Who You Calling a Terrorist?

In Peter King’s world, the battle has only two sides and only one winning strategy.

by Amy Levin and Abby Ohlheiser 

Lately media outlets have been telling us what Americans believe, from how much we think we should be taxed, to how much we like Muslims. Even how (much) we believe in God. What Pew or Gallup haven’t capitalized on yet is Americans’ obsession with terrorism.  How many of us believe in it—as a great danger to society, for instance—or how do we collectively define it—say, as a feature of particular world regions or cultures? Not unlike past eras when Americans developed their own definitions of Marxist, Communist, fascist, or anarchist (not anything good, mind you), in our current era we confidently call individuals with non-conformist, “subversive” ideologies “terrorist.” Sure, there is a technical definition for the word, but like any of the above descriptions, the more we use terrorist, the more obscure its meanings become. Why are certain political institutions reconstructing the definition of terrorism? Which forms of power succeed in remolding the word’s transformation?  What are the implications of invoking terrorist discourse?

Steering the bandwagon on exposure of terrorist threats, Rep. Peter King (R-NY3) is but one of the the media’s returning bedfellows on the fear-trafficking topic of homeland security.  Like any politician’s platform, there’s more to King’s efforts than meets the eye.  Given the context–-the killings in Oslo by suspect Anders Breivik–of last Wednesday’s third round of hearings on Muslim radicalization it is perhaps not surprising that much of the time was spent discussing things other than the stated topic of the day, the threat of Al Shabaab in the US. Continue Reading →

U.S. Ethics, the Rule of Law and Human Rights

From Richard Kim’s recent editorial at The Nation, “Obama’s ‘War on Terror’“:

And so we now see clearly a kind of social cancer: the exercise of inhumane and abusive power simply because it is the state’s prerogative. Recall that this is what happened in Abu Ghraib—not torture for purpose but torture for fun, for petty retaliation, for no reason other than that the uniform allows it. The treatment of Manning in Quantico, as well as the incarceration of inmates in CMUs for no apparent penological purpose, demonstrates that the poisonous shards of Abu Ghraib are still with us.

Continue Reading →

America Has a Muslim Problem

Mary Slossen, a fellow at the USC Annenberg School for Communication Journalism blogs at their site, The Scoop, that recently proposed government hearings on the radicalization of American Muslim communities will only hinder the established cooperation these communities have with law enforcement groups, both local and federal.  In addition to needlessly singling out Muslim Americans, the hearings could pose a threat to the safety of those identified as Muslim American. Continue Reading →