Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter

Susan Jacoby

Susan Jacoby is the author of nine books, most recently "The Age of American Unreason" and "Alger Hiss And The Battle for History."

 ALL POSTS

King's hearings an un-American activity

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, will begin holding hearings Thursday on "the extent of the radicalization of American Muslims." Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has characterized the hearings as "a witch hunt." Are they?

King also has said he believes the "self-radicalization" of American Muslims represents "a very small minority" of the overall community. What are the potential consequences of singling out one religious group?

Some men beat their wives. Therefore, we should have a Congressional hearing in which all men's groups are called to account for the behavior of their abusive brethren. That's the "reasoning" behind Rep. Pete King's hearings on homegrown radical Islamists. The only purpose of these hearings is to insult American Muslims and inflate the reputation of a political publicity hound. As for finding out anything about real homegrown radicals, genuine conspiracies are unmasked through good intelligence work and the cooperation of informers. Neither of these take place before television cameras at public hearings.

In an interview with The New York Daily News, King displayed his stupidity by describing the recruitment of radicals within the American Muslim community "just like the Mafia came from the Italian community, the Westies came from the Irish community." He is right, of course, that the Westies were Irish mobsters and many early generation mafiosi in the United States were Italian Americans. Later in the 20th century, Americans who supported the Irish Republican Army with arms and money--a much better analogy to American-born terrorists like the would-be Times Square bomber--also came from the Irish American community. But I don't recall any hearings in which American Catholic bishops were called to Washington to account for the actions of a few of their co-religionists in supporting the terrorist IRA. And hearings on the Mafia were confined to members of the Mafia themselves. Or perhaps King would like to question Russian Orthodox priests and immigrant deli owners from Brighton Beach because there is now a criminal "Russian mafia," through which some Russian Americans make a living today?

The irony is that such hearings can only discourage cooperation from Muslim Americans with the efforts of government intelligence agencies to uncover homegrown plots. These hearings are not only an attack on religious freedom or on a particular ethnic group: they are a pure example of guilt by association. King is behaving as a one-man House Un-American Activities Committee.

By Susan Jacoby  |  March 7, 2011; 8:33 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Why stir up suspicion? | Next: King using blunt instrument but nuance needed

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



I don't know if comparison to mafias is really the best analogy. Let me suggest another one:

Suppose in the few years after Timothy McVeigh's bombing, a Neo-Nazi group attacked a synagogue, a vigilante border patrol group attacked some Mexicans crossing the American desert, and a Klan-type group arsoned an African-American megachurch. Congress would (correctly) hold hearings on whether the American far right had become too violent. A Democratic-led hearing would question whether the far right's values were un-American; a Republican-led one would ask whether their actions were the illegitimate expression of legitimate complaints about the acts of expansive government.

Is holding hearings on radical Islam more like questioning the far right or more like questioning the leaders of mafia-heavy ethnic groups? Other than the fact that Muslims and mafiosos are both largely recent immigrants or their first-generation descendants, in most other ways Islam is like the far right. Mafias result when an immigrant group lands on our shores many members who are very smart, but lack educational credentials or a nest egg of capital. A fraction of them will determine that crime is their most hopeful route to prosperity. It was true of Italians and Jews (Arnold Rothstein, Meyer Lansky) at the beginning of the last century, and of Russians at the end of it.

But Al Capone and Bugsy Siegel never claimed they were committing crime to promote Italian culture or Judaism; theirs was a purely monetary motivation. Radical Islam commits violence in the name of promoting an ideology, like McVeigh and Von Brunn did. If there's one thing the mafia most explicitly does NOT do, it's kill random civilians for publicity.

The 9/11 hijackers were primarily Saudi, the shoe bomber was British, the underwear bomber Nigerian, the Times Square bomber Pakistani, the Fort Hood shooter American of Palistinian parents. There's no ETHNIC link here; but there is an IDEOLOGICAL one.

Posted by: WmarkW | March 12, 2011 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This time atheists aren’t the target of the Republican witch hunt. In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy held hearings on un-American activity which focused on exposing the godless communist threat. Today’s threat comes from the god-fearing however. But it isn’t atheists holding the hearings; its Christian god-fearing theists vs. the even more god-fearing Muslims.

Let me try to wrap my godless brain around this. Congressman King admits that “a very small minority” of American Muslims might be terrorists and that according to The American Religious Identification Survey; American Muslims make up about .6% of the population. So a very small minority of .6% (already a very small minority) might be terrorists. Wow!

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/g1oojt

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Posted by: dangeroustalk | March 9, 2011 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment


VISIONFROMAFAR,

“I have to say, JUSTACOMMENT, that your statement can be applied very liberally, which I don't think you intended. I feel the need to point out that your same reasoning can apply to say that all Christians are gay-hating, military-disrepsecting, media-whoring nutjobs, simply because Phelps calls himself a Christian too?”

In great length you make my point, thanks.

Suppose there is an organization that most of the participants are honest but they have a written mission to rob people. Only 5% of members, including some leaders, steal property, are jailed and frequently appear in the crime section of the news. Would you be interested to belong to that organization? If your name is attached to the organization is like you are supporting the mission and the actions to fulfill it. You should accept moral responsibility for those acts or leave the organization.

So, apply the example to Christians and the conclusion is the same. The books they follow instruct to hate gays acts and order to kill the perpetrators. This means that the good Christian majority is morally responsibly for gay-hating, harassing, and some times killing. Otherwise they should leave the club and stop financial contributions.

Same with Muslims. If in they have a written mission to kill infidels and some few leaders and members actually kill infidels, leave the club and stop financial contributions. Otherwise you agree with them.

OK, there is another option if you belong to one of those clubs. Pray to god in order for him/her to amend the book...

Posted by: JUSTACOMMENT | March 8, 2011 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I have to say, JUSTACOMMENT, that your statement can be applied very liberally, which I don't think you intended. I feel the need to point out that your same reasoning can apply to say that all Christians are gay-hating, military-disrepsecting, media-whoring nutjobs, simply because Phelps calls himself a Christian too?

Don't be naive.

Posted by: VisionFromAfar | March 8, 2011 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

From the topic: "What are the potential consequences of singling out one religious group? "

This group's tenets will come under scrutiny:

To wit:

One of the major tenets of Islam is to believe in the existence of angels.

So in the 21st century, what can we conclude about angels:

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc.

No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented."

Posted by: YEAL9 | March 8, 2011 1:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment


@CADAM72

Whether you are Christian or Muslim you should understand that in the past and the present the leadership of both these religions has been making the followers commit reproachable acts or condoning them. You cannot argue that most who belong to those religions are good citizens and moral people. You along with them contribute with your passive support and funds to whatever positive or horrendous actions they perform. If you adhere to a club that is known to have a 5% of extremist that control the messages and execute reproachable acts, you are going to be pointed as “one of them”. Your moral responsibility should be to disassociate yourself from that club.

If in addition to a bad reputation well deserved, the club is based on delusions of ancient bronze age peasants...

But still you may be agnostic, atheist or uninterested. More likely your position on this will be close to the one in this post.

Posted by: JUSTACOMMENT | March 7, 2011 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh, he's a Christian, all right, Catholic to be more specific, as is Peter King, and quite devout, he is, too. Interesting, a bit frightening, and complex. I've met him, but more on that another time.

Posted by: Farnaz2Mansouri21 | March 7, 2011 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeal9, nice to see your copy and paste job here. Please learn a bit about the American muslims around you (doctors, teachers, engineers, etc) and you may open your eyes and your ignorance and hatred will shrink. You sir, are no Christian.

Posted by: cadam72 | March 7, 2011 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What causes Muslims to perform acts of koranic-driven terror and horror?

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/ market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Hopefully, Rep. King's investigation will put some specifics to this horror.


Posted by: YEAL9 | March 7, 2011 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company