Thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden

After reading reader-responses to a recent article in the New York Times reporting on Omar Bin Laden's (Osama's fourth son) condemnation of the US Government obviously for the assassination of his father, I was compelled to write my thoughts regarding this matter.

It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.

However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.

Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?

We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.

However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.

But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.

The Juan Williams Controversy

So Juan Williams, an NPR analyst and Fox News contributor, was fired from NPR for making this comment about Muslims:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

First and foremost, I don't believe he should have been fired; so he said something stupid. Everyone does. Obviously NPR was looking for an opportunity to fire Juan, probably due to his affiliation with Fox News. However, the people who are coming to his defense, particularly the ones at Fox News, are arguing on this point. Earlier today, Megyn Kelly was discussing the matter and had on someone or another from CAIR, an Muslim American rights advocacy group that called on NPR to address the problem and to take action against Juan Williams, and instead of arguing the sensible points she decided to try win the battle by trying to lower everyone's IQ a few notches.

Her argument mostly consisted of the fact that most of Americans feel the same way about Muslims and that Juan Williams was just being honest. Her point was that Williams is not a bigot, he was just being honest. I know this doesn't bother the type of viewers who watch Fox, but just it bothers me. I am, maybe foolishly, under the impression that if you honestly think a bigoted thought than it is still a bigoted thought. And that is true no matter how many Americans think the same way, it shouldn't matter either way. I mean for God's sake, at one point in this country, the majority believe that blacks were inferior to whites. The majority can be wrong, and is wrong often. I'm not saying that Juan Williams or the majority of Americans are bigots, but to stereotype all Muslims who dress in "Muslim garb" to be terrorists is, at the very least, discriminatory; undoubtedly. the majority of Muslims, including the majority who dress in religious clothing, are not terrorists.

Megyn Kelly's other point against the CAIR spokesman was some rhetoric about the freedom of speech. Yes, Williams has freedom of speech protected by the first amendment, but doesn't CAIR have freedom of speech as well? Don't they have the freedom to respond to call for action? In fact, as a Muslim American civil rights advocacy group, they wouldn't be doing their duty if they did not respond. However harmless Juan's remarks seemed, they were essentially promoting the use of racial and religious profiling by law enforcement, particularly at airports. Racial and religious profiling are blatant violations of civil rights.

Kelly's argument regarding first amendment rights reminds me of Dr. Laura's claim that her freedom of speech was being attacked when she got fired for saying the N-word like ten times; regardless of CAIR's own freedom of speech to respond, the fact is, people in the media have a right to free speech, but they don't necessarily have a right to free speech on TV or radio; it's not the government who's censoring them, it's always their own network due to pressures from advertisers, and they have the right. No matter how unfair it seems.

Of course, for viewers, CAIR's spokesman was hardly able to make any of these points effectively because of Kelly's tendency for interruptions and incessant ridiculing. Not that I think most Fox viewers would be listening for his points, anyhow.

Was firing Juan Williams unjustified? Hell yes. But not for any other reason than the fact that we all say stupid things sometimes. It is sad that the corporate media has been acting in such a way lately: we've had too many media personalities get fired recently for saying things that are deemed unacceptable. Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez's comments were stupid, yes. Some of the others, however, were making legitimate and thoughtful political statements and their firings did not even warrant more than a couple words by today's major news organizations.


For the record, I do think Juan Williams is probably the most even headed guy there at Fox News (along with Shepard Smith).

Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" "debate"

Not in a long time has the social climate in the United States climaxed into something so disgusting and embarrassing; it is impossible to turn on the news on the TV and not see images of people holding up anti-Muslim signs, or turn on the radio and hear the bantering of Islamophobes.

Sure, stereotyping of Muslims and general Islamophobia is nothing new, but never has it been flaunted so openly and with so much rage, especially by our public officials and mainstream public and cultural leaders: people with positions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Rick Lazio, and more have all been willing to throw a whole population of Muslim American under the bridge, whether it's for votes in the upcoming elections or some other unworthy cause. In some cases, some of these individuals may appear to actually believe what they are saying; indeed a rarity for the class of people who I am referring to. And this seems to be one of the only cases I wish that they didn't.

The whole issue really boils down to a basic question: Should we, as a society, have to be sensitive to the feelings of the ignorant whenever we make decisions?

Because the only reason why this is even an issue is because of the ignorant, and frankly bigoted, perception of many that all Muslims are anti-American terrorists, and more importantly, that Islam is a religion that has terrorism, violence, and anti-American sentiment at its core; that the hijackers who brought down the twin towers were following exactly what Islam teaches, and thus having a Islamic community center or house of worship near ground zero is like having a Nazi memorial center near Auschwitz.

Indeed, without these perceptions, this would not even be an issue. And these perceptions are, without doubt, based on ignorance and escalated by propaganda. Nevermind all the communities of peaceful American Muslims citizens in this country, or even those who serve in our military. Nevermind that there are just as many, if not more, promotions and depictions of violence (and misogyny) in the Bible, which is the religious text of choice of the majority of those who hold the perception that Islam is a religion of violence, as there is in the Koran. These are factors and facts that do not matter and are not exposed; thus someone like Pamela Geller can say such things as the type of Islam the 9/11 terrorists practiced is "pure Islam" without any resistance.

To be fair, there are, in the press, some defense of Muslim Americans. But not of Islam. It seems that questioning the validity of statements such as the one Pamela Geller made are excluded in the narrow spectrum of mainstream American discourse. Indeed, if it is acceptable to assume that Islam is a religion of terrorism and violence, then the same has to be said of mostly of all of the world's religions, with Christianity not only included but separated apart from the others as one of the biggest offenders. That is, if we are to be honest and truly contemplative.

The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not like Nazi Memorial near a concentration camp; in fact, if we want to make analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany, than the more sensible comparisons would be between the propaganda against Muslims and Islam we are hearing now by the likes of Fox News gang and the propaganda and indoctrination that was being heard in Germany regarding the Jews right before the holocaust. That is a real comparison, and it is frightening.

It is telling that there are protests now, not only against the "Ground Zero Mosque", but against many mosques in many completely unrelated communities. It shows that this has nothing to do with historical landmarks or controversial Imams: it has to do with hate and fear, and of course, ignorance.

So the questions stands: Should we have to be sensitive to the ignorant?