In March, Peter T. King, Republican member of the State of New York and chairman of the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives plans to hold hearings on radicalization of American Muslims. Contrary to some critics, we do not believe King is motivated by hatred of Islam, nor that we should broaden the subject of hearings to include other forms of extremism for the sole purpose of saving face .
If the radicalization of American Muslims is, as suggested by King, a serious and growing threat to our security, hearings on the subject must be held at Congress to discuss the issue. The problem is that Peter T. King has yet to demonstrate such a threat, let alone prove that it has reached such a level that we should now bring this religion to a rigorous examination.
Take his comments on Muslim religious leaders. He claims that members of the local and federal police have told him they had received "very little cooperation or, in most cases, none of the part of Muslim leaders and imams" when necessary. It would also have heard of imams who order their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating recruiting young suicide bombers in their mosque.
King has shown, however, short on detail, and evidence is anecdotal and are approximate. They have also been contradicted by others, including the county sheriff of Los Angeles, Lee Baca, who said in early February that the Muslims of his county had played a key role in the fight against terrorism.
Some American Muslims have converted to radical Islam and have committed terrorist acts is an undeniable fact. Nidal Hasan Malik, the commander of U.S. forces in the United States born to Palestinian parents and author of the shooting on 5 November 2009 on the military base of Fort Hood, Texas, is often given as an example.
The FBI would be remiss if it was not investigating these people, and this may, in some cases, to interview members of Islamic clergy and the faithful. But the reasons given by Peter T. King to hold these hearings in Congress have not been documented. And if, in normal times, it does no harm can result from the hearings based on insufficient evidence, this is not the case this time.
Because the objective appears to assert that Muslims are dangerous and they lack loyalty to our country, when they are relatively unpopular with a segment of public opinion. Our greatest fear is that the Commission adopts a broad definition of "radicalization". Its members are reminded that several ideas "radical" is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which protects freedom of expression. Fortunately, the most vehement critics of Islam are not on the list of witnesses and Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim elected in Minnesota challenging the thesis of Peter T. King is among them. Thus, the hearings will perhaps not as incendiary than some fear.
Nevertheless, the implementation of a survey focusing on one religion creates some discomfort. As demonstrated by the controversy in the summer of 2010 by the construction project in New York of a mosque and a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, the site of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the anti Islamic is very real and widespread in our country.
The hearings held by Peter T. King may just exacerbate it. 
If the radicalization of American Muslims is, as suggested by King, a serious and growing threat to our security, hearings on the subject must be held at Congress to discuss the issue. The problem is that Peter T. King has yet to demonstrate such a threat, let alone prove that it has reached such a level that we should now bring this religion to a rigorous examination.
Take his comments on Muslim religious leaders. He claims that members of the local and federal police have told him they had received "very little cooperation or, in most cases, none of the part of Muslim leaders and imams" when necessary. It would also have heard of imams who order their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating recruiting young suicide bombers in their mosque.
King has shown, however, short on detail, and evidence is anecdotal and are approximate. They have also been contradicted by others, including the county sheriff of Los Angeles, Lee Baca, who said in early February that the Muslims of his county had played a key role in the fight against terrorism.
Some American Muslims have converted to radical Islam and have committed terrorist acts is an undeniable fact. Nidal Hasan Malik, the commander of U.S. forces in the United States born to Palestinian parents and author of the shooting on 5 November 2009 on the military base of Fort Hood, Texas, is often given as an example.
The FBI would be remiss if it was not investigating these people, and this may, in some cases, to interview members of Islamic clergy and the faithful. But the reasons given by Peter T. King to hold these hearings in Congress have not been documented. And if, in normal times, it does no harm can result from the hearings based on insufficient evidence, this is not the case this time.
Because the objective appears to assert that Muslims are dangerous and they lack loyalty to our country, when they are relatively unpopular with a segment of public opinion. Our greatest fear is that the Commission adopts a broad definition of "radicalization". Its members are reminded that several ideas "radical" is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which protects freedom of expression. Fortunately, the most vehement critics of Islam are not on the list of witnesses and Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim elected in Minnesota challenging the thesis of Peter T. King is among them. Thus, the hearings will perhaps not as incendiary than some fear.
Nevertheless, the implementation of a survey focusing on one religion creates some discomfort. As demonstrated by the controversy in the summer of 2010 by the construction project in New York of a mosque and a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, the site of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the anti Islamic is very real and widespread in our country.
The hearings held by Peter T. King may just exacerbate it.
- Michel Gagné's "Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet" game trailer (07/02/2011)
- XATA Names David Gagne as COO (27/01/2011)
- Chantale Gagné -][- WISDOM OF THE WATER [Chantale Gagné] (12/02/2011)
- Sneak Peek at Our New 3D Terrain! from STUFFER SHACK (16/02/2011)
- Simon Gagne, Matt Walker And The Most 'Nothing' Trade Ever ... Or Maybe Not (01/12/2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment