to gain information.
known as

Farouk al-Aziz,

and convincing knowledge of Islam,

Monteilh joined HuffPost

Live to share his story and discuss how he went from a criminal to an FBI informant to a witness in a case against the Feds. Monteilh had his own brush with the law, having served time for using fraudulent checks.

"The FBI paid me to


infiltrate mosques in Los Angeles and Orange County in Southern California,
as a very broad surveillance operation to give them the personal information
of Muslims," he told
he even placed recording devices in the offices of imams and a local
Muslim Student Union. The FBI would then gather the data and share the intel
with the Office of Foreign Assets Control for the purpose of thwarting
potential terror attacks.
The FBI
trained me
to slowly integrate myself as
a Muslim male
The operation included even more extreme breaches of
privacy, with Monteilh going as far as dating and having sex with Muslim
women to extract intelligence.
His familiarity with criminals in Chino prison enticed the FBI to recruit him to root out organized crime and later seek out terrorists as part of Operation Flex.

host Josh Zepps on Monday. That "personal information" comprised of emails, cell phone numbers, names of known associates and where they attended

mosque. Monteilh said

Monteilh's informant role had an intense training process, during which he learned to "pretend to be Muslim." "

in the tenets of Islam, in the elementary principles of Arabic, and just to blend into the community and
," he said.

"I portrayed myself as a unmarried male, although I was married," he said. "Within the Muslim community, they would help me

to get a bride, so they would introduce me to single Muslim women. I would go out on dates and things like that. [My FBI handlers] instructed me, if I was getting good intel, to allow it to go into sexual relations."
The undercover plot eventually took an ironic turn when his extreme jihadist rhetoric alienated his targets, who reported him to the FBI. In 2007, the Islamic Center of Irvine filed a restraining order against him,
effectively blowing his cover. As Monteilh remembers, very few of his targets actually used similar jihadist rhetoric. The only time he heard extremist language was after some prodding and "inciting" on his part.
"They'd follow my lead," he said. Looking back on his undercover operation now, Monteilh said the monthly $11,200 compensation he received "clouded his judgement," making it tough for him to question the

I began to be conflicted because I


was spying on innocent people. They were not involved in criminal activity ,"
he said. "They were not espousing terrorist rhetoric, but I was still spying on
them and giving the FBI the information they wanted."
practice. Although he originally felt it was his "patriotic duty" to help the FBI operation, he had a change of heart. "

Monteilh has since spoken out against the FBI's controversial

informant program and even planned to testify in a class action suit against the FBI. The case was dismissed because it would risk exposing "state secrets."Muslims, not criminals.

1. FBI Lack of Federal Safeguards


Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)

Veena Dubal, Staff Attorney in the National Security and Civil Rights Program at Asian Law Caucus, testified at the hearing to share her
concerns about the harrowing accounts of McCarthyite tactics used by the

FBI

and JTTF against political activists and the Muslim

lack of oversight in federal government

community at large. She spoke of the


and asked for greater
transparency of local governments involvement with the federal government. This week the Inspector General, not some external
watchdog agency, our very own federal government made public a report that stated that since 9/11 the FBI has made some troubling
decisions, and in fact some of their probes have been improper, explained Ms. Dubal.9 The Inspector General's report concluded that in
some cases agents began investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for factually-weak reasons and in others it extended probes
without adequate basis and kept information on activist groups in its files. Former FBI agent, Michael German was quoted stating that,

the FBI was improperly spying on people's First Amendment protected


activity and that the FBI did not have enough internal controls to prevent
abuse. Ms. Dubal testified that the findings of this report came as no surprise to national security and human rights attorneys who had

watched as the situation worsened since December 2008 when FBI Director Mukasey introduced new guidelines which significantly
expanded the FBI's investigative techniques. These new guidelines: - allow agents to initiate assessments without a factual basis, - recruit
informants without a preliminary investigation, - profile individuals on the basis of race and religion, - conduct investigations at the request
of foreign agencieson U.S. Citizens, foreign agencies, and - data-mine personal information, all without oversight. Ms. Dubal was
especially concerned about federa

basis,

l agents ability to initiate assessments without any factual

opening the door to religious and racial profiling. She explained, *because individual agents no longer have to report opening or

there is no oversight

closing assessments to the FBI headquarters or the Department of Justice,


and there is incredible
room for abuse. San Francisco has felt the repercussions of these new guidelines. According to Dubal, the National Security and Civil Rights
Program at the Asian Law Caucus has seen dozens of clients, normal everyday Americans, who live in the Bay Area, who are regularly
visited by the FBI. She illustrated, I have clients who are small business owners, American citizens who are regularly visited by the FBI at
their place of work, in San Francisco. I have clients who are university students who are visited by FBI right outside of campus; I know an
educator who is regularly visited by FBI agents. What do all these people have in common? Nothing, except that they are all innocent
Americans who pay taxes, contribute to their community and the economy and who have immaculate criminal records, no criminal records
--- they just happen to be Muslims.

FBI Coercion and Denial of Immigration


Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Comession, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)

Attorney and civil rights activist, Wazhma Mojaddidi, testified that her Muslim
clients face coercion and intimidation that her other clients do not. She
reported that the system had failed her clients and that their lives had been
forever affected by their very own government. Her clients were too afraid to
come forward for fear that telling their stories would make it worse for them.
In their stead, she provided their stories: [Client 1] I am a legal permanent
resident . . . I've lived in the U.S. with my wife and children for over 20 years.
My adult son had a green card application pending when I was contacted by
the FBI. . . .The agents told me if I wanted my son to get the green card then
I needed to become an informant for the FBI. I told them I would think about
it. They arranged another meeting. . . I told them at that time that I didn't
want to become an informant. They then told me that if I did not agree to
becoming an informant that they would prevent my son from receiving his
green card

. Now, years later, my son is still waiting for his green card. He should have received it; but the reason he has not received it is his case is caught up in 'security clearances.' There's

no reason why my son's case should be delayed. I believe that the FBI is punishing my son because I refused to become an informant for the FBI. [Client 2] I am a legal permanent resident and I am also Muslim.
My wife and I applied for naturalization so that we could become citizens . . five years ago. The process typically takes only six months. . . [J]ust months [after we applied], my wife and I went in for the interview;
we answered all of their questions and gave them all the documents they requested. My wife received her naturalization certificate soon after. My case was delayed. I was told it was caught up in security
clearances. I had to hire an attorney and pay thousands of dollars to file a complaint in federal court about the delay. The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Office then agreed to proceed with adjudication of my
case and called me in for another interview... two years after I'd first applied. . .While I was waiting for a decision to be made two FBI agents visited me. They told me that they could arrange for my application to
be quickly processed if I became an informant. I told them I was not interested. Soon after their visit I received notice that my application was denied because the government claimed I did not have 'good moral
character' because of a small tax error in one of my tax filings that I had already cleared with the IRS. My attorney filed another lawsuit in federal court; after I testified in a deposition about my experience with
the five year delay, the visit from the FBI agents and my impeccable moral character, the U.S. Attorney agreed to grant my naturalization and my case was dismissed in court. Ms. Mojaddidi testified that the FBI
continues to offer immigration or similar benefits to Muslims if they become FBI informants and threaten negative consequences to deny those benefits if they do not agree to become informants. The

has become a vehicle of abuse, harassment, and racial


profiling against Muslim applicants. Ms. Mojaddidi reported that a recent
requirement of good moral character for certain benefits

discussion forum of immigration attorneys across the country revealed that it


is only Muslims who are suffering from this level of scrutiny.

FBI sting operations and entrapment form a large portion


of terrorist convictions and cases, perpetuating
Islamophobia while placing unwarranted surveillance of
Muslims in a good light.
Berkowitz 14 (Bill Berkowitz, 7-29-2014, Buzzflash, Truth-Out, "Is the FBI
Creating Terrorists to Pad Counterterrorism Conviction Rates?,"
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates/18788-is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates)
Let's start with a premise I think we can all agree with: There have been no 9/11-type attacks on United States soil since,
well, 9/11. Here's another statement we all probably agree with: The federal government has all sorts of arrows in its
quiver when it comes to gathering intelligence to thwart such attacks. And that is where it begins to gets dicey:

the government appears to be relying more and


more on perhaps the most twisted of those arrows; the use of informants, coerced and/or
rewarded, entrapment, and the sting. Since the September 2001 terrorist
attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the federal government has obtained more
than 500 federal counterterrorism convictions. According to a new Human
Rights Watch report (produced in association with Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute), "nearly
50 percent of [those] ... convictions resulted from informant-based cases;
almost 30 percent of those cases were sting operations in which the
informant played an active role in the underlying plot." The report, "Illusion of
Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," points out that, while "[m]any prosecutions have
properly targeted individuals engaged in planning or financing terror attacks... many others have targeted
individuals who do not appear to have been involved in terrorist plotting or
financing at the time the government began to investigate them. "Indeed, in
some cases the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have created terrorists
out of law-abiding individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated
or invented the target's willingness to act." In addition, there is a good chance
that, without the government's active participation, many of those ensnared
by the government did not have the mental or intellectual capacity to plan,
finance and/or carry out a terrorist event. "Americans have been told that their government is
Unfortunately, in its counterterrorism project,

keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US," said Andrew Prasow, Human Rights Watch's
deputy Washington director, in a statement. "But

take a closer look and you realize that many


of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law
enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit
terrorist acts." According to the report, entrapment, or what smells like entrapment, is
writ large over several of the cases. However, the report points out that proving entrapment is not an
easy task for defendants: "In theory, the defendants in these cases should be able to avoid criminal liability by making a
claim of 'entrapment.' However, US law requires that to prove entrapment a defendant show both that the government

This predisposition
inquiry focuses attention on the defendant's background, opinions, beliefs,
and reputation in other words, not on the crime, but on the nature of the
defendant. This character inquiry makes it exceptionally difficult for a
defendant to succeed in raising the entrapment defense, particularly in the
terrorism context, where inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged
induced him to commit the act in question and that he was not 'predisposed' to commit it.

characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail. Indeed, no claim of


entrapment has been successful in a US federal terrorism case to date. European
human rights lawinstructive for interpreting internationally recognized fair trial rights suggests that the current

"Illusion of Justice:
Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions" also "documented the
following patterns that raise serious human rights concerns":
"Discriminatory investigations, often targeting particularly vulnerable
individuals (including people with intellectual and mental disabilities and the
indigent), in which the government often acting through informants is actively
involved in developing the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the
target to participate, and providing the resources to carry it out. "Use of
overly broad material support charges, punishing behavior that did not demonstrate
formulation of the US defense of entrapment may not comport with fair trial standards."

intent to support terrorism. "Prosecutorial tactics that may violate fair trial rights, such as introducing prejudicial
evidence including evidence obtained by coercion, classified evidence that cannot be fairly contested, and
inflammatory evidence about terrorism in which defendants played no part; and limited ability to challenge surveillance
warrants due to excessive government secrecy. "Harsh

and at times abusive conditions of


confinement, which often appear excessive in relation to the security risk posed. These include:
"Prolonged solitary confinement and severe restrictions on communicating in
pretrial detention, possibly impeding defendants' ability to assist in their own
defense and contributing to their pleading guilty . "Excessive lengthening of
sentences and draconian conditions post- conviction , including prolonged solitary
confinement and severe restrictions on contact with families or others, sometimes
without explanation or recourse." Last year, I reviewed Trevor Aaronson's excellent book The Terror
Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism (Ig Publishing, 2013) and wrote: " Aaronson found that
FBI informants and undercover agents were at the center of many of the
cases touted by the FBI as successes in thwarting terrorist plots. In fact, were
it not for the FBI, most of those plots would likely have fallen apart under the
weight of their own senselessness and ineptitude ." ".... After his extensive and exhausting
investigation, Aaronson found that 'the FBI has built the largest network of spies
ever to exist in the United States with ten times as many informants on the
streets today [as] ... during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in Muslim communities.'" The Terror
Factory, which will be released in paperback on September 9, served as a springboard for the Human Rights Watch report,
and at least two other independent projects: Al Jazeera's July 20 documentary that "tells the story of three FBI informants
who posed as Muslims and infiltrated U.S. Muslim communities"; and HBO's recently released documentary Newburgh
Sting, "which looks at the case of the so-called Newburgh 4 and prolific FBI informant Shahed Hussain, who is the subject
of 'The Superinformant' chapter in The Terror Factory." Finally, there's a good chance we all might say "Amen" to a critical
clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Far too often, under the guise of combatting terrorism and preventing another 9/11, the government has

Using surveillance, coercion,


entrapment, and intimidation has not only resulted in the government
receiving less cooperation from very communities it seeks to enlist help, but
it is more likely to create terrorists where terrorists do not exist.
gone way beyond the boundaries of responsible law enforcement practices.

Sting Operations disproportionately target and do


violence upon Muslims and those marginalized by by
poverty and mental state.
Shah 14 (Naureen Shah, July 21,, 7-21-2014, "OPINION: The FBIs
counterterrorism sting operations are counterproductive," Aljazeera,
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/fbi-stingoperationscounterterrorismadeldaoud.html)

Adel Daoud is no Ferris Bueller. A Chicago suburban teen, he couldnt drive himself to the Jewel Osco grocery store
down the street without getting lost, let alone pull a Bueller and hoodwink his parents into letting him have the day off

Hes not a person with a complete


mind, his mother told me. Yet the FBI began targeting Daoud as a
terrorist mastermind shortly after his 18th birthday . At the time the
FBI began its sting operation, Daoud wasnt part of a terrorist cell,
nor was any group recruiting him. He was, though, on the Internet, looking for answers about
Islam and jihad. At home and at his local mosque, the Muslim teen was told that
jihad was nonviolent: It meant supporting your family by being a good son.
FBI undercover employees, finding Daoud online, did not affirm that
message. Instead, they worked with Daoud, ultimately driving him to
downtown Chicago to detonate a weapon of mass destruction
outside a bar. Chicagos Muslim communities were stunned by the Daouds arrest in September 2012. For
many, the first question was why. Why target as a terrorist-in-waiting a teen who was
plainly incapable of planning and conducting a terrorist attack? The second
question was one of fear: Will my child be the FBIs next target? As a report released
school. He is a D student and forgetful in the extreme.

today by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law Schools Human Rights Institute documents, the FBIs tactics in some
terrorism sting cases are not only abusive but counterproductive. They instill fear of law enforcement instead of mutual
trust. And they potentially divert FBI resources from actual terrorism threats. Sting operations are nothing new, but the FBI

It is
deploying informants and undercover FBI agents to mosques and
community centers around the country in what sometimes appear to
be virtual fishing expeditions. In some cases, the FBI has instructed
informants to strike up conversations about jihad with anyone who
will listen. These investigations appear to pick off the lowesthanging fruit, including the mentally ill and the poor, who are
vulnerable to manipulation. In one case, the subject of The Newburgh
Sting, an HBO documentary premiering this week, an informant promised a
45-year-old African-American man $250,000 to participate in a fake attack.
After losing his job at Walmart, the man accepted the offer. For every terrorism bust the FBI claims
based on such tactics, there is a cost. Deploying informants and
conducting surveillance without reasonable suspicion has sent chills
through many American Muslim communities. Some parents with whom we spoke
feared the FBI might recruit their teenage kids to become informants on their communities. Others said they
feared that strangers in their mosques and community centers could be
undercover FBI agents or infiltrators, hunting for youth to entrap in fake
terrorist plots. This kind of fear in any context and no matter its
actual merit is a recipe for bad policing, since distrust of law
enforcement can deter citizens from reporting a crime tip or fully
cooperating in bona fide crime investigations. The government has racked up
is using significantly more aggressive tactics in American Muslim communities than it has in others.

hundreds of convictions based on terrorism stings. Multiple studies have found that nearly half of federal terrorism
convictions since the 9/11 attacks resulted from informant-based cases. Some may be lawful and justifiable, yet almost 30

In
too many cases, the government, often acting through informants, developed
the fake terrorism plot, persuaded and sometimes pressured the targeted
individuals to participate and provided the resources to carry it out. The FBIs
wisdom in pursuing these cases, rather than investigating threats and individuals who were actually operational, is
questionable at best. Similarly questionable is the governments expansive
surveillance and collection of information about all Americans, including
percent of these convictions were sting operations in which the informant played an active role in the underlying plot.

American Muslims, which we continue to learn about through revelations from National Security Agency
whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rather than helping FBI analysts connect the dots, the
flood of data is impairing the FBIs ability to properly assess and respond to
threat information it receives. While we cant expect the FBI to prevent every
terrorist attack, recent ones like the Boston Marathon bombing show the need
for a sober re-evaluation of the agencys methods. Unfortunately, the Justice
Department and the FBI appear unwilling or unable to critically evaluate their
track record. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder urged U.S. allies to
follow the FBIs lead and adopt the same counterterrorism sting tactics. Before
the U.S. exports these terrorism tactics, it should reckon with their costs.

FBI are scaring Muslims from their mosques with fear of


surveillance
Watanabe, 09( Teresa Watanabe, LA Times reporter since 1989, LA Times, 2009
Muslims say FBI surveillance has a chilling effect on their free speech and religious
practices, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/local/me-muslim1 )\

The Islamic Center of Irvine is a beige stucco building that blends into the rows of
office buildings surrounding it. But last week, it became the most publicized mosque
in California with disclosures that the FBI sent an informant there to spy and
collect evidence of jihadist rhetoric and other allegedly extremist acts by a
Tustin man who attended prayers there. The revelations dismayed mosque members like Omar Turbi, 50, and his 27-year-old son who shares
his name. After Friday prayer service last week, while hundreds of others scurried back to work, the pair stood with their backs to a wall and
mulled over the news. "It gives you a little bit of apprehension about who you trust," the elder Turbi said. "Makes you think twice about what
you say; what if people misunderstand you?" Turbi's fears were echoed by other Muslims throughout Southern California last week. Some say a

climate of suspicion toward them, fueled by 9/11 and underscored by the


latest disclosures of FBI surveillance, is inhibiting their freedoms of speech
and faith. According to Muslim leaders, some people are avoiding mosques, preferring to pray at home. Others are reducing donations
to avoid attracting government attention or paying in cash to avoid leaving records. And some mosques have asked speakers to refrain from
political messages in their sermons, such as criticism of U.S. foreign policy, said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim. "Some average Muslims interested only in praying are avoiding mosques for fear of somehow being

"Everybody is afraid, and it is leading to an


infringement of the free practice of our religion."
monitored or profiled," Ayloush said.

The latest anxiety wave was triggered by an FBI agent's testimony last week that an informant was sent into several Orange County mosques
and helped collect evidence against Ahmadullah Sais Niazi. The Afghanistan-born Niazi, 34, is scheduled for arraignment this month on

A man claiming to be that


informant, Irvine resident Craig Monteilh, said last week in interviews and court
documents that he served the FBI as a paid informant from July 2006 to October
2007 and used concealed audio and video equipment to record thousands of
hours of conversations with Muslims in homes, restaurants and mosques in Irvine, Tustin, Mission Viejo and
charges of perjury, naturalization fraud and other acts related to lying about ties to Al Qaeda.

elsewhere. But Ayloush and other Muslim leaders said that FBI scrutiny of the Muslim community -- and efforts to recruit informants -- began
years ago. The FBI declined to comment. Both Ayloush and Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella
organization of 68 area mosques, said

numerous Muslims have reported to them attempts by

the FBI to recruit them as informers. In virtually all cases, they said, the
Muslims in question had immigration and other legal problems or were
applying for green cards. "We will make your problems vanish if you
cooperate," Syed said the FBI told Muslims. Suspecting widespread surveillance of
their community, several American Muslim organizations and their leaders filed a
Freedom of Information Act request, followed in 2007 by a lawsuit against
the federal government, demanding the release of all information collected
on them. Muslims have also complained of FBI interrogations about their charitable
contributions, asking why were they donating and who was receiving their money. At
one Los Angeles-area mosque, nearly every donor was quizzed by the FBI,
and the mosque subsequently experienced a steep decline in donations, Ayloush said. Leaders at other mosques also say their contributions
are down, although most attribute much of the decline to the recession. The Islamic Center of Corona Norco, for instance, has experienced a

decline in donations of 30% to 50% in the last three to four years, which board
member Rafe Husain attributed both to the economy and what he called a climate of fear. "People feel tense and
uncomfortable," Husain said. "I've talked to some people who try to avoid mosque activity." Since 9/11, federal authorities have also shut
down at least six of the Muslim community's major charitable
organizations, accusing them of involvement in terrorist financing. The actions
have impeded Muslims from fulfilling the duties of their faith, Syed said, because charitable giving is not a voluntary act in Islam but a religious
obligation. The latest tensions have further frayed relations between the FBI and Muslims. Since 9/11, the two sides had worked to develop a

FBI unilaterally broke off


ties with the American-Islamic council a few weeks ago, issuing a cryptic statement that the
partnership, forming a Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee to meet monthly. But the

agency would limit contact until "certain issues" were addressed by CAIR's national headquarters in Washington.

FBI Restrictions (Or lack of them)


FBI Lack of Federal Safeguards
Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)

Veena Dubal, Staff Attorney in the National Security and Civil Rights Program
at Asian Law Caucus, testified at the hearing to share her concerns about the
harrowing accounts of McCarthyite tactics used by the FBI and JTTF against
political activists and the Muslim community at large. She spoke of the lack
of oversight in federal government and asked for greater transparency of local governments
involvement with the federal government. This week the Inspector General, not some external
watchdog agency, our very own federal government made public a report that stated that since 9/11 the
FBI has made some troubling decisions, and in fact some of their probes have been improper,
explained Ms. Dubal.9 The Inspector General's report concluded that in some cases agents began
investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for factually-weak reasons and in others it
extended probes without adequate basis and kept information on activist groups in its files. Former FBI
agent, Michael German was quoted stating that, the

FBI was improperly spying on


people's First Amendment protected activity and that the FBI did not have
enough internal controls to prevent abuse . Ms. Dubal testified that the findings of this
report came as no surprise to national security and human rights attorneys who had watched as the
situation worsened since December 2008 when FBI Director Mukasey introduced new guidelines which
significantly expanded the FBI's investigative techniques. These new guidelines: - allow agents to initiate
assessments without a factual basis, - recruit informants without a preliminary investigation, - profile
individuals on the basis of race and religion, - conduct investigations at the request of foreign agencies
on U.S. Citizens, foreign agencies, and - data-mine personal information, all without oversight. Ms.
Dubal was especially concerned about federal agents

ability to initiate assessments

without any factual basis, opening the door to religious and racial profiling. She explained,
*because individual agents no longer have to report opening or closing assessments to the FBI
headquarters or the Department of Justice, there is no oversight and there is incredible room for
abuse. San Francisco has felt the repercussions of these new guidelines. According to Dubal, the
National Security and Civil Rights Program at the Asian Law Caucus has seen dozens of clients, normal
everyday Americans, who live in the Bay Area, who are regularly visited by the FBI. She illustrated, I
have clients who are small business owners, American citizens who are regularly visited by the FBI at
their place of work, in San Francisco. I have clients who are university students who are visited by FBI
right outside of campus; I know an educator who is regularly visited by FBI agents. What do all these
people have in common? Nothing, except that they are all innocent Americans who pay taxes, contribute
to their community and the economy and who have immaculate criminal records, no criminal records --they just happen to be Muslims.

FBI Has barely any restraints on how it acquires and uses


informants
Stabile 2014

Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013


Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Cromitie demonstrates that the FBI lacks substantial restraints on how it


recruits and uses informants. Currently, there are four restrictions on how the
FBI recruits informants: (1) internal FBI limitations, (2) constitutional limitations, (3)
the entrapment defense and the outrageous government conduct doctrine, and (4)
enforcement of nondeportation agreements in plea bargains. Because these
limitations have neither curtailed the FBIs mismanagement of informants
nor ensured a high degree of accuracy in information obtained, these

restrictions have failed to protect both the public from terrorism and
informants from abuse

First Restriction: Attorney General Guidelines


Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

The Attorney Generals Guidelines on FBI Confidential Human Sources (Guidelines),


issued in 2006 by the Department of Justice, are agency guidelines, not regulations,
and as such have no binding legal effect. Much of the problem of FBI informant misuse
stems from this fact. The Guidelines outline the rules the FBI should follow in undercover investigations
involving informants, which include documenting new informants and recording agreements made. The
Guidelines are also subject to review and modification by the Attorney General in accordance with federal
laws, and are afforded great deference by the courts. The major problems with the Guidelines, however,

lack consequences, are not subject to judicial review, and are not
followed by agents. While the Guidelines may have internal consequences for FBI agents who
are that they

violate them, they have no meaningful effect beyond internal regulation and cannot be enforced by the
public via judicial review. Judicial review for violations only occurs when criminal prosecutions reveal the
FBIs activities in the investigation. However, the informants in these cases typically remain confidential,
and any inquiry into their actions does not extend beyond the handling agents conduct and the
recruitment methods used Evidence shows that in many cases, FBI agents fail to follow the Guidelines
when recruiting and handling informants. A 2005 study conducted by the Department of Justice Office of

the Inspector General found that the FBI did not provide enough support to agents to properly follow the
pre-2006 Attorney General Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants. In fact ,

noncompliance with the guidelines was a problem in 87 percent of the


cases the Inspector General reviewed. In particular, agents failed to properly review
the suitability of potential informants, properly document informants illegal
activities, and notify informants of their limitations. Given the high levels of
noncompliance and agents nearly unlimited discretion in extending immigration
rewards, agent abuse is likely also high. Immigration rewards appear only once in
the Guidelines, yet this single reference exemplifies the impunity with which law enforcement procures
informants. The Guidelines state that [n]o promises or commitments can be made, except by the United
States Department of Homeland Security, regarding the alien status of any person or the right of any
person to enter or remain in the United States. The Guidelines also note that informants should receive
this information if and when they have any issues regarding immigration status. While acknowledging
that FBI agents may only offer immigration benefits to informants pursuant to DHSs agreement, the
Guidelines do not answer the questions raised by this arrangement. Unlike monetary rewards, for which
the Guidelines establish a number of rules regarding proper payment procedures and conditions, it is not
clear under what circumstances immigration rewards must be documented and whether they are subject
to conditions similar to those of monetary rewards. Their brief appearance in the Guidelines shows the
FBIs recognition of immigration benefits as a method to elicit informant cooperation, but details on their
use are nonexistent. This absence of information indicates that agents may possess vast discretion when
using immigration rewards to recruit informants. It also indicates that executing these rewards is ultimately
in the hands of DHS.

Second restriction: Constitutional Limitations


Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

In theory, both the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment restrict the FBIs use of informants in terrorism investigations .
However, neither Amendment has actually limited the Agencys recruitment

tactics when dealing with subjects facing immigration-related pressures to


serve as informants. The Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not offer any substantive restrictions on the
FBIs use of informants in terrorist investigations. In criminal
investigations where the Fourth Amendment does apply, it places few restrictions on
the use of information gathered by informants. To obtain a warrant based on
intelligence gathered by an informant, the information must be reliable in
establishing the requisite probable cause. In matters of national security however,
the search standard is less stringent than the probable cause standard used in
criminal investigations. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has never held
that the Fourth Amendment applies to national security investigations . In
particular, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) shields federal

agents from standard criminal warrant requirements when carrying out


electronic surveillance and searches. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a
secret court created by FISA to issue warrants in national security investigations,
only requires probable cause that the target of the electronic surveillance is a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Hence, because agents do not

have to produce evidence of criminal activity before initiating


electronic or physical surveillance, they are able to use informants more
freely. Under FISA, the Attorney General can also authorize surveillance for up
to a year without court order. Furthermore, in 1982, President Reagans
Executive Order No. 12,333 identified the FBI as the primary gatherer of domestic
intelligence and held that the Attorney General holds the power to carry out
warrantless searches and surveil agents of foreign powers. Executive Order No.
12,333 essentially paved the way for the FBIs use of informants to conduct

domestic surveillance of foreign agents, including members of foreign


terrorist organizations, without adhering to the restrictions inherent in the use
of informants in domestic criminal investigations. In domestic criminal
investigations, agents are required by law to corroborate informants intelligence and
credibility before a warrant is issued. However, under Executive Order No. 12,333,
this corroboration is not required in terrorism investigations . For informants facing
deportation and immense pressure to cooperate, these lax warrant requirements
remove an important check on the validity of their intelligence. The requirements
also give the FBI more opportunities to abuse its power. Although no

court has explicitly found Executive Order No. 12,333 constitutional, no court
has found it unconstitutional and thus it remains good law . Indeed, the
Northern District of Illinois found that FBI reliance on the Order in conducting physical
searches for foreign intelligence gathering was reasonable. The Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment has provided a way to avoid deportation to some
informants facing deportation under the state-created danger doctrine. The doctrine
allows for recovery and injunctive relief for civil rights violations . It holds that
the government has a constitutional duty to protect a person against injuries
inflicted by a third-party when it affirmatively places the person in a position of
danger the person would not otherwise have faced. To establish a successful claim
under this doctrine, a valid relationship must have existed between the plaintiff and
state; the state must have created the opportunity that ultimately harmed the
plaintiff; the state must have acted in willful disregard for the plaintiffs safety; and
the harm must have been foreseeable. Notably, given its nearly exclusive use in

domestic criminal cases, the state-created danger doctrine has limited use
for immigrant informants. The First and Third Circuits have declined to apply the
danger doctrine in deportation cases because it intrudes on Congresss plenary
power over immigration. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits, however, have left the doctrine
open for potential use by immigrant informants. Nevertheless, even if the danger
doctrine was applied in immigration cases, many of the terrorism informants in
the United States lack ties to actual terrorist groups in or outside of the United
States and thus are not subject to threat of retaliation from actual terrorist groups if
deported. Hence, the state-created danger doctrine may not help many
terrorism informants avoid deportation. Additionally, the state-created danger
theory only protects informants after recruitment , and provides no benefits to
informants when negotiating the terms of their agreement with the FBI . While

the knowledge that informants can later enforce their agreements may encourage
more careful engagement with potential informants, ultimately bolstering informants
ability to vindicate their agreements with the government, the danger theory

creates no incentive for the FBI to only recruit informants with established
ties to terrorist organizations. In fact, because the danger doctrine is likely only
useful when informants have preexisting ties to terrorist organizations, the doctrine
may steer the FBI away from recruiting those with established ties

because doing so would provide these informants with a way to


enforce their agreements. Nevertheless, until courts actually extend the
danger doctrine to deportation cases, the protective value of this theory is
unknown.

Third Restriction: Entrapment Defense


Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

The entrapment defense and the claim of outrageous government conduct are also
possible sources of restriction on the FBIs use of informants. These protect

defendants who claim to lack the necessary predisposition for criminal


activity but whom the government induced to commit criminal acts . The test
for entrapment used by most jurisdictions including the federal courts places the
burden on defendants to show lack of predisposition to commit the alleged crimes.
The entrapment defense succeeds when the criminal design originates with the
officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent
person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in
order that they may prosecute. The mere provision of materials and opportunities by
the government for the commission of a crime is not sufficient unless the
governments action actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the
defendant. In contrast, outrageous government conduct claims focus on
government action. In United States v. Russell, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law
enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely
bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction. Unlike
entrapment, outrageous government conduct is not an affirmative defense. Rather, it
seeks dismissal based on government violation of due process. To prevail, an
individual must show that the governments conduct offended fundamental fairness
and shocked the universal sense of justice. A court has never found outrageous
government conduct where defendants were predisposed to commit crimes by the
acts of an informant. The use of the entrapment or outrageous government

conduct defense may raise questions about the behavior of the informant and the
government agents instructions to the informant. While the entrapment defense

may allow a defendant to escape criminal liability, an examination of


government relations with informants may call for public and political
limitations on the FBIs dealings with informants.203 Usually, because law
enforcement values the secrecy of its dealings with informants, evidence about
informant recruitment and handling only surfaces after egregious
cases involving informants acting as agent provocateurs. For example,
in Cromitie, the defendant argued that the government entrapped and subjected him
to outrageous conduct.205 Although neither claim ultimately prevailed, Cromitie
exposes how far the government may go to set up an individual for a crime, including
offering a car and a quarter million dollars to participate in terrorist acts. Cases like
Cromitie do little to restrict the FBIs dealings with informants . If courts were
more receptive to claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct, law
enforcement agencies would be threatened by the risk of exposure, which in turn
might encourage them to curtail their aggressive tactics. Nevertheless, most

terrorism investigations and cases involving terrorist defendants


never go to trial, making Cromitie an unusual case. In terrorism cases,
defendants must overcome an unusually heavy burden because irrespective of the
governments conduct or the defendants vulnerability, committing or assisting in the
commission of terrorist acts is always considered evidence of a predisposition to
terrorism. Cromitie demonstrates that even though courts acknowledge the
governments outrageous conduct, courts may nevertheless find that a defendants
agreement to participate in terrorist acts demonstrates the necessary predisposition.

The fact that the FBI suffered no repercussions for aggressively


recruiting Cromitie shows that entrapment and outrageous
government conduct claims effectively do not restrain the FBIs use
of aggressive terrorism informant recruitment tactics.

Fourth Restriction: Non-deportation agreements in Plea


Bargaining
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Nondeportation agreements have also failed to effectively restrain the FBIs


use of informants via immigration law. In the United States, most criminal cases are
resolved by plea bargains. Before the 1970s, plea bargaining was conducted in relative secrecy and deals
between the parties were not recorded. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court held that if prosecutors reneged
on plea bargains, petitioners were entitled to specific performance, resentencing, or withdrawal of the

guilty plea. Traditionally, courts have treated nondeportation agreements and plea bargains as contracts.
Thus, when the prosecution does not follow through with the promised benefits of a plea agreement,
defendants may enforce the agreement as though it were a contract. Further, nondeportation agreements
are similar to plea bargains in that the defendant agrees with the government to some detriment in
exchange for a benefit. Due to these similarities, until the 1990s the Eighth and Ninth Circuits routinely
enforced plea bargains when informants were promised immigration benefits in exchange for information.
In addition to the standard contract elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration, two additional
elements must have been present in the agreement in order to establish an enforceable claim against the
government. First, the government agent must have had actual authority to ensure government
performance. Second, agency principles must have been present in the agreement. Agency is present
when one person, namely the agent, consensually acts on behalf of anotherthe principal. Hence, an
agreement entered into by the prosecutor, as the agent, creates a contract between the principal (the
immigration official) and the third party (the informant). Nevertheless, in 1996 the Department of

immigration officials could not


be held responsible for prosecution-made plea agreements in criminal
Justice issued regulation 28 C.F.R. 0.197 which stated that

proceedings or investigations that involved immigration laws. Further, in order for agreements to count
under 28C.F.R.0.197, there must be written authorization from DHS. Cases that have addressed 28
C.F.R. 0.197 since its enactment have affirmed it. For instance, in Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed petitioners deportation and held that a letter from an Assistant United States Attorney
presumably promising nondeportation had no bearing on the case because according to existing
regulation, absent written authorization from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), the INS shall not be bound by cooperation agreements that government agencies may
reach with alien witnesses. Similarly, in Frimpong v. Holder, petitioner alleged that a federal prosecutor
had promised him relief from deportation in exchange for information against petitioners coconspirators.
There, the court dismissed his argument because there was no evidence of written authorization from DHS

FBI offer
of nondeportation as an incentive does not bind the FBI to
performance. Considering the Guidelines, various constitutional limits, the
for the agreement, as required by the regulation. Effectively, unless authorized by DHS, an

entrapment defense, and the near complete unenforceability of nondeportation


agreements, the FBI has great discretion and little potential liability when
recruiting informants. Very little prevents the FBI from pursuing aggressive
recruiting tactics like probing an individuals background for immigration violations
and using these as ways to elicit cooperation. Once the informant cooperates, almost
nothing prevents the FBI from disregarding the promise of immigration benefits.

Today, nothing adequately restrains the FBIs recruitment practices,


leaving informants particularly vulnerable to coercion and thus more
likely to provide faulty information.

Entrapment
Entrapment and Preemptive Prosecution
Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Comession, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)
Stephen Downs, attorney and one the founders of Project SALAM, a group
formed to document and protest against the entrapment and preemptive
prosecution of Muslims urged the Commission to listen carefully to the
stories and statement of members of the Muslim community and to ask how
such intolerant, hostile, and illegal acts by our own government can occur in
America when the rule of law is supposed to protect everyone equally. He
also urged the Commission to ask Congress to implement the
recommendations of the Inspector General and appoint a special prosecutor
to review all of the terrorism cases to determine the prosecution is valid and
fair. - Preemption Doctrine Mr. Downs testified that the US government
prosecutes innocent people to prevent them from possibly supporting crime
in the future. He explained that this approach to law enforcement was
adopted by the FBI and the Justice Department after 9/11 as the new
paradigm of law enforcement that would focus on preventing terrorism
rather than merely punishing it. Project SALAM grew out of the 2006
prosecution of an Imam in Albany, New York, Yassin Aref, on terrorism-related
charges. Mr. Downs was a member of the defense team and recalled that,
The evidence at the trial indicated that Mr. Aref was a peaceful man who
never said anything to show he was aware of a terrorist plot or wanted to be
part of it. He was essentially framed in a sting operation by the government
for a crime he had not committed and was convicted by a jury and sentenced
to 15 years. Mr. Downs testified that the prosecution held a press
conference on March 8, 2008 to try to convince the media, which had been
critical of the lack of evidence in the Aref case, that the government had a
basis to proceed against Mr. Aref. When a reporter asked if the government
believed Mr. Aref was actually a terrorist, the prosecutor made this response:
Did he actually himself engage in terrorist acts? Well we didnt have the
evidence of that, but he had the ideology... Our investigation was concerned
with what he was going to do here and in order to preempt anything else we
decided to take the steps that we did. Mr. Downs testified that this startling
statement confirmed what they had come to belief, that *by profiling Muslim
ideology, the U.S. government targets Muslims who might be security risks
to be prosecuted for faked or contrived crimes in order to preempt them from
possibly supporting criminal activity in the future. Project SALAM was formed

to document this abuse of law, and on the Project SALAM web site we have
compiled a database of hundreds of such preemptive prosecution cases.

Problems In the SQ
Mistrust of Law Enforcement in Status Quo
Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)
Supervisor David Chiu spoke to the importance of law enforcement and
community cooperation. In San Francisco we pride ourselves on our
diversity, on the amazing international community that we are and we also
pride ourselves on doing everything we can to foster cooperation between
our diverse communities and law enforcement. I can tell you as a former
criminal prosecutor that without that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart. But unfortunately, we also know that surveillance only
serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed
most. Shakeel Syed expressed the following concern regarding Joint
Terrorist Task Forces. The mandates of local and federal law enforcement
organizations are different and hence call for different approaches. For
example, traditional local enforcement attempts to foster an environment of
community involvement, like neighborhood watch. Such an approach
engenders a common goal to keep communities safe. The FBI's traditional
goal is to conduct covert surveillance which is dramatically different from
engendering trust among the community and working with the community as
partners. The federal and local partnership in the context of counterterrorism [turns] the community from partners into suspects; treating
Muslims as inherent suspects by advocating for policies and programs such
as mapping, is exactly the opposite; it undermines and impedes the safety of
all citizens.

Racial Profiling and the lack of Policies against it


ACLU, 14 (United States Compliance with the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, American Civil Liberties
Union, 11-29 August 2014,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2014.07.09_cerd_shadow_report_final.pdf )

Racial profiling in law enforcement is a persistent problem in the United


States. Although top U.S. officials have condemned racial profiling, noting that it can leave a
lasting scar on communities and individuals and is bad policing, federal policy
fails to protect against it.
the U.S. Department of Justice
has failed to issue a revisio
1 In particular, despite repeated calls by civil society,

n to its 2003 Guidance on the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement.2 Although the U.S. government states that the purpose of the

Guidance is to ban racial profiling, the current Guidance has the perverse effect of tacitly authorizing the profiling of almost every minority community in the United States. The Guidance exempts from its ban on
racial profiling practices that are related to protecting the integrity of the Nations borders and investigating or preventing threats to national security or other catastrophic events (including the performance of
duties related to air transportation security). Furthermore, the Guidance does not ban profiling based on religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. A stronger, fundamentally revised Guidance is necessary
because racial and ethnic profiling persists at the federal, state, and local levels, as the ACLU has described in previous reports to the Committee.3 Examples of profiling include: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Local FBI offices have collected demographic data to map where


people with particular racial or ethnic makeup live, basing this data
collection on crude stereotypes about the types of crimes different racial
and ethnic groups
(FBI) racial mapping:

supposedly commit. This profiling is largely possible due to an exemption in the Guidance for investigating or preventing threats to national security.

Mistrust in Muslim Communities has not been adequately


addressed
ICAAD, 14 (The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
structural discrimination globally and promoting human rights norms consistent with public international law. ICAAD works to strengthen legal
systems by bridging gaps in the implementation of laws and policies. ICAAD has worked with government agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), to help identify how minority communities are adversely impacted by the systemic flaws in documenting and
preventing hate crimes in the United States. ICAAD works to target and remedy these systemic failings, which contribute to high rates of
bias-motivated violence and murder because government resources are not being allocated to train, monitor, and prevent biasmotivated
crimes against particularly vulnerable communities., Perpetuating Discrimination: How the U.S. Governments Compliance with the
Underreporting of Hate Crimes Leads to a Failure to Protect Minority Groups and Effectively Combat Hate Crimes, 11-29 August 2014,
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17772_E.pdf )

These factors and others contribute to an astounding 65% of hate crimes cases being unreported. The
government plays an important role in ameliorating the conditions that contribute to underreporting,
including managing the level of trust between law enforcement and communities. This concern was partly
addressed in the proposed End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which previously failed to pass Congress and
was reintroduced in May of 2013. This has forestalled progress towards bridging the trust gap because
communities are still being disproportionately surveilled (Muslims and Arabs), stop and frisked (Latinos
and Blacks), and profiled at airports by being secondarily searched 100% of the time (Sikhs).27 When twothirds of hate crimes go unreported, it is not merely a statistical aberration, it is a structural failure that
the government has a responsibility to address.

Islamophobia Examples
Most Islamophobic time since 9/11
BIT, 15 (( Bridge Team Initiative- Based in Georgetown Universitys Prince
Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, The Bridge
Initiative is a multi-year research project that connects the academic study of
Islamophobia with the public square, December 21, 2015,
Islamophobia in 2015: The Good, the Bad, and the Hopeful,
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/author/admin/ )

Looking back at the last twelve months, it can initially appear that Islamophobia was pretty bad in 2015. And indeed it was. Attacks against
Muslims in the United States and their institutions have occurred in rapid succession. Meanwhile, leading politicians and the voting public have
expressed increasingly anti-Muslim views. Even though FBI hate crime statistics for this year wont be released for some time, the current

2015 could be Americas most


Islamophobic year since 9/11. Despite the bleak picture, 2015 also witnessed some positive shifts in the way
climate of hostility towards Muslims in the United States indicates that

the media and the public dealt with and responded to Islamophobia. As prejudice towards and discrimination against Muslims intensified and
gained more media attention, many journalists, activists, and ordinary Americans felt compelled to do something about it. Watch

In the wake of the attacks across


Paris and in San Bernardino, the country witnessed a surge of mosque
vandalisms, physical attacks against those perceived to be Muslim, and death
threats against entire Muslim communities. Desecrated Qurans and pig heads were left outside some
Islamophobia in 2015: The Year in Review What Went Wrong This Year

mosques, while others were targeted with bullets and fire-bombs. A Muslim cab driver was shot, as was a store clerk who now remains in
critical condition. A Muslim teenager died after falling off a roof in Seattle, an incident many in his community fear was a hate crime. Some
women who wear headscarves reconsidered their hijab after numerous women reported verbal and violent harassment. But incidents like

Muslims were targeted


and in several cases, murdered throughout 2015. The shooting of
three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is the most prominent
example. According to data collected by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), Islamophobic incidents at mosques jumped in 2015.
As of December 17, there were 71 incidents across the country, including
vandalism, threats, harassment, and biased zoning proceedings for
communities seeking to build mosques. This number is the highest CAIR
has recorded since it started counting in 2009, and is three times higher than the total number of mosque incidents last year.
these didnt only occur after high-profile attacks like those in Paris and San Bernardino.

All of this occurred against the backdrop of national conversations that asked, How Islamic is ISIS? and within the context of broader public
debates over the Syrian refugee crisis and national security. On the Internet and networks like Fox News, dubious polls claiming to report high
levels of ISIS support among Muslims spread like wildfire. Long before Donald Trump cited one of these polls in calling for a temporary ban on
Muslim immigration to the US, he and other presidential candidates made troubling statements about Islam and its followers, and attended
events held by some of the countrys most active anti-Muslim groups. Polling data from 2015 revealed that Americans had complicated views
about Islam and Muslims. While 51 percent said they viewed Muslims living in the United States the same as any other community, 56
percent also thought the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life. Many survey results showed a stark division

Republicans expressing concern about Muslims more frequently


than Democrats. A majority of GOP voters, for instance, expressed approval
for the Islamophobic positions and policies put forward by candidates Donald
Trump and his rival Ben Carson, who said in September that a Muslim should
not be president. Two-thirds of likely Republican voters agreed with
Trumps proposed ban on Muslims. Both Carson and Trump saw
significant increases in support in primary states following their respective
comments. Then there were the armed demonstrations outside mosques
across the country, and business owners that declared their stores
Muslim-free zones. These populist movements mirrored the activities of similar groups in Canada, Australia, and
across party lines, with

Europe. When organizing his mosque protests in the U.S., militiaman Jon Ritzheimer claimed he had contacts in these places, where groups
like PEGIDA and Reclaim Australia have orchestrated large demonstrations.

Hate crimes against Muslim Increase


LICHTBLAU, 15 (DECEMBER 17, 2015, ERIC LICHTBLAU, Crimes Against
Muslim Americans and Mosques Rise Sharply, New York Times,
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/politics/crimes-against-muslimamericans-and-mosques-rise-sharply.html?
em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20151218&nl=morningbriefing&nlid=73146567&_r=1&referer=)
WASHINGTON Hate crimes against Muslim Americans and mosques across
the United States have tripled in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and
San Bernardino, Calif., with dozens occurring within just a month, according
to new data. The spike includes assaults on hijab-wearing students; arsons
and vandalism at mosques; and shootings and death threats at Islamicowned businesses, an analysis by a California State University research group
has found. President Obama and civil rights leaders have warned about
anecdotal evidence of a recent Muslim backlash, particularly in California. But
the analysis is the first to document the rise, amid a crescendo of anti-Islamic
statements from politicians. The terrorist attacks, coupled with the ubiquity
of these anti-Muslim stereotypes seeping into the mainstream, have
emboldened people to act upon this fear and anger, said Brian Levin, a
criminologist at California State University, San Bernardino. Interactive
Feature | 'Do You Know Me? Do You Know My Heart?' New York City Muslims
respond to Donald Trumps call to bar followers of Islam from entering the
United States. Mr. Levin runs a hate-crimes research group at the university,
the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, which produced the analysis
and provided the results to The New York Times. In recent years, there has
been an average of 12.6 suspected hate crimes against Muslims in the United
States a month, based on F.B.I. data analyzed by the research group. But the
rate of attacks has tripled since the attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 by Islamic
State operatives, with 38 attacks regarded as anti-Islamic in nature,
according to the analysis, which was based on reports from the news media
and civil rights groups. Eighteen of the episodes have come since the
shooting in San Bernardino on Dec. 2 by a Muslim couple who were
supporters of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which left 14
people dead. The frequency of the recent attacks has not reached the levels
seen in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
when there were hundreds of attacks on Muslims, and some Sikhs mistaken
for Muslims, but Mr. Levin said they were similar types of hate-crime attacks.
Im saddened by this but not surprised, he said. Whenever we see
intergroup conflicts making headlines, we often see a spike in hate crime
accompanying it. A week after the Paris attacks, a sixth-grade girl in the
Bronx was reportedly attacked by three boys who tried to take off the hijab
she was wearing, punched her and called her ISIS. Days later, a college
student in a parking lot in San Diego reported a similar assault, with her
attacker yelling anti-Muslim slurs. In Pittsburgh, a passenger in a cab shot the
driver, who was Muslim, in the back after the passenger angrily asked him
about ISIS and mocked the Prophet Muhammad, the authorities said. And in

Anaheim, Calif., a bullet-riddled copy of the Quran was left outside an Islamic
clothing store. The most recent episode cataloged by the San Bernardino
research group came Tuesday, when a man reportedly pulled a knife on a
Muslim woman at a carwash and threatened her. He was arrested, as the
attackers have been in a number of other cases, but many of the episodes
remain under investigation by federal and local authorities. We are always
monitoring that kind of situation, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch told
reporters last month. We are always on the lookout for backlash against any
individuals for any reason real or perceived. Ibrahim Hooper, a
spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the tripling of
hate crimes identified by the San Bernardino researchers corroborated
anecdotal evidence his group had collected. Were seeing so many of these
things happening that its unbelievable, he said in an interview. Its off the
chart, and I dont think weve seen the end of it. Follow the New York
Timess politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign
up for the First Draft politics newsletter. RELATED COVERAGE Obama
Counters Anti-Muslim Talk by Welcoming New Citizens DEC 15, 2015 Muslim
Parents on How They Talk to Their Children About Hatred and Extremism DEC
15, 2015 Video: Obama Delivers Speech on Terrorism DEC 6, 2015 Obama
Calls for End to Bigotry, in Implicit Rebuke of Donald Trump DEC 9, 2015
Obama Says of Terrorist Threat: We Will Overcome It DEC 6, 2015 Video:
Trump Reaffirms Urge to Halt Muslims DEC 7, 201

Islamophobia is the genocide of People who look like


Muslims Specific examples prove
Hussain 12 , Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to
Middle Eastern politics., 12-31-2012, "Anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America," No
Publication, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121230135815198642.html

On the evening of December 27, an Indian immigrant to America named


Sunando Sen was pushed by a stranger onto the subway tracks in New
York City and struck and killed by an oncoming train . Sen had called New York
home for years, and after years of hard work and struggle had recently managed to achieve his lifelong
goal of opening a small business of his own, a copy shop in Upper Manhattan. His roommate, MD Khan
expressed shock at the death of his friend, a soft spoken man who liked to stay up late watching comedy
shows and listening to music: "He was so nice, gentle and quiet It's broken my heart." The following
day, the NYPD announced the arrest of Erika Menendez, a 31-year-old woman who had been spotted on
security footage fleeing the scene after Sen had been pushed. Upon being detained and taken to a 112th

Menendez confessed to Sen's murder and


revealed as her motivation a desire to commit violence against
Muslims. As she told detectives: "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks
because I hate Hindus and Muslims Ever since 2001 when they put
down the Twin Towers, I've been beating them up." Sunando Sen was
not a Muslim, but as a brown-skinned foreigner living in the United
States, he was targeted and killed in an act of hate which is the byproduct of an ongoing campaign of bigotry and demonisation against
Muslims living in America. Muslim-Americans, as well as Hindus,
Precinct police station for questioning,

Sikhs and others who purportedly "look Muslim" have been


humiliated, assaulted and in many cases murdered by individuals often
galvanised to violence by politicians and media figures who have enthusiastically engaged in public
hatemongering against the Muslim community in the country. Anti-Muslim violence increases The 9/11
attacks precipitated a surge in hate crimes, but even as the events themselves recede further into history,

the level of hatred and violence


directed at Muslim communities is paradoxically increasing.

Within the
past month, in New York alone, police have suspected racial hatred as being the motive behind several
crimes. This includes a string of murders specifically targeting Middle Eastern storekeepers in Brooklyn,

a 78-year old Iranian immigrant named Rahmatollah


Vahidipour, was shot to death while closing his boutique and whose
lifeless body was then dragged to a backroom and covered over with
merchandise from his store. Within the same week as Vahidipour's murder another
Muslim man was viciously beaten by two men who preceded their
attack by asking him whether he was "a Hindu or a Muslim", while
another man was stabbed several times outside of a mosque in a
random attack by an assailant who screamed "I'm going to kill you
Muslim", while repeatedly plunging a knife into his victims' body. Far
the last of whom,

from being aberrations, these incidents are in line with national statistics which show

anti-Muslim

violence in America nearing record highs,

a trend which comes in tandem with highly public


campaigns against mosque construction as well as fear-mongering by politicians and media figures
regarding alleged plots by Muslim-Americans to override the constitution and impose Islamic law on the
country. The US election cycle also saw Muslims used as convenient targets for politicians seeking office,

House of Representatives Republican Joe Walsh


who told a cheering crowd at a campaign rally that "Muslims are here trying to kill
Americans everyday", before making a baseless and highly incendiary claim that
radical Islam had "infiltrated" the Chicago suburbs and that Muslims there were
planning an attack that would "make 9/11 look like child's play" . While working the crowd
with one example being incumbent Illinois

into hysterics was a convenient campaign strategy for Walsh, just days later the Muslim community

A man opened fire on an Illinois


mosque while it was packed with hundreds of congregants for
Ramadan. The next day, another mosque was hit with an acid bomb
thrown at a window while worshippers had gathered for night
services.
experienced the consequences of his rhetoric.

NYPD surveillance of Muslims


Bartosiewicz, 13 (Bartosiewicz, Petra, March 8, 2013, The Nation, NYPD
Surveillance of Muslims Has Created a Climate of Fear
https://www.thenation.com/article/nypd-surveillance-muslims-has-createdclimate-fear/ _)

A new report released last week by a coalition of Muslim civil liberties groups
paints a grim picture of the targeting of Muslims in the NYPDs post-9/11 antiterrorism surveillance operations. The report, Mapping Muslims: NYPD
Spying and its Impact on American Muslims, tells how the NYPDs extensive
surveillancealways in the name of national securityhas created a climate
of fear and distrust among Muslims, has had a chilling effect on their ability to

worship freely at mosques, and has deterred organization around Muslim civil
rights issues. Report co-author Diala Shamas, an attorney with Creating Law
Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility (CLEAR), said the research,
which included 57 interviews with Muslims living in the New York City area, is
a response to long held concerns that the NYPD is infringing on the
constitutional freedoms of Muslims. We wanted to show the communitys
response to the NYPDs claim that this surveillance is harmless, said
Shamas. (CLEAR is a project run out of the City University of New Yorks
School of Law.) Among the reports key findings: individuals reported heavy
surveillance of the citys mosques as places of suspected radicalization,
which has made individuals wary when attending services; and the fear of
being targeted by law enforcement has led to self-censorship and decreased
involvement in community groups like Muslim Student Associations. A
particular concern cited in the report is the departments deployment of an
unknown number of undercover informants throughout the city,. You look at
your closest friends and ask: are they informants? said one respondent
Shamas says CLEAR along with the Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition
and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund were inspired to
write the report after a 2011 Associated Press investigative series revealed
that the NYPDs counter-terrorism efforts in and around New York City post
9/11 were heavily focused on surveillance of Muslims. The series described a
secret Demographic Unitsince renamed the Zone Assessments Unit"
within the departments Intelligence Division, which focuses on tracking
individuals from predominantly Muslim ancestries of interest. The NYPDs
counterterrorism strategy, which was developed in part by former and current
CIA officials, has focused on intelligence collection intended to thwart
potential terrorist plots through the heavy scrutiny of so-called Muslim hot
spots such as mosques. While there has been much debate over the
departments focus on Muslims in its counter-terrorism strategy, the response
from the citys Muslims has been muted. Many are afraid to speak out,
according to the Mapping Muslims report. Most of those interviewed are
identified under pseudonyms, and say they feel intimidated by the police
scrutiny. Respondents described overt surveillance such as unmarked police
cars outside the mosques. Others said the fear that they might be targeted
by law enforcement has led them to avoid discussions of politics in public
places like cafes. Still others said fear of looking and acting Muslim has led
them to avoid wearing traditional Islamic clothing such as headscarves.
Theres always been a sense of stereotyping about dress, said one
community organizer. But now the veil thing has become more than just
about being different. It has become charged with suspicion. The NYPDs
use of undercover informants in terrorist-related sting operations in the past
decade has further added to the wariness of Muslims in speaking about
political issues or even mentioning the word jihad in public for fear of
eliciting further surveillance. Free speech isnt a privilege that Muslims
have, said Ahsan Samad, a 26-year-old interviewee from Brooklyn. The
result, said respondents in the report, has been increased difficulty in
organizing politically to criticize the NYPDs policies. Almost every rally and

public forum Ive attended in the last year begins with some type of
disclaimer or call-out of informants and undercovers who might be in
attendance and recording the conversation, said Cyrus McGoldrick, a
community organizer. Most speakers dont even know if such a disclaimer
protects them in any way, but I feel it to be a necessary announcement so
that the audience participants are conscious of the environment in which we
are organizing. The report documents how the NYPD surveillance program
has damaged the departments relationship with the Muslim community,
leading to a breakdown in trust that makes the community less likely to turn
to law enforcement for help in filing complaints or reporting hate crimes.
Shamas, whose organization, CLEAR, has been running Know-Your-Rights
workshops for individuals approached by law enforcement, says that the
Muslim community has tried to enter into a dialogue with the NYPD
but has not been successful so far. The report, which makes
recommendations to the NYPD to overhaul its counterterrorism program,
including disbanding the Zone Assessments Unit and ending blanket
surveillance of the citys Muslims, was intended in part to start a dialogue
with the police. The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment from The
Nation, but said in a statement issued by spokesman Paul Browne that the
department protects the rights of all New Yorkers and has made certain both
its counterterrorism and intelligence programs and procedures pass
constitutional muster.

Women throws Coffee at Muslim for Praying


Serena, 15 (December 17, 2015, Joseph Serena, State worker videotaped
throwing coffee on Muslim man is charged with hate crime, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-state-worker-muslim-coffeehate-crime-20151217-story.html )

Alameda County prosecutors filed hate crime charges against a California


Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employee who was filmed
ridiculing a Bay Area Muslim man and throwing coffee at him. Denise Slader, a

program technician with the departments Adult Parole Operations, was charged Wednesday with
misdemeanor counts of battery and committing a hate crime and is due in court next month, according to
the criminal complaint. About 3 p.m. Dec. 6, Slader was filmed interrupting a prayer service at Lake
Chabot in Castro Valley, officials said. See the most-read stories this hour >> Rasheed Albeshari, 31,
and his friends were playing volleyball and praying at the park a Sunday ritual for the three friends.
Slader approached them and began talking ... trash, mostly about religion, Albeshari said. Thats when
Albeshari said he decided to take out his cellphone and record the encounter with Slader. He later posted
the video on Facebook. Slader was recorded saying, The

people you tortured are going to


be in eternity and heaven. You are very deceived by Satan. Your mind has
been taken over, brainwashed and you have nothing but hate . See more of our
top stories on Facebook >> The video shows an East Bay Regional Park District ranger approaching
Slader and telling her she was acting inappropriately. As Slader and Albeshari exchanged words over the
cellphone camera, she reached over and struck him, district spokesman Carolyn Jones said. After hitting
him, Slader threw coffee on him, Jones said. Albeshari is listed as the victim in the complaint. A park
official got between the pair to stop the situation from escalating, Jones said. Slader was not arrested or
cited, but a report was taken and sent to the Alameda County district attorney's office, Jones said. This

kind of intolerance is totally unacceptable.

It's just appalling on 50 different levels. -

Carolyn Jones, district spokesman This kind of intolerance is totally unacceptable, Jones said. Its just
appalling on 50 different levels. Calling the episode unusual, she said East Bay residents use the
districts 120,000 acres of park space daily for prayer, peace and solace, especially in this day and age.
In the days after the incident, Slader was still employed with the Department of Corrections, but her
actions were under review, department spokesman Luis Patino said. We expect all of our employees to
treat everyone with dignity and respect both on and off the job, he said in a statement. NEWSLETTER:
Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >> Corrections officials did not have an
immediate update on the investigation. Albeshari was born in Tennessee and moved to Yemen with his
family as a child. He returned to the U.S. several years ago at the request of his father, who said Son, go
back to your country; thats where you can find your future, according to Albeshari. Get the essential
California headlines delivered free >> Albeshari flew to North Carolina before moving to San Francisco.
Albeshari said he had never encountered any form of racism, including based on his his religion, before this
months incident. He believes Sladers actions may have been fueled by the shooting rampage in San
Bernardino and billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trumps comments about
Muslims. Soon after Albeshari posted his video on Facebook, he said he was surprised to see an
outpouring of support from strangers. Its just overwhelming, he said. I think thats what makes this
nation great: tolerance and acceptanc

Muslim Hate crimes have tripled


NORTON, 15 (BEN NORTON, December 18, 2015, Anti-Muslim hate crimes have
tripled in the U.S. since the Paris attacks, Salon,
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/anti_muslim_hate_crimes_have_tripled_in_the_u_s_
since_the_paris_attacks/ )

Hate crimes against Muslim Americans and mosques have tripled in the U.S. since the Nov. 13 Paris
attacks, according to new research by California State University, San Bernardinos Center for the Study of
Hate and Extremism. These crimes include arsons, shootings, assaults, vandalism, and death threats.
In the month since the Paris attacks, there have been at least 38 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. Before
the November attacks, there was an average of 12.6 suspected hate crimes against Muslim Americans
each month, according to the FBI. The only other time there were more anti-Muslim hate crimes in the
U.S. was in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The director of the Center for the Study of Hate and
Extremism, criminologist Brian Levin, told the New York Times, The terrorist attacks, coupled with the
ubiquity of these anti-Muslim stereotypes seeping into the mainstream, have emboldened people to act
upon this fear and anger. A previous study conducted by the leading Muslim civil rights organization the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that, from the beginning of 2015 up to Dec. 8,
American mosques and Islamic centers were the scene of at least 63 acts of vandalism, harassment, and
anti-Muslim bigotry. A CAIR spokesman noted, however, that this figure is likely drastically underestimated.
California State University, San Bernardinos new study better reflects the rapid increase in hate crimes.
In the past few weeks, there have often been multiple anti-Muslim attacks in the U.S. every single day.
Salon recently compiled a list of some of the most extreme of such hate crimes. On Thanksgiving, a man
in Pittsburgh shot a taxi driver in his own cab with a rifle for being Muslim. In Queens, New York, a man
shouting I kill Muslims beat a deli owner. CAIRs Washington, D.C. office was evacuated by police on
Dec. 10, after the group received threatening hate mail that read Die Muslims, die and contained a
foreign substance first believed to be poisonous. An arsonist set fire to a California mosque, while a
North Dakota restaurant owned by Muslim Somali refugees was defaced with Nazi graffiti and then
firebombed. On Dec. 12, a store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face
by a robber who called him a terrorist and insisted he was a member of ISIS.e.

Racial Profiling and chilling because of Muslim Roots


ACLU, No Date (HAMID HASSAN RAZA, American civil Liberties Union, No
Date, https://www.aclu.org/bio/hamid-hassan-raza )

Hamid Hassan Raza is an American citizen living with his wife and child in
Brooklyn, New York. He serves as imam at Masjid Al-Ansar, a Brooklyn
mosque, where he leads prayer services, conducts religious education
classes, and provides counseling to members of the community. The New
York City Police Department has subjected Imam Raza to
suspicionless surveillance since at least 2008, and, as a result, he has
had to take a range of measures to protect himself. For example, he
records his sermons out of fear that an officer or informant will misquote
him, or take a statement out of context. He also steers clear of certain
religious topics or current events in his sermons and conversations, so as to
avoid statements that the NYPD or its informants might perceive as
controversial. Imam Razas knowledge and fear of suspicionless police
scrutiny have diverted his time and attention from ministry and counseling
while chilling his ability to speak on topics of religious and
community importance. The NYPDs unlawful surveillance prevents Imam
Raza from fulfilling his duty as a religious minister, educator, and scholar in
the Masjid Al-Ansar community.20

Islamophobia
Unwarranted surveillance of Muslims propagates
Islamophobia and categorizes all Muslims as terrorists
Goldman et. al, 2013 (Adam is a analyst for the Associated Press. NYPD designates
mosques as terrorism organizations. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nypd-designates-mosques-terrorismorganizations. Date Accessed- 07/13/15. Anshul Nanda.)
They're terrorists. They all must be fanatics," said Abdul Akbar Mohammed, the imam for the past eight

The New York


Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist
organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams,
often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Designating an entire mosque as a
terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is
a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance. Since the
9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen "terrorism enterprise
investigations" into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The
years at the Masjid Imam Ali K. Muslim in Newark. "That's not right." NEW YORK (AP)

TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like. Many TEIs
stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a
mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise. The documents show in detail

hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New


York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic,
how, in its

opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted

interviews with federal law


enforcement officials. This strategy has allowed the NYPD to send
undercover officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the
boards of mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive
at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to

director has worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor. De Blasio said
Wednesday on Twitter that he was "deeply troubled NYPD has labelled entire mosques & Muslim orgs terror
groups with seemingly no leads. Security AND liberty make us strong." The revelations about the NYPD's
massive spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new
book, "Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America."
The book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished
police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials. The disclosures come as
the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier
this month, a judge ruled that the department's use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional. The
American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are
unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny. Both Mayor Mike
Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. Speaking Wednesday
on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Kelly reminded people that his intelligence-gathering programs began in the
wake of 9/11. "We follow leads wherever they take us," Kelly said. "We're

not intimidated as to
wherever that lead takes us. And we're doing that to protect the people of
New York City." ___ The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting
information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department
sought also to put people on the boards of New York's Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps. One
confidential NYPD document shows police wanted to put informants in leadership positions at mosques and
other organizations, including the Arab American Association of New York in Brooklyn, a secular socialservice organization. Linda Sarsour, the executive director, said her group helps new immigrants adjust to
life in the U.S. It was not clear whether the department was successful in its plans. The document, which
appears to have been created around 2009, was prepared for Kelly and distributed to the NYPD's
debriefing unit, which helped identify possible informants. Around that time, Kelly was handing out
medals to the Arab American Association's soccer team, Brooklyn United, smiling and congratulating its
players for winning the NYPD's soccer league. Sarsour, a Muslim who has met with Kelly many times, said
she felt betrayed. "It

creates mistrust in our organizations," said Sarsour, who was

born and raised in Brooklyn. "It makes one wonder and question who is sitting on the boards of
the institutions where we work and pray." ___ Before the NYPD could target mosques as terrorist groups,
it had to persuade a federal judge to rewrite rules governing how police can monitor speech protected by
the First Amendment. The rules stemmed from a 1971 lawsuit, dubbed the Handschu case after lead
plaintiff Barbara Handschu, over how the NYPD spied on protesters and liberals during the Vietnam War
era. David Cohen, a former CIA executive who became NYPD's deputy commissioner for intelligence in
2002, said the old rules didn't apply to fighting against terrorism. Cohen told the judge that mosques
could be used "to shield the work of terrorists from law enforcement scrutiny by taking advantage of
restrictions on the investigation of First Amendment activity." NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the
TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the "facts or circumstances
reasonably indicate" that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent
crime. The judge rewrote the Handschu rules in 2003. In the first eight months under the new rules, the
NYPD's Intelligence Division opened at least 15 secret terrorism enterprise investigations, documents
show. At least 10 targeted mosques. Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who attends

Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First


Amendment, could be monitored and recorded. Among the mosques
targeted as early as 2003 was the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. "I have never felt
prayer services as a potential suspect.

free in the United States. The documents tell me I am right," Zein Rimawi, one of the Bay Ridge mosque's
leaders, said after reviewing an NYPD document describing his mosque as a terrorist enterprise. Rimawi,
59, came to the U.S. decades ago from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. "Ray Kelly, shame on him," he
said. "I am American." It was not immediately clear whether the NYPD targeted mosques outside of New
York City specifically using TEIs. The AP had previously reported that Masjid Omar in Paterson, N.J., was
identified as a target for surveillance in a 2006 NYPD report. ___ The NYPD believed the tactics were
necessary to keep the city safe, a view that sometimes put it at odds with the FBI. In August 2003, Cohen
asked the FBI to install eavesdropping equipment inside a mosque called Masjid al-Farooq, including its
prayer room. Al-Farooq had a long history of radical ties. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik
who was convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, once preached briefly at Al-Farooq.
Invited preachers raged against Israel, the United States and the Bush administration's war on terror. One
of Cohen's informants said an imam from another mosque had delivered $30,000 to an al-Farooq leader,
and the NYPD suspected the money was for terrorism. But Amy Jo Lyons, the FBI assistant special agent in
charge for counterterrorism, refused to bug the mosque. She said the federal law wouldn't permit it. The
NYPD made other arrangements. Cohen's informants began to carry recording devices into mosques under
investigation. They hid microphones in wristwatches and the electronic key fobs used to unlock car doors.
Even under a TEI, a prosecutor and a judge would have to approve bugging a mosque. But the informant
taping was legal because New York law allows any party to record a conversation, even without consent
from the others. Like the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, the NYPD never demonstrated in court that alFarooq was a terrorist enterprise but that didn't stop the police from spying on the mosques for years. And
under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could question the secret practice. Martin
Stolar, one of the lawyers in the Handschu case, said it's clear the NYPD used enterprise investigations to
justify open-ended surveillance. The NYPD should only tape conversations about building bombs or plotting
attacks, he said. "Every Muslim is a potential terrorist? It is completely unacceptable," he said. "It really
tarnishes all of us and tarnishes our system of values." ___ Al-Ansar Center, a windowless Sunni mosque,
opened in Brooklyn several years ago, attracting young Arabs and South Asians. NYPD officers feared the
mosque was a breeding ground for terrorists, so informants kept tabs on it. One NYPD report noted that
members were fixing up the basement, turning it into a gym. "They also want to start Jiujitsu classes," it
said. The NYPD was particularly alarmed about Mohammad Elshinawy, 26, an Islamic teacher at several
New York mosques, including Al-Ansar. Elshinawy was a Salafist a follower of a puritanical Islamic
movement whose father was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks,
according to NYPD documents. The FBI also investigated whether Elshinawy recruited people to wage
violent jihad overseas. But the two agencies investigated him very differently. The FBI closed the case
after many months without any charges. Federal investigators never infiltrated Al-Ansar. "Nobody had any
information the mosque was engaged in terrorism activities," a former federal law enforcement official
recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the investigation.
The NYPD wasn't convinced. A 2008 surveillance document described Elshinawy as "a young spiritual
leader (who) lectures and gives speeches at dozens of venues" and noted, "He has orchestrated camping
trips and paintball trips." The NYPD deemed him a threat in part because "he is so highly regarded by so
many young and impressionable individuals." No part of Elshinawy's life was out of bounds. His mosque
was the target of a TEI. The NYPD conducted surveillance at his wedding. An informant recorded the
wedding, and police videotaped everyone who came and went. "We have nothing on the lucky bride at
this time but hopefully will learn about her at the service," one lieutenant wrote. Four years later, the
NYPD was still watching Elshinawy without charging him. He is now a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, which
was also filed by the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at CUNY School of
Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These new NYPD spying disclosures confirm the experiences

and worst fears of New York's Muslims," ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi said. "From houses of worship to a
wedding, there's no area of New York Muslim religious or personal life that the NYPD has not invaded
through its bias-based surveillance policy." ___ Online: Documents TEI Discontinuance:
http://apne.ws/146zqF9 Informant Profiles: http://apne.ws/1aNfuyH Elshinawy Surveillance:
http://apne.ws/15fau4D Handschu Minutes: http://apne.ws/1cenpD6 ___ AP's Washington investigative
team can be reached at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Apuzzo at
http://twitter.com/adamgoldmanap and http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo

Islamophobia legitimizes the violation of human rights


and oppression of the otherthis causes the worst
forms of structural violence
Arinc, 2013 (Bulent is a Deputy Prime Minister. Islamophobia is an attack against
human dignity, says deputy PM. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date
Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)

Islamophobia is a violation of human rights, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said
on Thursday. "Regardless of how we handle Islamophobia, it is a violation of
human rights and an attack against human dignity. The communication strategies
that trigger this violation won't contribute to world peace," Arinc said at the Grand Tarabya
Hotel in Istanbul. Speaking at The International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media,
organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Office of the Prime Minister

Arinc said that conflating Islam


with terrorism and totalitarianism leads societies to approach each other with
suspicion. He went on to He stressed that there are no religious principles that
prevent Muslims from embracing democracy. Arinc called Islamophobia,
which he said is spreading like a virus, "a tool for oppressing Muslim
societies." The The oppression is pursued by those who believe that Islam and
democracy are incompatible, is to turn countries that combine Islam and democracy into
Directorate General of Press and Information (BYEGM),

problematic states, he continued. Saying that the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK
Party) unique example disproves the clash-of-civilizations theory, Arinc stressed the

attention the party pays to multiculturalism and its adoption of a view that
welcomes different cultures. Islamist terrorist organizations are the only terror groups
whose religion is taken into account, he said, adding that many nations perceive Islam as
being behind terror attacks and deal with Muslim countries differently when it comes to
terrorism issues. "When

Muslims are the matter of discussion, terms like


'militant, radical Islamist businessmen and Islamofascism are used in
conversations. Though [it defends] freedom at every opportunity, the
language the West uses is quite surprising on the Islam issue ," Arinc said,
arguing that Western prejudices impact discussions on the issue. Calling on the Muslim world
to make more efforts to shatter the prejudices against it, Arinc demanded that Western
societies take legal measures to prevent the escalation of Islamophobia. Many superficial
reports on Islam unnecessarily occupy the agenda, Arinc said, adding that Islamophobia in the
media harms its reliability and objectivity. "The gray area between incitement and freedom of
expression in international media should be clearer," he added. Speaking at the same

Islamophobia
is one of the most challenging issues facing the international community and
a threat to global peace and security. It stands in stark contradiction to universal
meeting, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC, described

values as well as to the international community's commitment to developing a culture of


peace and harmony among different cultures, civilizations and faiths, according to Ihsanoglu.
Islamophobia is defined as "the dread, hatred and hostility towards Islam and Muslims
perpetrated by a series of closed views that imply and attribute negative and derogatory
stereotypes and beliefs to Muslims" in the Runnymede report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for
Us All." The report added that Islamophobia is based on "an outlook or world-view involving an

unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and
discrimination." A report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) titled "Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001"
documents acts of discrimination and racism against Muslims in 15 EU member countries. The
report's findings show that "Islamic communities and other vulnerable groups have become
targets of increased hostility since 11 September .

A greater sense of fear among the


general population has exacerbated already existing prejudices and fuelled
acts of aggression and harassment in many European member states ."

The defining characteristic of 21st century American


politics is Islamophobia. The security sphere has been
altered- political fears of Muslims determine and dictate
proposals and actions. This xenophobic politics justifies
the worst of orientalist violence racism, internment, and
torture come to be seen as acceptable in Bushs words,
a domestic crusade against Islam is made possible.
Ali 12

(Yaser Ali, JD in law from UC Berkeley, Managing Attorney at Yaser Ali Law and was the Judicial Law
Clerk in the US Court of Appeals, Shariah and CitizenshipHow Islamophobia Is Creating a Second-Class
Citizenry in America, August 1 2012, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4176&context=californialawreview) //mL

There was a clear discursive shift in Islamophobic discourse after 9/11. What was
previously considered unacceptable speech now permeated the discourse. During this
time, pundits and public officials construed the stereotypical Muslim male
personifying all the Orientalist tropes and characteristics Lewis and Huntington described in
the 1990sas the primary threat to American security .97 The discursive shift
transcended political affiliation. One prominent conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, wrote on
September 12, 2001, We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert
them to Christianity. We werent punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. Thats war.
And this is war.98 Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post one month after 9/11, added:
One hundred percent of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 mass murder were
Arabs. Their accomplices, if any, were probably Arabs too, or at least Muslims.
Ethnicity and religion are the very basis of their movement. It hardly makes sense,
therefore, to ignore that fact and, say, give Swedish au pair girls heading to the
United States the same scrutiny as Arab men coming from the Middle East.99
Politicians, too, appeared to be competing as to who could look strongest on national defense. Attorney
General John Ashcroft, one of the most vociferous critics of Islam in public office at the time, stated, Islam
is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God
sends his son to die for you.100 In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he stated: Let the
terrorists among us be warned: if you overstay your visaeven by one daywe will arrest you. If you
violate a local law, you will be put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible. We will use every
available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage.101 Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican
Senator from Georgia, went even further, stating that homeland security would be improved by turning the

Perhaps the most


notorious and destructive comment was President Bushs description of the War on
Terror as a crusade,103 a statement that outraged Muslims around the world and led
to intense damage control efforts on the part of the White House.104 Although it was
conceivably just an ill advised and unintentional statement by the President, the comment
nonetheless suggested that the collective enemy was Islam; and further, to some
Muslims, it engendered strong notions of the Middle Ages, when Christian armies
embarked on numerous battles with an expressed goal of conquering Muslim
lands.105 Professor Victor Romero describes how the underlying rhetoric after 9/11 was
sheriff loose to arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line.102

reminiscent of that used toward the Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl
Harbor.106 He cites a quote from General DeWitt, the chief enforcer of the internment camps: Further
evidence of the Commanding Generals attitude toward individuals of Japanese ancestry is revealed in his
voluntary testimony on April 13, 1943, in San Francisco before the House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to
Investigate Congested Areas: . . . I dont want any of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are
a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast contains too many vital
installations essential to the defense of the country to allow any Japanese on this coast . . . . The danger of
the Japanese was, and is nowif they are permitted to come back espionage and sabotage. It makes no
difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not
necessarily determine loyalty . . . . But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off
the map. Sabotage and espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this area . . . . 107 As
described above, the language employed by General DeWitt was indeed strikingly similar to that used

As a result of this framing, the average Muslim in


America was presumptively considered disloyal and a threat, irrespective of his or her
formal citizenship status. In fact, according to one poll, less than half of the
respondents during the period shortly after 9/11 believed that American Muslims
were loyal to the United States.108 In one particularly troubling Gallup Poll shortly
after 9/11, one-third of respondents supported such drastic measures as the
internment of Arab Americans or the special surveillance of Arabs living in the United
States.109 This biased public perception was no doubt a necessary precursor to the
large-scale encroachment on civil liberties that targeted American Muslims in the
following months and years. 2. Ramifications for the Muslim Community The repercussions of
such statements were severe in both the private and public spheres. Muslims were
cast as disloyal outsiders and noncitizens. Under the broad umbrella of national security
policy, the government institutionalized numerous civil liberties violations, including
intrusive airport inspections, increased FBI surveillance and warrantless
wiretapping, the use of agents provocateurs in mosques, and, in some cases,
even torture and suspension of habeas corpus rights.110 Within two months of
9/11, law enforcement officials detained more than 1200 individuals in dragnet
searches, most of whom were from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.111
In 2004 alone, the FBI initiated a campaign to interview 5000 Muslim men to obtain
leads on terrorist attacks.112 The government detained countless others as material witnesses,
against American Muslims after 9/11.

but neither the exact number nor the names of such persons have been revealedagain for national
security purposes.113 Similarly, whereas before 9/11 President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft
publicly denounced racial profiling tactics,114 their positions quickly changed after 9/11. 115

Public
sentiment on the issue followed suit, with over half of Americans polled approving
racial profiling at airports nearly two weeks after the attacks.116 The government
seizing on the public endorsement of discriminatory policies toward Muslims at the
timeimplemented four distinct practices of targeting people who appeared
Muslim: profiling airline passengers, secret arrests , the institution of new racebased immigration policies, and selective enforcement of generally applicable
immigration laws.117 Airlines frequently removed Muslim passengers from flights
without causeeven removing one of President Bushs Secret Service agents because
he looked Muslim.118 Professor Muneer Ahmad cites two particularly egregious examples of profiling.
The first involved a United Airlines pilot refusing to fly a U.S. citizen of Egyptian origin out of Tampa,
Florida, because his name was Mohammad, and the second was a situation in Austin, Texas, where
passengers applauded as two Pakistani men were removed from a flight.119

1. ANALYTICS: Islamophobia is a form of structural


violence enabling systematic oppression and vast
death tolls globally through the racialized
dehumanization of Muslim victims that continues
unopposed
2. Prefer this impact structural violence is invisible
and exponential and you have an ethical duty to
challenge it
Nixon 11
(Rob, Rachel Carson Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, pgs. 2-3)
we urgently need
to rethink-politically, imaginatively, and theoretically-what I call "slow violence." By slow
violence I mean a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction
that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as
violence at all. Violence is customarily conceived as an event or action that is
immediate in time, explosive and spectacular in space, and as erupting into instant
sensational visibility. We need, I believe, to engage a different kind of violence, a violence that
is neither spectacular nor instantaneous, but rather incremental and
accretive, its calamitous repercussions playing out across a range of temporal scales. In so doing, we
also need to engage the representational, narrative, and strategic challenges posed by the relative
invisibility of slow violence. Climate change, the thawing cryosphere, toxic drift,
Three primary concerns animate this book, chief among them my conviction that

biomagnification, deforestation, the radioactive aftermaths of wars, acidifying oceans, and a host of other
slowly unfolding environmental catastrophes present formidable representational obstacles that can hinder
our efforts to mobilize and act decisively. The long dyings-the staggered and staggeringly discounted
casualties, both human and ecological that result from war's toxic aftermaths or climate change-are

Had Summers advocated


invading Africa with weapons of mass destruction, his proposal would have
fallen under conventional definitions of violence and been perceived as a
military or even an imperial invasion. Advocating invading countries with mass
forms of slow-motion toxicity, however, requires rethinking our accepted
assumptions of violence to include slow violence. Such a rethinking requires
that we complicate conventional assumptions about violence as a highly visible act
that is newsworthy because it is event focused, time bound, and body bound. We need to account
for how the temporal dispersion of slow violence affects the way we perceive
and respond to a variety of social afflictions-from domestic abuse to posttraumatic stress and, in
underrepresented in strategic planning as well as in human memory.

particular, environmental calamities. A major challenge is representational: how to devise arresting stories,

slow
violence is often not just attritional but also exponential, operating as a major
threat multiplier; it can fuel long-term, proliferating conflicts in situations
where the conditions for sustaining life become increasingly but gradually
degraded.
images, and symbols adequate to the pervasive but elusive violence of delayed effects. Crucially,

3. Domestic surveillance is a war on muslims waged


through technology only a new approach can
reverse the invisibility of violence against Muslims by
the state
Huhtinen and Rantapelkonen 7, (Aki-Mauri. and Rantapelkonen,
Jari. "The War Against the Other and the Us - Political and Philosophical
Problems of Postmodern Worlds Atmosphere" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention,
Hilton Chicago .Feb 28, 2007 Online <PDF>.2011-03-13
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p178927_index.html) //EMerz
Thanks to the information revolution warfare has lost much of its
effectiveness and all its glamour. The war of the information age has become
an apocalyptic digital game between Western superpowers and the
fundamentalism-oriented poorer part of the world. This asymmetric
totalitarian framework reflects an attitude that gives no chance to
understanding the Other. As Emmanuel Levinas has said: the relationship
with the Other is not produced outside of the world, but puts in question the
world possessed. The difference between the Other and the Us does
not depend on different properties, such as technological standards,
but on an inevitable orientation of starting oneself toward the Other. [] Most
terrorists have been invisible, as only a few of them have been convicted in
courtrooms. Yet more innocent civilians and ordinary citizens have been killed
in the total and fundamental war, even with use of high-tech war machine as
precision weapons. Also our own citizens have been targeted by spy
organizations in case somebody is thinking or reading books that may
indicate suspicious activity. As the 9/11 showed, there was a distinctive new
feature: a privatised form of organized violence which was earlier impossible
took place worldwide in information networks. The 9/11 united we, a
hope of the future against the other, and a relic of the past. In
addition to asking who is the other one can ask Who are we. Right after
the 9/11, the French newspaper Le Monde answered the questions: We are
all Americans.

4. Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple


Musharbash 14 [Yassin Musharbash, 12-10-2014, "Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple,"
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/10/islamophobia-racism-dresden-protestsgermany-islamisation]

traditional
racist arguments are now more likely to come in the form of abuse
on the basis of religion. The argument is often that Jews share the same values
Of course, Islamophobia cant be laughed away and ours is just small way of dealing with it. But whats clear is that

as Christians, and Vietnamese immigrants are good at integrating, but for Muslims
neither is true; plus, they want to take over. Which is why their religion is in

fact an ideology; which is why it is OK to be against it; which in turn


makes you a freedom fighter. Whats feeding this? Clearly 9/11 and other Jihadist terrorist attacks play a role.
But thats not all. There is fear of losing out economically, for which Muslims
are scapegoated; theres the challenge of living in a society
changing rapidly in the light of globalisation; theres anger about
the increasing visibility of immigrants. The organisers of the Dresden demonstrations claim to be
responding to street fights between Salafists and Kurds that broke out in western Germany a few weeks ago. But framing this and other
problems as part of a phenomenon of Islamisation is ridiculous. And yet it is time we started to take this seriously. Those people in the streets
of Dresden may be nonviolent but they have been infected with a smug contempt for a minority, and may embolden the more radical fringes

Politicians here have sensed that something is building. But until


very recently, they mostly just maintained that peoples grievances should be taken
seriously, rather than criticising the racist sentiment that came with their
complaints. This needs to change now. It needs to be made clear that
of the Islamophobic spectrum.

Islamophobia

is no legitimate expression of
anger or frustration and most certainly nothing to be
proud of. Its racism, plain and simple.
in Germany

5. Islamophobia takes root at a level deeper than


politics- the systemic notion of Western superiority
and Muslim irrationality is generated by culture and
media, dictates policy, and creates broader militant
sentiments that violently oppresses those who dont
fit the normalized notion of an Americansurveillance in the context of counter-terrorism
efforts is a mechanism influenced by right wing fear
mongering
Kumar 2013 [Deepa, (Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies @ Rutgers), "Twelve Years
Post 9/11, Islamophobia Still Runs High ," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/video/item/18759-twelveyears-post-9-11-islamophobia-still-runs-high#, Accessed 7/13/15, AX]

Islamophobia is basically the term, the name given to anti-Muslim racism. It is


it involves making generalizations about an entire group
based on the actions of a few through this mythical understanding of what
Islam is supposed to be. DESVARIEUX: Okay. And we should mention that there was a poll that
KUMAR:

a form of prejudice. And

was conducted by the Arab American Institute that found that American attitudes towards Arab and
Muslims, specifically for Republicans and Romney voters in this last presidential election, were rated to be
strongly negative. Does this mean that Islamophobia is only a problem of right-wingers or conservative
voters? KUMAR: Absolutely not. I think it is true that larger numbers of conservative voters are racist. They
are racist not just in terms of their attitude towards Arabs and South Asians, but also to a whole host of

But in fact
Islamophobia is far more systemic than that. That is to say, the idea of a Muslim
enemy, the idea of a terrorist enemy is one that actually goes back a couple of decades but
was brought to light after 9/11 by the political elite , by our political leaders. So in fact it
is built into the system of U.S. foreign policy in this country. And to simply look at
the far right and to ignore the fact that it has larger implications in terms of justifying
U.S. foreign policy would be really to have only an incomplete picture of what is at work in this form
other groups. So it's true that this idea sort of concentrated within those ranks.

of racism. DESVARIEUX: Okay. Let's talk about the mass media and how they depict Islam since 9/11. Can
you describe for us how the mass media has depicted Islam? KUMAR: Well, basically,

the trauma of

9/11, the fact that, you know, 3,000 Americans died meant that it enabled the U.S. media to
actually draw on stereotypes that have been , you know, propped up by Hollywood,
by the news media, and so on for a few decades before that. And that was the idea that
these are crazy, irrational people. They are all apparently driven by Islam to
violence. And so we should lock them up, we should be suspicious of them,
we should detain them at airports, and so on and so forth. And so that's what
you saw in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And this show called 24, which your viewers
may know, is--it's about a lot of things [incompr.] that it's about justifying the building of a
national security state and justifying practices like torture and so on and so forth.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. And also the story of the day, of course, is Syria, and everyone's attention is drawn to
Syria. Can you describe for us just how does Islamophobia play a role in any of the arguments for
intervention in Syria, really? KUMAR: Okay. It doesn't play a direct role in that. It is-- the

idea of
humanitarianism has a long history in the United States. The idea that there
are victims all over the world, that the U.S. government has then got to make
war in order to, you know, somehow defend them, this goes back all the way to the SpanishAmerican war of 1898, which was supposed to be about rescuing Cubans. And similarly, you see these
sorts of justifications given. You know, Vietnamese need to be defended. In Iraq, it was babies, apparently,
who were being bayoneted in Kuwait, and therefore the U.S. needed to intervene and defeat Iraq in 1991.

what
makes it particularly potent in this case is that after 9/11 what you see is the
Bush administration projecting this idea of clash of civilizations, which is basically
the notion that we in the West are democratic, we are rational, we are civilized, we
are, you know, all things wonderful, and they in the East are barbaric, they're
misogynistic, and so on and so forth, and therefore we have an obligation, what
used to be called the white man's burden, to go off and rescue them. And so you see
some of that language, which is the idea that Arabs cannot bring democracy by
themselves, they cannot make change, and so we need to intervene. So it's a
combination both of the victim narrative, which has a long history, combined with this
language of clash of civilizations. DESVARIEUX: Okay. And how does this fit into domestic policy?
How do they work Islamophobia into domestic policy? KUMAR: Right. I mean, the
comparison I make in the book and that I'm actually working on in the next book is that the U.S.
government, and U.S. imperialism in particular, always needs an enemy. That is, when there
is no humanitarian cause, an enemy is an extremely useful way to justify wars
abroad, as well as the policing of dissent at home. So, for instance, during the
Cold War we had been menacing enemy of the Soviet Union, against whom both a hot and a Cold War
had to be waged. And, of course, this justified, then, McCarthyism, because there's
always a reflection of the external enemy inside, and these people have to be
rounded up, blacklisted, and so on and so forth. So that's the logic back then, and, of
course, it was entirely about a politics of fear. Today we have the same sort of thing. After
9/11, the war on terror comes into being precisely about fighting endless
wars. Remember, back in 9/11 the Bush administration was going to start with Afghanistan, go to Iraq,
and then Iran, Syria, and so on and so forth. It didn't work out that way. But the idea was to drum
up this fear of this menacing terrorist enemy, which justified wars all over the
world in order to gain the U.S.'s interest in [incompr.] particularly in the oil-rich
region in the Middle East. You asked me about domestic politics. Always there was a
reflection of the domestic in terms of the international threat. And so what
you've seen is innocent Muslims--and often actually not even Muslims, people from the
So this idea of humanitarianism has a long history within the foreign policy establishment. But

Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, some of them Sikhs, some some of them Hindus, some of them

being racially profiled because that is the logic that comes


out of this. I have a whole chapter in the book about how the legal system has been
reworked so as to justify things like indefinite detention, things like torture, things like
deportation. And, frankly, the infiltration of agents into our schools, into my school,
into colleges, and so forth. So, you know, it's truly horrific the extent to which
Muslim Americans and people who look Muslim have been demonized
since 9/11. DESVARIEUX: How do you sort of categorize or interpret these votes by different states to
ban sharia law? What's your take on that? KUMAR: Yes. This is actually the work of a far right
wing Islamophobic network. These people have been active for the last two
decades, and they get, you know, funding to the tune of $45-$50 billion over the
last seven, eight years. These people hold the view that there are no moderate
Muslims, all Muslims are somehow connected to Islamist organizations --Hamas
Christians, and so on,

or the Muslim brotherhood and so on. And even though they pretend to be moderate, right--this is the
language some of these people use--in fact they are involved in a conspiracy to take over the United
States and to replace the Constitution with sharia law. Of course, this is nonsense,

this is complete

conspiracy theory. But these are the people. They are lawyers, they are academics, they
are people in the military, they are people in the security establishment. They are responsible for
this campaign where, you know, about half a dozen to a dozen states across the U.S. have
adopted these laws. It's a process of fearmongering, and it enables the right
wing to actually grow in their ranks and promote this kind of hate.

Modern Islamophobic policies create a state of bare life and otherization,


waging a perpetual war on difference
Wise 1

(Tim Wise, Writer, lecturer, antiracism activist, author, and was an adjunct professor at the Smith
College School of Social Work and was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute,
Rationalizing Racism: Panic and Profiling After 9/11, December 10 2001,
http://www.alternet.org/story/12065/rationalizing_racism%3A_panic_and_profiling_after_9_11?
paging=off#bookmark) //mL

complaints about such measures may seem trivial. 'What's the big deal?' ask
some. Isn't security worth the mild inconvenience to those singled out? But as with
all other racial profiling, the present incarnation is every bit as unjust and irrational.
Despite calls from many quarters for more profiling, under the rubric of good "common sense," the fact
remains that it is not sensible at all. To single out persons of a particular nationality or
ethnicity, or to heighten one's suspicion of such a group is blatantly unjust. It is in
fact plainly racist, as such generalized suspicion, fear, and mistreatment never seem
to attach to white folks, no matter what profile we may fit. After the Oklahoma City
bombing, white men were not singled out, held incommunicado, rounded up for
questioning, nor quizzed when trying to rent moving vans. Indeed, I rented a Ryder truck
To many,

shortly after McVeigh blew one of their fleet sky-high, along with the Murrah Building. And despite being a
white guy, with short hair, no one said a word to me, nor asked for a deposit up front, just in case I decided
to load it up with fertilizer and ammonium nitrate and take out a city block. Although white supremacist
and militia groups most certainly came in for additional scrutiny in the aftermath of McVeigh's act of mass

notice the difference between that response and what is happening now: in
the former instance, only very specific kinds of white people became possible
suspects. In the latter case, there is a general response of fear towards all persons
fitting the physical, ethnic, and religious description of the terrorists. Even the
bombing of Afghanistan can be viewed as racially selective . After all, if the attackers of
murder,

9/11 had been members of the Irish Republican Army, it is simply inconceivable that
we would have ripped up the real estate of Dublin as punishment. So despite the
cavalier claims by many whites that anti-Arab profiling is no big deal, and that they
would be happy to be profiled if white guys had been behind the attacks in
September, the fact remains, whether willing or not, they would never have had to
worry about such a response. And that's the point.

6. Deconstructing and interrogating flawed


assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables
agency and challenges racist dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]

As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as
September 12 that there was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical
response to address and challenge the rampant Islamophobia
affecting the realities of Muslims from all walks of life and social conditions .
Among the most vulnerable were children and youth , who received little support from
schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a routine basis. Most schools were
reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral arena of crisis management. Among

there was a clear resistance to addressing


or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In fact, the discursive
language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were
encountering on a day-to-day basis did not even exist within the educational
discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism part of an all-toocommon denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency
at all. In fact, it was not a part of the language or conceptual constructs
commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
antiracist pedagogy. I realized the urgency to map a new
epistemological and pedagogical terrain by creating an educational
framework for addressing Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based
educational frameworks, one could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools
to address issues of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and antiSemitism. However, the discursive foundations for dealing with
Islamophobia and the accompanying educational resources simply
did not exist. Developing a new framework to fill this gap involved coining a new term: AntiIslamophobia Education. Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims
as the result of Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions
that would take place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a
methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary to
develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and
create an understanding of what it was that we sought to challenge
the school districts that I was in contact with,

and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of Islamophobia is often loosely
translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However, this definition
presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a

Islamophobic attitudes are, in


fact, part of a rational system of power and domination that manifests as
individual, ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression .
The idea that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion,
simply stems from ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and
policies to claim a space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
more holistic analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,

fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and oppression, which operates

to capture the complex


dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and
acknowledge that these attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such
on multiple social, ideological, and systemic levels. Therefore,

practices as name-calling or personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural
conditions of inequality regulated through such institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or

exclusionary practices are shored up by specific


ideological underpinnings, among them the purveyed notions designed to
pathologize Muslims as terrorists and impending threats to public safety.
Understanding the dimensions of how systems of oppression such as
Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically, and systemically became a key
component of developing educational tools that would help build the
critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these dynamics. From a
housing opportunities. These

discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism framework5


that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have
mapped some key epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6 This includes the need to
reclaim the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists and suicide bombers
to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming

the stage requires adopting a


pedagogical approach that shifts the popular media discourse away from the
negative, essentialized referents and tropes of abject Otherness ascribed to
Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counter-narrative in
order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations
narratives typically being purveyed in order to present a more nuanced,
reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that
Muslim individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of anti-Islamophobia education involves
interrogating the systemic mechanisms through which Islamophobia
is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the dynamics of power in society
that sustain social inequality. Racial profiling, which targets groups on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities . In
schools, the practice of color-coded streaming, whereby a disproportionate number of racially and
ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic level streams, is another example of

Negative perceptions held by teachers and guidance


counselors toward racialized students have often led to assumptions of failure
or limited chances for success, based on such false stereotypes as the notion that Islam
institutionalized racism.

negative attitudes are


relayed to students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and
lead to lower expectations being placed upon youth from specific
communities.7 Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop
challenges to these systems of domination is part of building a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving
greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiIslamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These

renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have permeated the representation of Muslims in media
and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad women are seen as the primary markers

Deconstructing and demystifying these stereotypes is vital to


helping students develop a critical literacy of the politics of media
and image-making. Critically examining the destructive impact of how
these images create the social and ideological divide between us and
them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
of the Muslim world.

Impacts Islamophobia Torture


1. Islamophobia is direct motivation for torture and war.
Hudson 10.
(Adam, journalist from Stanford, Stanford Progressive, Imperialism,
Islamophobia, and Torture, http://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgibin/?p=893)
Racism is not just an individual problem of prejudice or hate. It is an ideology used to justify
systems of hegemony and oppression. It creates a binary between the Self
and the Other. The Self is ascribed all positive aspects of humanity, such as rationality, intelligence,
high culture, and credit for creating the benefits of modern civilization. The Other is ascribed all negative

By categorizing
certain groups as inferior others, hegemonic powers rob those people of
their humanity, thus, making it easier to commit acts of brutality against
them for imperial interests. Racism, under the banner of manifest destiny, was used to justify
aspects of humanity, such as irrationality, primitivity, criminality, and barbarity.

the genocide committed against the Native Americans that made room for American territorial expansion.
Racism was used to justify the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was exploited to
work on plantations and build the American economy. Despite the advancements made during the civil
rights movement, racism still exists in many areas of American life, such as the disproportionate number of
African-Americans and Latinos in prison, de facto housing segregation, inequality in the education system,
and police brutality committed against people of color. Some of the most recent cases of police brutality
were the deaths of 22-year-old Oscar Grant in Oakland[xvi] and 7-year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit[xvii]
both of whom were African-American. Americas wars against Afghanistan and Iraq serve to maintain

The racist dehumanization


of Muslims, Arabs and South Asians is committed to justify Americas wars
and acts of torture primarily against people from countries whose populations
are predominantly Muslim and black and brown-skinned , such as Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Yemen. It is not difficult to witness the manifestations of Islamophobia and
anti-Arab racism in American society. It exists within the media and underlies the sophistry of
American global hegemony and access to key resources such as oil.

politicians and leading intellectuals. Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are always suspected of being
terrorists, similar to how black and Latino people are suspected of being drug-dealers, gang members and

Racism is the fundamental ideological motivation behind Americas


wars and use of torture. The key task now is to end Americas use of torture
and, more broadly, eliminate racism and imperialism; a daunting task but a necessary
criminals.

one, nevertheless. First, it is important for everyone, of all races, to see and treat every other person as a
human being. Despite our cultural differences, we are part of one human family. Second, it is crucial that
we hold our political leaders accountable for authorizing acts of torture and starting wars. At Stanford, we
can start by pressuring our government to hold current Professor and former National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice, and other government officials, accountable for authorizing torture and engaging in
aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it is vital that we work to build institutions that foster
peace instead of war and sustain humanity rather than destroy it. To build a better future for humanity is
by no means an easy task. But a million-mile journey begins with one step. Lets make that first step.

2. Islamophobia justifies the torture of many innocent


people.
Hudson 10.

(Adam, journalist from Stanford, Stanford Progressive, Imperialism,


Islamophobia, and Torture, http://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgibin/?p=893)
One key element of American imperial history is its use of torture, which can be traced back to Americas

an analysis of torture, especially in the post-9/11 era,


is very uncommon in mainstream political discourse. As such, before I proceed, it is
important to dispel the current myths about torture propagated in the mainstream media. As is well
known, the United States has tortured hundreds of detainees suspected of
being involved in terrorism. It is hard not to notice when the former Vice President brags about
personally authorizing the use of torture on national television[v]. These acts included waterboarding, physical beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and, in some
cases, murder[vi]. The primary justification is that torture is a necessary tool
to extract information from people who might know about impending threats of
terrorism. Politicians (both Republican and Democrat), intellectuals, pundits and other leaders argue
that America faces a new kind of threat. America is up against extremist, religious
fanatics who hate the United States and wish to kill innocent Americans.
treatment of African slaves. Such

Current domestic and international laws and law enforcement tactics are not sufficient to subdue this
threat. As Alberto Gonzalez said to former President George W. Bush, the Geneva Conventions are

As a result, the United States must be


willing to torture terrorist suspects in order to extract vital information that
could prevent the next terrorist attack. This apocalyptic mindset has
impacted the current American psyche and post-9/11 American foreign policy .
obsolete in this new war against terrorism.[vii]

Since the war is against a nebulous enemy, the war against terrorism is essentially a permanent war.
Despite the compelling arguments used to justify torture, adopting an objective view of the facts rips them
asunder. First, there is little to no evidence to prove that torture is a useful interrogation technique. In fact,
the evidence that does exist proves the opposite that torture is ineffective because the suspect will say
anything, whether its true or not, in order to make the torture stop. Ali Soufan, an intelligence official who
interrogated Guantanamo terror suspect Abu Zubaydah, stated[viii]that conventional interrogation
techniques compelled Zubaydah to provide actionable intelligence. It was only after Zubaydah was

most of the
people detained, usually indefinitely, in places like Guantanamo Bay and CIAowned black sites are not diehard terrorists. The vast majority of them are
innocent. Even President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other high
government officials may have been aware of this[ix]. Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to
waterboarded several times that he could not provide useful intelligence. Second,

former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Cheney had absolutely no concern that the vast majority
of Guantanamo detainees were innocentIf hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to
detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.

War on Terror justified this tragedy.

The apocalyptic mindset of the broader

Islamophobic Education
Education is necessary to combat Terrorism and
Islamophobia
Hanley, 15 (Delinda C. Hanley, April 2015, American Muslims Examine
Causes and Suggest Ways to Halt Radicalization, Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs, http://www.wrmea.org/2015-march-april/americanmuslims-examine-causes-and-suggest-ways-to-halt-radicalization.html )

Talib M. Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad, the Nation of Islams


mosque in Washington, DC, agreed with Mogahed. This is all about
education, stated Shareef, who served 30 years in the U.S. Air Force.
The literacy rate in the Muslim world is shocking, he acknowledged,
but Americans also are uninformed about Islam and the Middle East.
After 9/11 Muslims in the armed forces heard disparaging comments
about ragheads and were made to feel uncomfortable in the military
environment. Imam Shareef was tasked with educating personnel
about the rich history of Islam. He also urged Americans to give proper
attention to people who are suffering in the world. The French attack
has opened up hurtful wounds from 9/11, he added, and put patriotic
Muslim Americans on the defensive. Its not OK to disrespect others,
the imam said, and its not OKto separate society. On Jan. 23, the
day after the Muslim leaders important press conference (which,
incidentally, was not reported by U.S. media), Secretary of State Kerry
told leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that it
would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in
alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors. We have to keep
our heads, Kerry said. The biggest error we could make would be to
blame Muslims for crimes that their faith utterly rejects. Kerry
described terror groups as a form of criminal anarchy, a nihilism,
which illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation.
This fight will not be decided on the battlefield, he told Davos
attendees, but in the classrooms, workplaces, places of worship of the
world. It will also be decided when nations come together and make
progress on multiple international and domestic fronts. The desire for
freedom, civil rights and justice is universal. Its simply easier to
describe radical ideology as Islamic. It gets leaders off the hook in
dealing with injustice.
Modern Islamophobic policies create a state of bare life and Otherization,
waging a perpetual war on difference

Wise 1

(Tim Wise, Writer, lecturer, antiracism activist, author, and was an adjunct professor at the Smith
College School of Social Work and was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute,
Rationalizing Racism: Panic and Profiling After 9/11, December 10 2001,
http://www.alternet.org/story/12065/rationalizing_racism%3A_panic_and_profiling_after_9_11?
paging=off#bookmark) //mL

complaints about such measures may seem trivial. 'What's the big deal?' ask
Isn't security worth the mild inconvenience to those singled out? But as with all
other racial profiling, the present incarnation is every bit as unjust and irrational.
Despite calls from many quarters for more profiling, under the rubric of good "common sense," the fact
remains that it is not sensible at all. To single out persons of a particular nationality or
ethnicity, or to heighten one's suspicion of such a group is blatantly unjust. It is in
fact plainly racist, as such generalized suspicion, fear, and mistreatment never seem
to attach to white folks, no matter what profile we may fit. After the Oklahoma City
bombing, white men were not singled out, held incommunicado, rounded up for
questioning, nor quizzed when trying to rent moving vans. Indeed, I rented a Ryder truck
To many,
some.

shortly after McVeigh blew one of their fleet sky-high, along with the Murrah Building. And despite being a
white guy, with short hair, no one said a word to me, nor asked for a deposit up front, just in case I decided
to load it up with fertilizer and ammonium nitrate and take out a city block. Although white supremacist
and militia groups most certainly came in for additional scrutiny in the aftermath of McVeigh's act of mass

notice the difference between that response and what is happening now: in
the former instance, only very specific kinds of white people became possible
suspects. In the latter case, there is a general response of fear towards all persons
fitting the physical, ethnic, and religious description of the terrorists. Even the
bombing of Afghanistan can be viewed as racially selective . After all, if the attackers of
9/11 had been members of the Irish Republican Army, it is simply inconceivable that
we would have ripped up the real estate of Dublin as punishment. So despite the
cavalier claims by many whites that anti-Arab profiling is no big deal, and that they
would be happy to be profiled if white guys had been behind the attacks in
September, the fact remains, whether willing or not, they would never have had to
worry about such a response. And that's the point.
murder,

The modern Islamic body is racialized and defined by its differences,


providing the justifications for domestic subordination of Muslims- our
educational opposition to Islamophobic ideologies challenges the process of
otherization.
Jamal 08

(Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton University and director of
the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, Race and Arab Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible
Subjects, 2008, https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+and+After+9/11:+Fro
m+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=
onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From
%20Invisible%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)
Why is there so much support for policies that so apparently are anathema to basic American values?
Several hypotheses can plausibly explain support for taking away the civil rights and liberties of Muslim
and Arab Americans. They range from a general sense of vulnerability to more specific anti-Muslim
attitudes and predispositions. While the former can be explained away as general fear and worry in the

For if the American population is


willing to support infringements on civil liberties by reason of misperceptions that
characterize Arabs and Muslims as enemy Others, then we must also address the
larger phenomenon of racialization or otherization of Arabs and Muslims in
mainstream American culture. This racialization process essentially sees Muslims and
aftermath of the attacks, the latter, I argue, is far more troubling.

Arabs as different from and inferior to whites, potentially violent and threatening, and
therefore deserving of policies that target them as a distinct group of people and
criminalize them without evidence of criminal activity. The binary logic of us versus
them, based on a constructed myth of racial difference, permeates U.S. society and
provides the lenses through which group differences are organized, imagined, and
understood. In the case of the denial of Muslim and Arab American civil liberties,
unequal access to civil liberties is justified through a racial logic that is not always
based on an association between phenotype and backwardness but still follows
various historical patterns of racism in the United States. U.S. history is rife with
examples of immigrants being targeted and denied the benefits of citizenship
because of their appearance and cultural backgrounds. Nadine Naber reminds us of this
history, arguing that these non-immigrant groups, whether blacks, Asians, or Mexicans, have been denied
the benefits of citizenship based on the assumption that they are unassimilable and foreign (2006, 241).

The single most durable explanation of widespread support for ethnic civil liberty
infringement, I argue, rests on the racialization of Muslim and Arab Americans as the
enemy Other. Here, I use the term racialization to describe the perception and
production of an inherent threatening difference between us and them that
provides a scaffold legitimating and supporting the violation of the ethnic minoritys
civil liberties. Although racialization has its roots in domestic politics the findings of
this chapter also demonstrate that geopolitical realities shape the ways average
Americans construct images of the Arab and Muslim Other in their midst. Both
domestic politics and existing geopolitical realities, especially when the homelands of
those othered populations are sites of U.S. military campaigns, combine to justify
the domestic subordination of less-tolerated populations.

We ought to use the debate round as a site to formulate counter-hegemonic


strategies of knowledge production- the plan offered a substantial
challenge to the Islamophobic tendencies guiding US federal policyviolence has manifested itself in scholarship, and combatting that is a
necessary precondition to breaking it down in reality
Jones 99

(Richard, Professor International Politics @ Aberystwyth University, Security, Strategy, and


Critical Theory, p. 155-162, wcp)

The central political task of the intellectuals is to aid in the construction of a


counterhegemony and thus undermine the prevailing patterns of discourse and
interaction that make up the currently dominant hegemony . This task is accomplished
through educational activity, because, as Gramsci argues, every relationship of
hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350). Discussing the
relationship of the philosophy of praxis to political practice, Gramsci claims: It [the theory] does not tend
to leave the simple in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher
conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and simple it is not in order to
restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to
construct an intellectual-moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the
mass and not only of small intellectual groups. (Gramsci 1971: 332-333). According to Gramsci, this
attempt to construct an alternative intellectual-moral bloc should take place under the auspices of the
Communist Party a body he described as the modern prince. Just as Niccolo Machiavelli hoped to see a
prince unite Italy, rid the country of foreign barbarians, and create a virtu-ous state, Gramsci believed that
the modern price could lead the working class on its journey toward its revolutionary destiny of an
emancipated society (Gramsci 1971: 125-205). Gramscis relative optimism about the possibility of
progressive theorists playing a constructive role in emancipatory political practice was predicated on his
belief in the existence of a universal class (a class whose emancipation would inevitably presage the
emancipation of humanity itself) with revolutionary potential. It was a gradual loss of faith in this axiom
that led Horkheimer and Adorno to their extremely pessimistic prognosis about the possibilities of

progressive social change. But does a loss of faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat
necessarily lead to the kind of quietism ultimately embraced by the first generation of the Frankfurt
School? The conflict that erupted in the 1960s between them and their more radical students suggests not.
Indeed, contemporary critical theorists claim that the deprivileging of the role of the proletariat in the
struggle for emancipation is actually a positive move. Class remains a very important axis of domination in
society, but it is not the only such axis (Fraser 1995). Nor is it valid to reduce all other forms of domination
for example, in the case of gender to class relations, as orthodox Marxists tend to do. To recognize
these points is not only a first step toward the development of an analysis of forms of exploitation and
exclusion within society that is more attuned to social reality; it is also a realization that there are other
forms of emancipatory politics than those associated with class conflict.1 This in turn suggests new
possibilities and problems for emancipatory theory. Furthermore, the abandonment of faith in revolutionary
parties is also a positive development. The history of the European left during the twentieth century
provides myriad examples of the ways in which the fetishization of party organizations has led to
bureaucratic immobility and the confusion of means with ends (see, for example, Salvadori 1990). The
failure of the Bolshevik experiment illustrates how disciplined, vanguard parties are an ideal vehicle for
totalitarian domination (Serge 1984). Faith in the infallible party has obviously been the source of
strength and comfort to many in this period and, as the experience of the southern Wales coalfield
demonstrates, has inspired brave and progressive behavior (see, for example, the account of support for
the Spanish Republic in Francis 1984). But such parties have so often been the enemies of emancipation
that they should be treated with the utmost caution. Parties are necessary, but their fetishization is

History furnishes examples of progressive developments that have


been positively influenced by organic intellectuals operating outside the bounds of a
particular party structure (G. Williams 1984). Some of these developments have occurred
in the particularly intractable realm of security . These examples may be considered
as resources of hope for critical security studies (R. Williams 1989). They illustrate that
ideas are important or, more correctly, that change is the product of the dialectical
interaction of ideas and material reality. One clear security-related example of the role of
potentially disastrous.

critical thinking and critical thinkers in aiding and abetting progressive social change is the experience of

the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time the ideas of dissident defense
intellectuals (the alternative defense school) encouraged and drew strength from peace
activism. Together they had an effect not only on short-term policy but on the
dominant discourses of strategy and security, a far more important result in the long
run. The synergy between critical security intellectuals and critical social movements and the potential
influence of both working in tandem can be witnessed particularly clearly in the fate of
common security. As Thomas Risse-Kappen points out, the term common security originated in the
contribution of peace researchers to the German security debate of the 1970s (Risse-Kappen 1994: 186ff.);
it was subsequently popularized by the Palme Commission report (Independent Commission on

Initially, mainstream defense intellectuals dismissed


the concept as hopelessly idealistic; it certainly had no place in their allegedly hardheaded and
realist view of the world. However, notions of common security were taken up by a number
of different intellectuals communities, including the liberal arms control community in the United
Disarmament and Security Issues 1982).

States, Western European peace researchers, security specialists in the center-left political parties of
Western Europe, and Soviet institutchiks members of the influential policy institutes in the Soviet Union
such as the United States of America and Canada Institute (Landau 1996: 52-54; Risse-Kappen 1994: 196-

able to take advantage of


public pressure exerted through social movements in order to gain broader
acceptance for common security. In Germany, for example, in response to social movement
200; Kaldor 1995; Spencer 1995). These communities were subsequently

pressure, German social organizations such as churches and trade unions quickly supported the ideas

Similar pressures even had


an effect on the Reagan administration. As Risse-Kappen notes: When the Reagan administration
brought hard-liners into power, the US arms control community was removed from policy influence. It was
the American peace movement and what became known as the freeze campaign
that revived the arms control process together with pressure from the European allies. (Rissepromoted by peace researchers and the SPD (Risse-Kappen 1994: 207).

Kappen 1994: 205; also Cortright 1993: 90-110). Although it would be difficult to sustain a claim that the
combination of critical movements and intellectuals persuaded the Reagan government to adopt the

it did at least have a


substantial impact on ameliorating U.S. behavior. The most dramatic and certainly the
rhetoric and substance of common security in its entirety, it is clear that

most unexpected impact of alternative defense ideas was felt in the Soviet Union. Through various
East-West links, which included arms control institutions, Pugwash conferences, interparty contacts, and

a coterie of Soviet policy analysts and advisers were drawn


toward common security and such attendant notions as nonoffensive defense (these links are
even direct personal links,

detailed in Evangelista 1995; Kaldor 1995; Checkel 1993; Risse-Kappen 1994; Landau 1996 and Spencer
1995 concentrate on the role of the Pugwash conferences). This group, including Palme Commission
member Georgii Arbatov, Pugwash attendee Andrei Kokoshin , and Sergei Karaganov, a senior adviser who
was in regular contact with the Western peace researchers Anders Boserup and Lutz Unterseher (Risse-

then influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachevs subsequent


championing of common security may be attributed to several factors. It is clear, for example, that new
Soviet leadership had a strong interest in alleviating tensions in East-West relations in
order to facilitate much-needed domestic reforms (the interaction of ideas and material
reality). But what is significant is that the Soviets commitment to common security led to
significant changes in force sizes and postures. These in turn aided in the winding
down of the Cold War, the end of Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and even
the collapse of Russian control over much of the territory of the former Soviet Union .
Kappen 1994: 203),

At the present time, in marked contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, common security is part of the
common sense of security discourse. As MccGwire points out, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) (a common defense pact) is using the rhetoric of common security in order to justify its expansion

This points to an interesting and potentially important


aspect of the impact of ideas on politics. As concepts such as common security, and
collective security before it (Claude 1984: 223-260), are adopted by governments and military
services, they inevitably become somewhat debased. The hope is that enough of the
residual meaning can survive to shift the parameters of the debate in a potentially
progressive direction. Moreover, the adoption of the concept of common security by official circles
into Eastern Europe (MccGwire 1997).

provides critics with a useful tool for (immanently) critiquing aspects of security policy (as MccGwire 1997
demonsrates in relation to NATO expansion). The example of common security is highly instructive. First, it

critical intellectuals can be politically engaged and play a role a significant


in making the world a better and safer place. Second, it points to potential
future addressees for critical international theory in general, and critical security
studies in particular. Third, it also underlines the role of ideas in the evolution in
society. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES AND THE THEORY-PRACTICE NEXUS Although most proponents of
indicates that
one at that

critical security studies reject aspects of Gramscis theory of organic intellectuals, in particular his
exclusive concentration on class and his emphasis on the guiding role of the party, the desire for
engagement and relevance must remain at the heart of their project. The example of the peace movement
suggests that critical theorists can still play the role of organic intellectuals and that this organic
relationship need not confine itself to a single class; it can involve alignment with different coalitions of
social movements that campaign on an issue or a series of issues pertinent to the struggle for

Said captures this broader orientation


when he suggests that critical intellectuals are always tied to and ought to remain
an organic part of an ongoing experience in society: of the poor, the disadvantaged, the
emancipation (Shaw 1994b; R. Walker 1994). Edward

voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless (Said 1994: 84). In the specific case of critical security

this means placing the experience of those men and women and communities
for whom the present world order is a cause of insecurity rather than security at the
center of the agenda and making suffering humanity rather than raison detat the
prism through which problems are viewed. Here the project stands full-square within the critical
theory tradition. If all theory is for someone and for some purpose, then critical
security studies is for the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless , and its
purpose is their emancipation. The theoretical implications of this orientation have already
been discussed in the previous chapters. They involve a fundamental reconceptualization of
security with a shift in referent object and a broadening of the range of issues
considered as a legitimate part of the discourse. They also involve a reconceptualization of strategy
within this expanded notion of security. But the question remains at the conceptual level of
how these alternative types of theorizing even if they are self-consciously aligned to the
studies,

practices of critical or new social movements, such as peace activism, the struggle for human rights, and

the survival of minority cultures can become a force for the direction of action. Again,
Gramscis work is insightful. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci advances a sophisticated analysis of how
dominant discourses play a vital role in upholding particular political and economic orders, or, in Gramscis
terminology, historic blocs (Gramsci 1971: 323-377). Gramsci adopted Machiavellis view of power as a
centaur, ahlf man, half beast: a mixture of consent and coercion. Consent is produced and reproduced by a
ruling hegemony that holds sway through civil society and takes on the status of common sense; it
becomes subconsciously accepted and even regarded as beyond question. Obviously, for Gramsci, there is
nothing immutable about the values that permeate society; they can and do change. In the social realm,
ideas and institutions that were once seen as natural and beyond question (i.e., commonsensical) in the
West, such as feudalism and slavery, are now seen as anachronistic, unjust, and unacceptable. In Marxs
well-worn phrase, All that is solid melts into the air. Gramscis intention is to harness this potential for
change and ensure that it moves in the direction of emancipation. To do this he suggests a strategy of a
war of position (Gramsci 1971: 229-239). Gramsci argues that in states with developed civil societies,

social change
requires a slow, incremental, even molecular, struggle to break down the prevailing
hegemony and construct an alternative counterhegemony to take its place. Organic
such as those in Western liberal democracies, any successful attempt at progressive

intellectuals have a crucial role to play in this process by helping to undermine the natural,
commonsense, internalized nature of the status quo. This in turn helps create political space within
which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed and new historic blocs created. I contend that
Gramscis strategy of a war of position suggests an appropriate model for proponents of critical security
studies to adopt in relating their theorizing to political practice. THE TASKS OF CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES

If the project of critical security studies is conceived in terms of war of position, then
the main task of those intellectuals who align themselves with the enterprise is to
attempt to undermine the prevailing hegemonic security discourse. This may be
accomplished by utilizing specialist information and expertise to engage in an immanent
critique of the prevailing security regimes, that is, comparing the justifications of those
regimes with actual outcomes. When this is attempted in the security field, the
prevailing structures and regimes are found to fail grievously on their own terms.
Such an approach also involves challenging the pronouncements of those
intellectuals, traditional or organic, whose views serve to legitimate, and hence
reproduce, the prevailing world order. This challenge entails teasing out the often
subconscious and certainly unexamined assumptions that underlie their arguments
while drawing attention to the normative viewpoints that are smuggled into
mainstream thinking about security behind its positivist faade. In this sense,
proponents of critical security studies approximate to Foucaults notion of specific
intellectuals who use their expert knowledge to challenge the prevailing regime of
truth (Foucault 1980: 132). However, critical theorists might wish to reformulate this sentiment along
more familiar Quaker lines of speaking truth to power (this sentiment is also central to Said 1994) or
even along the eisteddfod lines of speaking truth against the world. Of course, traditional strategists can,
and indeed do, sometimes claim a similar role. Colin S. Gray, for example, states that strategists must be
prepared to speak truth to power (Gray 1982a: 193). But the difference between Gray and proponents of
critical security studies is that, whereas the former seeks to influence policymakers in particular directions
without questioning the basis of their power, the latter aim at a thoroughgoing critique of all that

critical theorists base their critique


on the presupposition, elegantly stated by Adorno, that the need to lend suffering a
voice is the precondition of all truth (cited in Jameson 1990: 66). The aim of critical security
traditional security studies has taken for granted. Furthermore,

studies in attempting to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy is ultimately educational. As Gramsci notes,
every relationship of hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350; see also

by criticizing the hegemonic


discourse and advancing alternative conceptions of security based on different
understandings of human potentialities, the approach is simultaneously playing apart in
eroding the legitimacy of the ruling historic bloc and contributing to the development
of a counterhegemonic position. There are a number of avenues of avenues open to critical
security specialists in pursuing this educational strategy. As teachers, they can try to foster and
encourage skepticism toward accepted wisdom and open minds to other possibilities.
They can also take advantage of the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the media for
the discussion of critical pedagogy in Neufeld 1995: 116-121). Thus,

instant pundistry to forward alternative views onto a broader stage. Nancy Fraser
argues: As teachers, we try to foster an emergent pedagogical counterculture . As
critical public intellectuals we try to inject our perspectives into whatever cultural or
political public spheres we have access to (Fraser 1989: 11). Perhaps significantly, support for
this type of emancipatory strategy can even be found in the work of the ultrapessimistic Adorno, who
argues: In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when
delusions were healed not by focused propaganda, but, in the final analysis, because
scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root
of the delusion. (cited in Kellner 1992: vii) Such unobtrusive yet insistent work does not in itself
create the social change to which Adorno alludes. The conceptual and the practical dangers of
collapsing practice into theory must be guarded against. Rather, through their
educational activities, proponent of critical security studies should aim to provide
support for those social movements that promote emancipatory social change . By
providing a critique of the prevailing order and legitimating alternative views, critical
theorists can perform a valuable role in supporting the struggles of social
movements. That said, the role of theorists is not to direct and instruct those movements with which
they are aligned; instead, the relationship is reciprocal. The experience of the European, North American,
and Antipodean peace movements of the 1980s shows how influential social movements can become
when their efforts are harnessed to the intellectual and educational activity of critical thinkers. For

Pugh cites the


importance of the visits of critical intellectuals such as Helen Caldicott and Richard Falk
in changing the countrys political climate and encouraging the growth of the
antinuclear movement (Pugh 1989: 108; see also Cortright 1993: 5-13). In the 1980s peace
example, in his account of New Zealands antinuclear stance in the 1980s, Michael C.

movements and critical intellectuals interested in issues of security and strategy drew strength and succor
from each others efforts. If such critical social movements do not exist, then this creates obvious
difficulties for the critical theorist. But even under these circumstances, the theorist need not abandon all
hope of an eventual orientation toward practice. Once again, the peace movement of the 1980s provides
evidence of the possibilities. At that time, the movement benefited from the intellectual work undertaken
in the lean years of the peace movement in the late 1970s. Some of the theories and concepts developed
then, such as common security and nonoffensive defense, were eventually taken up even in the Kremlin
and played a significant role in defusing the second Cold War. Those ideas developed in the 1970s can be
seen in Adornian terms of the a message in a bottle, but in this case, contra Adornos expectations, they
were picked up and used to support a program of emancipatory political practice. Obviously, one would be
nave to understate the difficulties facing those attempting to develop alternative critical approaches
within academia. Some of these problems have been alluded to already and involve the structural
constraints of academic life itself. Said argues that many problems are caused by what he describes as the

Academics are now so


constrained by the requirements of job security and marketability that they are
extremely risk-averse. It pays in all senses to stick with the crowd and avoid the
exposed limb by following the prevalent disciplinary preoccupations , publish in certain
prescribed journals, and so on. The result is the navel gazing so prevalent in the study of
international relations and the seeming inability of security specialists to deal with
the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War (Kristensen 1997 highlights the
search of U.S. nuclear planners for new targets for old weapons ). And, of course, the
pressures for conformism are heightened in the field of security studies when
governments have a very real interest in marginalizing dissent . Nevertheless,
opportunities for critical thinking do exist, and this thinking can connect with the
practices of social movements and become a force for the direction of action . The
growing mmphasizedmngmation of academic life (Said 1994: 49-62).

experience of the 1980s, when, in the depths of the second Cold War, critical thinkers risked demonization
and in some countries far worse in order to challenge received wisdom, thus arguably playing a crucial role
in the very survival of the human race, should act as both an inspiration and a challenge to critical security
studies.

Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating


Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to
establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger
political projects
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student
comments, I am convinced that the work of anti-racism in university classrooms is
fundamentally important. As one student said racism is real. Through racism people
suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically. Our
work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge against
racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general teaching
form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in education.
There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As
educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a
way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that

The
student voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching and
learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting
point. And who knows, these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story)
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society. In
conclusion I endorse social justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in JohnsonBailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom practices and the
curriculum, because: if we are not working for equity in our teaching and
learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic
racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence , in August and September 2010
alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and physically attacked
(Institute of Race Relations 2010). The point of studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the
anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van
Driel 2004) that: Education can enlighten students and promote positive
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which battles can be
fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our attention should be
directed. (162)
surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions


behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges
racist dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]

As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as
September 12 that there was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical
response to address and challenge the rampant Islamophobia
affecting the realities of Muslims from all walks of life and social conditions .
Among the most vulnerable were children and youth , who received little support from
schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a routine basis. Most schools were
reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral arena of crisis management. Among

there was a clear resistance to addressing


or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia . In fact, the discursive
language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were
encountering on a day-to-day basis did not even exist within the educational
discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism part of an all-toocommon denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency
at all. In fact, it was not a part of the language or conceptual constructs
commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
antiracist pedagogy. I realized the urgency to map a new
epistemological and pedagogical terrain by creating an educational
framework for addressing Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based
educational frameworks, one could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools
to address issues of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and antiSemitism. However, the discursive foundations for dealing with
Islamophobia and the accompanying educational resources simply
did not exist. Developing a new framework to fill this gap involved coining a new term: AntiIslamophobia Education. Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims
as the result of Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions
that would take place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a
methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary to
develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and
create an understanding of what it was that we sought to challenge
and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of Islamophobia is often loosely
the school districts that I was in contact with,

translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However, this definition
presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a

Islamophobic attitudes are, in


fact, part of a rational system of power and domination that manifests as
individual, ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression .
The idea that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion,
more holistic analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,

simply stems from ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and
policies to claim a space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and oppression, which operates

to capture the complex


dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and
acknowledge that these attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such
on multiple social, ideological, and systemic levels. Therefore,

practices as name-calling or personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural
conditions of inequality regulated through such institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or

exclusionary practices are shored up by specific


ideological underpinnings, among them the purveyed notions designed to
pathologize Muslims as terrorists and impending threats to public safety.
Understanding the dimensions of how systems of oppression such as
Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically, and systemically became a key
component of developing educational tools that would help build the
critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these dynamics. From a
housing opportunities. These

discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism framework5


that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have
mapped some key epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6 This includes the need to
reclaim the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists and suicide bombers
to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming

the stage requires adopting a


pedagogical approach that shifts the popular media discourse away from the
negative, essentialized referents and tropes of abject Otherness ascribed to
Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counter-narrative in
order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations
narratives typically being purveyed in order to present a more nuanced,
reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that
Muslim individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of anti-Islamophobia education involves
interrogating the systemic mechanisms through which Islamophobia
is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the dynamics of power in society
that sustain social inequality. Racial profiling, which targets groups on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities . In
schools, the practice of color-coded streaming, whereby a disproportionate number of racially and
ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic level streams, is another example of

Negative perceptions held by teachers and guidance


counselors toward racialized students have often led to assumptions of failure
or limited chances for success, based on such false stereotypes as the notion that Islam
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are
relayed to students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and
lead to lower expectations being placed upon youth from specific
communities.7 Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop
challenges to these systems of domination is part of building a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving
greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiinstitutionalized racism.

Islamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,


renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have permeated the representation of Muslims in media
and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad women are seen as the primary markers

Deconstructing and demystifying these stereotypes is vital to


helping students develop a critical literacy of the politics of media
and image-making. Critically examining the destructive impact of how
these images create the social and ideological divide between us and
them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
of the Muslim world.

Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating


Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to
establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger
political projects
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]

Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student
comments, I am convinced that the work of anti-racism in university classrooms is
fundamentally important. As one student said racism is real. Through racism people
suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically. Our
work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge against
racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general teaching
form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in education.
There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As
educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a
way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that

The
student voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching and
learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting
point. And who knows, these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story)
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In
conclusion I endorse social justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in JohnsonBailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom practices and the
curriculum, because: if we are not working for equity in our teaching and
learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic
racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence , in August and September 2010
alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and physically attacked
(Institute of Race Relations 2010). The point of studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the
anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van
Driel 2004) that: Education can enlighten students and promote positive
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which battles can be
fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our attention should be
directed. (162)

Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions


behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges
racist dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]

As an anti-racism scholar and educator , fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as
September 12 that there was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical
response to address and challenge the rampant Islamophobia
affecting the realities of Muslims from all walks of life and social conditions .
Among the most vulnerable were children and youth , who received little support from
schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a routine basis. Most schools were
reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral arena of crisis management. Among

there was a clear resistance to addressing


or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In fact, the discursive
language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were
encountering on a day-to-day basis did not even exist within the educational
discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism part of an all-toocommon denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency
at all. In fact, it was not a part of the language or conceptual constructs
commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
antiracist pedagogy. I realized the urgency to map a new
epistemological and pedagogical terrain by creating an educational
framework for addressing Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based
educational frameworks, one could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools
to address issues of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and antiSemitism. However, the discursive foundations for dealing with
Islamophobia and the accompanying educational resources simply
did not exist. Developing a new framework to fill this gap involved coining a new term: AntiIslamophobia Education. Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims
as the result of Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions
that would take place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a
the school districts that I was in contact with,

methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary to


develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and
create an understanding of what it was that we sought to challenge
and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of Islamophobia is often loosely
translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However, this definition
presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a

Islamophobic attitudes are, in


fact, part of a rational system of power and domination that manifests as
individual, ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression .
The idea that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion,
simply stems from ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and
policies to claim a space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
more holistic analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,

fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and oppression, which operates

to capture the complex


dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and
acknowledge that these attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such
on multiple social, ideological, and systemic levels. Therefore,

practices as name-calling or personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural
conditions of inequality regulated through such institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or

exclusionary practices are shored up by specific


ideological underpinnings, among them the purveyed notions designed to
pathologize Muslims as terrorists and impending threats to public safety.
Understanding the dimensions of how systems of oppression such as
Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically, and systemically became a key
component of developing educational tools that would help build the
critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these dynamics. From a
housing opportunities. These

discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism framework5


that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have
mapped some key epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6 This includes the need to
reclaim the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists and suicide bombers
to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming

the stage requires adopting a


pedagogical approach that shifts the popular media discourse away from the
negative, essentialized referents and tropes of abject Otherness ascribed to
Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counter-narrative in
order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations
narratives typically being purveyed in order to present a more nuanced,
reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that
Muslim individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of anti-Islamophobia education involves
interrogating the systemic mechanisms through which Islamophobia
is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the dynamics of power in society
that sustain social inequality. Racial profiling, which targets groups on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities . In
schools, the practice of color-coded streaming, whereby a disproportionate number of racially and
ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic level streams, is another example of

Negative perceptions held by teachers and guidance


counselors toward racialized students have often led to assumptions of failure
or limited chances for success, based on such false stereotypes as the notion that Islam
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are
relayed to students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and
lead to lower expectations being placed upon youth from specific
communities.7 Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop
challenges to these systems of domination is part of building a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving
greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiIslamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,
institutionalized racism.

renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have permeated the representation of Muslims in media
and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad women are seen as the primary markers

Deconstructing and demystifying these stereotypes is vital to


helping students develop a critical literacy of the politics of media
and image-making. Critically examining the destructive impact of how
these images create the social and ideological divide between us and
them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
of the Muslim world.

Individual epistemological interrogation is keyinternalized racist stereotypes and implicit biases require
active challenging
Feingold and Lorang 2012 [Jonathon (J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law) and Karen
(J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law), Defusing Implicit Bias, UCLA Law Review Discourse 2012,
LexisNexis, AX]

accusations of racial profiling often require or rely on


evidence of conscious intent. Though presumptively unconstitutional, racial [*220] profiling is
Like allegations of racism,

often justified on policy grounds as a rational form of racial discrimination. Racial profiling is rational in the
sense that it relies on perceived statistical correlations between a particular racial group and a

For instance, when New York officials conduct covert


surveillance on Muslim communities, the decision is based on a conscious
belief that the targeted individuals are more likely to engage in terrorism than
the general population. Understood in this way, a successful claim of racial profiling requires proof
of a conscious decision to discriminate against the targeted group because of their race. These
examples of racism defenses and racism allegations illustrate the central role
that evidence of conscious intent plays in our public dialogue. Even within the
disparate treatment theory of racial discrimination, however, such an approach fails to
take into account recent findings from the fields of psychology and
social cognition that complicate the way we may think about racially
motivated acts. These findings reveal that implicit biases, often undetectable
through introspection [*221] and self-reporting, cause us to treat others differently
because of their race. To gain a more accurate sense of the role played by implicit biases, we
begin by disaggregating the concepts of explicit and implicit biases. Both explicit and implicit
biases are the result of social cognitions. n73 Cognitions are thoughts or
feelings, and "[a] social cognition is a thought or feeling about a person or a
corresponding trait or behavior.

social group, such as a racial group." n74 Explicit biases are thoughts or
feelings that we are aware of and are able to identify through introspection. n75 We
commonly, though not always, "agree with and endorse our explicit [biases]." n76 Racism
allegations, and the corresponding racism defenses, often reflect our familiarity with explicit biases.
Racism defenses regularly rely on the type of evidence offered by Zimmerman's father, while those
alleging racism correspondingly search for the smoking-gun quote or document that will reveal racist
intent. n77 The national focus on Zimmerman's possible use of the pejorative term "coon" provides one

Implicit bias research shows


that traditional understandings of conscious intent fail to tell the
whole story. Implicit biases "pop[] into mind quickly and automatically
without conscious volition." n79 Unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are difficult to
identify because of introspective limitations and our own self-monitoring. n80 In
fact, we are usually unaware of, or mistaken about, the sources of our implicit biases and
the influence they have on our judgment and behavior. n81 Implicit biases
may actually include "thought[s] or feeling[s] that we would reject
as inaccurate or inappropriate upon self-reflection." n82 This disassociation
between implicit and explicit biases means that we may honestly believe we hold positive
[*222] attitudes about a particular racial group, yet we simultaneously hold
negative attitudes toward that same group at an implicit level . n83 This explains
such example of evidence common to a racism allegation. n78

why being Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial household, having Black friends, and honestly professing
antiracist ideals does not preclude the possibility that an individual might hold implicit negative attitudes
about Blacks. To circumvent challenges posed by our inability to access implicit biases, psy-chological tests
have been designed to measure our unconscious cognitions. These tests have relied on various linguistic
cues, physiological responses, microfacial movements, neurological activity, and "reaction times when
completing various tasks." n84 Perhaps the most well-known test is the Implicit Association Test (IAT),
which measures reaction times for sorting stimuli into categories. n85 The IAT consistently reveals "implicit
attitudes in favor of one social group over another." n86 For many Americans, implicit biases manifest "in
the form of negative beliefs (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) against racial minorities." n87 Because
many people hold implicit biases, the real question becomes whether these biases influence or predict
behavior. Jerry Kang summarizes the prevailing wisdom on this point: There is now persuasive evidence

implicit bias against a social category, as measured by instruments such as the IAT,
predicts disparate behavior toward individuals mapped to that category. This
occurs notwithstanding contrary explicit commitments in favor of racial equality. In
other words, even if our sincere self-reports of bias score zero, we would
still engage in disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of
race, consistent with our racial schemas. Controlled, deliberative,
rational processes are not the only forces guiding our behavior. That we
that

are not even aware of, much less intending, such race-contingent behavior does not magically erase the
harm. n88 [*223] In fact, studies have shown that "[a]utomatic associations influence behavior by both
professionals and laypeople in employment, medical, voting, law enforcement, and countless other

most troubling, and especially relevant to Trayvon's death, evidence suggests


that police officers and private citizens unconsciously rely on race when
making decisions about whether or not to shoot. n90 Part III proceeds by detailing the potentially
contexts." n89 Perhaps

deadly combination of implicit bias and guns.

Informants Good
Over 60 percent of ISIS related arrests involve informants.
Key to the war on terror.
The Wall Street Journal In U.S. ISIS Cases, Informants Play a Big
Role April 21, 2015 http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-u-s-isis-casesinformants-play-a-big-role-1429636206

Officials say the use of informants is invaluable and say there are strict
guidelines to ensure they dont plant the idea for a crime in a suspects
head. Agents and prosecutors are well-trained and are wholly mindful of the
law with respect to the entrapment issue, said Paul Bresson, an FBI
spokesman. About 60% of the cases against Americans on ISIS-related
charges have involved informants, versus under 30% in terrorism indictments
overall since 9/11, according to an analysis by the Center on National
Security at Fordham Universitys School of Law. The FBI said it couldnt verify
those numbers. The informants arent always inserted from outside. In
criminal charges filed against six Minnesota men on Monday, federal agents
relied on an informant who had allegedly conspired and tried to travel to
Syria with some of the men. The six men havent entered pleas. Last month,
the 9/11 Review Commission, which studied five high-profile terrorist attacks
since 2001, concluded that informants didnt help prevent or respond to any
of them. Others say informants help stop violent terror plots before they get
too far. Using confidential informants is just a tried and true proven effective
method todisrupt threats, said Robert McFadden, a former
counterterrorism agent and a senior vice president at Soufan Group, a
security intelligence consultancy.

The threat of home grown terror is high and growing.


Must use every means necessary, including informants
David Inserra ( Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber
Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National
Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation) and Charles D.
Stimson (Manager of the National Security Law Program and Senior Legal
Fellow in the Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation. He served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs) Three Terrorist Plots
Disrupted in Three Weeks: 66th Islamist Plot Reconfirms Scope of Threat
April 16,2015 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/threeterrorist-plots-disrupted-in-three-weeks-66th-islamist-plot-reconfirms-scopeof-threat

On Friday, April 10, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Topeka, Kansas,
arrested John T. Booker Jr., as he prepared a car bomb for use against the
nearby Fort Riley Army post. Booker, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen who goes by
the name Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, expressed a desire to support the
Islamic State by engaging in violent jihad here in the U.S.[1] Through the
use of confidential informants, the FBI tracked Bookers statements,
plans, and actions, and arrested him before the public was in
danger. This homegrown, lone-wolf terrorist plot is the 66th known Islamist
terrorist plot or attack aimed at the U.S. homeland since 9/11. It is also the
third terrorist plot that has been foiled in the past 17 days, and the fourth in
the past four months in which the plotter expressed support for ISIS. This
surge in terrorism demonstrates yet again that the threat of terrorism
continues to be very real, and that stopping terrorists before they attack is
more critical than ever. The Plot John Booker was accepted into the Army in
February 2014, but before he entered basic training the FBI became aware of
multiple messages on Facebook in which he claimed to be excited to wage
jihad. When interviewed, Booker admitted that he enlisted in the United
States Army with the intent to commit an insider attack against American
soldiers like Major Nidal Hassan had done at Fort Hood, Texas.[2] As a result,
Booker was not allowed to join the military. Starting in October of 2014,
Booker began to communicate with an FBI confidential informant, and
repeatedly expressed to [the informant] his desire to engage in violent jihad
on behalf of ISIL.[3] Booker told the informant of his desire to go to the
Middle East to join ISIS and kill Americans. As their conversations continued
into November, Booker showed the informant videos of suicide bombers and
spoke fondly of them. When the informant indicated that he had a cousin who
could get Booker overseas, Booker excitedly accepted the offer and
expressed a willingness to wage jihad in the U.S. to prove his dedication.[4]
In December 2014, Booker told the informant that he was thinking about
attacking American soldiers at a nearby military base with a gun or a
grenade, believing it justified by the Koran. Then in February, Booker
referenced an ISIS propaganda video and expressed a desire to create a
similar video. Booker thought that capturing and killing an American soldier in
the U.S. would scare this country and warn it that we will be coming after
American soldiers in the streetswe will be picking them off one by one.[5]
In March, the confidential informant introduced Booker to his cousin,
another informant; the two told Booker that the cousin was a sheik planning
terrorist attacks. Booker said that he had studied suicide bombing and
wanted to build and detonate a truck bomb, following in the footsteps of an
American called Jihad Joe, who died as a suicide bomber in Syria.[6] Booker
then filmed a video threatening the U.S. and rented a storage unit for
gathering bomb components.[7] By the end of March, Booker began
purchasing bomb materials and gathering information on military targets,
settling on Fort Riley. Booker provided the bomb components to the
confidential informants, believing that they would provide the explosive
material, which was actually inert. He then proclaimed that I am going to do
this Friday, meaning April 10, and prepared a second threatening video. On

April 10, the two informants drove to Fort Riley and, as Booker was arming
the inert bomb, FBI agents arrested him.

Public Supports use of informants


Jeffrey M. Jones (Quotes Gallop Poles) Americans Still Say Liberties Should
Trump Anti-Terrorism June 10, 2015
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183548/americans-say-liberties-trump-antiterrorism.aspx

Some congressional critics of government anti-terrorism methods, most


notably Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, argue that the government has too many
powers in this area that violate citizens' rights. The majority of Americans,
55%, disagree, saying they do not believe such government programs
violate their civil liberties. But that leaves a sizable minority of 41% who
do feel the government is violating their civil liberties. Gallup asked this
question for the first time in the June 2-7 poll, so it is not possible to know
whether these views differ from those in the past. Although members of key
subgroups vary in the extent to which they believe government efforts to
prevent terrorism violate their civil liberties, all groups fall below the majority
level. Men are closest at 49%, and are much more likely than women (33%)
to believe government anti-terrorism programs violate their civil liberties.
There are no differences by political party, although political liberals are more
likely than conservatives to say these programs infringe on their liberties.
Across age groups, senior citizens are less likely than younger Americans to
believe the programs violate their civil liberties.

Informants are key to stopping terror plots. Authorities


have nothing more than educated guess work without
them
Sean Alfano JFK Terror Plot Informant Crucial To Case June 4, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-terror-plot-informant-crucial-to-case/

The informant who helped break up the plot to bomb the jet fuel pipeline that
supplies John F. Kennedy Airport was so convincing that the suspects gave
him unfettered access to their operation, federal authorities said. He made
several overseas trips to discuss the plot, even visiting a radical Muslim
group's compound in Trinidad. Perhaps more important, the suspects were
convinced he was guided by a higher purpose: The ringleader believed the
informant "had been sent by Allah to be the one" to pull off the bombing,
according to a federal complaint. The case demonstrated the growing
importance of informants in the war on terrorism, particularly as
smaller radical groups become more aggressive. On Monday, the

longtime leader of the Trinidadian Muslim group denied it had any connection
to the plot. "I know nothing about these men and I have nothing to do with
whatever they are being charged for," Yasin Abu Bakr, the leader of Jamaat al
Muslimeen, told The Associated Press. Bakr declined to say whether he knew
any of the suspects. U.S. authorities said the alleged plotters traveled to
Trinidad to secure support from Jamaat al Muslimeen. The accused
mastermind, Russell Defreitas, 63, is now in custody in New York, where he
will have a bail hearing on Wednesday. But two other suspects, Kareem
Ibrahim and Abdul Kadir, a former member of Guyana's Parliament, will fight
extradition to the United States, their lawyer, Rajid Persad, told a Trinidadian
court on Monday. The two made their initial court appearance there on one
count each of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act against the government of
the United States. The judge set a bail hearing for next Monday and an
extradition hearing on Aug. 2. Authorities in Trinidad are still seeking a fourth
suspect, Abdel Nur. While the intent to inflict major damage was apparent,
CBS News terrorism consultant Paul Kurtz said the men were "a long way off
from actually being able to carry out the plot." Tom Corrigan, a former
member of the FBI-New York Police Department Joint Terrorism Task Force,
said the Kennedy Airport case and the recent plot to attack Fort Dix
illustrated the need for inside information. Six men were arrested in a plot to
attack soldiers at the New Jersey military base after an FBI informant
infiltrated that group. "These have been two significant cases back-to-back
where informants were used," Corrigan said. "These terrorists are in our own
backyard. They may have to reach out to people they don't necessarily trust,
but they need for guns, explosives, whatever." Without informants,
Corrigan said, investigators are often left with little more than
educated guesswork. "In most cases, you can't get from A to B without an
informant," said the ex-NYPD detective. "Most times when an informant tells
you what is going on, speculation becomes reality. What an investigator
thought or presumed is happening is (often) really happening."

Muslim informants have stopped no less than 23 terror


plots in the last 15 years
Aziz Poonawalla (member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community who
participates in FBI informant programs) Muslim informants prevent domestic
terror: the data 2012
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2012/02/muslim-informantsprevent-domestic-terror-the-data.html

Ever since 9-11, accusations against muslim Americans have been made that
we do not condemn terrorism. In fact, we have been doing better than
condemning it we have been actively preventing it, in cooperation with the
FBI and local law enforcement agencies. We are the first line of defense. Here
is the proof: a list of domestic terror plots from October 2001 to January 2012
where muslim informants helped prevent the attack and helped prosecute

the perpetrators:

October 2001: The conviction of Portland 7 case was substantially helped after a local police officer encountered the suspects engaged in target practice. The

police officer was sent to the area after a local citizen notified police he heard gunfire. September 2002: Members of the Lackawanna 6 are arrested. FBI first becomes aware of their activities in June 2001 when a
local Muslim community member tips off the FBI. April 2003: A citizen notifies local police after he mistakenly receives a suspicious package sent by anti-government terrorist William Krar. The tip-off starts a
Federal investigation eventually leads to Krars arrest and the discovery of small arms and chemical weaponry. June 2003: FBI receives two tips from community members notifying them military-style training
being conducted suspect by Ali Al-Tamimi. The tips start an investigation leading to the arrest of the Paintball 11 in Northern Virginia. August 2004: James Elshafay and Shahwar Matin Siraj are arrested largely
based on the controversial use of an informant in the investigation. However NYPD were first notified of Siraj after a Muslim community member anonymously notifies New York police about consistently troubling
rhetoric coming from the suspect. February 2006: Muslim community members in Ohio provide information help into arrest and eventually convict 3 suspects planning attacks in Iraq. August 2006: British
authorities arrest a group of British Muslim violent extremists suspected of plotting to blow up several airplanes over the Atlantic. Authorities first become aware of the plot based on a tip from a Muslim community
member. November 2006: Neo-Nazi terrorist Demetrius Van Crocker is arrested after an investigation is set in motion by a tip-off from a concerned citizen. November 2006: Adnan Babar Mirza, a Pakistani
national studying in Houston, TX and is arrested for illegal firearms training and possession. Adnan come to the attention of the FBI when local Houston community members tip them off about Adnans activities and
alleged intentions. October 2008: Neo-Nazis Daniel Cowart and Paul Schesselman are arrested by local police, who received a tip from a concerned friend of the two suspects, before seeking to go on a shooting
spree against African-Americans. July 2009: Mosque leaders in Raleigh, North Carolina contact law enforcement to notify them of violent, threatening action considered to be dangerous leading to the arrest of
Daniel Boyd and 6 other individuals. September 2009: Queens Imam Ahmad Afazali, a community liaison to the NYPD, helps local police and the FBI in the investigation and arrest of suspect Najibullah Zazi. Though
Zazi is initially accused of tipping off Zazi to police surveillance, information in the court complaint and corroborating reporting from mainstream media sources found this notion to be false. (Afzali was, however,
deported on charges of lying to FBI agents, but subsequent media reporting also strengthens Afzalis claims that he was scapegoat for getting caught up in a turf battle between NYPD and FBI officials.) November
2009: Five Virginia Muslim youth are arrested in Pakistan, allegedly seeking to join a terrorist group, after family members told American federal authorities they went missing. March 2010: Michigan Militia member
and Muslim convert Matt Savino refuses aid to a fugitive member of the Hutaree Militia and instead helps law enforcement authorities track him down. April 2010: Senegalese Muslim Alioune Niass first spots the
suspicious vehicle used as a bomb to attack Times Square in New York City. Clues from the vehicle and defused explosive immediately led to the suspect, Faisal Shahzads, arrest. June 2010: Suspects Mohammed
Mahmoud Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte are arrested, after the FBI first receives an anonymous report in 2006 from one of the suspects family members. News reports indicate one of Alessas family members
provided the tip. October 2010: Former Hawaii resident Abdel Hamid Shehadeh is arrested for attempting to join the Taliban. Local media noted that the Muslim Association of Hawaii assisted law enforcement
agencies in the case and that it has in the past reported suspicious activities. October 2010: Farooque Ahmed is arrested on charges of allegedly attempting to bomb the Washington, DC metro railway system.
The FBI first learns of Ahmeds intentions from a community tip-off. October 2010: An attempt by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to bomb Western targets using air cargo transportation is prevented by US and
European authorities. Intelligence that prevented the plot came from ex-militant Jabr al-Faifi, who voluntarily handed himself into Saudi authorities. November 2010: Mohamed Osman Mohamud is arrested for
attempting to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The New York Times notes, In the Oregon [Mohamud] case, the FBI received a tip from a Portland Muslim. December 2010: Antonio
Martinez is arrested for attempting to bomb a military recruiting center in Maryland. Statements from Justice Department officials indicate a Muslim community member reported Martinez to the FBI during its
ongoing investigation. June 2011: Two Al-Qaeda inspired violent criminals planning to attack a military installation in Seattle are arrested by law enforcement. FBI officials first become aware of the planned attack
after a fellow Muslim who was trying to be recruited into the conspiracy went to Seattle Police and informed them of the plot. January 2012: Violent Al-Qaeda sympathizer Sami Osmakac is arrested for planning to
attack several sites in Tampa, Florida using guns and explosives. The U.S. Attorney for Central Florida noted, This investigation was also predicated, in part, by assistance from the Muslim community. This data

Muslim communities helped U.S.


security officials to prevent nearly 2 out of every 5 Al-Qaeda plots
threatening the United States since 9/11. Muslim communities helped
law enforcement prevent 1 out of every 2 of all Al-Qaeda related plots
threatening the U.S. since the December 2009 underwear bomber plot. This
is an important parallel trend to the recent spike of arrests. It also highlights
the importance of partnering with society through good relations and
community oriented policing
was compiled by MPAC in a detailed and exhaustive report (PDF link) in the executive summary, they note:

Informants Bad (dont to use in


our AFF!)

Informants Not key


Informants damage Intelligence Efforts
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and
surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and that national
security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to
recognize that when informants lack a specific target and direction, the

gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations


security. Instead, the FBIwith little concern for the actual gravity of the original
threat posed by the suspectcreates an elaborate terrorism plot for the
surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11, many individuals who
showed no signs of violence or extremism prior to involvement with
informants and government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.101 Until the informants provided the means, these
individuals did not have the finances or the proper connections to
conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these
plots makes the FBIs preventative stance appear successful in the public eye, it
diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover,
Professor David A. Harris claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques
and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it

poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the
voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law
enforcement and Muslim communities.102 Having community members report
suspicious information to the FBI may be a more effective way of obtaining reliable
terrorism intelligence from these communities.103 For example, in the few domestic
terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to informant
involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first
to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community

members have assisted law enforcement in stopping potential


terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing
could have been prevented had law enforcement heeded the warnings that
Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the
president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor,
David Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to continue to drive wedges

when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way


informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of
connection to terrorist organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by
the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other
communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the Immigration
and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of
agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these
agencies to directly enforce immigration laws.109 However, the study found that half
of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward
serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless
of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program
activities affect the community in distinct and adverse ways, including by causing
declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by
these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors
were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcementwhere any offense
could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just as Latino immigrant communities
became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when
threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when
threatened with FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these
operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn
prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police and other
authorities.115 In order to procure accurate intelligence from any community, a

relationship of trust and respect between law enforcement and the


community must exist.116 However, from the mass arrest and detention of
Muslims shortly after 9/11 to the ongoing allegations of ethnic and religious profiling
today,118 the federal government has made serious errors in dealing with
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities since 9/11 . While the government
recognizes that community policing119 is the best way to obtain reliable
intelligence,120 the FBI is caught between two contradictory strategies and must
choose between sending informants into mosques without reasonable suspicion, and
gaining the trust and cooperation of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. As one
congregant in a surveilled mosque observed, The FBI wants to treat the Muslim

community as a partner while investigating us behind our backs . . . . They


cant have it both ways.121 While it is unrealistic to think that the FBI will stop
using informants in these communities, a more restrained use of informants based on
reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing would mitigate perceived damages to
community relations. Requiring the FBI to have preexisting reasonable

suspicion would add credibility to the agency and alleviate some of the fear
surrounding terrorism investigations involving informants . By virtue of their
connections and daily interactions, those active in a particular community are in the
best position to notice when others in the community act strangely. Unlike informants
who may be new to the community and who other members may view with
suspicion, well-established community members may already know what is going on
in their community and can more accurately spot genuine threats. Notably, the
argument that Muslims and Middle Easterners are in the best position to provide
accurate intelligence on terrorist activities within their respective communities risks
fueling the governments conflation of those communities with terrorism.122
However, in analyzing how best to procure counterterrorism intelligence, it would be

amiss not to recognize the FBIs and other law enforcement agencies heavy focus on
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. This is largely due to most recognized

foreign terrorist organizations being based out of the Middle East or having
Islamic ties.123 Law enforcement efforts, immigration law, surveillance policies, and
pre-9/11 incidents like the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center have categorized
the typical terrorist as male, Middle Eastern, and devoutly Muslim.124 The reality is
that even though recently immigrated Muslims and Middle Easterners have become
synonymous with terrorism, terrorists come from various ethnicities, religions, and
communities.125 While acknowledging and attempting not to replicate that
stereotype, this Comment seeks to recommend ways to improve the relationship
between law enforcement and potential terrorism informants who typically belong to
the same religion or ethnicity as those they surveil. The governments focus on
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities as potential breeding grounds for terrorist
groups also directs the focus of this Comment. However, this Comment resists the
broad characterization of these communities as prone to extremism and violence. In
fact, a recent statistical analysis of terrorism activity after 9/11 discredits the
stereotype that Muslims and Middle Easterners account for most of the terrorism
within the United States.126 In total, the report found that U.S.-originated

non-Muslims accounted for 107 post-9/11 plots while U.S.-originated


Muslims accounted for 49.127 Conversely, the report found that cooperation
with Muslim communities helped prevent 40 percent of all Al-Qaeda plots after
9/11.128 As the report notes, [a] singular focus on Muslim terrorists is both bad for
national security and civil society . . . . [N]umerous studies and experts have stated
that there is no reliable terrorist profile.129 When compared to the actual threat
posed by members of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities, then, the FBIs
explicit target of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities is excessive.

Informants in Muslim communities have been ineffective


at counter terrorism
Privacy Journal, 2013
Evidence of Intrusive Spying on Muslims in U.S., Anonymous. Privacy
Journal39.4 (Feb 2013): 1,4-7. Proquest, /Bingham-MB

Shocking assertions of police surveillance in the anti-terrorism age against


law-abiding citizens, most of them Muslims, came from two different sources
this month. Both sources said that the spying was expensive, excessive,
invasive, unconstitutional, and ultimately ineffective in identifying
terrorism suspects. Lawyers representing the New York Civil Liberties Union
filed papers in federal court in Manhattan Feb. 4 seeking to stop the N.Y.
Police Department from creating dossiers on innocent Muslim New Yorkers
and to end the police department's ability to initiate investigations into
Muslims when there is no belief that they have engaged or are about to
engage in unlawful activity or an act of terrorism. The lawyers said that this
violates a 1985 court order and consent decree in a previous lawsuit,
Handschu v. Special Services Division, S.D.N.Y., Index No. 71 Civ. 2203 (CSH),
which requires the police to meet certain standards before spying on law-

abiding citizens and organizations engaged in political activism. Documents


in the case say that police are monitoring Muslims in public places including
restaurants, bookstores and mosques in the absence of any evidence of
unlawful or terror related activities. According to statements by
complainants, the police collect information on where Muslims live, shop,
work and pray by infiltrating student groups, placing informers in mosques,
photographing activities, noting license-plate numbers and cell-phone
numbers, monitoring prayer groups and cataloging every Muslim who uses an
Americanized name. The NYPD's actions were so "flagrant and persistent,"
the attorneys said, that a new court appointed auditor should supervise their
activities. The complaint focuses on a specific spy department in the NYPD,
built with the help of the CIA (and possibly with the cooperation of Israeli
security), previously called the Demographics Unit and later renamed the
Zone Assessment Unit. Secondly, a book published this month asserts, "Since
9/1 1 the FBI has built the largest network of spies ever to exist in the United
States - with ten times as many informants on the streets today as there
were during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover - with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in
Muslim communities. . . . Agents provocateurs were behind most of the scary
terrorist plots you've heard about since 9/11." The author of the expose, The
Terror Factory, is Trevor Aaronson, a highly recognized investigative journalist
who has amassed information about the FBI's activities and expenditures
over the past ten years (Author's Site). He writes that he discovered "how the
government has exaggerated the threat of Islamic terrorism in the U.S."
"Every year the government allocates $3 billion to the FBI to prevent the next
9/11, more money than the bureau receives to combat organized crime." But,
his ten-year analysis shows, "Islamic terrorism in the U.S. is not an immediate
and dangerous threat. The FBI's thousands of informants and billions of
dollars have not resulted in the capture of dozens of killers ready and able to
bomb a crowded building or gun down people in a suburban shopping mall.
Instead, the FBI's trawling in Muslim communities has resulted largely in sting
operations that target easily susceptible men on the margins. . . . While we
have captured a few terrorists since 9/11, we have manufactured
many more" (The Terror Factory, Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on
Terrorism, 272 pages, $24.95 from IG Publishing, 718/797-0676,
http://igpub.com/).

Informants fail for counter terror investigations


Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB

A close reading of post-9/11 terrorism prosecutions demonstrates two


distinct, yet interrelated, trends. First, the conduct of informants in general
raises the issue of entrapment in a direct and pointed manner. Whether a
defendant intended to commit a crime or an informant actually entrapped a
defendant is a legitimate query that may be difficult to answer. Second,
regardless of whether an informant's conduct legally constitutes entrapment,
several of the post-9/11 cases highlight situations in which the existence of
any real threat to national security was questionable. Where the very
existence of a threat is doubtful, it is appropriate to question the efficacy and
feasibility of how informants purport to investigate suspected terrorists when
their ability to discern true criminality seems subordinated to other, less
altruistic concerns. While the academic literature surrounding the use of
informants in terrorism prosecutions is relatively undeveloped, any study of
the relevant cases must take into account the unique context in which those
cases arise. The use of confidential informants in criminal cases is nothing
new. (3) Currently, informants are used most frequently to prosecute drug
trafficking and dealing in cases that share many characteristics with terrorism
investigations. In the realm of drug trafficking and dealing, confidential
informants often have incentives to lie because they are paid or compensated
in the form of reduced sentences, and verifying the information they provide
can prove difficult at best. (4) Legal scholars have focused on the prevalent
use of informants in drug investigations, producing a sophisticated and
detailed critique of the deleterious effects of informant use on disadvantaged
youth of color and the communities in which they live. (5)

Informants cause bad counter terror cases


Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB

A reflection on terrorism prosecutions post-9/11 reveals that simply because


the government invests tremendous resources in counterterrorism, law
enforcement does not mean terrorism is always-or even often--occurring or
being planned. While there is much we do not know about the roles
informants play in most national security operations, a review of several
major terrorism prosecutions paints a troubling picture of the
informants' performance. (12) Using informants to create cases is a poor
substitute for traditional investigatory techniques and can implicate a
defendant's religious and political beliefs in a manner that suggests that
whole communities are suspect. In evaluating the efficacy of terrorism
prosecutions, an analysis of informants' roles in several high-profile cases
reflects current fears and prejudices as to what characteristics constitute a

terrorist. When the archetypical terrorist assumes a certain race and religion
in the popular imagination, deciding whether an informant has entrapped
that individual becomes a fraught exercise demanding a close look at those
preconceived notions and their effect on the legal analysis in a given case.

The FBI highly relies highly on untrustworthy people with


a criminal history
Humans Rights Watch, Illusion of Justice, Humans rights Institute,
Columbia Law school, July 2014
In the cases we reviewed, the FBI frequently used informants with criminal
records who were known to be unreliable witnesses who engaged in highly
questionable tactics. The most notable example is Shahed Hussain, informant
in the Newburgh Four and Yassin Aref cases, who admitted at one trial that by
the time he was recruited by the FBI he had committed no fewer than 50
frauds.215 In the case of the Newburgh Four, as noted above, Hussain offered
James Cromitie $250,000 to carry out a plot, apparently without authorization
of his FBI handlers.216 The trial judge concluded that Hussain committed
perjury at the trial, though the appeals court concluded that Hussains perjury
did not affect the verdicts because his testimony was immaterial. 217 Hussain
also admitted on cross-examination at the Newburgh trial that he had lied to
his FBI handler about a conversation with a defendant on at least one
occasion.218 Yet the FBI continued to use him as an informant, including for a
third sting operation in Pittsburgh.219 Other informants with criminal
histories included Khalil, informant in the Ferdaus case, and Mahmoud
Omar, informant in the Fort Dix case.220

Muslim Communities
Cooperation and Transparency are key to ensure good
relations between Governmental organizations and
Muslim communities, which is key to prevent extremism.
Vitello and Semple 9 (Paul Vitello and Kirk Semple, 12-18-2009,
"Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear," New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18muslims.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0)
The anxiety and anger have been building all year. In March, a national
coalition of Islamic organizations warned that it would cease cooperating with
the F.B.I. unless the agency stopped infiltrating mosques and using agents
provocateurs to trap unsuspecting Muslim youth.In September, a cleric in Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn, sued the government, claiming that the F.B.I. had threatened to scuttle his
application for a green card unless he agreed to spy on relatives overseas
echoing similar claims made in recent court cases in California, Florida and Massachusetts. And last month, after
an imam in Queens was charged with aiding what the authorities called a
bomb-making plot, a group of South Asian Muslims there began compiling a
database of complaints about their brushes with counterterrorism
investigators. Since the terror attacks of 2001, the F.B.I. and Muslim and Arab-American leaders across the country
have worked to build a relationship of trust, sharing information both to fight terrorism and to protect the interests of
mosques and communities. But those relations have reached a low point in recent months, many Muslim leaders say.

Several high-profile cases in which informers have infiltrated mosques and


helped promote plots, they say, have sown a corrosive fear among their
people that F.B.I. informers are everywhere, listening. There is a sense that
law enforcement is viewing our communities not as partners but as objects of
suspicion, said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who represented Muslims at the
national prayer service a day after President Obamas inauguration. A lot of people are really, really alarmed about this.
There is little doubt that a spate of recent cases from the alleged bomb plot by a former Manhattan coffee vendor,
Najibullah Zazi, to the shootings at Fort Hood, in Texas has heightened Americans concerns about homegrown

Muslim leaders have promised to redouble efforts to combat


extremism in their ranks. Yet they also worry about the fallout for the vast
numbers of the innocent. Some Muslims, Ms. Mattson said, have canceled
trips abroad to avoid arousing suspicion. People are wary of whom they speak
to. Community groups say it is harder to find volunteers. Many Muslim charities are hobbled. And
some law enforcement experts warn of a farther-reaching consequence: the
loss of a critical early-warning system against domestic terrorism. This is a national
terrorism.

security issue, said David Schanzer, who heads the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke
University. Its

absolutely vital that the F.B.I. and the Muslim-American


community clear the air and figure out how to work together. Even in
better times, the relationship has been a challenge to maintain, given that counterterrorism agents operate on multiple
levels holding open meetings at a mosque, say, and seeding it with informers. The F.B.I. has defended its practices,
saying it must pursue suspects wherever they go. Paul Bresson, an F.B.I. spokesman, said in an interview that it tries to
resolve anxieties by giving community leaders explanations, where the circumstances permit, and resolving concerns
where possible. In October, agents met privately in Queens with more than 40 Muslim and Arab-American leaders to hear
their grievances, and agency officials said they anticipated more sessions in New York and other cities. In July, Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. took questions about counterterrorism tactics from 200 young Muslims at a Los Angeles mosque.
Mr. Bresson said that no group is spotlighted because of its members religion or ethnicity. The F.B.I. investigates people,
not places, and only when we have information or allegations that persons are or may be committing crimes or posing a
risk to national security, he said. Yet

the Justice Department has in the last two years

loosened some restrictions on agents ability to start and conduct terrorism


investigations. The new guidelines, which the F.B.I. confirmed in October in response to a suit filed by
the civil rights group Muslim Advocates, make it easier to plant informers and allow agents
to include ethnicity and religion in the assessment of targets , as long as those are not
the only factors considered. After four members of a mosque in Newburgh, N.Y., were charged in May with plotting to

the authorities acknowledged that the investigation had


begun with an informer who became a linchpin in the scheme. Congregation
members said he had frequented the mosque, offering young men money
and gifts. The Queens imam arrested in September as investigators pursued the coffee vendor was an informer who
had helped authorities. Last month, federal prosecutors moved to seize several
buildings across the country that house mosques, saying they were owned by
a nonprofit group with links to Iran. As a rare federal investigation that has
ensnared houses of worship, the case stoked apprehensions that the
government sees Arab-Americans and Muslims as a people apart . We are citizens
bomb two Bronx synagogues,

who care about our country as much as everyone, said Wael Mousfar, president of the Arab Muslim American Federation,
a New York umbrella group. But people dont know what to expect who might report them for speaking about Middle
East politics, what someone might get your teenage son to do. His communitys relations with law enforcement were
rocky in the weeks after 9/11, when the authorities began detaining hundreds of Muslim and Arab noncitizens, most of
whom were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. But F.B.I. officials and leaders of Muslim, South Asian and ArabAmerican groups eventually forged an understanding, maintaining communication channels. Linda Sarsour, director of the
Arab-American Association of New York, a social-services agency, said that even then, the connection felt tentative. She
was baffled when bonds that she and other leaders established with a New York F.B.I. chief evaporated upon the arrival of
his successor. Experts say that complaint partly reflects high turnover. It also attests to differing views within the bureau
about the effectiveness of community outreach, said Michael Rolince, a former director of counterterrorism in the F.B.I.s
Washington field office. Some factions within the agency, he said, have always been leery of Islamic and Arab-American
organizations, considering their loyalties to be divided. There

are some people in the bureau who


believe, as I do, that the relationship with the Muslim community is crucial
and must be developed with consistency, Mr. Rolince said. And there are those who dont. The
American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, which threatened to cease cooperating with the F.B.I., has not
yet done so. But by most accounts,

the unraveling of ties between the F.B.I. and MuslimAmericans began two years ago, with the F.B.I.s decision to stop sharing
information with the nations most prominent Muslim civil rights organization ,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The F.B.I. said it was motivated by council executives failure to answer
questions about links with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The executives denied any such connection, and accused

the American Civil Liberties


Union made a similar complaint about Justice Department decisions to shut
down six Muslim charities without filing charges. The moves, which froze
billions of dollars in assets, have instilled among Muslims a pervasive fear
that they may be arrested, prosecuted, targeted for law enforcement
interviews if they give to any Islamic charity, the A.C.L.U. said. Imam Mohammad Shamsi Ali,
chief cleric at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York , in Manhattan, said that his organization had
suffered a 30 to 40 percent decline in contributions since 2001, in part
because of that fear. He said the center no longer solicits donations from
individuals living abroad because of the possibility that we could be
misunderstood. Still, the specter looming largest among immigrant Arabs and Muslims is fear of deportation.
And some say the F.B.I. has used that threat forcefully. Sheik Tarek Saleh, the Bay Ridge cleric who is suing the
government, said he welcomed F.B.I. agents at his storefront mosque after 9/11 when they
the F.B.I. of staining the councils reputation without due process. In June,

asked about his kinship with Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, a high-ranking Al Qaeda militant and his cousins husband. Sheik Saleh,
46, said he repeatedly discussed Mr. Yazid as well as his own former membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, a sometimes-

when he refused to
travel overseas to spy on Mr. Yazid, he said, agents told him to forget his
pending application for permanent residence. In February, immigration
officials told Sheik Saleh that the application had been rejected because he
violent political movement he joined as a teenager in Egypt and disavowed years later. But

failed to fill in a section about ties to political groups.

He contends that was a minor


oversight. F.B.I. and immigration officials would not discuss his case. Sheik Saleh said that he faced deportation because
he resisted F.B.I. pressure. Your dignity is bigger than the green card, he said. Zein Rimawi, a pet store owner and a
founder of the Al-Noor School, a private school in Bay Ridge, said anxiety made people cautious about transactions with
individuals and institutions even his school, which he said was $700,000 in debt as a result. Mr. Rolince, the former F.B.I.
agent, said he understood the worries, but felt they were overblown. The F.B.I. has 12,500 agents, he said. Believe me,
theres not enough of them to waste time looking at you unless they have a good reason.

Muslim Communities Vital


Muslim Communities trust needed to protect America
ICAAD, 14

(The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
structural discrimination globally and promoting human rights norms consistent with public international law. ICAAD works to strengthen legal
systems by bridging gaps in the implementation of laws and policies. ICAAD has worked with government agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), to help identify how minority communities are adversely impacted by the systemic flaws in documenting and
preventing hate crimes in the United States. ICAAD works to target and remedy these systemic failings, which contribute to high rates of
bias-motivated violence and murder because government resources are not being allocated to train, monitor, and prevent biasmotivated
crimes against particularly vulnerable communities., Perpetuating Discrimination: How the U.S. Governments Compliance with the
Underreporting of Hate Crimes Leads to a Failure to Protect Minority Groups and Effectively Combat Hate Crimes, 11-29 August 2014,
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17772_E.pdf )

By ignoring the rise in domestic extremism the government leaves minority


communities susceptible to bias-motivated attacks and further undermines
the fragile relationship it has tried to build with the Muslim community post9/11.66 Ultimately, whether it is combating hate crimes or terrorism, law
enforcement's ability to protect its citizens rests on the trust and
relationships it has built over time with communities. If the federal
government does not shift its strategy and resources to focusing on
domestic extremist groups and protecting minority communities,
we are all as a nation left more vulnerable.

Muslim communities cooperation is key to war on terror


and terror threats are real- from president Obama himself
President Obama, 15 (Transcript Obama san Bernardino ISIS
Address, Barack Obama, December 6th, 2015, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/transcript-obama-san-bernardinoisis-address/

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came
together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them
deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms
and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were
part of our American family. Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader
threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts
about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally
murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that
the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a
broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down

the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam


that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons,
ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people. President
Obama: &#39;This was an act of terrorism&#39; President Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' 01:15
Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the
process, we've hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless


plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military
and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas -disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating

al Qaeda's leadership. Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into
a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11,
terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too
common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in
Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew

stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the
distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people
like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers. For seven years, I've
confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I
took this office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I

know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater


responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young
daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends
and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the
faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans
are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure. Well, here's
what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.
We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough
talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we
will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of
American power. Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country
where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers,
infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us
accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens
of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.
In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've
stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that are

we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's


operations -- to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more
working on the ground. Third,

fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We're
working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes
online. Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the
Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the
common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all. This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is
designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65
countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine
when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State
and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in San
Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement
leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Now, here at home, we
have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right
away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What
could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a
matter of national security. We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons
like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety
measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective
they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or
some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill. Next, we
should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a
hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in
Congress to do exactly that. Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go
ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I
have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress
to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight. My fellow
Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a
word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war
in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL

fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign
lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources,
and using our presence to draw new recruits. The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special
Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how
we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans

We
cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a
war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of
death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims
around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who
reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist
victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to succeed in defeating
terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our
strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and
hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within
overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil. Here's what else we cannot do.

some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.
Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and
unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak
out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are
incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity. But
just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead
to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith

-- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on


who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that
Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we
travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values
plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors,
our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are
willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that. President Obama:
&#39;Freedom is more powerful than fear&#39; President Obama: 'Freedom is more powerful
than fear' 02:15 My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because
we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity

-- that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion
you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this
political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to
keep our country safe, let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not
forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether
war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our
common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have
no doubt America will prevail. Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United
States of America.

Muslim Communities needed for intelligence


Bunker 14 Community Policing in a War on Terror? Environment: More
Difficult, More Vital, Small worlds Journal,
file:///Users/madelinegochee/Downloads/Small%20Wars%20Journal%20%20Community%20Policing%20in%20a%20%E2%80%98War%20on
%20Terror%E2%80%99%20Environment-%20More%20Difficult,%20More
%20Vital%20-%202014-06-25%20(3).pdf )

Hickman et. al. note the ambiguous position of members of suspect


communities in that they simultaneously occupy the roles of victims needing
protection, partners with law enforcement and a potential safe harbor for
extremists (2011, p. 14). As law enforcement turned its concern to domestic
terrorist sleeper cells and focused on, in the words of US Attorney General
John Ashcroft, identifying threats of future terrorist acts, preventing them
from happening, and punishing would-be perpetrators (In Huq and Muller,
pp. 215, 222), there would be an increased perception of a need to have
Muslim community cooperation in the pursuit of intelligence leads. At the
same time, the new terrorism emphasis on radical Islam as key to Al Qaeda
terrorist acts placed focus on the need to identify radical elements within
that community as would-be terrorists to be surveilled or arrested.
Supportive communities are deemed imperative to both turning a blind eye
to terrorist activities in their midst but also are themselves considered
subject to terrorist recruitment. Through these perceptions, policing began
subtlyand in some cases not so subtlydistancing itself from its Muslim
citizens.

Surveillance leads to backlash on counterterror efforts


Bunker 14 Community Policing in a War on Terror? Environment: More
Difficult, More Vital, Small worlds Journal,
file:///Users/madelinegochee/Downloads/Small%20Wars%20Journal%20%20Community%20Policing%20in%20a%20%E2%80%98War%20on
%20Terror%E2%80%99%20Environment-%20More%20Difficult,%20More
%20Vital%20-%202014-06-25%20(3).pdf )

It is often said that trust is fragile and hard to rebuild once it is shaken.
Spalek has been led to ask whether trust can be built at all between police
officers and Muslim minorities, within the context of the new terrorism. She
points out that the literature suggests that the trust that exists between them
is easily eroded through over-policing (2010, p. 790). Trust between police
and the Muslim communities they serve has been undermined due to factors
intrinsic to the war on terror. One cause has been a view that the actions
(and abuses) related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the
targeted focus of domestic legislation have really constituted a war on Islam
(Spalek, 2010, p. 805). Another factor is that when Muslim families are
singled out and detained at airports and miss their flights, when young
Muslim men are repeatedly stopped and searched, or when whole Muslim
communities are subject to covert surveillance as happened in
Birmingham, there is a backlash to domestic counterterrorism

efforts that goes beyond those individuals affected to the Muslim


communities at large (Choudhary and Fenwick, 2011, pp. 162-73).

Muslim community distrust


Mistrust in Muslim Communities has not been adequately
addressed
ICAAD, 14 (The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
structural discrimination globally and promoting human rights norms consistent with public international law. ICAAD works to strengthen legal
systems by bridging gaps in the implementation of laws and policies. ICAAD has worked with government agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), to help identify how minority communities are adversely impacted by the systemic flaws in documenting and
preventing hate crimes in the United States. ICAAD works to target and remedy these systemic failings, which contribute to high rates of
bias-motivated violence and murder because government resources are not being allocated to train, monitor, and prevent biasmotivated
crimes against particularly vulnerable communities., Perpetuating Discrimination: How the U.S. Governments Compliance with the
Underreporting of Hate Crimes Leads to a Failure to Protect Minority Groups and Effectively Combat Hate Crimes, 11-29 August 2014,
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17772_E.pdf )

The
government plays an important role in ameliorating the conditions that contribute to underreporting,
including managing the level of trust between law enforcement and
communities. This concern was partly addressed in the proposed End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA),
These factors and others contribute to an astounding 65% of hate crimes cases being unreported.

which previously failed to pass Congress and was reintroduced in May of 2013. This has forestalled

trust gap because communities are still being


disproportionately surveilled (Muslims and Arabs), stop and frisked (Latinos and Blacks),
progress towards bridging the

and profiled at airports by being secondarily searched 100% of the time (Sikhs).27 When two-thirds of
hate crimes go unreported, it is not merely a statistical aberration, it is a structural failure that the
government has a responsibility to address.

Mistrust of Law Enforcement in Status Quo


Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)
Supervisor David Chiu spoke to the importance of law enforcement and
community cooperation. In San Francisco we pride ourselves on our
diversity, on the amazing international community that we are and we also
pride ourselves on doing everything we can to foster cooperation between
our diverse communities and law enforcement. I can tell you as a former
criminal prosecutor that without that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart. But unfortunately, we also know that surveillance only
serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed
most. Shakeel Syed expressed the following concern regarding Joint
Terrorist Task Forces. The mandates of local and federal law enforcement
organizations are different and hence call for different approaches. For
example, traditional local enforcement attempts to foster an environment of
community involvement, like neighborhood watch. Such an approach

engenders a common goal to keep communities safe. The FBI's traditional


goal is to conduct covert surveillance which is dramatically different from
engendering trust among the community and working with the community as
partners. The federal and local partnership in the context of counterterrorism [turns] the community from partners into suspects; treating
Muslims as inherent suspects by advocating for policies and programs such
as mapping, is exactly the opposite; it undermines and impedes the safety of
all citizens.

Bad things happening to Muslims


Not mass surveillance: The modern security state is
defined by the unlimited nature of its power-status quo
surveillance is directed at all but targeted at a specific
few. We live in a world where being identified as Muslim
guarantees total exclusion from the protective measures
of government. There is no state or legal protection for
the Muslim to return to, only the promise of
criminalization.
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]

Discussions of the surveillance of Muslim Americans usually begin with 9/11 and
make little attempt to locate them in the longer history of racial surveillance in the
United States. Yet the continuities are striking, particularly for Black Muslims, who have been
seen as extremists and subject to national security monitoring since the 1940s.
Already in the late 1960s, Arab American student groups involved in supporting the Palestinian national
movement had come under surveillance and, in 1972, the Nixon administration issued a set of directives
known as Operation Boulder that enabled the CIA and FBI to coordinate with the pro-Israel lobby in

especially after 9/11, a process was under way in


which Muslimness was racialized through surveillanceanother scene of the states
production of racial subjects. Since all racisms are socially and politically constructed
rather than resting on the reality of any biological race, it is perfectly possible for
cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages, etc.) to be
turned into racial signifiers.58 This signification then serves to indicate a people
supposedly prone to violence and terrorism, which, under the War on Terror, justifies a
whole panoply of surveillance and criminalization, from arbitrary arrests, to indefinite
detention, deportation, torture, solitary confinement, the use of secret evidence, and
sentencing for crimes that we would not be jailed for, such as speech, donations to
charitable organizations, and other such acts considered material support for terrorism.
Significantly, the racial underpinnings of the War on Terror sustain not just domestic
repression but foreign abusesthe wars vast death toll in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere could not be sustained without the
dehumanization of its Muslim victims. As before, racism at home goes hand in hand
with empire abroad. Counterinsurgency thinking that informed the strategies used in
Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of popular insurrection are also brought home to be deployed
in relation to Muslim American populations. Winning hearts and minds, the counterinsurgency
monitoring Arab activists. By the 1980s, but

slogan first introduced by British colonialists in Malaya, and then adopted by the US military in Vietnam,
reappears as the phrase that state planners invoke to prevent extremism among young Muslims in the

Counterinsurgency in this context means total surveillance of Muslim


populations, and building law enforcement agency partnerships with good Muslims ,
those who are willing to praise US policy and become sources of information on
dissenters, making life very difficult for bad Muslims or those who refuse (in ways
reminiscent of the good and bad Indians). It is a way of ensuring that the knowledge
Muslims tend to have of how US foreign policy harms the Middle East, Africa, and Asia
is not shared with others. The real fear of the national security state is not the
stereotypical Muslim fanatic but the possibility that other groups within US society
might build alliances with Muslims in opposition to empire. The various measures that
United States.

the US national security system has adopted in recent years flow from an analysis of
Muslim radicalization, which assumes that certain law-abiding activities associated
with religious ideology are indicators of extremism and potential violence. Following the
preventive logic discussed above, the radicalization model claims to be able to predict which
individuals are not terrorists now but might be at some later date. Behavioral, cultural,
and ideological signals are assumed to reveal who is at risk of turning into a terrorist at some point in the
future.59 For example, in the FBIs radicalization model, such things as growing a beard, starting to wear
traditional Islamic clothing, and becoming alienated from ones former life are listed as indicators, as is

signifiers of Muslimness
such as facial hair, dress, and so on are turned into markers of suspicion for a
surveillance gaze that is also a racial (and gendered) gaze; it is through such routine
bureaucratic mechanisms that counterterrorism practices involve the social
construction of racial others. Official acceptance of the model of radicalization implies a
need for mass surveillance of Muslim populations and collection of as much data as
possible on every aspect of their lives in order to try to spot the supposed warning
signs that the models list. And this is exactly the approach that law enforcement agencies
introduced. At the New York Police Department, for instance, the instrumentalizing of
radicalization models led to the mass, warrantless surveillance of every aspect of
Muslim life. Dozens of mosques in New York and New Jersey and hundreds more hot spots, such as
increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause.60 Thus,

restaurants, cafs, bookshops, community organizations, and student associations were listed as potential
security risks. Undercover officers and informants eavesdropped at these locations of interest to listen
for radical political and religious opinions. A NYPD Moroccan Initiative compiled a list of every known
Moroccan taxi driver. Muslims who changed their names to sound more traditionally American or who
adopted Arabic names were investigated and catalogued in secret NYPD intelligence files. It is clear that

none of this activity was based on investigating reasonable suspicions of


criminal activity. This surveillance produced no criminal leads between
2006 and 2012, and probably did not before or after.61 As of 2008, the FBI had a
roster of 15,000 paid informants and, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the bureau had 10,000 counterterrorism intelligence analysts in 2013.63 The proportion of
these informants and analysts who are assigned to Muslim populations in the United States is unknown but

The kinds of infiltration and provocation tactics that had been


practiced against Black radicals in the 1960s are being repeated today. What has
changed are the rationales used to justify them: it is no longer the threat of Black nationalist
subversion, but the threat of Muslim radicalization that is invoked. With new provisions in the
Clinton administrations 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the FBI can launch
investigations of a suspected individual or organization simply for providing material
support to terrorisma vague term that could include ideological activity unrelated
to any actual plot to carry out violence. While COINTELPRO violated federal laws, today
similar kinds of investigation and criminalization of political dissent can be carried out
legitimately in the name of countering terrorism. For Muslim populations on the
receiving end of state surveillance programs designed to prevent radicalization, everyday
life increasingly resembles the patterns described in classic accounts of
authoritarianism. There is the same sense of not knowing whom to trust and choosing
ones words with special care when discussing politics, and of the arbitrariness and
unpredictability of state power.64 With the 2011 leaking of some NYPD intelligence files, individual
is likely to be substantial.

Muslims have had the disturbing experience of seeing their names mentioned in government files, along
with details of their private lives. Numerous businesses, cafs, restaurants, and mosques in New York are
aware that the NYPD considers them hotspots and deploys informants to monitor them. And the recent

some Muslims in New York have found


that relationships they thought of as genuine friendships were actually covert
attempts to gather intelligence.
outing of a small number of NYPD informants has meant

Contemporary US law directly and indirectly induces


Muslims to take violent action before arresting them to
create a false sense of achievement.
Roberts 14 (William Roberts, 7-28-2014, "Report: US
unfairly targeted Arabs, Muslims," Al Jazeera,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/report
-us-unfairly-targeted-arabs-muslims201472711538316390.html)
The US government's prosecution of terrorism cases in America
since 9/11 has been fraught with widespread human rights abuses adding up
to an enduring miscarriage of justice that has had a chilling effect on
American Muslim communities, according to a recently released study. Many
of the 500 terrorism cases prosecuted in US federal courts since 2001 appear
to have targeted individuals who were not actually involved in terrorist plots
or financing them and likely would not have committed acts of violence,
according to the report by Human Rights Watch and the Columbia University
Law School's Human Rights Institute. "Five hundred is a number that sounds really big and it makes it
WASHINGTON, DC -

sound like Americans are being kept safe from terrorism attacks, but we found that in a lot of these cases, people were
prosecuted who never would have committed a terrorist act in the first place if it weren't for the involvement of the FBI,"

The
report, titled "Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," details a
pattern of US law enforcement targeting American Arabs and Muslims in FBI
"sting" operations in which informants cajoled, pressured, and sometimes
even bribed young men to participate in plots created by law enforcement. The
sweeping laws enacted by Congress after 9/11 helped create a conducive atmosphere, according to critics. People
hear about how these prosecutions are unfolding, the narratives the government has been putting forward and feel
there is no real way to protect yourself, that your statements will always be
taken out of context. - Diala Shamas, Fellow at the City University of New York law enforcement accountability
project "The report details account after account of overzealous prosecution,
unfair trials, over-aggressive informants, targeting of vulnerable young men,
and encouraging them to do things they wouldn't have otherwise done and
then incredibly long, harsh sentences ," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law
said Andrea J Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at HRW and a co-author of the report. 'Illusion of justice'

School who specialises in national security issues. In a statement to Al Jazeera, the Department of Justice's spokesman

many of the decisions the report criticises were lawful and


approved by federal judges. Further, the DOJ statement said the US Supreme Court has "upheld as
Marc Raimondi said that

constitutional" the material support statute under which about half of the 500 US terrorism convictions were obtained
according to Human Rights Watch. "I think the government's view is, if we are getting convictions and they are being
upheld on appeal and we haven't had another serious terrorist attack in the United States, you know, we must be doing
something right," Cole said. "I don't see any recognition from government officials that they are going too far." The HRW
report's publication comes at a time of increasingly critical treatment in the media of the government's use of FBI
undercover agents in counterterrorism cases. On July 20, Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit released the documentary
"Informants", based on the investigative reporting of Trevor Aaronson, on the shadowy world of FBI informants who work
to ensnare young Muslim men in purported terror plots. Two days later, HBO aired "The Newburgh Sting", a documentary
by filmmakers Kate Davis and David Heilbroner, telling the story of how four street criminals with no history of violence or
ties to al-Qaeda were drawn into an FBI orchestrated plot to bomb Jewish synagogues and fire missiles at US military
aircraft. 'Government-created terrorism plots' The report is the result of a two-year study of 27 specific cases ranging in
time from 2001 to more recent events. Researchers focused on cases where rights abuses were suspected, conducted 215

the report's
findings: Discriminatory investigations targeting vulnerable people with
government informants who actively developed the alleged plot, persuading
interviews with individuals, and sought records under the Freedom of Information Act. Among

or pressuring the target to participate and providing the money and resources
to carry it out. Use of overly broad material support charges that punish
behaviour that did not demonstrate intent to support terrorism. Prosecutorial
tactics that violate fair trial rights, including introduction of prejudicial
evidence, evidence obtained through coercion or torture, classified evidence
that cannot be fairly contested, inflammatory evidence about terrorism to
which defendants are not connected and secret surveillance. Harsh and at
times abusive prison conditions, including prolonged solitary confinement
with restrictions on communicating with family and lawyers. Excessive
lengthening of sentences and draconian conditions post-sentencing. "Taken
together, these patterns have contributed to cases in which individuals who perhaps would never have participated in a
terrorist act on their own initiative and might not even had the capacity to do so, were prosecuted for serious, yet
government-created, terrorism plots," the report says. The accused A 2011 case involves the FBI sting of Rezwan Ferdaus,
who lived at home with his parents near Boston and suffered from mental ailments. He was arrested in dramatic fashion
by the FBI and accused of planning to crash explosive-filled remote control aeroplanes into the US Capitol and the

The FBI provided the fake weaponry and funded Ferdaus' travel. Ferdaus
was so ill as the alleged plot unfolded - suffering from weight loss, seizures,
and loss of bladder control - that his father had to quit work to care for him .
He was 26 at the time of his arrest and is serving a 17-year sentence . Watch: Al
Pentagon.

Jazeera Investigates - Informants Uzair Paracha was held in solitary confinement for nearly two years before he was
convicted of providing material support for a terrorist group for trying to help a friend from Pakistan, who was allegedly
tied to al-Qaeda, gain entry to the US. Paracha was held under special, national security administrative procedures. " You

could spend days to weeks without uttering anything significant beyond


'please cut my lights' and 'can I get a legal call/toilet paper/a razor, etc, or
just thanking them for shutting our light," Paracha wrote the report's authors. He is serving a 30year jail sentence. In another case that has raised particular alarm within US Muslim communities, Adel Daoud was just

FBI undercover
agents solicited him online to engage in a fake plan to attack a bar in
downtown Chicago. He goes on trial in November and faces life behind bars. "From our experiences working
17, living with his parents and attending an Islamic high school in a Chicago suburb when

with communities here in New York City, the use of informants and concerns about surveillance have a deeply chilling
effect on the community," Diala Shamas, a fellow at the City University of New York law enforcement accountability
project, told Al Jazeera. "People hear about how these prosecutions are unfolding, the narratives the government has been
putting forward and feel there is no real way to protect yourself, that your statements will always be taken out of context,"

The report recommends the US limit the use of informants to


situations where there is already a specific suspicion of wrongdoing. Instead
of aggressive investigations, the report recommends agencies develop
"rights-respecting" partnerships with local community groups. It calls for reforms to
Shamas said.

harsh prison conditions including an end to prolonged solitary confinement. It seeks revisions to the enforcement of
material support laws so that freedom of expression and charitable giving are protected. "We are taking this report to
Congress [where] we hope that there will be hearings," Prasow told Al Jazeera.

FBI sting operations and entrapment form a large portion


of terrorist convictions and cases, perpetuating
Islamophobia while placing unwarranted surveillance of
Muslims in a good light.
Berkowitz 14 (Bill Berkowitz, 7-29-2014, Buzzflash, Truth-Out, "Is the FBI
Creating Terrorists to Pad Counterterrorism Conviction Rates?,"
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates/18788-is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates)
Let's start with a premise I think we can all agree with: There have been no 9/11-type attacks on United States soil since,
well, 9/11. Here's another statement we all probably agree with: The federal government has all sorts of arrows in its

quiver when it comes to gathering intelligence to thwart such attacks. And that is where it begins to gets dicey:

the government appears to be relying more and


more on perhaps the most twisted of those arrows; the use of informants, coerced and/or
rewarded, entrapment, and the sting. Since the September 2001 terrorist
attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the federal government has obtained more
than 500 federal counterterrorism convictions. According to a new Human
Rights Watch report (produced in association with Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute), "nearly
50 percent of [those] ... convictions resulted from informant-based cases;
almost 30 percent of those cases were sting operations in which the
informant played an active role in the underlying plot." The report, "Illusion of
Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," points out that, while "[m]any prosecutions have
properly targeted individuals engaged in planning or financing terror attacks... many others have targeted
individuals who do not appear to have been involved in terrorist plotting or
financing at the time the government began to investigate them. "Indeed, in
some cases the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have created terrorists
out of law-abiding individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated
or invented the target's willingness to act." In addition, there is a good chance
that, without the government's active participation, many of those ensnared
by the government did not have the mental or intellectual capacity to plan,
finance and/or carry out a terrorist event. "Americans have been told that their government is
Unfortunately, in its counterterrorism project,

keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US," said Andrew Prasow, Human Rights Watch's
deputy Washington director, in a statement. "But

take a closer look and you realize that many


of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law
enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit
terrorist acts." According to the report, entrapment, or what smells like entrapment, is
writ large over several of the cases. However, the report points out that proving entrapment is not an
easy task for defendants: "In theory, the defendants in these cases should be able to avoid criminal liability by making a
claim of 'entrapment.' However, US law requires that to prove entrapment a defendant show both that the government

This predisposition
inquiry focuses attention on the defendant's background, opinions, beliefs,
and reputation in other words, not on the crime, but on the nature of the
defendant. This character inquiry makes it exceptionally difficult for a
defendant to succeed in raising the entrapment defense, particularly in the
terrorism context, where inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged
characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail. Indeed, no claim of
entrapment has been successful in a US federal terrorism case to date. European
induced him to commit the act in question and that he was not 'predisposed' to commit it.

human rights lawinstructive for interpreting internationally recognized fair trial rights suggests that the current

"Illusion of Justice:
Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions" also "documented the
following patterns that raise serious human rights concerns":
"Discriminatory investigations, often targeting particularly vulnerable
individuals (including people with intellectual and mental disabilities and the
indigent), in which the government often acting through informants is actively
involved in developing the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the
target to participate, and providing the resources to carry it out. "Use of
overly broad material support charges, punishing behavior that did not demonstrate
formulation of the US defense of entrapment may not comport with fair trial standards."

intent to support terrorism. "Prosecutorial tactics that may violate fair trial rights, such as introducing prejudicial
evidence including evidence obtained by coercion, classified evidence that cannot be fairly contested, and
inflammatory evidence about terrorism in which defendants played no part; and limited ability to challenge surveillance

warrants due to excessive government secrecy. "Harsh

and at times abusive conditions of


confinement, which often appear excessive in relation to the security risk posed. These include:
"Prolonged solitary confinement and severe restrictions on communicating in
pretrial detention, possibly impeding defendants' ability to assist in their own
defense and contributing to their pleading guilty . "Excessive lengthening of
sentences and draconian conditions post- conviction , including prolonged solitary
confinement and severe restrictions on contact with families or others, sometimes
without explanation or recourse." Last year, I reviewed Trevor Aaronson's excellent book The Terror
Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism (Ig Publishing, 2013) and wrote: " Aaronson found that
FBI informants and undercover agents were at the center of many of the
cases touted by the FBI as successes in thwarting terrorist plots. In fact, were
it not for the FBI, most of those plots would likely have fallen apart under the
weight of their own senselessness and ineptitude ." ".... After his extensive and exhausting
investigation, Aaronson found that 'the FBI has built the largest network of spies
ever to exist in the United States with ten times as many informants on the
streets today [as] ... during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in Muslim communities.'" The Terror
Factory, which will be released in paperback on September 9, served as a springboard for the Human Rights Watch report,
and at least two other independent projects: Al Jazeera's July 20 documentary that "tells the story of three FBI informants
who posed as Muslims and infiltrated U.S. Muslim communities"; and HBO's recently released documentary Newburgh
Sting, "which looks at the case of the so-called Newburgh 4 and prolific FBI informant Shahed Hussain, who is the subject
of 'The Superinformant' chapter in The Terror Factory." Finally, there's a good chance we all might say "Amen" to a critical
clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Far too often, under the guise of combatting terrorism and preventing another 9/11, the government has

Using surveillance, coercion,


entrapment, and intimidation has not only resulted in the government
receiving less cooperation from very communities it seeks to enlist help, but
it is more likely to create terrorists where terrorists do not exist.
gone way beyond the boundaries of responsible law enforcement practices.

Sting Operations disproportionately target and do


violence upon Muslims and those marginalized by by
poverty and mental state.
Shah 14 (Naureen Shah, July 21,, 7-21-2014, "OPINION: The FBIs
counterterrorism sting operations are counterproductive," Aljazeera,
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/fbi-stingoperationscounterterrorismadeldaoud.html)
Adel Daoud is no Ferris Bueller. A Chicago suburban teen, he couldnt drive himself to the Jewel Osco grocery store
down the street without getting lost, let alone pull a Bueller and hoodwink his parents into letting him have the day off

Hes not a person with a complete


mind, his mother told me. Yet the FBI began targeting Daoud as a
terrorist mastermind shortly after his 18th birthday . At the time the
FBI began its sting operation, Daoud wasnt part of a terrorist cell,
nor was any group recruiting him. He was, though, on the Internet, looking for answers about
Islam and jihad. At home and at his local mosque, the Muslim teen was told that
jihad was nonviolent: It meant supporting your family by being a good son.
FBI undercover employees, finding Daoud online, did not affirm that
message. Instead, they worked with Daoud, ultimately driving him to
downtown Chicago to detonate a weapon of mass destruction
outside a bar. Chicagos Muslim communities were stunned by the Daouds arrest in September 2012. For
school. He is a D student and forgetful in the extreme.

Why target as a terrorist-in-waiting a teen who was


plainly incapable of planning and conducting a terrorist attack? The second
question was one of fear: Will my child be the FBIs next target? As a report released
many, the first question was why.

today by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law Schools Human Rights Institute documents, the FBIs tactics in some
terrorism sting cases are not only abusive but counterproductive. They instill fear of law enforcement instead of mutual
trust. And they potentially divert FBI resources from actual terrorism threats. Sting operations are nothing new, but the FBI

It is
deploying informants and undercover FBI agents to mosques and
community centers around the country in what sometimes appear to
be virtual fishing expeditions. In some cases, the FBI has instructed
informants to strike up conversations about jihad with anyone who
will listen. These investigations appear to pick off the lowesthanging fruit, including the mentally ill and the poor, who are
vulnerable to manipulation. In one case, the subject of The Newburgh
Sting, an HBO documentary premiering this week, an informant promised a
45-year-old African-American man $250,000 to participate in a fake attack.
After losing his job at Walmart, the man accepted the offer. For every terrorism bust the FBI claims
based on such tactics, there is a cost. Deploying informants and
conducting surveillance without reasonable suspicion has sent chills
through many American Muslim communities. Some parents with whom we spoke
feared the FBI might recruit their teenage kids to become informants on their communities. Others said they
feared that strangers in their mosques and community centers could be
undercover FBI agents or infiltrators, hunting for youth to entrap in fake
terrorist plots. This kind of fear in any context and no matter its
actual merit is a recipe for bad policing, since distrust of law
enforcement can deter citizens from reporting a crime tip or fully
cooperating in bona fide crime investigations. The government has racked up
is using significantly more aggressive tactics in American Muslim communities than it has in others.

hundreds of convictions based on terrorism stings. Multiple studies have found that nearly half of federal terrorism
convictions since the 9/11 attacks resulted from informant-based cases. Some may be lawful and justifiable, yet almost 30

In
too many cases, the government, often acting through informants, developed
the fake terrorism plot, persuaded and sometimes pressured the targeted
individuals to participate and provided the resources to carry it out. The FBIs
wisdom in pursuing these cases, rather than investigating threats and individuals who were actually operational, is
questionable at best. Similarly questionable is the governments expansive
surveillance and collection of information about all Americans, including
American Muslims, which we continue to learn about through revelations from National Security Agency
whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rather than helping FBI analysts connect the dots, the
flood of data is impairing the FBIs ability to properly assess and respond to
threat information it receives. While we cant expect the FBI to prevent every
terrorist attack, recent ones like the Boston Marathon bombing show the need
for a sober re-evaluation of the agencys methods. Unfortunately, the Justice
Department and the FBI appear unwilling or unable to critically evaluate their
track record. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder urged U.S. allies to
follow the FBIs lead and adopt the same counterterrorism sting tactics. Before
percent of these convictions were sting operations in which the informant played an active role in the underlying plot.

the U.S. exports these terrorism tactics, it should reckon with their costs.

Increase in hate violence


Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)

Ms. Sinnar relayed, When even the most civically-engaged, undeniably


mainstream, respected members of a community are singled out at-will, it
sends the message that the government views the Muslim community as a
whole, as a threat. We live in a time of sharply rising hostility to MuslimAmericans. Many prominent politicians have fueled such hostility, while
others have stayed silent and only a brave few have condemned it. We know
that such hostility has already led to resurgent hate violence, employment
discrimination, and renewed efforts to exclude Muslims from worshipping and
living in their communities. At such a time government policies that sanction discriminatory
treatment, whether at the border or in the U.S., legitimize private bias and discrimination and contribute
to the stigmatization of whole communities. Nor is San Francisco immune to such violence, or to
aggressive surveillance of minority immigrant communities; some individuals who shared their
experience with us noted that they experienced their worst treatment at SFO. A mother of three Sikh
boys, Dr. Sharan Singh related her family experience when traveling, I see people whisper and stare as
though they [her sons] have done something wrong. I see that my little one is not smiling, my older ones
are stoic and heroic, even though they are humiliated, obviously. They also know that people are staring
and pointing at them. The virtually guaranteed secondary inspection which her sons and husband
experience feeds mistrust and suspicion by fellow passengers. Dr. Singh asked, Why are we creating
suspicion in the minds of everyday citizens about people who look different? I am tired of seeing my
family harassed 100% of the time. I would like to stop this racial profiling.

NYPD Bad
A lot of these cards are actually neg No Solvency cards. If they read them,
just ask them to point out where in the cards it specifically says NYPD wont
follow a plan that is passed. Then turn card for inherency.

Discriminatory Surveillance By NYPD


NGO, 14 (NGO Shadow Report before the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination85th Session, Geneva, 11-29 August
2014
http://www.ushrnetwork.org/sites/ushrnetwork.org/files/cerd_submission_ccr_
final.pdf )
Since at least 2002, the NYPD has conducted a surveillance program that
targets, maps, and monitors American Muslims in Arab and South Asian
communities throughout New York City, New Jersey, and beyond on the basis
of their religion. Although the NYPDs unlawful surveillance was not a secret to these targeted communities, the full extent of the
program was documented in NYPD records leaked to the Associated Press (AP) and published in 2011. The documents detail how the NYPD has
monitored and gathered information about the daily lives of Muslims, their places of worship, organizations, businesses, and schools using

undercover officers, paid informants, surveillance cameras, and other techniques, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing.
The NYPD used
government databases and immigration forms to locate and map neighborhoods in New York and New Jersey with significant Muslim, Arab,

and South Asian


The AP released a series of articles in 2011 and 2012 documenting the NYPDs surveillance program in detail. See APs
Probe into NYPD Intelligence Operations, ASSOCIATED PRESS, http://www.ap.org/Index/AP-In-The- News/NYPD (last visited 27 June 2014). 1
populations.

Internal documents show that

the NYPD

prepared an analytical report on every mosque within 100 miles of New York

identified
specific Muslim businesses, community organizations, and student groups as
hot spots based on the particular religion or faith of their members and
3
subjected them to additional scrutiny. In all, the NYPD scrutinized more than 250 mosques and hundreds of
Muslim student groups, businesses, and community organizations under its massive surveillance program. 4 Its intelligence bureau amassed
City and strived to have an informant inside every mosque within a 250-mile radius. The police department also

information about thousands of law-abiding Muslims. Under the surveillance program, NYPD officers took videos and photographs of
mosques and businesses, and monitored scores of Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians living in New York and New Jersey, cataloguing where
they worked, ate, and prayed.

The NYPD also used informants and undercover police officers known as mosque crawlers to infiltrate

The vast majority of


the surveillance was conducted without a criminal predicate.
dozens of mosques and Muslim student groups and attend hundreds of sermons and meetings.

NYPD is an example of local, racist policies


AP 12 Samantha Henry, Matt Appuzzo, Wayne Perry, reporters for the
Associated Press, American multinational nonprofit news agency, 2012 (New
Jersey Muslims Angry Over NYPD Surveillance Findings, The Huffington Post,
May 25, Available online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/newjersey-muslims-cangry-nypd-surveillance_n_1545319.html, Accessed on
6/15/15)
Muslim leaders said they were told that every instance of NYPD activity in New Jersey had been justified by

the attorney general would not provide any details on the nature
of any of those leads, saying the fact-finding was ongoing. Imam Mustafa El-Amin of the Newarkbased Masjid Ibrahim said he was concerned that Chiesa refused to explain what
leads had been received. With the NYPD compiling a map of every mosque in Newark including
a lead, but that

he said he wanted to know about any problems or potential dangers in his


mosque he might be unaware of. "We understand the need for surveillance
and security," said El-Amin, "We just don't appreciate how this was done. We
as Muslims feel we were violated, simply because we are Muslims."
Several Muslim leaders at Thursday's meeting said that they did not find the assertion that
the NYPD had leads for all their operations in New Jersey credible , adding that
his

efforts to maintain communication between the community and law enforcement would be hurt by the
findings that the NYPD had done nothing wrong and could keep doing what they have been doing. "It was
basically an, `FYI, good Thursday afternoon, let it die in the media before the Memorial Day weekend,'"
said Mohamed El-Filali, executive director of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, across the Hudson River

If the surveillance of every mosque, burger joint and barbershop


targeted was justified, he asked, why were no arrests made? Aref Assaf of the
American Arab Forum said the attorney general made them feel like second-class
citizens. "I said to him it's not only insulting, it's offensive to our sense of
justice, that you bring us to Trenton to tell us that you accept as legal and valid the actions of the
NYPD, and I will not be surprised if you're issuing an order informing your law
enforcement officials that they too can spy on American Muslisms because if
it's legal for NYPD, than it must be legal for NJ to do the same." The Muslim leaders
from New York.

said they would consider all legal options, including renewed appeals for action by the U.S. Justice
Department. A federal civil rights lawsuit has also been considered.

NYPD Surveillance of Mosques


Goldman et. al, 2013
(Adam is a analyst for the Associated Press. NYPD designates mosques as terrorism organizations.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nypd-designates-mosques-terrorism-organizations. Date Accessed- 07/13/15.
Anshul Nanda.)

They're terrorists. They all must be fanatics," said Abdul Akbar Mohammed, the imam for the past eight

The New York


Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist
organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams,
often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Designating an entire mosque as a
terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is
a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance. Since the
9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen "terrorism enterprise
investigations" into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The
years at the Masjid Imam Ali K. Muslim in Newark. "That's not right." NEW YORK (AP)

TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like. Many TEIs
stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a
mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise. The documents show in detail

hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New


York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic,
how, in its

opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted

interviews with federal law


enforcement officials. The strategy has allowed the NYPD to send undercover
officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the boards of
mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive director has
at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to

worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor. De Blasio said Wednesday on
Twitter that he was "deeply troubled NYPD has labelled entire mosques & Muslim orgs terror groups with
seemingly no leads. Security AND liberty make us strong." The revelations about the NYPD's massive
spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new book,

"Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America." The
book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished
police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials. The disclosures come as
the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier
this month, a judge ruled that the department's use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional. The
American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are
unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny. Both Mayor Mike
Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. Speaking Wednesday
on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Kelly reminded people that his intelligence-gathering programs began in the
wake of 9/11. "We follow leads wherever they take us," Kelly said. " We're

not intimidated as to
wherever that lead takes us. And we're doing that to protect the people of
New York City." ___ The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting
information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department
sought also to put people on the boards of New York's Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps. One
confidential NYPD document shows police wanted to put informants in leadership positions at mosques and
other organizations, including the Arab American Association of New York in Brooklyn, a secular socialservice organization. Linda Sarsour, the executive director, said her group helps new immigrants adjust to
life in the U.S. It was not clear whether the department was successful in its plans. The document, which
appears to have been created around 2009, was prepared for Kelly and distributed to the NYPD's
debriefing unit, which helped identify possible informants. Around that time, Kelly was handing out
medals to the Arab American Association's soccer team, Brooklyn United, smiling and congratulating its
players for winning the NYPD's soccer league. Sarsour, a Muslim who has met with Kelly many times, said
she felt betrayed. "It

creates mistrust in our organizations," said Sarsour, who was


born and raised in Brooklyn. "
It makes one wonder and question who is sitting on the boards of the institutions where we work and pray." ___ Before the NYPD

could target mosques as terrorist groups, it had to persuade a federal judge to rewrite rules governing how police can monitor speech protected by the First Amendment. The rules stemmed from a 1971 lawsuit,
dubbed the Handschu case after lead plaintiff Barbara Handschu, over how the NYPD spied on protesters and liberals during the Vietnam War era. David Cohen, a former CIA executive who became NYPD's deputy
commissioner for intelligence in 2002, said the old rules didn't apply to fighting against terrorism. Cohen told the judge that mosques could be used "to shield the work of terrorists from law enforcement scrutiny
by taking advantage of restrictions on the investigation of First Amendment activity." NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the "facts
or circumstances reasonably indicate" that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent crime. The judge rewrote the Handschu rules in 2003. In the first eight months under the
new rules, the NYPD's Intelligence Division opened at least 15 secret terrorism enterprise investigations, documents show. At least 10 targeted mosques. Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who

. Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First Amendment,


could be monitored and recorded. Among the mosques targeted as early as
2003 was the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. "
attends prayer services as a potential suspect

I have never felt free in the United States. The documents tell me I am right," Zein

Rimawi, one of the Bay Ridge mosque's leaders, said after reviewing an NYPD document describing his mosque as a terrorist enterprise. Rimawi, 59, came to the U.S. decades ago from the Israeli-occupied West
Bank. "Ray Kelly, shame on him," he said. "I am American." It was not immediately clear whether the NYPD targeted mosques outside of New York City specifically using TEIs. The AP had previously reported that
Masjid Omar in Paterson, N.J., was identified as a target for surveillance in a 2006 NYPD report. ___ The NYPD believed the tactics were necessary to keep the city safe, a view that sometimes put it at odds with
the FBI. In August 2003, Cohen asked the FBI to install eavesdropping equipment inside a mosque called Masjid al-Farooq, including its prayer room. Al-Farooq had a long history of radical ties. Omar Abdel
Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who was convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, once preached briefly at Al-Farooq. Invited preachers raged against Israel, the United States and the Bush
administration's war on terror. One of Cohen's informants said an imam from another mosque had delivered $30,000 to an al-Farooq leader, and the NYPD suspected the money was for terrorism. But Amy Jo
Lyons, the FBI assistant special agent in charge for counterterrorism, refused to bug the mosque. She said the federal law wouldn't permit it. The NYPD made other arrangements. Cohen's informants began to carry
recording devices into mosques under investigation. They hid microphones in wristwatches and the electronic key fobs used to unlock car doors. Even under a TEI, a prosecutor and a judge would have to approve
bugging a mosque. But the informant taping was legal because New York law allows any party to record a conversation, even without consent from the others. Like the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, the NYPD never
demonstrated in court that al-Farooq was a terrorist enterprise but that didn't stop the police from spying on the mosques for years. And under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could
question the secret practice. Martin Stolar, one of the lawyers in the Handschu case, said it's clear the NYPD used enterprise investigations to justify open-ended surveillance. The NYPD should only tape
conversations about building bombs or plotting attacks, he said. "Every Muslim is a potential terrorist? It is completely unacceptable," he said. "It really tarnishes all of us and tarnishes our system of values." ___
Al-Ansar Center, a windowless Sunni mosque, opened in Brooklyn several years ago, attracting young Arabs and South Asians. NYPD officers feared the mosque was a breeding ground for terrorists, so informants
kept tabs on it. One NYPD report noted that members were fixing up the basement, turning it into a gym. "They also want to start Jiujitsu classes," it said. The NYPD was particularly alarmed about Mohammad
Elshinawy, 26, an Islamic teacher at several New York mosques, including Al-Ansar. Elshinawy was a Salafist a follower of a puritanical Islamic movement whose father was an unindicted co-conspirator in the
1993 World Trade Center attacks, according to NYPD documents. The FBI also investigated whether Elshinawy recruited people to wage violent jihad overseas. But the two agencies investigated him very
differently. The FBI closed the case after many months without any charges. Federal investigators never infiltrated Al-Ansar. "Nobody had any information the mosque was engaged in terrorism activities," a former
federal law enforcement official recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the investigation. The NYPD wasn't convinced. A 2008 surveillance document described
Elshinawy as "a young spiritual leader (who) lectures and gives speeches at dozens of venues" and noted, "He has orchestrated camping trips and paintball trips." The NYPD deemed him a threat in part because
"he is so highly regarded by so many young and impressionable individuals." No part of Elshinawy's life was out of bounds. His mosque was the target of a TEI. The NYPD conducted surveillance at his wedding. An
informant recorded the wedding, and police videotaped everyone who came and went. "We have nothing on the lucky bride at this time but hopefully will learn about her at the service," one lieutenant wrote. Four
years later, the NYPD was still watching Elshinawy without charging him. He is now a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, which was also filed by the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at
CUNY School of Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These new NYPD spying disclosures confirm the experiences and worst fears of New York's Muslims," ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi said. "From houses of
worship to a wedding, there's no area of New York Muslim religious or personal life that the NYPD has not invaded through its bias-based surveillance policy." ___ Online: Documents TEI Discontinuance:
http://apne.ws/146zqF9 Informant Profiles: http://apne.ws/1aNfuyH Elshinawy Surveillance: http://apne.ws/15fau4D Handschu Minutes: http://apne.ws/1cenpD6 ___ AP's Washington investigative team can be
reached at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Apuzzo at http://twitter.com/adamgoldmanap and http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo

Local police surveillance targeted at Muslims


Friedersdorf 13 Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic, where
he focuses on politics and national affairs, has a Masters degree in Journalism
from New York University and a BA in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics
from Pomona college, 2013 (The Horrifying Effects of NYPD Ethnic Profiling
on Innocent Muslim Americans, The Atlantic, March 28, Available online at
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-horrifying-effects-ofnypd-ethnic-profiling-on-innocent-muslim-americans/274434/, Accessed on
6/16/15)

the NYPD's clandestine spying on Muslims to the public's


attention in a series of vital stories. Starting shortly after the September 11 terrorist
attacks, officers infiltrated Muslim communities and spied on hundreds or
perhaps thousands of totally innocent Americans at mosques, colleges, and
elsewhere. These officers "put American citizens under surveillance and
scrutinized where they ate, prayed and worked, not because of charges of
wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity," the news agency reported, citing
NYPD documents. Informants were paid to bait Muslims into making
inflammatory statements. The NYPD even conducted surveillance on Muslim
Americans outside its jurisdiction, drawing a rebuke from an FBI field office,
where a top official charged that "the department's surveillance of Muslims in
the state has hindered investigations and created 'additional risks' in
counterterrorism." NYPD brass and Mayor Michael Bloomberg defend these policies as
The Associated Press brought

counterterrorism efforts that are necessary to keep New Yorkers safe. As you ponder the specific costs of

"In
more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on
conversations and cataloguing mosques," the Associated Press reported, "the
New York Police Department's secret Demographics Unit never
generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation." They
acknowledged, in court testimony, having generated zero leads.
these policies, as evocatively described below, keep in mind one thing about the ostensible benefits:

NYPD surveillance of Mosques


Pilkington 13 (Ed, 10-24, "ACLU leads call for federal investigation of
NYPD mosque surveillance," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/aclu-new-york-nypd-mosquesmuslims)
A coalition of 125 civil rights, religious and community groups has
written to the Department of Justice, calling for a federal
investigation into the blanket surveillance of mosques and other
Muslim outlets by the New York Police Department (NYPD). The
coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is calling on the attorney
general, Eric Holder, to use his powers to launch a federal civil rights
investigation into NYPD practices. Once any investigation is completed, the
Department of Justice could, if it chose, take civil legal action to put a stop to
the controversial surveillance dragnet. "For over a decade, the NYPD has
engaged in unlawful religious profiling and suspicionless
surveillance of Muslims in New York City," the letter says. "The
NYPD's biased policing practices hurt not only Muslims, but all
communities who rightfully expect that law enforcement will serve
and protect America's diverse population equally, without
discrimination." The NYPD's focus on Muslim communities in the wake of
the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, in 2001, began in 2002 and is ongoing.
The city's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, and mayor, Michael Bloomberg,
have consistently defended their counter-terrorism strategy. In a series of

Pulitzer-prize winning articles, the Associated Press revealed details of the


NYPD's joint surveillance program with the CIA, based on the police
department's internal documents. The files showed that the police
had designated entire mosques as "terrorism enterprises", allowing
them to circumvent normal constraints on surveillance. The
department sent undercover officers, codenamed "rakers", into
Muslim neighbourhoods, and ran a network of informants known as
"mosque crawlers" to monitor sermons even when there had been
no evidence of criminality. One 2007 NYPD report, titled "Radicalization in
the West: the Homegrown Threat", stated that "enclaves of ethnic
populations that are largely Muslim often serve as 'ideological sanctuaries' for
the seeds of radical thought". The AP also revealed that since 2003 the
NYPD has been mapping New York communities for monitoring,
based on whether the local population originates from countries
with Muslim majorities.

Racial Profiling and chilling because of Muslim Roots


ACLU, No Date (HAMID HASSAN RAZA, American civil Liberties Union, No
Date, https://www.aclu.org/bio/hamid-hassan-raza )

Hamid Hassan Raza is an American citizen living with his wife and child in
Brooklyn, New York. He serves as imam at Masjid Al-Ansar, a Brooklyn
mosque, where he leads prayer services, conducts religious education
classes, and provides counseling to members of the community. The New
York City Police Department has subjected Imam Raza to
suspicionless surveillance since at least 2008, and, as a result, he has
had to take a range of measures to protect himself. For example, he
records his sermons out of fear that an officer or informant will misquote
him, or take a statement out of context. He also steers clear of certain
religious topics or current events in his sermons and conversations, so as to
avoid statements that the NYPD or its informants might perceive as
controversial. Imam Razas knowledge and fear of suspicionless police
scrutiny have diverted his time and attention from ministry and counseling
while chilling his ability to speak on topics of religious and
community importance. The NYPDs unlawful surveillance prevents Imam
Raza from fulfilling his duty as a religious minister, educator, and scholar in
the Masjid Al-Ansar community.20

Otherization
1. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the
status quo means that Muslims are categorized as
the other and excluded from society
Joshi 06 (Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University,
The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)

The racialization of religion occurs through multiple processes, involves


multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization results
in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity
and thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static
view of an ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam
are three different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially illegitimate.

Despite
this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted differently. While one could
argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for black, Korean, or Chinese
Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the United States racial
and religious norms, respectively.3 The construction of identity most often involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is
involves identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and
exclusion. By attributing certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate it as an other, those who do so also
establish criteria by which they themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined
by reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative

racialization of religion an
essential problem for non-white non-Christians . Thus, in order to understand the
power of whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the

contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves historically and socially. In the next two sections, I
show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness are intimately linked and where Christianity and
whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.

The government's warrantless surveillance of Muslims in


the name of counterterrorism is a result of our
Islamophobically securitized mindset that frames those
with otherwise harmless racial or religious markers as a
dangerous Other that needs to be combated.
Kumar & Kundnani 15 (Arun Kundnani and Deepa Kumar "Race,
Surveillance, and Empire," respectively associate professor of Media Studies and
Middle East Studies at Rutgers University and professor at New York University,
Spring 2015, Issue #96 of International Socialist Review,
http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire)

measures that the US national security system has adopted in


recent years flow from an analysis of Muslim radicalization, which assumes
that certain law-abiding activities associated with religious ideology
are indicators of extremism and potential violence. Following the
preventive logic discussed above, the radicalization model claims to be able to
predict which individuals are not terrorists now but might be at some later
date. Behavioral, cultural, and ideological signals are assumed to reveal who
The various

is at risk of turning into a terrorist at some point in the future.59 For example, in the
FBIs radicalization model, such things as growing a beard, starting to wear
traditional Islamic clothing, and becoming alienated from ones former life are listed
as indicators, as is increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political
cause. Thus, signifiers of Muslimness such as facial hair, dress, and so on are
turned into markers of suspicion for a surveillance gaze that is also a racial
(and gendered) gaze; it is through such routine bureaucratic mechanisms that
counterterrorism practices involve the social construction of racial
others.Official acceptance of the model of radicalization implies a need for
mass surveillance of Muslim populations and collection of as much data as
possible on every aspect of their lives in order to try to spot the supposed
warning signs that the models list. And this is exactly the approach that law
enforcement agencies introduced. At the New York Police Department , for
instance, the instrumentalizing of radicalization models led to the mass,
warrantless surveillance of every aspect of Muslim life.
60

The United States uses Otherization and the concept of


domination and subordination to justify extreme domestic
discrimination in surveillance and foreign attacks
Jamal 08 (Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil
Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans, Race and Arab
Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects, 2008,
https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+
and+After+9/11:+From+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA
GoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab
%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From%20Invisible
%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)

An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.


According to this logic, Americans in favor of infringing on
Muslim and Arab American civil liberties do so because they
hold negative views about an entire people. These
negative views are fed by a variety of misperceptions and
stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had been popularly
constructed as an irrational, terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy

long before 9/11. American foreign policy has


consistently justified intervention in the Muslim world along
similar lines. When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and
Muslim world as inherently undemocratic owing to
fundamental value differences between us and them,
they promote an environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the
Other

racialization of Arab and Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the
overwhelming support for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005).
In this chapter I move beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race
relations are strictly structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of
racialization that incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the

racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the consistent


deployment of an us versus them mentality, excessively propped up for
the justification of military campaigns in the Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims
is not simply contingent on phenotypical differences; rather, this racialization of difference is
driven by a perceived clash of values and exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process
of othering is based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not
based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial
divides; instead, it conforms to the process of racialization that has characterized the ways in
which the dominant elements in society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more
generally. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,

in a society that is already constructed along racial lines, any


perceived difference between the dominant mainstream and
a minority Other tends to conform to racisms framework.
This othering process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis-vis other groups along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on
differences in appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are
exacerbated by popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other,
especially after 9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently
been questioned since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area
believe that Arabs and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims
and Arabs across the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were
behind the attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating
from mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks
have received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
asked whether Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area
ranked them as the least trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or
not trust for whites; 24 percent have little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no
trust for Muslims and Arabs. Not only are Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat
treated with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate from the Middle East. They
are presumed to be operating against us. The binary construction of us versus them is
not new to American social relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the
United States have been constructed through the binary lens of the

dominant and

the subordinate,

a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,


the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this dichotomy: we,
whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such interactions
with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly
when it involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization
of Arabs and Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they
different at home, but their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United
States has utilized the construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign
abroad. The second process of racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority
Other. The very process of rendering the Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined
group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab

Otherness is determined is through a


process by which the dominant social group claims
moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an
Americans, the way that

essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is
not the modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and
civilizational heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.

Harms
Otherization causes dehumanization
Fasching, deChant, 1993, Comparative religious ethics: a narrative approach,
Publication: Blackwell Publishing: Massachusetts, page number 101.

To define the humanity of someone and confine him/her to that definition is to

dehumanize him/her. Today we call it stereotyping another person. Putting it in


contemporary terms, we would say that the crime of all racism, all sexism, and all
religious and ethnic prejudice is to define those who are different ,strange or alien to us as
by nature less than human, and force them to occupy some diminished place within the sacred cosmic order
of things. To do this is to replace the Unseen Measure with our own biased measure for defining.

Otherization cause racism


Cisneros 2008 (J. David, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Volume 11, Number 4,
Winter 2008
E-ISSN: 1534-5238 Print ISSN: 1094-8392, DOI: 10.1353/rap.0.0068 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric
_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html)

these same
dominant logics continue to permeate rhetoric about immigration.
[End Page 590] What, then, are the consequences of these constructions, and how does the
The preceding analysis of contemporary news media discourse illustrates that

metaphor of immigrant as pollutant differ from other metaphoric understandings of immigration?

Constructing immigration as a social danger provides an opportunity


to define the other and solidify the self. As Mary Douglas outlines, discourses
of danger construct difference as a means of constituting shared
national and cultural identity. Metaphoric representations are a
crucial component of this identity construction. Examining this prevalent
metaphoric representation of immigrant as pollutant, then, provides
an opportunity to critique dominant logics by exploring the
ideological implications of contemporary immigration rhetoric. The
metaphor of immigrant as pollutant articulated in popular discourse is
significant for the ways in which it constructs immigrants, through
racial and xenophobic stereotypes, as objects, aberrations, and
dangers. This discourse propagates overly simplistic understandings
of immigration that suggest equally simplistic solutions. Metaphors serve
as terminological filters on reality. Our observations and actions "are but implications of the particular

The ways in which news media


images and textual fragments construct immigration as a danger is
problematic, for they inform society's relationship to immigrants and
they influence the direction of public policy on immigration. Analysis
of the metaphor of immigrant as pollutant uncovers how popular
discourse of immigration contributes to understandings of
immigrants as individuals and notions of immigration as a social
phenomenon. The discursive construction of the other as a threat, in
terminology in terms of which observations are made."

"naturalize[s] the self (as normal, healthy,


civilized, or something equally positive) by estranging the other (as
pathological, sick, barbaric, or something equally negative Images of
immigrants as dangerous and destructive pollutants dehumanize
immigrants by constructing them as threatening substances,
denying them agency and reinforcing common stereotypes.
Immigrants' primary identity is marked by their racial difference and
illegal migrant status. Their brown bodies are portrayed as dirty and
dangerous because of their ethnicity. Their legal status as outsiders is marked by their
the words of David Campbell,

sneaking and seeping through borders as well as their apprehension by law enforcement officials.

Otherization causes violence


Saunders. 2002. Uncanny Presence: The Foreigner at the Gate of
Globalization. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the
Middle East.

If foreigners are essentially material, one can be


made foreign by being reduced to the materiality of the body. Indeed the
This logic also works in reverse.

evidence is all too clear that the presence of foreignness is routinely verified on the body: in post-apartheid

immigrants from other parts of the continent, perceived as a


threat to native employment, have increasingly come under physical
attack; Amnesty International, documenting instances of violent punishment, torture, sexual assault,
South Africa,

and denial of medical care, reports that "foreigners in Japan are at serious risk of ill-treatment at the hands
44

of the authorities";

the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and


Xenophobia, in their 1998 report, documented hundreds of incidents of
"vicious attacks, intimidation and discrimination against racial
groups...while recognizing just how few cases are ever reported";Germany's Federal Interior Minister
recently disclosed that "xenophobic acts of violence," including murder, bodily
injury, arson, and bomb attacks had risen by 40 percent in 2000;46 and
since September 11 in the U.S.,

Otherization damages society

Fasching, DeChant 1993 (Fasching Comparative religious ethics: a narrative


approach, pg 216)
Five days after the Voter Rights Act was signed, a major riot broke out in the Watts ghetto of Los Angeles. With whole blocks burned
down and widespread looting and rioting, it took a police action of almost sixteen thousand men to restore order, leaving some thirtyfour dead and four thousand arrested (Cone 1991: 221). In his visit to Watts, King discovered that blacks outside the South did not
perceive themselves as greatly benefited by the strides toward freedom accomplished in the South. Northern blacks already had the

they couldnt afford the price of a meal. They suffered from


poverty and from a more subtle racism that in some ways was harder to confront a
combat. And many Northern blacks found Malcolm Xs appeal to violence made more sense than Kings seemingly nave appeal
right to eat in white restaurants, but

to non-violence.

With this experience,

King began to turn his attention from South to North and from
racism to the link between racism and poverty. He chose Chicago as the frontier for this new assault and in
January of 1966 rented a slum apartment on the South Side. There he exposed the structural (and therefore often hidden) prejudice that
virtually made it impossible for blacks to rent or buy outside the ghetto.

It was, he argued, evidence that


America was a sick society- a land of wealth where forty to fifty million people
cannot afford proper housing, food and health care. And his consciousness expanded beyond the
border of the US, as he began to identify the global nature of the political and economic
forces that created bonds of affinity in oppression between American blacks and
poverty-stricken population of the Third World.

Taking away a people's cultural heritage leads to that


people's oppression by means of a totalitarian institutions
Smith 07, Abby Smith, PhD, History degree from Harvard, Taught at
both Harvard and Johns Hopkins and is currently a consulting analysis
that works with the Library of Congress in cultural preservation through
many different types of media, "Valuing Preservation" Library Trends
56.1, 2007, 4-25
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/v056/56.1smith.html

The ultimate societal benefit of preservation is, of course, to ensure the


well-being of the population and the survival of our society, and
indeed, our species. Given that information is a constitutive force in
society, [End Page 17] all aspects of its integrity, completeness,
authenticity, and accessibility are profoundly important. And all choices
about whether we do or do not decide to preserve historical records
and cultural expressiveness from times past are themselves
constitutive choices (Braman, 2006; Starr, 2004, pp. 45). As Russians
are fond of reminding themselves, "The future is certain, it is the past
that is unpredictable." A people who do not own and control their
own cultural heritage are a people who can be held captive by
false histories, fabrications, and lies. The genius of totalitarian
societies is that the need for brute force to make subjects out
of citizens is really quite modest. If the government controls
what people know about their past and their present, they
limit the scope of their imaginations and can control their
expectations for the future. We may hold dear the notion that
because we are not a totalitarian country, we are not at risk of
developing false memories, fabrications, and blank spots in
our past. But that complacency is dangerous. Memory can play
tricks on all of us.

Impacts
Islamophobia legitimizes the violation of human rights
and oppression of the otherthis causes the worst
forms of structural violence
Arinc, 2013 (Bulent is a Deputy Prime Minister. Islamophobia is an attack against
human dignity, says deputy PM. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date
Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)

Islamophobia is a violation of human rights, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said
on Thursday. "Regardless of how we handle Islamophobia, it is a violation of
human rights and an attack against human dignity. The communication strategies
that trigger this violation won't contribute to world peace," Arinc said at the Grand Tarabya
Hotel in Istanbul. Speaking at The International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media,
organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Office of the Prime Minister

Arinc said that conflating Islam


with terrorism and totalitarianism leads societies to approach each other with
suspicion. He went on to He stressed that there are no religious principles that
prevent Muslims from embracing democracy. Arinc called Islamophobia,
which he said is spreading like a virus, "a tool for oppressing Muslim
societies." The The oppression is pursued by those who believe that Islam and
democracy are incompatible, is to turn countries that combine Islam and democracy into
Directorate General of Press and Information (BYEGM),

problematic states, he continued. Saying that the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK
Party) unique example disproves the clash-of-civilizations theory, Arinc stressed the

attention the party pays to multiculturalism and its adoption of a view that
welcomes different cultures. Islamist terrorist organizations are the only terror groups
whose religion is taken into account, he said, adding that many nations perceive Islam as
being behind terror attacks and deal with Muslim countries differently when it comes to
terrorism issues. "When

Muslims are the matter of discussion, terms like


'militant, radical Islamist businessmen and Islamofascism are used in
conversations. Though [it defends] freedom at every opportunity, the
language the West uses is quite surprising on the Islam issue ," Arinc said,
arguing that Western prejudices impact discussions on the issue. Calling on the Muslim world
to make more efforts to shatter the prejudices against it, Arinc demanded that Western
societies take legal measures to prevent the escalation of Islamophobia. Many superficial
reports on Islam unnecessarily occupy the agenda, Arinc said, adding that Islamophobia in the
media harms its reliability and objectivity. "The gray area between incitement and freedom of
expression in international media should be clearer," he added. Speaking at the same

Islamophobia
is one of the most challenging issues facing the international community and
a threat to global peace and security. It stands in stark contradiction to universal
meeting, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC, described

values as well as to the international community's commitment to developing a culture of


peace and harmony among different cultures, civilizations and faiths, according to Ihsanoglu.
Islamophobia is defined as "the dread, hatred and hostility towards Islam and Muslims
perpetrated by a series of closed views that imply and attribute negative and derogatory
stereotypes and beliefs to Muslims" in the Runnymede report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for
Us All." The report added that Islamophobia is based on "an outlook or world-view involving an
unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and
discrimination." A report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) titled "Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001"
documents acts of discrimination and racism against Muslims in 15 EU member countries. The
report's findings show that "Islamic communities and other vulnerable groups have become

targets of increased hostility since 11 September .

A greater sense of fear among the


general population has exacerbated already existing prejudices and fuelled
acts of aggression and harassment in many European member states ."

The governments perpetuation of the Muslim-terrorist


stereotype justifies violence against Muslims
Joshi 06 (Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University,
The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
In our current sociopolitical climate and historical moment, the most conspicuous example of how South
Asian American religions are racialized is not the Indian/Hindu connotation described above, but rather

the association between brown skin and Muslim beliefs. Since the oil shock of 1973
and the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, the United States has been confronting
enemies in the developing world whose ideology is expressed and explained by
reference to their interpretations of Islam
Arab and
Muslim are used interchangeably and the politics and tactics of terrorist
movements are described as Islamic by the popular media. Stereotypes
perpetuated by the government
. This theology/ideology is racialized via its association with Islam:

and media come to paint Islam and Muslim as intrinsicallyperhaps organicallyviolent and evil in American public

opinion (Afridi, 2001; Haddad, 2000; Nimer, 2002). Said (1996) argued that Islam has been turned into Americas post-Soviet devil (p. 28) thereby replacing godless Communism as its sinister global enemy of
the present historical moment. The mainstream news and entertainment mediamost Americans only source of information about non-Whites and the religions and cultures of the non-Western worlddo little to
educate and much to exacerbate this othering of religions beyond the Jewish and Christian faiths. From

the attitudes of political leaders,

the

unenlightened coverage by the news media, and the caricatures that are the filmmakers stock-in-trade, it is a small step to the notion of all brown-skinned Muslims as the enemy (Shaheen, 1984, 2001).

The

racial/religious othering of Muslims has been used as a dehumanizing tool by political


leaders who a generation ago were demonizing yellow reds (

that is, the East and Southeast Asian communists against

whom the Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought). Like these enemies and like Japanese Americans in the 1940s, Arab, Muslim, and South Asian Americans have faced negative representations in the media since
the 1972 killing of Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich and the Iran Hostage Crisis of 19791981, through the Intifada and First Gulf War of the 1980s and 1990s, and even more since the attacks of
September 11, 2001. Consider just one popular manifestation of American thought: the editorial cartoon. Hundreds of cartoons have vilified Osama bin Laden and his allies in ways that both draws upon and
exacerbate hackneyed images of the Semitic, Muslim villain. Like the midcentury cartoons of the Japanese emperor, the figures are exaggeratedusually with a large turban, protrusive nose, and beady eyesall

.S. society and culture tends to ascribe collective


guilt on an entire ethnic group, just as it did half a century ago with respect to Japanese Americans,
by associating these stereotypically Arab features with the acts committed by alQaeda.
stereotypical Arabic features often found represented in the media. As a result, U

Othering

in the context of specifically religion


justifies mass violence
Sticulescu et al. 12 (Ana Rodica Sticulescu, Ovidius University, Alina Stan,
Ovidius University, Identity in Conflict: A Case Study of Violence, Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice Volume 4(2), 2012,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?
handle=hein.journals/conreadlsj4&div=145&g_sent=1&collection=journals, al)
Mass violence as genocides28 are common during the process of "othering"

in which
the boundaries of an imagined community are reshaped in such a manner that a previously "included"
group is ideologically recast (involving a large scale mechanism of hate propaganda and incitement to

used as a mechanism of dehumanization of the others) as being


outside the community, as a threatening and dangerous "other"-whether racial,
political, ethnic, religious, economic, and so on-that must be annihilated. From an
genocide29 were

anthropological perspective, the reification of concepts such as race and ethnicity are not surprising, given
the historical background of perceived biological difference. It is said that in African societies a person is

considered a human being precisely for being enveloped in the community along with other human beings,
or their philosophy is governed by the verb "to participate".

Otherization also causes genocide, slavery, segregation,


exploitation, and a multitude of unspeakable wrongs
Katz 97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany Law
Journal, |||edited for g-lang|||)
throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have
committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a
people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to
the cruelty that was or will be visited upon|||them||| him. For example, in almost all
wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by
separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human
status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial
segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of
social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the
subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
poverty and misery of others.
It is undeniable that

Racialized surveillance isolates Muslims as the other


destroys democracy
Mujahid 4 - Abdul Malik, American Muslim religious leader, activist, film producer, 2004 (In a
Virtual Internment Camp, Soundvision, Available online at http://www.soundvision.com/article/in-a-virtualinternment-camp-muslim-americans-since-911, Accessed on 7/13/15)

Our country is in the grips of a threat greater than terrorism. Democracy


is eroding and it seems no one cares. We are heading down a road which will
ultimately lead to a country where no one is safe and no one is secure. Right
now it is a small minority that is being targeted but Americans would do well
to remember that our post-9/11 laws and policies can apply to any and all.
Muslims in this country are being persecuted solely on the basis of their
religious affiliation but because of our secretive governmen
Americans are unaware of most things and don't care about what they do
know.
We now have a secretive
government acting outside the scrutiny of the public and its representatives.
Since the Attorney General has declared a war on the streets of America
against Americans, authentic information about the casualties and collateral
damage have disappeared.
Japanese-Americans were herded into
internment camps. They
But less than a decade after apologizing for
this injustice, America has once again embarked upon a campaign that has
severely undermined the civil rights of a minority community.
fear and
suspicion are aimed at Muslims and brown-skinned men. But rather than
putting this new enemy in actual internment, their imprisonment is virtual.
The walls of this virtual internment camp are the interrogations, home
invasions, detentions and arrests
and
discrimination that Muslims have faced since 9/11.
Most Americans seem to feel that sacrificing other
Conclusion:

t, complicit media, and hate-spewing public figures

The Bush administration has refused to release Patriot Act-related records to Congress; it has refused to release the names of detainees or open their court hearings to the public; it is relying

increasingly on secret evidence and exemptions under the Homeland Security Act to the Freedom of Information Act.

In 1942, 110,000

were singled out because of their race and country of origin. They were declared enemies of the state and lived, imprisoned in these camps, until

the end of World War II. Only recently has our government apologized for this outrage.

This time, the

, special registration, closed courts and their secret evidence, deportation,

This virtual internment camp is sustained by fear and hate, as well as a

potent mixture of wartime racism, religious bigotry, and intolerance.

people's liberty is fine as long as it means security for themselves. We should


heed the words of
Franklin
'Those who would give up
essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety.' A sustainable democracy requires an active and educated
citizenry. Passivity and apathy will end up being worse enemies for us than
any terrorist group. Our lack of engagement and lack of caring for our
neighbors makes it easier for our government to enact laws and make
policies that
one of this nation's founding fathers, Benjamin

, when he said,

Otherization causes exploitation and political


/economic Marginalization.
Joseph Nevins, 2002, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the "Illegal Alien"
and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary, Publication: Routledge: New
York, page number: 95-122.

This development is not a mere point of narrow academic interest. Language


has a power of its own; As Hugh Mehan points out, The language we use in
public discourse and the way we talk about events and people in everyday
life makes [sic] a difference in the way we think and the way we act about
them. And language, of course, also reflects our ways of thinking and living;
it is for such reasons that I interrogate the rise of the illegal as a discursive
category. The central argument that I make is that we cannot divorce growing
emphasis on illegal aliens from the long history in the United States of
largely race-based anti-immigrant sentiment rooted in fear and/or rejection of
the those deemed as outsiders, a history that is inextricably tied to a context
of exploitation and political and economic marginalization of certain
immigrant populations. Operation Gatekeeper, as a state strategy to enhance
control over unauthorized passage over the boundary in southern California,
is, in no small part, a manifestation and outgrowth of such sentiment.

Solvency
Action is critical to send a clear signal and resolve
confusion.
Orfield 67 (Lester B. Orfield, Professor of Law at Indiana University, THE
DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS,
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2073&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx
%3D000933248691480580078%253A57y4iyinbqe%26q%3Dentrapment
%26sa%3DSearch#search=%22entrapment%22)
The defense of entrapment in the federal courts continues to suffer from the
absence of a cohesive theoretical basis. The uncertainties surrounding the. defense are further
complicated by ambivalent judicial attitudes which indicate reluctance to accept its sketchily defined basis and its results.

In light of the fact that the defense is primarily applied to crimes which are
frequently considered the products of ill-advised statutes, one senses that
some distortion has occurred in the formulation of the doctrine. Against this
background, the courts appear to be struggling toward piecemeal answers with more or less commendable consequences.

Most notably, quantification and allocation of burdens of proof, appraisal of


special evidentiary problems, and separation of the respective functions of
court and jury are currently receiving judicial attention. Out of the morass
there appear to be emerging carefully wrought rules which are not altogether
consistent, a situation that may force the Supreme Court to take up the
gauntlet and resolve the conflicts which are in the process of solidification.

Responsibility to Other is a prerequisite to making other


moral systems humane. Failure to ground other ethical or
ontological theories in this encounter makes genocide
inevitable
Grob 99 Leonard Grob, Professor of Philosophy at Farleigh Dickinson
University, 99, Ethics After the Holocaust, p. 8-11//EMerz
This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. As we have seen, I cannot know the Other as Other without diminishing his or her otherness. I can, however, encounter that Other in what Levinas terms an
ethical event. Indeed, it is only with the rending of the ontological schema that ethics first becomes possible. Prior to my meeting with the Other, there is no ethics as such. Within the totality of being, I am limited in
my egoist ambition only by a lack of power. The Other who meets me face-to-face challenges my very right to exercise power. In so doing, ethics is born. Cognition no longer represents the highest activity of which
a human is capable; it is replaced by "revelation" of the Other as an ethical event in which, for the first time, I come to realize the arbitrariness of my egoist ambitions. The thematizing of the cognitive subject is
replaced by nothing short of an act of witness on the part of a being who now becomes an ethical subject. The Other who contests me is an Other truly independent of my appropriative powers and thus one to
whom I can have, for the first time, ethical obligations. As Levinas puts it, this Other is the first being whom I can wish to murder. Before the totality is rent by the manifestation of the face, there can be no will to act
immorally, as there can be no will to act morally, in any ultimate sense of that word. If one begins with the "imperial I" appropriating its world, ethics as such can never be founded. The other with whom I inter- act is

the Other
summons me to respond with nonviolence:

simply a datum, an aspect of my universe. Morality makes its first appearance when I confront the Other who is truly Other. Although
could wish to kill, he or she in fact

appears to me now, on principle, as someone I


I am called to willingly renounce my power

to act immorally. What I hear from the Other, Levinas claims, are the words "Thou shalt not kill." Harkening to this injunction constitutes my inaugural act as an ethical being. In Levinas's words, "Morality begins
when freedom, instead of being justified by itself, feels itself to be arbitrary and violent." Addressing the face of the Other I become ethical. In a turnabout from what has been the norm in the history of Western
thought, ethics now is seen, by Levinas, to constitute the essence of philosophy. Ethics is now "first philosophy," a position usurped until now by the ontological enterprise. The meeting with the Other-who-is-trulyOther is a primordial event: "Since the Other looks at me," Levinas exclaims, "I am responsible for him, without even having taken on responsibilities in his regard " In encountering the Other, I assume responsibility
for him. "Responsibility," Levinas proclaims, "is the essential, primary and fundamental structure of subjectivity.... Responsibility in fact is not a simple attribute of subjectivity, as if the latter already existed in itself,
before the ethical relationship."'" In other words, my structure as a human being, in any significant sense of that word, is to be responsible to the Other. My personhood is not to be identified with that of the solitary
ego appropriating its world; it is rather a personhood fundamentally oriented toward the Other. Ethics, for Levinas, is thus not to be identified with any ethical or even meta-ethical position.

speaks neither as deontologist nor consequentialist.


. All ethical theories,
, are
from,
the encounter with the face of the Other

Levinas

He does not attempt to articulate any list of rights

or obligations, or even the principles on which the latter would be based


a primordial or founding moment:

he implies

secondary to, or

derivative

. It is this moment-of-all-moments

which institutes the very possibility of the "ethical" systems so hotly debated within the history of Western thought. Before there can be any ethical positioningbefore there can be discussions of virtue, happiness,
dutiesthere is the meeting with the Other. Ethics is no set of directives; rather, in Levinas's words, Already of itself ethics is an 'optics,' a way of seeing which precedesand foundsall that has heretofore been
identified as ethical philosophy. The import of this notion of the primacy of ethics for a rethinking of philosophy in the post-Holocaust age cannot be emphasized strongly enough. For Levinas, philosophy-as-ontology
reveals being as nothing short of "war": The visage of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of totality which dominates Western philosophy. Individuals are reduced to being bearers offerees that
command them unbeknown to themselves. The meaning of individuals (invisible outside of this totality) is derived from the totality. Individuals within the "being" constructed by philosophers are merely creatures of
the schematizing mind. Such a concept of philosophy is ill-equipped to address the great ethical issues which arise in the study of the Holocaust. Indeed, for Levinas, "War is not only one of the ordealsthe greatest
of which morality lives; it renders morality derisory." Within the terms of warfare, lying, stealingeven killinglose whatever ethical import they might have. I simply engage in these acts as "necessary" within the

universe created by war. If the being studied by traditional philosophy is conceived of as war, morality loses its core meaning. Not only is no fundamental ethical critique of the events of the Holocaust possible
within the terms of philosophy-as-ontology, but, as I have noted above, it can be argued that the mode of appropriative thinking of philosophers in our Western tradition has contributed to the creation of a climate in
which genocide can flourish. If, in ontological terms, individual beings are said to have their meaning solely within the totality in which they find themselves, totalizing thinking may well become totalitarian. Jews
and other victims of Nazi oppression were dehumanized precisely by being viewed in terms of racial categories applied to them as a whole. If philosophy is a mere egology, as Levinas claims, the totalizing cognitive
subject can, at the far end of a continuum, be seen to pass over into the autocratic "I" of the leaders of the Third Reich. In contrast to that appropriative thinking which can lead to the brutal dehumanization of the

the face-to-face relationship is a pacific one. It is a relationship


which establishes a peace
kind present in war

which is no mere truce, no temporary cessation of inevitable hostilities. For traditional philosophy, knowledge is power, a power

capable of harnessing technology to evil ends. The absolute end of philosophy is its goal of achieving total mastery of being; it is thus not at all illogical to foresee a progression from conceptual to physical mastery
of one's world. Once the locus of an "absolute" is placed in the powers of the "I," the other person cannot fail to become merely another datum in a world whose meaning derives itself entirely from me. Often I may
treat her or him in terms of what in the West has been called "goodness." Yet such goodness, for Levinas, is accidental, the product of a determination on my part that it is in my self-interest to act in a given manner
in a given situation. The fundamental reference point remains the "I." Goodness thus established, I argue, along with Levinas, is a goodness which is simply not good enough!

Multicultural education can deconstruct the other


to rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the
Unicorn. Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the
Race Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter
The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism, an approach that
affirms the value of diversity as a method of combating racial oppression. Since the
late 1980s, learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a cornerstone
of educational practice in many British, Canadian, and American schools. The goal
of such multicultural education is not simply to become familiar with

the
traditions of other cultures, but to "enable empathy," to "generat[e]
cross-cultural understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495). Part of this
understanding stems from the creation of "positive racial images"
(97); celebrating Black History Month, teaching about the role of
Islamic scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as codebreakers for the U.S.
Army during World War II would all be examples of multicultural antiracism
practice. proponents of multiculturalism believe that , by learning about the
culture of other races, or learning about positive role models of
members of previously ignored groups, students will learn to rid
themselves of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.

Oversight
Congressional Oversight By the United States Congress
Kaiser01 (Frederick M. Kaiser Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division, CRS Report for Congress January 2, 2001
Congressional Oversight,
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CRS.Oversight.pdf
)

Congressional oversight of policy implementation and administration,


which has occurred throughout the U.S. government experience under the
Constitution, takes a variety of forms and utilizes various techniques. These range from specialized
investigations byselect committeesto annual appropriations hearings, and frominformal communications
between Members or congressionalstaff and executive personnelto the use of extra congressional
mechanisms, such as offices of inspector general and study commissions. Oversight, moreover, is
supported by a variety of authoritiesthe Constitution, public law, and chamber and committee rules
and is an integral part of the systemof checks and balances between the legislature and the executive.

Congressional
oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal
agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely
This report will be updated as events require. Organization and Operations

through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the
Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include
authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized
investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and
staff.

Federal Judicial Oversight Necessary to prevent abuse


United States Courts, No Date (United States Courts, Administrative
Oversight and Accountability, No Date, http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-andaccountability )

Federal judiciary oversight mechanisms deter and prevent


fraud, waste, and abuse, and address mistakes should they
occur. Oversight mechanisms also promote compliance with
ethical, statutory, and regulatory standards. By statute, responsibility for administering the
Third Branch rests with the Judicial Conference of the United States, regional circuit judicial
councils, the individual courts themselves, and, in specified areas, the Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). Internal safeguards exist at the local, regional,
and national levels to

Judicial review is important and does not threaten


national security.
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration
Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7)

Finally, individuals who agree to provide information in exchange for an S-6 visa should not be forced to waive their right to a deportation
hearing. Currently, informants must knowingly waive their rights to any deportation hearings and appeals should deportation proceedings
occur. They must also waive their rights to contest their detention pending deportation until lawful permanent resident status is obtained.267
Strikingly, informants relinquish all access to judicial review if their applications are mishandled or forgotten and they subsequently face
deportation. In the past, informants have alleged that the FBI has mismanaged and reneged on promises, including immigration promises.268

Allowing judicial review of the S-6 visa process would help lift the
veil of secrecy under which the FBI operates. Furthermore, through
redaction or other methods that preserve informants identities,
judicial review could be carried out without threatening national
security.269 Another benefit of this requirement would be increased transparency in the
way the FBI recruits informants. Wider use of the S-6 visa, as well as greater judicial review, would allow the
government to ascertain the number of individuals enlisted by the FBI as counterterrorism informants . This may further
help curb informant mishandling, a problem that plagues the agency. Because informants would still be
required to provide critical and reliable intelligence, the FBI would be required to articulate clear predicates for recruiting individuals, such as a
close relationship between an individual and a known member of a foreign terrorist organization. This, in turn, would provide due process and
could vindicate informants rights

Congressional Oversight necessary


Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 20 13
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7

This Comment proposes the S-6 visa requirements should be modified in a


way that encourages trust and cooperation from informants by allowing
informants to enforce their bargains with the FBI. A legislative overhaul that
emphasizes pre-existing ties to terrorist organizations, increases the number
of available visas, and lowers the barriers to the S-6 visas use would produce
more reliable and actionable intelligence, and provide greater protection for
the informants civil liberties and free speech. Congressional oversight of the
FBIs use of S-6 visas would also provide a valuable check on the FBIs largely
unlimited control over terrorism informants.

Congressional Oversight Needs to change


ACLU, 13 (American Civil Liberty Union, September 2013, UNLEASHED AND
UNACCOUNTABLE
The FBIs Unchecked Abuse of Authority,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountablefbi-report.pdf)

Congress must intensify its oversight of all FBI policies and


practices, particularly those that implicate Americans constitutional

rights. The collection, retention, and sharing of personally identifying

information about Americans without facts establishing a reasonable


indication of criminal activity poses serious risks to liberty and
democracy, and the evidence of abuse is overwhelming. The lessons of
the past have been ignored and we are increasingly seeing a return to
abusive intelligence operations that target protest groups and religious
and racial minorities. Congress must particularly examine FBI activities
abroad, where Americans due process rights and safety are at
greatest risk

The Intelligence committee is the best way to reform


oversight
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)

The Intelligence Committees are completely on their own. They serve as the proxy for the American people on intelligence. They provide the
sole check and balance on a huge and important Government activity. If they don't provide the independent oversight, it simply doesn't get
done. It's an awesome responsibility. In short, this is why we believe the Intelligence Committees need to be powerful and active. They
need to carry out the robust oversight our system of Government requires. They need to look into every nook and cranny of the intelligence
community's business. They need to ensure that laws are obeyed. They need to ensure that the American people are safe and that their
freedoms are protected.

G. Reformed congressional Oversight it vital to


intelligence and to combat executive circumvention
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)

I understand full well that a separate Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence may not be the preference of this Committee. It was not
the recommendation of the commission. But ways have to be found to bring greater focus and additional resources to the oversight of
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that increase the opportunity and likelihood of robust
congressional oversight of the intelligence community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight of the intelligence
community is more important than ever and why congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the United States will
without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming

It is vitally
important that the intelligence community get it right. Oversight is
vitally important to help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has
provided broad authorities to the executive branch to conduct investigations and
collect data. Enhanced collection capabilities and data mining pose
high risks to civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our
liberties, the Congress must conduct robust oversight over the
exercise of the authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform
also needs congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride largely on what the intelligence tells us.

since 1947, is not easy to implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100
different directions. The executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and guidance from the Congress are necessary to sustain
reform. Sustained

oversight is necessary

. Chairman Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very difficult question of access to

information. That's not a new problem in the Congress. That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been fighting for more information from the intelligence community. When I was

Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that except the only way to get the attention of the executive
is to withhold the money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the Members to exercise, if they will do it. If
you want access to information and the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our Constitution, Congress cannot
play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight hearings during this year thus far.
That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our Constitution
requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties .

Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. Strong oversight

. Strong oversight by the Congress


protects our liberties and makes our policies better. Strong
oversight keeps our country safe and free. I appreciate your time and attention, and look
provides the checks and balances our Constitution requires

forward to your
questions.

Circumvention SQ (Last Resort)


ACLU, 13 (American Civil Liberty Union, September 2013, UNLEASHED
AND UNACCOUNTABLE
The FBIs Unchecked Abuse of Authority,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountablefbi-report.pdf)

The FBI thwarts congressional oversight by withholding information,


limiting or delaying responses to members inquiries, or, worse, by
providing false or misleading information to Congress and the
American public. These are but a few examples. When Congress debated the first Patriot Act
reauthorization in April 2005, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that he was unaware of any
substantiated allegations of abuse of Patriot Act authorities.199 The 2007 IG audit later revealed the
FBI self-reported 19 Patriot Act-related violations of law or policy to the Intelligence Oversight Board
between 2003 and 2005.200 Though misleading, this testimony was technically accurate because
President Bushs Intelligence Oversight Board did not meet to substantiate any reported violations until
the spring of 2007.201

Rights

Religious Freedom
First Amendment Violated
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
The very knowledge of potential surveillance may caution people against
discussing their political and religious viewpoints for fear of being targeted by
85
informants like Monteilh. Consequently, mosque attendance falls
and
community cohesion suffers, thwarting the First Amendments protection of
free expression.

Even those not harboring extreme viewpoints may be dissuaded from political speech for fear of

misinterpretation. For example, after revelations of potential FBI surveillance surfaced at the Islamic Center of Irvine, congregant Omar Turbi
attested, It gives you a little bit of apprehension about who you trust . . . . Makes you think twice about what you say; what if people
misunderstand you?

86

Similarly, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim stated, Some average