Hi everyone,
Today
was such a great class and I really want to thank everyone for being so honest
and passionate about their opinions and experiences. This is a touchy issue
that affects us all as Americans growing up in post-9/11. I hope you all
enjoyed the discussion as much as I did!
We
touched upon so many different facets of surveillance and entrapment, but one
that we did not get to explore enough, was the rationale behind such
“counter-terrorism” methods. Are they a sincere effort to stop terrorism? Or
are there other implications and consequences of these efforts that are
strategically employed? Imtashal and I spoke about the fear we experience every
day, one that is pervasive in every aspect of our lives, of being labeled terrorists. While our
rights are still theoretically in tact, because of the fear pervasive in the
lives of Arab and Muslim Americans, due to these “counter-terrorism” efforts, we
self-police, as Foucault would say, and suppress any political opinions or grievances
we may have. Is this an "intentional" consequence, or simply a lucky coincidence? Similarly, why is the FBI going so far to literally create these
terrorists? Does the constant reminder of terrorism reinforce our fear and thus
our support and justification of the “War on Terror?"
14 comments:
Thanks, Prof. Widdi; indeed, yesterday’s class was great!
You ask, “Why is the FBI going so far to literally create these terrorists?” Let us recall the brute existent without which the hero cannot exist. To some extent, we may like to think of our law enforcement officials as heroes, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. However, as we do so, we must not be oblivious to the costs at which such heroism is achieved. Leena does a great job in exposing us to some of these costs that involve Muslim communities in the U.S. and beyond.
To answer another of your interesting questions, we should first answer the question of why the U.S. or any other State, in fact, must fight terrorism. The answer to this question is quite obvious: to protect one’s nation and its interest. Behind a nation’s desire to protect its interest lies a quest for power in the global community of countries. Thus, I believe that one “strategic employment” of “such counter-terrorism efforts” is as a means to maintain power. And as we all know, the notion of protecting national interest is always a successful justification for the most amoral deeds—including the deeds that are the subject of this debate. This reminds me of the Orwell reading on the Politics and the English Language (Oh, I really love this reading).
He writes: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Even further, “defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.” [Insert a sentence describing similar atrocities committed in the name of national interest]: this is called the War on Terror!
Enjoy your weekend Verons.
James cited both GRENDEL and ORWELL in the same post. I can retire now.
What a great class Leena! Thank you.
To answer one of your questions- "Does the constant reminder of terrorism reinforce our fear and thus our support and justification of the “War on Terror?" I think the answer is yes. I see this as all a part of a much bigger plot which I will not put on the blog, but as long as the issue of terrorism is kept fresh in our minds, the hope is that we, as a nation, will keep calling for safer measures to protect us. Of course, these calls for safer measures is a double-edged sword because the measures put in place (which can be argued that we asked for) can also be used to restrict and entrap us as well as create other fears, thus keeping us in a constant state of unease. I don't think we can ever truly know what consequences are intended or not, but even the unintended consequences only serve to strengthen or aid the governments point of view.
I understand the government's rationale that if the person they entrapped was approached by an actual terrorist, then the results would be different. However, that is still o excuse to entrap someone. That energy should be channeled to those that are actually questionable. Understanding and agreeing are two different things. I do not agree with the government's rationale to "breed" terrorists then imprison them.
I can empathize with Leena and Imtashal. Oftentimes when I pass by a group of at least two or more police officers or go through airport security, I feel nervous and then begin to wonder if I'm acting oddly, for example I feel my body stiffen a little and I wonder if it is noticeable and might be considered suspicious. So I can just imagine how Leena, Imtashal and other Muslims feel, living in a country where they are automatically targeted because of the deeds of a few.
There were terrorists of other races yet those races are not targeted. I can think of every possible argument for the rationale or against it but I don not know the solution to the problem. As the saying goes, "it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch" which is unfair but how do we fix it it? How do we know which one is bad? Depending on the level of decay, it might not be easy. So do we treat all as good and hope to find the rotten one before it contaminates the others or do we treat all as bad? Bear in mind, that there are terror potentials among every race and ethnicity so if counter-terrorism measures are to be put in place, it should not just target Muslims and people should not be entrapped. Surveil those that are know terrorists and those that they have reason to suspect, not try to "breed" terrorists.
In our class discussions on poverty, we argued for the need to uncover (as best we could) the roots of it.
Isn't there also a need here to identify "the problem" and study its roots?
Put another way, and to use Simonne's words, what conditions "breed terrorists"? And would understanding that help us get towards appropriate policies and "solutions"?
Thanks for the great class and the engaging discussion this week Leena.
I would like to take this moment to answer Leena’s question of counter-terrorism strategies that asks the following: “Are they a sincere effort to stop terrorism? Or are there other implications and consequences of these efforts that are strategically employed?”
I don’t believe these two options are necessarily mutually exclusive. First, I agree that there are probably strategically employed implications or consequences of these counter-terrorism strategies, such as cultivating a sense of fear in the Muslim population to create the type of self-policing that we discussed after the Foucault reading. But with all that being said, I do not believe the fact that these counter-terrorism strategies are completely discriminatory excludes them from being sincere efforts to stop terrorism. Although it is completely wrong, there is a terrible stereotype that Muslims are more prone to terrorism than other groups. Therefore law enforcement’s use of Muslim targeting counter-terrorism strategies does not exclude these strategies from being sincere efforts at fighting terrorism, but instead speaks more to the immense amount of discrimination present in U.S. law enforcement agencies as they completely buy into these stereotypes as the truth, and then try to develop strategies around these stereotypes.
If we examine history, we will see a long list of "terrorists" who supposedly sought to undermine U.S. sovereignty. Check out "Spies of Mississippi" a bracing film about the FBI's infiltration of the Civil Rights movement (http://video.pbs.org/video/2365163372/) for just one example. There is always a monster in the bushes, just as James has warned. Scary stuff, Leena.
Whether or not such interventions as entrapment are well or poorly intentioned probably proceeds on a continuum. Personally, I'm not much of a conspiratorialist; I am more a believer in the eternal mediocrity of systems and institutions; regression to the least competent mean. However, the question of whether strategies are misguided is totally separate. Indeed, it seems that it is exactly when law enforcement fails to adequately provide safety that it substitutes policing or militarization or the overuse of surveillance techniques to distract us from those failures, maybe even supplant them with their Orwellian counterparts (innocence is guilt), with the extra benefit some of you have pointed out, that people start to police themselves.
The most important thing to me in the discussion is to not lose sight of the fact that there has been NO evidence provided by any of us in this discussion so far that these law enforcement techniques have made us safer. If there were, you could argue about whether they are justified and you'd be on legitimate ground. But it's just an assumption, as weighty as air, like the one that says stop and frisk makes us safer. (Bill DeBlasio gets to play Grendel in this version.)
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses, as always! I'd just like to chime in by reminding everyone, including myself, that the ones who actually implement these surveillance strategies are not the same people who instigate the need for them. With that in mind,while some of you argue that they are sincere efforts to stop terrorism and keep us safer, would you maintain that this is true for both groups?
Hello Everyone,
I believe the FBI has a high failure rate in catching the members of the “real” terrorist organizations. The only way the FBI can make the terrorism argument relevant is to create terrorist. Creating the terrorist, is the only way to perpetuate the defense argument, which gives the rationale for the reason there is a tough crack down on terror. I feel that America moves away from the denotation of terrorist and focuses on the connotations. The word terrorist holds so much power in our society because of the associations between the Osama and Saddam Hussein’s of the world. Anyone can be a terrorist; I feel the FBI fails to do their job because of marginalizing certain groups based on a description. The purposeful seeking out of a particular ethnicity and branding the group as terrorist creates a rift between the Muslims trust in the American government.
J.T.
Thanks for a great class Leena! Although our opinions were on opposite sides of the spectrum, it was a fantastic and thought provoking class.
In response to your initial question, we must fist define terrorism and "sincere." Consistent with the theme in other posts, the idea of terrorism changes depending on whose side your on. Therefore, certainly the US is engaging in an effort to obliterate the enemy it has defined as terrorist. The term "sincere," however, is a bit more complex. If you mean that the US earnestly believes that drone strikes, sting operations, and surveillance of Muslim communities will result in the ultimate defeat of "terrorism," I honestly think they see it as the only practical solution (although obviously unsustainable). If your asking if the US is engaging in a moral and ethical approach to the "war on terror," then look no further than its past acts of torture. Moreover, lets not forget the ripple effects (intended or not) it has had on civil liberties (most of which you and imtashal experienced personally). As Simone stated, there is no way to honestly say if these ripple effects/consequences were intended.
REBUTTAL**
I would like to go back to the rationale of the sting operations themselves. I do not think that these methods are ethical or moral by any means, but I think they are absolutely necessary, unfortunately.
First, this is a unique type of warfare (or whatever Orwell would classify it as). Conventional methods have to be adapted in order to protect US interest (remember, these sting operations are developed for homegrown threats, so I am not referring to the drone strikes and other military action happening overseas which are harming innocent civilians). So the methods the US employs must be in direct response to the strategies used by the enemy in order to be effective or risk failure-look to the British's failure during the American revolution as it was unable to adapt to the rebel strategy of gorilla warfare. Moreover, we, as civilians, have no idea how long it takes a terrorist organization to recruit and breed a terrorist. We have no idea whether they also offer financial rewards for jihad or not. We have no idea how long it takes for someone to finally agree to committing a crime (could be years). So why restrict the FBI from utilizing potentially the same tools these terrorist organizations use to identify potential recruits? If these methods allow for the FBI to recruit, they would definitely allow for terrorist organizations to recruit.
Second, expressing radical values is everyone's right as a citizen. Radicalism in addition to aiding in acts that could be harmful for US interest (again, talking about sting operations here) are an obvious cause for concern. At that point, someone's acts become the threat. Based on the examples given in class, only individuals who met this criteria were used in sting operations. Although surveillance of these acts are heavily concentrated in Muslim communities, all, regardless of race, are subject to these sting operation (example of sting operation I spoke about in class: http://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/atlanta/press-releases/2014/three-men-charged-with-conspiracy-to-possess-destructive-devices?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_medium=email&utm_source=fbi-in-the-news&utm_content=300296).
Last, there are plenty of adverse affects of this method, no doubt. But because there has not been another attack of the magnitude of 9/11, I would say they have been successful. Keep in mind, no method will be perfect. To wait for any government to develop and implement a perfect policy is impractical. Can there be changes? Yes. Should sting operations be abolished? Absolutely not.
Prof. Stein, could you please email me the studies showing evidence that people in possession of child pornography are not likely to be pedophiles.
Thank you Leena for the interesting discussion last class.
In response to the recent post from Anthony, I do think it is hard to gauge whether counter-terrorism efforts are to be considered “sincere” or not. The objective of counter-terrorism is to ensure safety in post 9/11 America which unfortunately targets the Muslim/Arab population disproportionately. Still, despite the clear stigma being put on one population, it is not right to doubt the sincerity of ones intent on safety in this context.
In response to Leena’s mention of Foucault, I believe the general consensus of the class for that reading (if I remember correctly) was pretty much to deter criminals by making them think they were being more heavily surveyed than they were. This sense of self-policing can be effective as long as there are actually people with intentions to commit crimes where there is surveillance. Having cameras around John Jay for example, is an effective deterrent, but the monitoring of the MSA club at John Jay specifically was morally wrong as they were associating a specific group with a certain type of criminal behavior. (i.e. stop and frisk in predominantly African-American communities). In conclusion to that thought, I feel like self-policing would be effective without the blatant racism. Also, I do understand the rationale behind the FBI’s actions of investigation but they are very overzealous in pursuing potential terrorists by creating terrorists themselves. It is the same stigma of putting drugs that have major money making potential in the poorest communities and thus creating criminals that would otherwise not have the access to said drugs.
Thank you for the excellent class lesson Leena. This topic really seemed to be a controversial one for us. I must agree with Simonne, in that we can never truly know the consequences or the intentions of one but the government seems to know everyone intentions without it/them actually being carried out.
And Leena, even writing about this online makes me uncomfortable. Power to you!!
Leena, what a great class!
My issue with the efforts on behalf of the FBI and US Government in preemptively acting in order to "prevent" terrorist acts from occurring on US soil is this: there has been no proof that these efforts have been effective thus far, but there is proof that these efforts have targeted a specific group and have effectively "put baby in the corner." If the mission is to surveil in order to stop terrorist acts from happening, efforts need to be spread throughout different communities and in ways that don't promote the entrapment of a specific people.
The notion that these efforts are currently being brought out through unbiased and fair methods is ridiculous. Our government is incredibly racist and continuously falls back on stereotypes that become self-fulfilling prophecies because they are only targeting the people who they think would be terrorists and walk around with their chests puffed when they "find" and "stop" a terrorist act from happening amongst the very people they were targeting. It's the same thing we see happen in the Stop and Frisk policies here in NYC! If you search enough Black men in search for guns, and you find 1 amongst the thousands you search, you justify it as good because *you were right*!!!
What we don't see though is how negative these practices really are! If we've got people afraid to write e-mails or post nonsense on their Facebook in fear that they'll be persecuted for words, something is really wrong.
I responded to Anthony offline but wanted to post here as well, as the assumptions about child pornography consumers are the same as the assumptions about potential terrorists: they are based on what seems like it should be true but for which there is no actual evidence.
I suggest that if you search, you will find no studies that tie looking at child porn and committing an assault against a child together in any but the most anecdotal, speculative way. It's just an unfounded assumption. There is a chapter called Maximum Perversion in my first book, Prologue to Violence, that takes apart similar theories regarding sexual fantasy and violence. You cannot do such studies because you can never have a base rate for people who are looking at different types of porn. Just like you do not know how many are fantasizing about terrorist acts.
If you are a therapist, or do research on people's fantasies, you will quickly find that virtually everyone has pretty deviant fantasies; that's their orgasmic power. Rape, dismemberment, dogs, children, etc. are really very common fantasies. Almost no one acts on them. I would imagine that many people are angry and have ideas or wishes regarding toppling the government but almost no one has the means or will to do so.
I think it's a dangerous road once you start policing thought crimes and urging people to enact them. You make the monster whom you purport to defend against. How convenient!
Post a Comment