Osama bin Laden

RECENT POSTS

The end of NSEERS, one of the most contentious post-9/11 national security programs

Photo by Timothy Valentine/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The Migration Policy Institute has published a brief history and analysis of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, known as NSEERS, which was terminated in recent weeks by Homeland Security.

Implemented after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it was one of the most controversial national security programs established during that time. The idea was to collect information, fingerprints, and photographs of certain individuals entering and living in the United States, and to monitor their whereabouts. Its primary focus was on men from Muslim-majority countries.

Most contested by its critics was a “special registration” provision that required non-citizens already present in the United States to report to immigration officials for questioning. While this portion of NSEERS was suspended at the end of 2003, the rest of the program remained in effect until its termination was announced at end of April. From the MPI paper:

In its recent announcement terminating the program, DHS cited the redundancy of the current manifestation of NSEERS, stating that, as a result of improved intelligence programs and better methods of tracking immigrant visa overstays, NSEERS was no longer needed to protect national security. And in reference to the program’s turbulent past and controversy over profiling based on nationality and religion, DHS stated that it will now “seek to identify individuals and actions that pose specific threats, rather than focusing on more general designations of groups of individuals, such as country of origin.”

In a striking coincidence, the announcement to terminate the NSEERS program came less than a week before the death of Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It’s unclear as to whether the program would have been terminated in the aftermath of his death, which has increased anxiety about terrorist retaliation against the United States.

Continue reading

American Muslim, or Muslim American?

In the United States, a generation of young Muslims has grown up in the shadow of the September 11, 2001 attacks, among them KPCC intern Yasmin Nouh. Part of the discussion she has been privy to during these years is how Muslims, whose patriotism has been under scrutiny since, should identify themselves: as American Muslims, or as Muslim Americans?

Nouh examines arguments for both ways of self-identifying in this guest post, her second for Multi-American.

Photo by NewMediaNormaRae/Flickr (Creative Commons)

Participants in last year's annual Muslim Day parade in New York, September 26, 2010

Just shy of a decade ago, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks orchestrated by Osama bin Laden opened a chapter in American history that has been fraught with widespread misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims.

Muslims, particularly in the United States and Europe, were asked to condemn extremism and to prove that they were patriotic to their respective countries. Amid the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment, one question became the norm to ask: Are you a Muslim or an American? Which one comes first?

If one chose Muslim first, then he or she was unpatriotic. If one chose American first, then it seemed like one was giving less importance to his or her Muslim identity.

In a recent post on the Muslim Matters website, Muslim convert Iesa Galloway wrote about how he believes that Muslims in the United States should use the phrase “American Muslim” when asked how to identify themselves. His line of reasoning was twofold: First, semantically speaking, American Muslim is correct; to be American is an adjective and to be a Muslim is a noun. Courtesy of English grammar, an adjective comes before a noun, and therefore one is an American Muslim.

Additionally, one’s “American” identity constantly changes and refers to one’s culture and nationalism, therefore it does not have to conflict with religious practice. In other words, he wrote, “accepting that your Muslim identity is ‘first’ is a charade that falls into the traps set by anti-Muslims and Muslim radicals.”

He argued that using the construction “American Muslim” is practical because: 1) what differentiates Muslims in America from Muslims elsewhere is nationality, not the practice of Islam; 2) what differentiates Muslims in America from other Americans is the creed.

The second part of Galloway’s reasoning asserted that the phrase “American Muslim” with no hyphen should be used, “because the hyphen model of identity is primarily used with regards to one’s ethnic or racial lineage. (And) If we racialize our identity, we buy into the hyphenated status as an American and therefore in many ways accept the ‘otherness’ that is pushed on us.”

He argued that this serves those who depict Islam as anti-American or incompatible with Western civilization. Galloway finally asked:

Will using American Muslim over Muslim-American solve all our problems?

No, but it will help. It rejects the foundational attacks that Muslims are not real Americans and that Islam is a threat to America.

An interesting argument ensued in the comments section of the post. Some readers disagreed with Galloway’s argument.

Junaid wrote:

The moment we feel the need that we have to prove to someone that we are as “American” or “Canadian” as they are or that we are citizens, we’ve already lost the debate. The question is invalid, and Muslims should not have to prove our loyalties to anybody. We should dismiss such debates such as this. In my opinion they are more harmful than good, and it draws attention to a matter that should have never been framed from the beginning.

In my opinion, I’m just a “Muslim.” If that stirs up discomfort with some people, they probably lack knowledge as to what being a Muslim means. And so that’s the starting point, explaining Islam and the Muslim identity.

Continue reading

‘An unpardonable slander:’ The controversy over the use of ‘Geronimo’ in bin Laden operation

Chief Geronimo photographed in 1898, years after his capture. F.A. Rinehart/Getty Images

Multi-American’s sister blog DCentric has been posting updates on the controversy surrounding the use of the name “Geronimo” as code for the U.S. military raid that killed Osama bin Laden last weekend in Pakistan.

Native Americans have taken offense to the military’s tying together of the notorious terrorist with the 19th century Apache leader and warrior, to the degree that after bin Laden was killed, the team involved in the raid sent out the transmission “Geronimo EKIA,” for “Geronimo, Enemy Killed in Action.”

Yesterday, Geronimo’s great-grandson Harlyn Geronimo submitted testimony to the Senate Commission on Indian Affairs for a hearing on racist stereotypes of Native Americans. He demanded an apology from the Obama administration and a “full explanation of how this disgraceful use of my great grandfather’s name occurred.” DCentric posted more of his testimony, including this excerpt:

Whether it was intended only to name the military operation to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden or to give Osama Bin Laden himself the code name Geronimo, either was an outrageous insult and mistake. And it is clear from the military records released that the name Geronimo was used at times by military personnel involved for both the military operation and for Osama Bin Laden himself.

Obviously to equate Geronimo with Osama Bin Laden is an unpardonable slander of Native America and its most famous leader in history.

Continue reading

Immigration and the bin Laden effect: More on the changes since 9/11

A new stretch of border fence, February 2009. Photo by The Pope/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A post on Monday outlined a few of the direct and indirect ways in which the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks orchestrated by Osama bin Laden changed the nation’s immigration landscape. Legislative reaction to the attacks propelled legal and policy changes that led to tightened borders and beefed up immigration enforcement as national security took center stage. Among these changes was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in early 2003.

In the days since, there have been other takes on immigration and the bin Laden effect. Today in a post in ColorLines, Seth Freed Wessler wrote about DHS’s National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, a program whose recent end has been applauded by Muslim groups:

Muslims in the U.S. became the most ominous threat, by policy. The Department of Homeland Security created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), commonly called “Special Registration,” which functioned as a deportation net specifically for Muslims. As Colorlines’ Channing Kennedy wrote in April:

Initiated in September 2002, NSEERS functioned like Arizona’s SB 1070, with working-class Muslims as the target. Its first phase required all non-citizen male residents, ages 16 to 65, from a list of “suspect” nations, to register at INS offices. Thousands of families went out of their way to comply with the law, thinking it would be part of the government-sponsored pathways to citizenship that they were already participating in. Instead, in July 2003, the Washington Post reported it as the deportation of “the largest number of visitors from Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries in U.S. history—more than 13,000 of the nearly 83,000 men older than 16 who complied with the registration program by various deadlines between last September and April.”

Last week, the federal government officially ended the NSEERS program.

Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and one of the editors of the ImmigrationProf Blog, wrote in an opinion piece yesterday in the Huffington Post:

The events of 9/11 and the ensuing call to action from the anti-immigrant lobby resulted in far-reaching legislative and enforcement actions. These enforcement actions had implications not only for suspected terrorists but also for immigrants already in the United States and noncitizens trying to enter as immigrants or with nonimmigrant visas. The Patriot Act passed Congress with near unanimous support, and the president signed it into law a mere six weeks after 9/11. The vast powers embodied in the law provide expanded authority to search, monitor, and detain citizens and noncitizens alike, but its implementation preyed most heavily on noncitizen Arabs, Muslims, and Sikhs.

Post-9/11 immigration and national security policy changes have been written about extensively since not long after the attacks, including in this 2003 report from the Migration Policy Institute that examined the challenge of preserving civil liberties alongside new security measures.

A view from Little Arabia (Video)

KPCC staff videographer Grant Slater caught up with blogger Rashad Al-Dabbagh of the Happy Arab News Service yesterday in Anaheim’s Little Arabia, where Al-Dabbagh was at a restaurant when he first heard news of Osama bin Laden’s death in Pakistan. Now, he said, “with the death of Osama bin Laden, the person who symbolized terror, we should move forward.”

Q&A: A Los Angeles Muslim community leader on the damage bin Laden caused U.S. Muslims

Salam Al-Marayati, photo courtesy of MPAC

The terrorist attacks orchestrated by Osama bin Laden affected all Americans, but they affected American Muslims in a unique way. One of the groups that has called for greater tolerance in the face of anti-Muslim sentiment and tried to clear up misperceptions is the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which has offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

The group’s president, Salam Al-Marayati, addressed via e-mail today a few questions relating to the damaging effects that bin Laden’s actions had on Muslims in this country, and what the future may hold now that he’s gone.

M-A: The attacks of 9/11 affected everyone, but can you tell me in particular how these actions changed the way in which American Muslims live during this past decade?

Al-Marayati: We have many young Muslims who have either grown up with 9/11 impacting their identity or were born after 9/11. As a result, our image in the U.S. is dependent on the perception of how secure our nation is. With more insecurity comes anti-Muslim sentiment.

M-A: Do what degree do U.S. Muslims (and others, such as Sikhs) live in fear today as a result?

Al-Marayati: I wouldn’t say fear is a driver, but more alienation and psychological ghettoization.

M-A: How have Muslims been affected not only by policies such as the Patriot Act, but by public perceptions and/or discrimination?

Al-Marayati: Tremendously, since it only reinforces the perception that Muslims are a problem in our society, either a victim or a villain.

M-A: Do you think that the death of bin Laden will have any effect, or do you think this community will subject to more of this for some time still?

Al-Marayati: We hope it is the mark of an end to a dark era and an ushering in of a new era for mutual understanding in U.S.-Muslim world relations. With the rise of democracy in the Middle East and the descent of Al-Qaeda, there is an opportunity for partnership between people in the Muslim world and in the U.S. We can’t expect our governments to address issues involving culture and religion. It involves people-to-people dynamics.

With bin Laden gone, do U.S. Muslims have a reason for hope?

Protesters outside the Islamic Center of the Temecula Valley, July 2010. Photo by Steven Cuevas/KPCC

Throughout the day, Muslim and Middle Eastern community leaders around the country have been coming forward to express relief over the death of Osama bin Laden yesterday during a targeted mission by U.S. forces in Pakistan. Some have also expressed a sense of hope.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, orchestrated by bin Laden, set off a chain reaction that to this day has left American Muslims reeling, from an early hate crime wave to anti-mosque protests to, just recently, a House hearing on the “extent of radicalization” among Muslims in the United States.

Several of those quoted today expressed optimism that bin Laden’s death will mark a turning point for the larger U.S. Muslim community, much of it composed of immigrants, that for several years now has felt misunderstood and under scrutiny.

A Muslim religious leader in Florida addressed this in a Reuters piece:

“It has been a nightmare to try to constantly explain to ordinary Americans that we are not associated with bin Laden. We have tried very hard to convince people that Muslims are not one monolithic group standing behind this monster,” said Imam Muhammad Musri of the Islamic Society of Central Florida.

“We were also victims of bin Laden’s ideology of hate,” he said. “The man hijacked our religion, committed crimes in the name of our religion and caused the greatest damage to the American Muslim community and Islam.”

In Orange County, another religious leader spoke optimistically during a press conference, reported on by the Orange County Register:

Muzammil Siddiqi, religious director of Islamic Society of Orange County said: “Islam is totally against terrorism, totally against violence,” and bin Laden’s death has “brought a sense of relief for all of us.

“We hope this chapter that began 10 years ago will close and a new chapter will begin,” he added. “We want to live together in peace and harmony.”

The Associated Press spoke to this business owner in Michigan:

“Sept. 11 brought misery to our life in the U.S. Even though we were well, we had a lot of friends and family, we’ve been under attack for so long,” said Mohamed Kobeissi, 54, manager of the Arabica Café in Dearborn, a heavily Arab suburb of Detroit.

Nearby, late-night diners watched the news unfolding on the café’s big screen TVs. “By seeing him out of our life, period, it gives us comfort that at least no big harm will come to the Muslim community in the U.S. from him or people like him.”

Bin Laden’s death comes after a year during which Islamophobia in the United States has been at a high point, making headlines with a Florida pastor threatening to publicly burn copies of the Quran, anti-mosque protests from Temecula to New York, and a recent incident in Yorba Linda where shouting protesters surrounded a Muslim community fundraising dinner.

Do you think that Osama bin Laden’s death could help turn this recent tide, or is the change in public attitudes some hope for something that remains far off?

Five ways in which Osama bin Laden changed the immigration landscape

Post-9/11 security legislation known as the REAL ID Act allowed the government to waive environmental laws and litigation blocking border fence construction near San Diego, which called for filling in a canyon with 1.5 million cubic yards of dirt. Photo by Romel Jacinto/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The direct and indirect repercussions that the late Osama bin Laden’s actions in masterminding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have had on the agencies, policies and attitudes affecting immigrants in the United States are far too many to mention in a short list. The attacks led to the dissolution of the federal immigration infrastructure at the time, to several legislative and policy changes, and to an increasingly enforcement-heavy and divisive immigration climate.

Here are a few of the major changes:

1) The end of INS, the beginning of DHS: Criticism of the decades-old Immigration and Naturalization Service, after it it was discovered that some of the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas that shouldn’t have been granted, led to the end of the INS in early 2003. The agency, which at the time governed all immigration functions from visas to border security, was replaced by the much broader Department of Homeland Security. Three sub-agencies within DHS were given authority over immigration matters: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (overseeing customs and border security, including the U.S. Border Patrol); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, overseeing functions such as naturalization and the granting of legal residency; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which is responsible for immigration enforcement in the United States, oversees immigrant detention and deportation, and is responsible for enforcement policies such as Secure Communities and 287(g).

2) The Patriot Act: Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” what’s referred to as the Patriot Act. This controversial piece of legislation expanded the federal government’s ability to conduct surveillance on Americans. Among other things, it allowed law enforcement agents greater ability to conduct wiretaps and to search telephone, e-mail, financial, medical and other records, as well as to conduct property searches without advising the owner. The law made it easier for law enforcement and immigration authorities to detain and deport immigrants suspected of being connected to terrorism and placed greater scrutiny on foreign students. It has long been criticized by civil rights groups, who have alleged misuse and constitutional violations and complain that Middle Eastern immigrants are singled out. Some Patriot Act provisions, including a “roving wiretap” provision, are set to expire later this month unless extended.

Continue reading