[Reader-list] Muslims unfair target of FBI surveillance

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear all

Considering the fact people having  the 'Islam' as a religious tag are
in the news for mostly wrong reasons, that government organizations
the world over are becoming wary of Muslims. And in a country like the
US where preemption has of lately emerged as the name of the game that
it is but natural to put 'Muslims' under scanner. The story below is a
testimony to an unfortunate fallout, a collateral damage, really, if
you may, of policies we allow our governments to pursue in the name of
securing us, protecting us.

Warm regards

Taha


http://www.cnjonline.com/opinion/unfair_33015___article.html/muslims_act.html

Muslims unfair target of FBI surveillance

Supporters of the Patriot Act and other expansive efforts to fight the
“war on    terror” often mock claims by civil libertarians that
aggressive federal spying powers within the United States undermines
civil liberties.

We’ve often heard conservatives ask critics to name anyone who has
lost any freedoms because of the government’s post-9/11 powers.

Yet such dismissive attitudes toward government snooping are easily
rebutted by recent events in California. A convicted con artist named
Craig Monteilh admitted last month that he infiltrated Orange County
mosques on behalf of the FBI and recorded conversations about the
possibility of blowing up buildings.

Although the FBI won’t confirm Monteilh’s identity, the agency
acknowledges that one suspect had been secretly recorded by an
informant, according to a news report.

Muslims say Monteilh, who went by Farouk  al-Aziz, tried to bait them
into discussing radical politics. Hussam Ayloush, head of the greater
Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in
Anaheim, said Monteilh went from one young Muslim to another and
engaged in radical discourse that promoted terrorism. Some people, he
said, stopped going to mosque to avoid these discussions. Some
mosque-goers   contacted the FBI to report the incident but were
referred to the Irvine Police Department, he said. Ayloush said those
men who called the authorities then became the subject of FBI
interrogations.

We’ve heard reports that Muslims are afraid to talk about politics or
civil liberties issues within their mosques or even among their
friends because of fear it will draw attention from undercover agents.
We agree with Ayloush, that “there should not be a presumption of
guilt among an entire community.” This could backfire, he explained,
as the FBI should supposedly work with American Muslims in the event
of a terrorist threat, not treat them as adversaries by creating fear
of surveillance within mosques.

Everyone understands the need for legitimate undercover activities in
response to credible evidence. But we cannot fathom the justification
for fishing expeditions and entrapment.

Nationwide, some of the supposed terrorist “plots” the FBI has claimed
to have foiled have simply been cases of entrapment involving Muslims
without the intent or wherewithal to pull off any attacks.

Infiltrating mosques without evidence of crime is an affront to the
First Amendment. We know the retort from the law-and-order crowd: If
you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear. That is the
motto of a police state.

Law-abiding, honest, terrorism-hating Americans have every legitimate
reason to watch their words in front of a federal agent. No one wants
to face trouble with powerful government agencies. So the natural
tendency is to stay quiet or avoid places the government might be
 monitoring. That’s what people always have done in totalitarian and
authoritarian nations.

The FBI’s activities have led a consortium of Muslim groups to
“consider suspending ongoing outreach efforts with the FBI.”

We can hardly blame them. Perhaps the Obama administration will
rethink this counterproductive and un-American strategy.