Kansas Passes Anti-Shariah Law

KANSAS GOVERNOR SAM BROWNBACK SIGNS AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS BILL INTO LAW

Kansas bill protecting fundamental constitutional rights from foreign legal codes becomes law following monumental bi-partisan legislative victory

TOPEKA, KS May 29, 2012: On Monday May 21, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law American Laws for American Courts legislation (SB79) to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of Kansans. The legislation was approved earlier this month by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 33-3 vote in the Kansas Senate following unanimous 120-0 passage in the Kansas House of Representatives.

The Kansas legislation, sponsored by Rep. Peggy Mast, is based closely on the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation put forth by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA).

“This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws,” Stephen Gele, attorney spokesman for APPA told the Associated Press. “The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion. It is perfectly constitutional.”

The passage of American Laws for American Courts legislation in Kansas is the latest vindication of a long-term national trend supporting constitutional protections for ALL Americans – especially women and children who would be most adversely affected—against foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have found their way into our court systems.

As previously mentioned, ALAC passed with broad bipartisan support in Kansas, just as it did previously in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona. In fact, versions of ALAC have been in force in Tennessee and Louisiana since 2010 and have never been challenged in court.

ALAC’s passage in Kansas comes despite well-funded efforts opposing the bill by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American Islamic Relations, as well as a $3 million national pro-Shariah campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

CAIR in particular has spread disinformation on the Kansas law, declaring it is discriminatory against Muslims. But a reading of the actual bill as passed into law clearly shows that this is not the case. The Kansas American Laws for American Courts law is oriented toward protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of all Kansans, and will be especially useful in protecting the rights of Muslim-Americans who have come to America to escape the barbaric and totalitarian legal systems extant in nations such as Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt.

Previously, Center for Security Policy CEO Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and ACT for America CEO Brigitte Gabriel collaborated on an article entitled “Ten Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations,” challenging CAIR’s propaganda campaign aimed at American Laws for American Courts.

While some observers have mistakenly assumed that foreign legal systems based on Shariah never appear in US court cases, the Center for Security Policy conducted research refuting that claim, publishing a report highlighting 50 such cases in US state courts.

The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.

One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.

For more information visit http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org

###

Sam Brownback Signs Bill Banning Islamic Law In Kansas

Sam Brownback Signs Bill Banning Islamic Law In Kansas

By JOHN HANNA 05/25/12 06:02 PM ET AP

Huffington Post

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.

The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

"This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws," said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. "The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion."

But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans' freedoms from "infiltration" by foreign laws and legal doctrines, "especially Islamic Shariah Law."

Brownback's office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor's spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."

Muslim groups had urged Brownback to veto the measure, arguing that it promotes discrimination. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a court challenge is likely because supporters of the measure frequently expressed concern about Shariah law.

Hooper said of Brownback, "If he claims it has nothing to do with Shariah or Islamic law or Muslims, then he wasn't paying attention."

Both the Washington-based council and the National Conference of State Legislatures say such proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Gele said laws similar to Kansas' new statute have been enacted in Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.

There are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law. However, supporters of the bill have cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.

Supporters argue the measure simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Gele said the measure would come into play if someone wanted to enforce a libel judgment against an American from a foreign nation without the same free speech protections.

"It is perfectly constitutional," he said.

The House approved the bill unanimously and the Senate, with broad, bipartisan support. Even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn't represent a specific political attack on Muslims.

"This disturbing recent trend of activist judges relying upon the laws of other nations has been rejected by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate," Jones-Sontag said.

The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican, also has said all Kansans, including Muslims, should be comfortable with the new law, but she did not immediately respond Friday to telephone and email messages seeking comment.

Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, acknowledged that the measure merely "made some people happy" and that a vote against it could be cast politically as a vote in favor of Shariah law.

"Am I really concerned that Shariah law is going to take over the Kansas courts? No," he said. "I'm more concerned about getting jobs to Kansas."

The Michigan-based alliance advocates model "American Law for American Courts" legislation. Its website says, "America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law."

During the Kansas Senate's debate on the bill earlier this month, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican described a vote for the measure as a vote for women's rights, adding, "They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law."

Hooper said supporters of such proposals have made it clear they are targeting Islamic law.

"Underlying all of this is demonizing Islam and marginalizing American Muslims," he said.

___ The measure is House Sub for SB 79.

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/sam-brownback-shariah-law-kansas_n_1547164.html

NYC School Makes Arabic Mandatory

New York City elementary school makes learning Arabic a MANDATORY requirement for students

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 14:05 EST, 24 May 2012 | UPDATED: 15:13 EST, 24 May 2012

Beginning this fall, 200 second through fifth-graders at PS 368 in New York City will have to learn Arabic at their public school.

The Hamilton Heights School in Harlem is the first such public school to require students to learn the language.

The classes are a result of a joint program between the Global Language Project and the non-profit Qatar Foundation International.

rincipal Nicky Kram Rosen selected Arabic because she believes the language will help the school obtain a more prestigious standing, according to the New York Post.

'We are teaching them an important language for the future but exposing them to languages spoken in their own community,' Ms Kram Rosen said to DNAInfo.

Of the 239 students at the school, 22 per cent learn English as a second language, according to DNAInfo.

Angela Jackson, CEO of the Global Language Project said she was thrilled when Ms Kram Rosen made her language selection for the school.

'Arabic has been identified as a critical-need language,' she said, arguing that students will get a competitive advantage in their professional lives.

'It means they can spin the globe and decide where they want to work and live.'

Students are now learning the language in a pilot program during free afternoon periods.

'I like Arabic class. I like the words we learn. I thought they sounded funny at first, now I think they sound cool,' said Nayanti Brown, a 7-year-old second-grader, to the New York Post.

'I teach my little sister the words I learn.'

She said her mother wasn't thrilled when she first learned of the initiative.

'When I gave my mom the [permission slip] to sign, she was shocked. [Now] she’s happy I’m in the class,' she told the paper.

Though the classes will be mandatory in the fall, if a parent objects to their child learning Arabic, administrators will deal with each instance individually, Ms Jackson said.

Mohamed Mamdouh currently teaches the students who want to take advantage of the classes in their recess time.

'Soon, Arabic will be a global language like French and Spanish,' he told the Post.

'These kids are like sponges. It’s amazing to see their progress.’

In order to learn the language, Mr Mamdouh plays familiar games like Simon Says or Duck, Duck, Goose with Arabic words.

Mama and baba, the Arabic words for mother and father, replace duck and goose, for example.

Parent Bella Moon Castro, 34, said that the language course is developing her son's confidence.

'This makes the world smaller for the kids,' she said. 'We are such a big, diverse community. We see this as a chance to go above and beyond for our kids to make sure their education is inclusive.'

Read more:

DNAinfo: Hamilton Heights Kids Learn Arabic in First-of its-Kind Program - DNAinfo.com

Arabic mandatory at city public school - m.NYPOST.com


SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149482/New-York-City-elementary-school-makes-learning-Arabic-MANDATORY-requirement-students.html

No Model for Muslim Democracy

By ANDREAS HARSONO

Published: May 21, 2012

The New York Times

IT is fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared, “If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia.” And last month Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, lauded Indonesia for showing that “religion and democracy need not be in conflict.”

Tell that to Asia Lumbantoruan, a Christian elder whose congregation outside Jakarta has recently had two of its partially built churches burned down by Islamist militants. He was stabbed by these extremists while defending a third site from attack in September 2010.

This week in Geneva, the United Nations is reviewing Indonesia’s human rights record. It should call on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to crack down on extremists and protect minorities. While Indonesia has made great strides in consolidating a stable, democratic government after five decades of authoritarian rule, the country is by no means a bastion of tolerance. The rights of religious and ethnic minorities are routinely trampled. While Indonesia’s Constitution protects freedom of religion, regulations against blasphemy and proselytizing are routinely used to prosecute atheists, Bahais, Christians, Shiites, Sufis and members of the Ahmadiyya faith — a Muslim sect declared to be deviant in many Islamic countries. By 2010, Indonesia had over 150 religiously motivated regulations restricting minorities’ rights.

In 2006, Mr. Yudhoyono, in a new decree on “religious harmony,” tightened criteria for building a house of worship. The decree is enforced only on religious minorities — often when Islamists pressure local officials not to authorize the construction of Christian churches or to harass and intimidate those worshiping in “illegal” churches, which lack official registration. More than 400 such churches have been closed since Mr. Yudhoyono took office in 2004.

Although the government has cracked down on Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al Qaeda affiliate that has bombed hotels, bars and embassies, it has not intervened to stop other Islamist militants who regularly commit less publicized crimes against religious minorities. Mr. Yudhoyono’s government is reluctant to take them on because it rules Indonesia in a coalition with intolerant Islamist political parties.

Mr. Yudhoyono is not simply turning a blind eye; he has actively courted conservative Islamist elements and relies on them to maintain his majority in Parliament, even granting them key cabinet positions. These appointments send a message to Indonesia’s population and embolden Islamist extremists to use violence against minorities.

In August 2011, for example, Muslim militants burned down three Christian churches on Sumatra. No one was charged and officials have prevented the congregations from rebuilding their churches. And on the outskirts of Jakarta, two municipalities have refused to obey Supreme Court orders to reopen two sealed churches; Mr. Yudhoyono claimed he had no authority to intervene.

Christians are not the only targets. In June 2008, the Yudhoyono administration issued a decree requiring the Ahmadiyya sect to “stop spreading interpretations and activities that deviate from the principal teachings of Islam,” including its fundamental belief that there was a prophet after Muhammad. The government said the decree was necessary to prevent violence against the sect. But provincial and local governments used the decree to write even stricter regulations. Muslim militants, who consider the Ahmadiyya heretics, then forcibly shut down more than 30 Ahmadiyya mosques.

In the deadliest attack, in western Java in February 2011, three Ahmadiyya men were killed. A cameraman recorded the violence, and versions of it were posted on YouTube. An Indonesian court eventually prosecuted 12 militants for the crime, but handed down paltry sentences of only four to six months. Mr. Yudhoyono has also failed to protect ethnic minorities who have peacefully called for independence in the country’s eastern regions of Papua and the Molucca Islands. During demonstrations in Papua on May 1, one protester was killed and 13 were arrested. And last October, the government brutally suppressed the Papuan People’s Congress, beating dozens and killing three people. While protesters were jailed and charged with treason, the police chief in charge of security that day was promoted.

Almost 100 people remain in prison for peacefully protesting. Dozens are ill, but the government has denied them proper treatment, claiming it lacks the money. Even the Suharto dictatorship allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit political prisoners, yet the Yudhoyono government has banned the I.C.R.C. from working in Papua.

Instead of praising Indonesia, nations that support tolerance and free speech should publicly demand that Indonesia respect religious freedom, release political prisoners and lift restrictions on media and human rights groups in Papua.

Mr. Yudhoyono needs to take charge of this situation by revoking discriminatory regulations, demanding that his coalition partners respect the religious freedom of all minorities in word and in deed, and enforcing the constitutional protection of freedom of worship. He must also make it crystal clear that Islamist hard-liners who commit or incite violence and the police who fail to protect the victims will be punished. Only then will Indonesia be deserving of Mr. Cameron and Mrs. Clinton’s praise.

Andreas Harsono is a researcher for the Asia division at Human Rights Watch. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 22, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: No Model for Muslim Democracy.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/no-model-for-muslim-democracy.html

Refugee Farmers Find Solace in a Floodplain

By PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN

Published: May 18, 2012

The New York Times

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Unpredictability has been a life companion for Clothilde Ntahomvukiye and her fellow refugee farmers from Burundi, who were out clearing stubborn hillocks of weeds and dandelions with hand hoes the other day in a spring drizzle.

So last August, when the ferocious torrents of the Winooski River unleashed by Tropical Storm Irene destroyed the farmers’ kidney beans, maize and other crops on the cusp of the harvest, the sense of loss and disappointment was at once bewildering and familiar.

“If a baby dies, what do you do?” said Mrs. Ntahomvukiye, with a sadness many of the Burundian mothers here have experienced at least once. “You get another baby. It is the same with farming.”

She and her husband, Michele Mpambazi, are among the new Vermonters who have replanted after last summer’s devastating flood. Wearing African wrapped textile skirts and down jackets, Burundian and Somali Bantu farmers gather daily on the industrial edge of Burlington known as the Intervale, where the soil is made fertile by the fickle pearl-grey river.

On the day of the flood, Ambika Gautam, a 4 ½-foot-tall Bhutanese refugee originally from Nepal who never learned to swim, felt as if the waters would carry her downstream. Her anguished comrades yelled warnings from a bluff above the fields of the Ethan Allen Homestead, a historic site with quill pens and butter churns, which overlooks the field where the refugees grow mustard greens.

“We can plant crops next year,” recalled Sabitri Gurung, one of 30 or so farmers who were unfurling spools of white plastic trellis the other day against the damp black earth. “But we couldn’t get our friend back.”

Vermont’s 100 or so refugee farmers, from Africa and South Asia, lost an estimated $25,000 worth of vegetables and equipment in the flood, including pumps and irrigation lines.

“Our families are looking forward to becoming productive members of the community,” said Jacouba Jacob Bogre, the executive director of the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, a nonprofit organization that sponsors the New Farms for New Americans project, financed by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. “So seeing the floodwaters taking the crops was not easy to bear.”

The flood was the worst to strike Vermont in 83 years, coming after the ground was saturated by heavy spring rains. It damaged some 450 commercial farms throughout the state — dairy farms, feed crop operations, vegetable growers, maple sugaring businesses — an estimated 10,000 acres in all. In some places, the topsoil washed away, with volunteers swooping in to help shovel mud out of barns. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service agency received $4.5 million in requests to restore farmland to productive use, an effort that continues, said Robert Paquin, the agency’s state executive director.

Although their modest plots of beans, amaranth and sweet potatoes do not yet yield enough income to support a household, for many refugees who initially rely on public benefits, the very act of planting — albeit in a precarious floodplain — is an anchoring force. Most were subsistence farmers in their countries of origin until their lives were repeatedly uprooted.

Vermont’s 1,200 or so African refugees began arriving 12 years ago, first from Sudan and then Bhutan and Burma. Mrs. Ntahomvukiye, 64, and her husband, 65, had been farmers in Burundi, tending the family’s bananas, cassava, coffee and sweet potatoes. In 1972, they fled the mass killings of Hutus by the Tutsi-dominated army, first to a refugee camp in Zaire, now Congo, and shortly afterward, to another camp in Rwanda. In 1994, the Rwandan genocide forced them back to Zaire and then across Lake Tanganyika to Tanzania.

Hunger, malnutrition and disease were ever-present in the camps. “If you had two weeks of rations it would last 11 days at most,” recalled Noel Mukiza, who speaks four languages besides Kirundi, the Burundian mother tongue. “Gardening some vegetables was a survival technique.”

In Vermont, plantains, cassava and cardamom have been replaced by tomatoes and cippolini onions. The Intervale Center, a nonprofit that helps the farmers sell some of the produce to restaurants like American Flatbread in Burlington, Community Supported Agriculture subscribers and food co-ops, also encourages refugees to experiment with best sellers like mesclun and arugula. Some have become entrepreneurs in their own right: Fatuma Malande, a Somali Bantu, has a thriving business selling her homemade samosas at several farmer’s markets.

Once filled with Irish, Italian and Quebecois families, the city’s Old North End, with its blocks of tidy wood frame houses, has been transformed anew, this time with markets like the Somali-owned Community Halal grocery, a store that has made it possible to buy frozen Australian camel meat in Vermont.

Many refugee families struggle with language barriers, poverty and unemployment while coping with the loss of family members. The association’s greenhouse in Winooski, a city next to Burlington, has become something of a town square for the new New England, where farmers from Bhutan, Burundi and Somalia meet to nurture tender shoots, a common language. In a meadow of songbirds beside the field, Ashok Dahal, a 65-year-old refugee from Bhutan, said he believes that with hard work, this summer’s crop will be the most abundant yet, helped by new soil from the flood. Like all farmers, he has optimism in his veins. “Without a garden,” he said, “it wouldn’t be home.”

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/vermonts-refugee-farmers-rebuild-after-irene-floods.html

Neocons vs. Islamophobes

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 04:11 PM EDT
Salon

Neocons vs. Islamophobes
There's an ongoing war for the future of Republican foreign policy

By Jordan Michael Smith

The Muslim Brotherhood, a group that was once thought virtually extinct in Syria, has surprised everyone by staging a comeback. The Islamist group is, according to Reuters, a “dominant force” in the Syrian opposition. Similarly, in Egypt, the MB has become perhaps the most powerful group in the wake of the Revolution.

This doesn’t sit well with everyone in the American conservative movement, and two factions are vying to define the Republican response to the increased power of political Islam. Leading what might be called the ‘to-hell-with-democracy’ strain of thought is Andrew McCarthy, a national-security columnist for National Review and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. McCarthy has been relentless in arguing that the MB poses a major threat to America, and that it must be opposed at all costs. McCarthy called Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain “the useful-idiot brigade” for meeting with MB members in Egypt. He accused the senators of “helping install an Islamist government in Libya” that he says is composed of al-Qaida members.

McCarthy’s perspective opposes democracy in the Middle East because it could bring parties to power that are less friendly to the United States. It has echoes in the views of Walid Phares, an important advisor to Mitt Romney. Phares said in March that the “Islamist lobby directs U.S. policy in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the Middle East.” He told the far-right Newsmax that the Obama administration is creating an “Islamist state” in Egypt.

Other important individuals in the to-hell-with-democracy movement include John Bolton, who is rumored to be up for a top spot in a Romney administration, and who says that Egyptian democracy is bad news; Michele Bachmann, who criticized Obama for not standing by Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak; and Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official and head of a right-wing think tank.

There is another faction among the right-wing that is equally powerful, however: the neoconservatives. For the most part, the neocons have embraced the upheaval in the Middle East. “The key is whether a government in Egypt or Tunisia respects the democratic process and doesn’t try to subvert the system,” says Jamie Fly, executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neocon think tank. “The jury is still out on that, and I think we have to let the process continue and see what comes of it.” Fly believes that there are differing views on Israel and the United States within the MB, and the democratic voices should be encouraged. The organization has urged military intervention in Syria to bolster democratic forces. FPI’s board of directors includes Robert Kagan, an advisor to both presidential candidates, and Dan Senor, an official in the Bush administration. “Paula Dobriansky, leading advocate of Bush’s ill-fated ‘freedom agenda’ as an official in the State Department, recently joined the Romney campaign full time,” the Nation’s Ari Berman reportedly recently. McCain and Graham are similarly bullish on Middle East democracy, rather admirably insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood be given a chance. Even former President George W. Bush has come down on the side of letting the revolutions run their course.

Both factions are vying for the ear of Mitt Romney, and control of the conversation. But the conservative split has its roots not in the era of Middle East upheaval but in the 1980s. During the Cold War, Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick famously made the distinction between right-wing dictatorships that could evolve into democracies and therefore should be supported, and left-wing ones that needed to be combated. In truth, Kirkpatrick’s thesis was merely a rationalization for opposing communist governments because they were thought to be inimical to U.S. interests. Ronald Reagan was so impressed with the analysis that he brought her into his Cabinet. And indeed, Reagan’s policy reflected the Kirkpatrick doctrine, as the administration supported brutal right-wing regimes across Central America. At the same time, Reagan provided crucial support for Solidarity in Poland, the movement that was instrumental in taking down the Soviet regime. Czech dissident Vaclav Havel similarly praised Reagan’s anti-Soviet policy.

Conservatives believe both approaches — supporting democratic and anti-democratic anti-Communist movements — were vital in defeating the Soviet Union. And so now they are divided between supporting pro-American dictators in the Middle East, and supporting democracy movements. Both worked against the Communists, they believe. But in, say, Egypt, one cannot support democracy while opposing the MB. Hence the split between the factions in the conservative movement. Which one triumphs in a prospective Romney administration may set the course of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come.

Jordan Michael Smith writes about U.S. foreign policy for Salon. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/neocons_v_islamophobes/

Bruce Schneier's Blog May 14, 2012 The Trouble with Airport Profiling Why do otherwise rational people think it's a good idea to profile people at airports? Recently, neuroscientist and best-selling author Sam Harris related a story of an elderly couple being given the twice-over by the TSA, pointed out how these two were obviously not a threat, and recommended that the TSA focus on the actual threat: "Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim." This is a bad idea. It doesn’t make us any safer -- and it actually puts us all at risk. The right way to look at security is in terms of cost-benefit trade-offs. If adding profiling to airport checkpoints allowed us to detect more threats at a lower cost, than we should implement it. If it didn't, we'd be foolish to do so. Sometimes profiling works. Consider a sheep in a meadow, happily munching on grass. When he spies a wolf, he's going to judge that individual wolf based on a bunch of assumptions related to the past behavior of its species. In short, that sheep is going to profile...and then run away. This makes perfect sense, and is why evolution produced sheep -- and other animals -- that react this way. But this sort of profiling doesn't work with humans at airports, for several reasons. First, in the sheep's case the profile is accurate, in that all wolves are out to eat sheep. Maybe a particular wolf isn't hungry at the moment, but enough wolves are hungry enough of the time to justify the occasional false alarm. However, it isn't true that almost all Muslims are out to blow up airplanes. In fact, almost none of them are. Post 9/11, we’ve had 2 Muslim terrorists on U.S airplanes: the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. If you assume 0.8% (that’s one estimate of the percentage of Muslim Americans) of the 630 million annual airplane fliers are Muslim and triple it to account for others who look Semitic, then the chances any profiled flier will be a Muslim terrorist is 1 in 80 million. Add the 19 9/11 terrorists -- arguably a singular event -- that number drops to 1 in 8 million. Either way, because the number of actual terrorists is so low, almost everyone selected by the profile will be innocent. This is called the "base rate fallacy," and dooms any type of broad terrorist profiling, including the TSA’s behavioral profiling. Second, sheep can safely ignore animals that don't look like the few predators they know. On the other hand, to assume that only Arab-appearing people are terrorists is dangerously naive. Muslims are black, white, Asian, and everything else -- most Muslims are not Arab. Recent terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern; male and female; young and old. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Shoe bomber Richard Reid was British with a Jamaican father. One of the London subway bombers, Germaine Lindsay, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Both Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were white Americans. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Focusing on a profile increases the risk that TSA agents will miss those who don't match it. Third, wolves can't deliberately try to evade the profile. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is just a story, but humans are smart and adaptable enough to put the concept into practice. Once the TSA establishes a profile, terrorists will take steps to avoid it. The Chechens deliberately chose female suicide bombers because Russian security was less thorough with women. Al Qaeda has tried to recruit non-Muslims. And terrorists have given bombs to innocent -- and innocent-looking -- travelers. Randomized secondary screening is more effective, especially since the goal isn't to catch every plot but to create enough uncertainty that terrorists don’t even try. And fourth, sheep don't care if they offend innocent wolves; the two species are never going to be friends. At airports, though, there is an enormous social and political cost to the millions of false alarms. Beyond the societal harms of deliberately harassing a minority group, singling out Muslims alienates the very people who are in the best position to discover and alert authorities about Muslim plots before the terrorists even get to the airport. This alone is reason enough not to profile. I too am incensed -- but not surprised -- when the TSA manhandles four-year old girls, children with cerebral palsy, pretty women, the elderly, and wheelchair users for humiliation, abuse, and sometimes theft. Any bureaucracy that processes 630 million people per year will generate stories like this. When people propose profiling, they are really asking for a security system that can apply judgment. Unfortunately, that's really hard. Rules are easier to explain and train. Zero tolerance is easier to justify and defend. Judgment requires better-educated, more expert, and much-higher-paid screeners. And the personal career risks to a TSA agent of being wrong when exercising judgment far outweigh any benefits from being sensible. The proper reaction to screening horror stories isn't to subject only "those people" to it; it's to subject no one to it. (Can anyone even explain what hypothetical terrorist plot could successfully evade normal security, but would be discovered during secondary screening?) Invasive TSA screening is nothing more than security theater. It doesn't make us safer, and it's not worth the cost. Even more strongly, security isn't our society's only value. Do we really want the full power of government to act out our stereotypes and prejudices? Have we Americans ever done something like this and not been ashamed later? This is what we have a Constitution for: to help us live up to our values and not down to our fears. This essay previously appeared on Forbes.com and Sam Harris's blog. SOURCE: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/the_trouble_wit.html

U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam By Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman May 10, 2012 | 4:00 am | The Huffington Post

The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.” The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It’s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesn’t contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley’s classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military. For the better part of the last decade, a small cabal of self-anointed counterterrorism experts has been working its way through the U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement communities, trying to convince whoever it could that America’s real terrorist enemy wasn’t al-Qaida — but the Islamic faith itself. In his course, Dooley brought in these anti-Muslim demagogues as guest lecturers. And he took their argument to its final, ugly conclusion. “We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America’s enemies. “It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.” Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooley’s presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, “I don’t know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant” of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward. That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like “Islam reduced to a cult status” and “Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation.” (It’s an especially ironic suggestion, in light of today’s news that Saudi intelligence broke up the most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.) International laws protecting civilians in wartime are “no longer relevant,” Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying “the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki” to Islam’s holiest cities, and bringing about “Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.”

Dooley’s ideological allies have repeatedly stated that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaida’s most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities. “Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as ‘political correct’ in the eyes of many,” Dooley adds. “Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.” Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. “Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn’t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,” Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam. Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that “Obama is bin Laden’s dream candidate.” In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that “Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.” (.pdf) Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 master’s thesis that then-president George W. Bush’s declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the world’s Muslims had “a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemy’s doctrine.” (.pdf) Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the military’s Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooley’s class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didn’t see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of “complexification.” Coughlin titled his talk: “Imposing Islamic Law – or – These Aren’t the Droids Your Looking For!”

Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. “The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of today’s Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.” Guandolo’s paper, titled “Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth” (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that “it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians” (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled “Watch Before This Is Pulled,” supposedly shows President Obama — the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course — admitting that he’s a Muslim. Dooley added the caveats that his views are “not the Official Policy of the United States Government” and are intended “to generate dynamic discussion and thought.” But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama’s alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. “By conservative estimates,” 10 percent of the world’s Muslims, “a staggering 140 million people … hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit” to Islam. He added, “Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.” It is unclear if Dooley’s “total war” on Muslims also applied to his “Muslim” commander in chief. After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooley’s presentation, the country’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material. Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government — military and civilian — to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam. By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war. Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24. Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaida’s brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.

SOURCE: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/.

Muslim Baby Ordered Off Plane For Being On No Fly List

Muslim Baby Ordered Off Plane For Being On No Fly List Posted: 05/10/2012 8:10 am Updated: 05/10/2012 1:00 pm The Huffington Post An 18-month-old girl and her parents were pulled off a JetBlue flight Tuesday because the child was on the no-fly list, reports WPBF 25 West Palm Beach. Riyanna and her parents had just boarded the flight at the Ft. Lauderdale airport, when they were approached by an airline employee telling them the TSA wanted to speak with them. Her parents, who asked to remain anonymous, think their little girl was singled out because the family is of Middle Eastern descent. Both parents were born and raised in New Jersey. After 30 minutes of waiting in the terminal, the family was told they could re-board, but refused to do so out of embarrassment. "We were put on display like a circus act because my wife wears a hijab [head scarf]," Riyanna's father told Bay News 9. According to Bay News 9, JetBlue issued a statement that both the airline and the TSA would investigate the incident. But, in a follow-up, WPBF reports that the TSA said it would not investigate. HuffPost Travel received this statement from the TSA via e-mail: "TSA did not flag this child as being on the No Fly list. TSA was called to the gate by the airline and after talking to the parents and confirming through our vetting system, TSA determined the airline had mistakenly indicated the child was on a government watch list." Back in March, another toddler was kicked off a JetBlue plane, though in that instance it was for throwing a tantrum. In December of last year, another family was kicked off a U.S. Airways flight for having too many children. SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/baby-ordered-off-plane-for-being-on-no-fly-list_n_1505648.html

A Long Way From Home

May 8, 2012, 8:45 am The New York Times

A Long Way From Home

By HUMA YUSUF

AMSTERDAM — On a recent visit to Amsterdam, I settled down to enjoy a cheese sandwich in a café along the famous Prinsengracht when a teenager at a nearby table asked me where I was from. I assumed he was intrigued since I’d just signed off from an animated phone call conducted largely in Urdu.

“Pakistan,” I replied. The teenager started laughing and slapping the back of one of his peers, who blushed and hunched low. The exchange spoke volumes about the Pakistani diaspora’s evolving engagement with its native country.

The Pakistani diaspora in the Netherlands is small, numbering less than 20,000 in 2009 according to Dutch statistics, but closer to 40,000 by Pakistan’s count, perhaps owing to illegal immigration. (The total population of the Netherlands is close to 17 million.)

While it’s difficult to generalize on the basis of a few, short exchanges, the consistent tone of my encounters with these and other Pakistani-Dutch people left me with the strong feeling that the diaspora is increasingly disillusioned with its cultural heritage, and is looking to distance itself from Pakistan.

At the café, I asked the teenager why he was laughing, and reminded him that there’s nothing wrong with hailing from Pakistan. By way of reply, he started pointing at his embarrassed friend and told me that he was from Pakistan, too.

“His name is Butt! He’s going to grow up and make bombs!” As the jibes continued, the young man of Pakistani origin became increasingly uncomfortable and insisted that he wasn’t from Pakistan. “My parents are from there,” he clarified. “You know I hate that place.”

I wouldn’t have made much of the teenager’s shame if I hadn’t run into another young Pakistani man the next day, this time at a tacky souvenir shop across the road from Amsterdam Central Station.

Faisal was born in Amsterdam; his parents migrated from Pakistan in the 1970s. He works in his father’s shop and returns home each evening to enjoy his mother’s Pakistani cooking. Many of Faisal’s friends are Pakistani and he’s happy to sing the latest pop songs out of Lahore at the slightest opportunity.

But he is ashamed of his parents’ homeland. “I hate telling people I’m from Pakistan,” Faisal confessed. “They’ll assume I’ll cause trouble, so I wish I had nothing to do with it.” Insisting he had no interest in traveling to Pakistan, Faisal mocked me for choosing to keep up ties with the country. “There’s nothing there — no food, no electricity, no hope. Everyone who can leave, should.”

Notably, the young Pakistanis I met in Amsterdam are not enamored of their lives in the Netherlands, and in my conversations both young men complained about the high cost of living, the lack of social mobility and growing racism. Their grievances seem common in the Pakistani-Dutch community.

“But anything,” as Faisal put it, “is better than living in Pakistan.”

Faisal’s sentiments are a damning indictment of Pakistan’s image abroad. But they also spell real trouble for the country’s economy.

Pakistani coffers depend heavily on foreign remittances: at the end of this fiscal year, Pakistan will have received a record $13.5 billion in remittances, a 21 percent increase over last year’s $11.2 billion. Government officials laud these impressive figures as a sure sign of overseas Pakistanis’ growing confidence in the state and national economy. But given the vitriol of young Pakistani–Dutch people, this confidence seems to be waning.

First-generation immigrants like Faisal’s parents may still feel a sense of allegiance to Pakistan. But Faisal and others of his generation are likely to be less generous with their earnings in coming years.

It’s time for the Pakistan government to take stock of its spiraling reputation, and to plan both how to rehabilitate its image abroad and stabilize its economy without banking on foreign remittances.

Leaving Amsterdam, I met an elderly train conductor of Pakistani origin who was excited to meet someone from his home country. On hearing I’m a journalist in Pakistan, he said, “Move here, daughter, where life is good. There’s no point wasting your energies in a place that’s going nowhere.”

Huma Yusuf is a columnist for the Pakistani newspaper Dawn . She was the 2010-11 Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

SOURCE: http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/a-disillusioned-pakistani-diaspora/

The changing face of religious America

By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 10:21 EST, 2 May 2012 | UPDATED: 12:09 EST, 2 May 2012 Mormons and Muslims are now two of the most rapidly growing religious groups in the United States - swiping ground from the Protestants and Catholics who dominated the country throughout the 20th century. In a census that today reveals the changing face of religious America, Muslim numbers have swelled from 1.5 million to 2.6 million - a 66 per cent rise - in the 10 years since the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001. The rise has been fueled by immigration and conversions, researchers believe. Following closely behind is Mormonism, which rocketed by 45 per cent from 4.2 million to 6.1 million followers across the country in 2010 - gaining the most members of any religious group since 2000. In the same period, Catholic churches reported a 5 per cent decline in membership while mainline Christian denominations noted a 12.8 per cent drop. Spread: A map shows where members of Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints Spread: A map shows where members of Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints - also known as Mormons - live in the U.S. in 2010. The group gained the most members - 2 million - of any religious group in the U.S. in the 10 years since 2000 Surprising shift: As well as spread across the Midwest, new Mormon congregations have started in Florida, New Hampshire and Maine, among others Surprising shift: As well as spread across the Midwest, new Mormon congregations have started in Florida, New Hampshire and Maine, among others The Census of American Religious Congregations, which asked 236 religions to count their followers, gives an insight into the growth of the relatively modern religion advocated by Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The religion, whose Utah-based church's formal name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is also spreading into more parts of the country than any other religious group. AMERICA'S TOP TEN RELIGIONS 1. Catholic 58,936,006 2. Baptist 27,247,230 3. Methodist 12,231,451 4. Non-denominational Evangelical Protestant 12,241,329 5. Lutheran 7,191,194 6. Latter-day Saints 6,356,188 7. Pentecostal 5,776,260 8. Presbyterian Reformed 5,038,406 9. Islam 2,600,082 10. Judaism 2,256,584 There are now congregations in 295 counties where they did not exist a decade ago. Mormonism is now the largest religious body in 115 U.S. counties - 34 more than 10 years ago - and is the fastest growing across 16 states. And while it is traditionally associated with the Mormon corridor of the West, data from the Religious Census shows it is the fastest growing religion in states including Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire and Maine. David Campbell, from the University of Notre Dame, told the Salt Lake Tribune the swelling numbers are in part due to the high Mormon birthrate and a reasonably high retention of those born into the religion. 'People who are raised Mormon are more likely to retain that identity when they enter adulthood,' Campbell, who is a Mormon, said. 'At least at a higher rate than other religions.' The LDS Church's central records means the faith can also keep track of members when they move away while other Christian groups do not, he said. 'Surveys and statistics are sometimes helpful in understanding various aspects of the church, but, ultimately, we reach out to individuals, not numbers,' LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter told the Tribune. 'By all indicators - including the church’s building program - the church is growing and we are grateful that people are embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.' Growth: Islam had the largest growth for a non-Christian religious group in the same decade, jumping from 1.5 million members to 2.6 million members Growth: Islam had the largest growth for a non-Christian religious group in the same decade, jumping from 1.5 million members to 2.6 million members Believers: This map shows the percentage of people who attend religious groups regularly by county. The number of adherents has dropped by two per cent since 2000 Believers: This map shows the percentage of people who attend religious groups regularly by county. The number of adherents has dropped by two per cent since 2000 Although numbers are growing, Mormons only make up two per cent of the U.S. population. While 30 states showed the largest percentage gains of any Christian group, many states, such as Rhode Island and Connecticut, have small Mormon populations, meaning new members could drastically affect percentages. High-profile believer: Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is an adherent of the Mormon church, which has been a divisive issue on his campaign trail High-profile: Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is an adherent of the Mormon church, which has been a divisive issue during his campaign Muslims added the second largest number of new followers, with one million more adherents in 197 new counties. Overall, non-Christian groups grew by 32 per cent since 2010. 'Mosques have multiplied at a growth rate of about 50 per cent,' Dale Jones, who worked on the study with the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, told Religion News Service. 'They have more religious centers, and simply moving into the suburbs puts you closer to where a lot of your folks are living.' But he added: 'The single largest religion in every state is Christianity, if one counts Mormons as a branch of Christendom - which the LDS Church does.' While Mormonism is growing, the census found the number of Catholics, the largest single faith in the country, declined five per cent to 58.9 million over the decade. 'Catholics had the largest numeric decline,' including big losses in Maine where a priest abuse scandal came to light, Jones said. In New England, Catholic funerals are outnumbering baptisms. The data also shows that Utah has the highest percentage of believers of any state, as well as the highest number of Mormons. The study is 'the most comprehensive local-level analysis of U.S. religious adherents' since the census began 60 years ago, Clifford Grammich, who led the supervising committee, told the Tribune. While other studies tally membership, beliefs or worship attendance, the study counts the actual number of people 'involved enough to the point where they know to count you', Jones said. The study found that while more than 80 per cent of Americans claim to be Christians, only around 49 per cent are affiliated with a local congregation. Islamic Center A view of the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Places of worship: The census, assembled by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, noted there were 50 per cent more mosques, left, than in 2000. Mormon communities (right) are now in 295 counties across the United States than they were ten years ago Among the other largest U.S. faiths, the United Methodist Church lost 4 per cent to 9.9 million adherents, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lost 18 per cent to 4.2 million and the Episcopal Church lost 15 per cent of its adherents to 1.95 million. Jones added that Buddhists made strong gains in the Rocky Mountain states, where the number of temples and congregations increased markedly. The total number of Buddhist adherents in the United States was nearly one million. There was no estimate in 2000. 'Based on some of the temple names, I think some of the yuppie types are looking for something different than the church they grew up in,' Jones said. The study was assembled by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies and included self-reported numbers from 17 of the country’s largest religious groups. SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138365/The-changing-face-religious-America-Number-Muslims-U-S-doubles-9-11-Mormonism-spreads-East-Coast.html