This Website is discontinued. We changed to Parstoday English
Tuesday, 01 September 2015 17:31

Frightening proposal in US to intern Muslim citizens

Frightening proposal in US to intern Muslim citizens

The Muslims in the US, despite being the most law-abiding community, have contributed to the development of the country as citizens active in various social spheres. Yet, anarchists, racists and pro Zionists in the US, have resorted to every plot to try to stir up Islamophobia in order to blame Muslims for things they do not do. Recently, in the wake of the Chattanooga shooting, a dangerous suggestion appears from right and left, that is, to intern Muslim citizens on the absurd charges of would-be terrorists. Here us a report by Nathan J. Robinson in this regard.

 

Terrorist violence can make the previously unthinkable suddenly seem acceptable. The levels of surveillance introduced after the highly suspicious 9/11/2001 incidents of New York could have been considered reasonable only in the climate of collective panic that the incidents induced. But last July’s reaction to the fatal shooting of four Marines and a Navy petty officer in Chattanooga, Tennessee, allegedly by a Muslim, has made the anti-Islamic groups propose infringement of civil liberties. No matter how high tensions may have run after the Boston Marathon bombing or 9/11, few dared to propose what figures of both left and right have now suggested: the segregation and internment of Muslim citizens.

The first mention of internment came from a somewhat unexpected source: Gen. Wesley Clark, a Democrat known for his progressive-oriented presidential campaign in 2004. Interviewed on MSNBC in the shooting’s aftermath, Clark said the US needed to increasingly get tough on what he called radicalized individuals. He spoke favorably of the internment camps set up during World War II, saying that “if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech. We put him in a camp.” Lest there be any doubt what Clark was advocating, he insisted that for radicalized Muslims, “it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”

One might point out, in the first place, that the idea of detaining people for “the duration of the conflict” means, in practice, imprisoning them forever. Since the war on so-called terrorism is a fight without end, it will never have some ticker-tape-strewn V-Day, and Clark’s suggestion is for the government to deem particular Muslims too radical to live freely and isolate them permanently in camps.

But more generally, one might inform him that the United States’ heinous civil liberties abuses during World War II are often considered a particularly dark patch in the nation’s history. The rounding up of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans — and their placement in squalid camps — was a racist disgrace that the country apologized for in 1988 and left traumatic scars that last to this day. The lesson supposedly learned was that the humiliation and segregation of an entire ethnic group is an indefensible assault on principles of dignity and equality. Clark, however, appears to have taken this cautionary tale as a useful suggestion.

Yet he was not alone in his call for reviving one of the worst civil liberties abuses in US history. Franklin Graham, a son of Pastor Billy Graham and a popular figure among Christian conservatives in his own right, also called on his countrymen to treat Muslims the way the US treated German- and Japanese-Americans during World War II.

But Graham went even further than Clark, who wished to target only those deemed radical. For Graham, Muslims writ large are the problem, and he announced that the US should suspend all immigration to the country by Muslims. This hateful Christian priest went on to insult Islam, the Prophet and Muslim sanctities.

The constitutionality of such measures is plainly dubious. As much as Clark may insist that support of Nazi Germany didn’t receive free speech protection, contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence strongly begs to differ. In the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio decision, it unanimously struck down a statute that criminalized the “advocacy of terrorism.”

The court protected an individual’s right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, and that standard still holds. This is before we even reach the question of the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of law, which stand in the way of a instituting a vast race-based segregation program. But one shouldn’t maintain excessive confidence in constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court’s 1945 decision in Korematsu vs. United States, which upheld President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Japanese internment program as constitutional, still technically stands. And the Guantánamo Bay detention facility has spent well over a decade as a symbol of the flimsiness of constitutional guarantees of due process. As the people of Chattanooga recover from a disturbing act of violence, it is a useful time to reflect on the way Japanese-Americans were treated during World War II –likewise German-Americans during World War I.

Those periods are ignoble examples of the way war can induce terrible nationwide prejudices, with devastating effects on the lives of ordinary people. And they should remind Americans of the speed with which frightening erosions of civil liberties can occur in a climate of fear.

AS/SS

Add comment


Security code
Refresh