November 11, 2001 marked the beginning of an era of American terror – an era of reckless massacre, carpet bombing, pillage and rape, and the use of radioactive weaponry against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. The War on Terror expanded into Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Eretria, and programs like extraordinary rendition were active in collaboration with oppressive, tortuous regimes across the Muslim world.

The U.S. government intelligence agencies tapped into foreign government, social circles, and religious networks abroad to mass gather information in pursuit of political and military warfare. Reflectively, the U.S. government organized and executed a discriminatory, racist, anti-Muslim security and surveillance apparatus that (to this day) targets, monitors and entraps Muslims on the basis of their religious identity and practice.

Government programs like the Patriot Act, which Biden has taken credit for establishing the foundation of, greatly expanded the surveillance capabilities of U.S. law enforcement agencies in the pursuit of identifying threats to national security. This was weaponized and translated into the political imprisonment of community leaders like Dr. Sami al-Arian, the first to be charged under the Patriot Act.

As a Palestinian Muslim, he was targeted by the U.S. government for advocating for Palestinian human rights. The targeting of Muslims through discriminatory domestic policy is aligned with America’s foreign policy interests, as seen in the hyper-surveillance and targeting of Palestinians to protect Israel’s (fracturing) hegemony of support in American government and society.

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security relaunched the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program as the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) program. CVE and TVTP trains teachers, mental health workers, imams and others to use faulty social science and racialized indicators to identify those who are supposedly vulnerable to ‘radicalization’ within the Muslim community. The government maps and tracks religious, political, and social activity across Muslim communities.

For example, NYPD agents would document how often Muslims students prayed during school trips, which Egyptian businesses shut their doors for daily prayers, which restaurants would show al-Jazeera, and which Newark businesses sold halal products and alcohol.

According to law enforcement documents, the NYPD post-9/11 eyed and interpreted signs of Muslim religiosity as ‘radicalization.’ For example, NYPD agents would document how often Muslims students prayed during school trips, which Egyptian businesses shut their doors for daily prayers, which restaurants would show al-Jazeera, and which Newark businesses sold halal products and alcohol.

The report Mapping Muslims: NYPD Spring and its Impact on American Muslims outlines how the NYPD surveillance program, as a case study on the impacts of the American surveillance system as a whole, has suppressed religious practice, stifled speech and association, sowed suspicion and distrust, and censored student activists in the Muslim community.

Sowing Distrust and Fracturing Brotherhood

The surveillance of Muslims and the Muslim community at large is often done through the hiring of informants. Informants are people who are typically already in a position to know or learn information from the target individual or community. They can make up to $100,000 annually, and some are hired in exchange for legal favors; such as dismissing criminal charges or expediting immigration proceedings.

As Muslims are overwhelmingly aware of the heightened surveillance of their communities, many Muslims have admitted to being more hesitant to create new relationships with new members like converts.

Since 2009, paid FBI informants have played a ‘central role’ in nearly 50% of all domestic terrorism cases. The known presence of informants in the Muslim community, both at colleges and mosques, has raised suspicion in meeting new people, the development of political and social programming, and maintaining the unity and trust among community.

As Muslims are overwhelmingly aware of the heightened surveillance of their communities, many Muslims have admitted to being more hesitant to create new relationships with new members like converts, and there is greater suspicion around those who express politically or socially radical views. 

Political Censorship

Muslims have also reported self-censorship in discussing mainstream political issues among themselves – cafe owners have admitted to refraining from broadcasting Arabic news channels in cafes, and Muslim students admit to altering language, including regular clarifications and qualifiers when discussing current affairs.

To be coerced to speak in a way that would be pleasing to the government or the average American is to shape the very language to causes native to Muslims and Islam – and this will have long-term implications. The neutering of political speech and advocacy creates a ‘controlled opposition’ to racist and imperial domestic and foreign policy. This restricts Muslims from openly referencing how Islam informs our plight for justice and our political, social, and economic actions against injustice.

How are Muslim communities guarding themselves?

In response to the state targeting religious spaces and networks, numerous human rights and civil rights organizations have emerged in educating and advocating for the Muslim community. Organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, the Coalition for Civil Freedoms, the Muslim Legal Fund of America, CLCMA, and CAIR provide educational and legal resources to equip mosques, student organizations, religious centers, and individuals to protect themselves and their communities.

Muslims and Muslim organizations continue to organize and mobilize against the injustice inflicted upon our communities and families domestically and abroad, while facing backlash from the government, U.S. allies, and non-government actors; all invested in the Islamophobia industry and the hindrance of a united Muslim society in the U.S.

In attempting to fracture our communities, sow distrust and suspicion, and censor our political and religious language – the government is recognizing brotherhood and dialogue as the most powerful tools for organizing our community. To continue to build strong relationships with one another and engage in creative and honest discussion on the issues that plague us locally and nationally, internally and externally, is what will protect and strengthen the Muslim community from the act of terror that is government surveillance in America.

During an hour-long webinar, the U.S. government representatives Karen Thornton, professional staff member on the House of Armed Services Committee and Phil Rogers, a representative from the Department of Defense (DoD), joined in shortly as listeners during a webinar on the reorganization of the U.S. defense acquisition.

The webinar was held by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S.-based think-tank on February 19, 2021, where experts such as Moshe Schwartz; President of Etherton and Associates, Inc., Andrew Hunter; Senior Fellow and Director, Samantha Clark; Special Counsel at Covington & Burling, spoke.

The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) specifies annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense, which is a governmental body providing national security with military forces. Experts have long expressed their frustration for Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and how it has gotten bigger over time with notes and provisions of legislation texts, and eventually this has slowed down the efficiency of defense system.

“We’re doing this in reaction to the inclusion of Title 18 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which created a new statutory framework for Defense Acquisition statutes” said Andrew Philip Hunter, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) and the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group Director, who also participated in the webinar talking about the Reorganization of Defense Acquisition statutes in Title 10. of U.S. Code.

US Congress

On January 1, 2021, the Congress enabled a one-year phase for collecting comments, feedbacks from experts, stakeholders, and the general public on the reorganization of Defense Acquisition statues in Title 10. of U.S. Code. The webinar took the opportunity to address the call where acquisition experts shared their inputs and comments. The comment collecting on reorganization of the defense acquisition will last for a year and will go into effect in 2022.

“It is a complex body of law that’s difficult to interpret understand and we hope that this reorganization does make the world a better place,” said Phil Rogers, a representative from the DoD.

The importance of reorganization of the technical aspects of Title 10. of the U.S. Code. No 10  were discussed by the experts, who noted that policy changes or moving notes in the legislation should be handled at this phase, adding that a pure technical cleaning-up can eventually open a space to make acquisition statutes user-friendly and well-organized. Moreover, no tactical changes on a language level should be addressed either. It is more of a process than a one-time task, therefore an act of reorganizing can give a sight to the Congress as to what should be done with the notes which follow the provisions.

Answering the question “What are the mechanisms that those outside of government can utilize best to coordinate with the teams that are putting in new language into the NDAA and then implementing the policy inside the Pentagon?” Hunter said: “A legislative proposal from DoD is the way to start looking out for those mechanisms.” On the other hand, Samantha Clark pointed out that, different industries share different viewpoint on interpretation of statues, therefore it is helpful to share with their viewpoints as feedback.”

“What effect this will have on small businesses, new entrants’ ability to access the defense marketplace over time and what will be the overarching effects on supply chain?” was another question posed by the audience.

“It is important to think of the pressures that the Code has on the industrial base. The reorganization will help to make it much clearer, …in many cases statute is a huge barrier to entry, and it keeps people out”, said Hunter.

“It will be helpful to the government in addition to industry because the government wants people to comply. They want trusted secure partners and industry wants to comply because they don’t want any of their systems or supply chain to be compromised”, said Samantha Clark

Answering a question posed by the audience, namely, “what is the possibility of substantive change in meaning of a provision, where might be the risk and how can the writers mitigate that risk?” Samantha Clark highlighted that the risk lies on where Congress were to decide to eliminate those notes. She is in opinion that they can be clarified easily through transparency and messaging.

“…reorganization of the defense acquisition would be the transfer and re-designate method before removing any notes that are in the respective legislative texts and the fact that there is a year-long time phase for this to happen is a great opportunity to allow anyone who is interested in the issue to comment”, said Moshe Schwartz

“…this effort is a technical one, but it will support and enable policy related changes down the road”, concluded Hunter.

For those who follow the U.S. Code closely, this webinar can be rated as substantial.

The experts who attended the panel are very in close cooperation with the U.S. government and non-governmental entities. Therefore, their expertise and feedback worth to be taken in account.

The experts explored how the Title 10 of U.S. Code has become a bureaucratic body despite many reform initiatives, and till today disables the defense acquisition systems with its ‘messiness.’

That’s certainly our goal and our intention.” This was the non-committal answer given by White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, when, on February 12, she was asked by a reporter whether the new Joe Biden Administration intends to shut down the notorious Guantánamo Bay Prison by the end of the president’s first term in office.

Psaki’s answer may have seemed reassuring, that the untold suffering experienced by hundreds of men in this American gulag – many of whom were surely innocent – would be finally coming to an end. However, considering the history of Guantánamo and the trail of broken promises by the Barack Obama Administration, the new administration’s pledge is hardly encouraging.

Compare the new language with that of Obama’s impassioned diatribes about humanity, justice and American values, which he utilized whenever he spoke of Guantánamo. “Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law,” Obama said at a speech at the National Defense University in May 2013.

Enamored with his every word, Obama’s audience clapped with enthusiasm. When he delivered that particular speech, Obama was then serving his second term in office. He already had ample opportunity to shut down the prison which operated with no international monitoring and entirely outside the realms of international and US laws.

Obama is likely to be remembered for his words, not his actions. Not only did he fail to shut down the prison which was erected by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in 2002, but the Guantánamo industry continued to thrive during his terms.

For example, in his speech, Obama made reference to the high cost of “a hundred and fifty million dollars each year to imprison 166 people.” According to the New Yorker, reporting in 2016, Guantánamo’s budget had morphed to “$445 million last year,” when Obama was still in office.

Yet, as the budget grew by leaps and bounds, the number of Guantánamo prisoners dwindled. Currently, there are only 40 prisoners still residing in that massive edifice of metal, concrete and barbed wire located at the eastern tip of Cuba, built atop a piece of land ‘leased’ by the US in 1903.

According to the New Yorker, reporting in 2016, Guantánamo’s budget had morphed to “$445 million last year,” when Obama was still in office.

It is easy to conclude that the US government keeps the prison open only to avoid international accountability and, arguably, to extract information by torture, an act that is inconsistent with American laws. But this cannot be it. On the one hand, the entire wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

Such a fact hardly stopped the US and its allies from savagely invading, humiliating and torturing entire populations with no regard whatsoever to legal or moral arguments.

In fact, many American officials and members of Congress at the time used the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004 as an opportunity to whitewash and rebrand American crimes elsewhere and to present the misconduct in this Iraqi prison as if an isolated incident involving “a few bad apples”.

The ‘few bad apples’ argument, made by G. W. Bush was, more or less, the same logic utilized by Obama when he championed the closure of Guantánamo. Indeed, both Presidents insisted that neither Abu Ghraib nor Guantánamo should be made out to represent what America is really all about.

“Is this who we are?” Obama animatedly and passionately asked, as he made a case in favor of the closure of Guantánamo, speaking as if a human rights advocate, not a Commander-in-Chief who had direct authority to shut down the entire facility. The truth is that the Abu Ghraib tortures were not ‘a few bad apples’ and Guantánamo is, indeed, a microcosm of exactly what the US is, or has become.

The truth is that the Abu Ghraib tortures were not “a few bad apples.” Guantánamo is a microcosm of exactly what the US is or has become.

From Bagram, Afghanistan, to Abu Ghraib, Iraq, to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the many ‘floating prisons’ –  news of which was leaked by US media in 2014 – the US government continues to make a mockery of international and humanitarian laws. Many American officials, who genuinely advocate the closure of Guantánamo, refuse to acknowledge that the prison is a symbol of their country’s intransigence and refuse to accept that, like any other country in the world, it is accountable to international law.

This lack of accountability has exceeded the US government’s insistence to ‘act alone’, as in to launch wars without international mandates. One US Administration after another has also made it clear that, under no circumstances, would they allow accused war criminals to be investigated, let alone stand trial, before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The message here is that even America’s ‘bad apples’ can potentially walk free, regardless of the heinousness of their crimes.

Just months after the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on ICC judges to punish them for the potential investigations of US crimes in Afghanistan, it freed the convicted criminals who carried out horrific crimes in Iraq. On December 22, Trump pardoned four American mercenaries who belonged to the private military firm, Blackwater. These convicted murderers were involved in the killing of 14 civilians, including two children, in Baghdad in 2007.

What became known as the ‘Nisour Square massacre’ was another example of whitewashing, as government officials and mainstream media, though expressing outrage at the unlawful killing, insisted that the massacre was an isolated episode. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilians, were killed as a result of the American invasion seems irrelevant in the country’s skewed logic in its never-ending ‘war on terror’.

Whether Biden fulfills his promise of shutting down Guantánamo or not, little will change if the US remains committed to its condescending attitude towards international law and to its undeserved view of itself as a country that exists above the universal rights of everyone else.

That said, Guantánamo, on its own, is a crime against humanity and there can never be any justification to rationalize why hundreds of people are held indefinitely, without trial, without due process, without international observers and without ever seeing their families and loved ones. The explanation often offered by the pro-Guantánamo pundits is that the prison inmates are dangerous men. If that was, indeed, the case, why were these supposed criminals not allowed to see their day in court?

According to a report by Amnesty International published in May 2020, of the 779 men who were taken to that facility, “only seven have been convicted.” Worse, five of them were convicted “as a result of pre-trial agreements under which they pleaded guilty, in return for the possibility of release from the base.” According to the rights group, such a trial by ‘military commission’ “did not meet fair trial standards”.