By Philip Giraldi

Mark Twain is credited with saying that “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today’s United States is often compared to other historic nations, whether at their prime or about to decline and fall depending on one’s own political perspective. Neoconservatives frequently eulogize Washington as a new Rome, promising a worldwide empire without end carried on the back of a Pentagon bristling with advanced weaponry. Other observers also cite Rome but are rather more sanguine, recalling how in the 5th century the empire failed dramatically and fell to barbarian hordes. Still others note the fate of the British Empire, which came apart in the wake of the Second World War, or the Soviets, whose collapse was brought about by 50 years of unsustainable military spending.

But the historical analogy that appears to be most apposite for post-9/11 Washington is that of the Weimar Republic. To be sure, any suggestion that the United States might be following the same course as Germany in the years that led to Nazism must be pursued with caution because few Americans want to believe that the descent into such extremism is even possible in the world’s most venerable constitutional republic. But consider the following: both the United States and Weimar Germany had constitutions in which checks and balances were integrated to maintain a multi-party system, the rule of law, and individual liberties. Both countries were on the receiving end of acts of terrorism that produced a dramatic and violent reaction against the presumed perpetrators of the crimes, so both quickly adopted legislation that abridged many constitutional rights and empowered the head of state to react decisively to further threats. The media fell in line, concerned that criticism would be unpatriotic.

Both the U.S. and Germany possessed politically powerful military-industrial complexes that had a vested interest in encouraging a militarized response to the threats and highly polarized internal politics that enabled politicians to obtain advantage by exploiting national security concerns. Both countries experienced severe financial crises and printed fiat currency to pay the bills, and both had jurists and political supporters who argued that in time of crisis the head of state must be granted special executive authority that transcends the limits placed by the constitution.

The Weimar Republic, which replaced rule by the German emperor in the aftermath of World War I, was a liberal democracy in the 19th-century sense, which means it had a constitution that guaranteed individual and group rights, multi-party systems, and free elections at regular intervals. It took its name from the city of Weimar, where the constitution was drawn up in a national assembly convened in 1919. From the start, Weimar was plagued by a failure to create a sustainable political culture because of the high level of polarization and violence instigated by both the major and fringe parties, even though the relatively moderate Social Democrats were normally dominant.

Adolph Hitler became German chancellor in January 1933. The chancellor was the head of government, but the head of state was President and Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was a hero of the First World War, and he despised the dangerous parvenu Hitler but foolishly thought he could control him. The National Socialist Party was, however, still a minority party in parliament with 33% of the popular vote when Hitler took charge, holding only three out of 11 cabinet positions. Strong socialist, Catholic, and communist parties actively contested the Nazis’ agenda. The media reflected the political divisions, with many papers opposing Hitler and his government.

Hitler benefited from the political paralysis of Weimar, which had forced his Reich chancellor predecessors to rule by presidential decree to bypass the logjam in parliament, but he could not actually legislate in that fashion and did not have a free ride. There was considerable resistance to his policies. All of that changed, however, when the seat of parliament in Berlin, the Reichstag, was burned down on Feb. 27, 1933. It was an act of terrorism that shocked the nation, and it was eventually attributed to an addled Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe, though it was almost certainly carried out by the Nazis themselves. Hitler convinced President Hindenburg to sign a “Reichstag Fire Decree” on the following day, canceling the constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, and the privacy of communications. It authorized police search and seizure without any judicial warrant. It was no coincidence that the fire took place two weeks before parliamentary elections in which the Nazis, who beat and otherwise intimidated opponents and “monitored” the polling stations, won nearly 44% of the votes. The opposition, including the technically illegal communists, took 42% and Hitler was denied his majority, but he arrested socialist opponents, barred the communists, and was eventually able to form a government with his parliamentary allies.

Cajoling the Catholic parties to vote with him, Hitler subsequently passed the Enabling Act, which gave him the authority to ignore parliament and pass laws by decree. The full name of the Enabling Act was, in English, the “Act for the Removal of Distress from People and Reich.” Aided by leading jurists like Carl Schmitt, who argued that a powerful executive could ignore restraints imposed by bureaucrats and constitutions when required to cope with a “crisis,” and supported by conservatives and the army, Hitler quickly moved to consolidate power. The communist and socialist parties as well as any “new” parties were made illegal. In 1934, upon the death of Hindenburg, Hitler assumed the powers of the presidency, and the army began to swear allegiance to him rather than to the constitution. Germany became a dictatorship, and the rest is history. The March 1933 election was the last free election in Germany until the creation of the Federal Republic in 1949.

Fast forward 68 years. George W. Bush was president in 2001, a year after one of the most polarizing elections in U.S. history. There had been a gradual aggrandizement of the power of the U.S. presidency relative to the other branches of government since the Civil War, but most observers would have conceded that the constitutional separation of executive from legislative from judiciary remained largely intact. All of that was to change when the Twin Towers went down and the Pentagon was struck on 9/11. Though the Bush administration apparently had no hand in those events, the result was not too dissimilar to the aftermath of the Reichstag fire. A number of Bush Pentagon appointees, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, quickly mobilized to exploit the terror attack and pass legislation that would empower the White House and permit a massive military campaign directed against a number of countries that had been targeted for “regime change,” mostly in the Middle East. As a result, Iraq was eventually bombed and invaded even though it did not threaten the United States.

The first anti-terror legislation to pass was the USA PATRIOT Act, the full title of which is the “The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” a euphemism oddly reminiscent of Hitler’s Enabling Act. The PATRIOT Act became law six weeks after the fall of the Twin Towers and was followed by the PATRIOT Act II of 2006. Together, the two laws diminished constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights were all discarded or abridged in the rush to make it easier to investigate, sometimes torture, and jail both foreigners and American citizens.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) followed, creating military tribunals for the trying of “unlawful enemy combatants,” including American citizens. Unlike in a civil or criminal court, the accused needs only a two-thirds vote by the commission members present to be convicted, resulting in a much higher conviction rate. The act suspends habeas corpus and Geneva Convention protections and permits the indefinite jailing of suspects in a military prison without charges or access to a lawyer. Hearsay or even information obtained overseas during torture can be used to obtain the conviction, while detainees do not have access to any classified information being used against them and cannot cross examine or even know the identity of witnesses.

Concurrent with the PATRIOT and Military Commission Acts, advocates of torture also emerged in Washington, not unlike the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt’s justification of the essentially lawless “Fuhrer State.” Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee declared torture legal because the president has the authority to do anything he deems necessary in time of crisis, the same argument that Hitler’s apologists made in discarding Weimar’s rule of law.

President Barack Obama has expanded the Bush portfolio, repeatedly citing state-secrets privileges to prevent any legal challenges while authorizing the assassination of U.S. citizens overseas based on suspicion, carrying out acts of war against countries with which Washington is not at war, and now, finally, signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which provides for indefinite military detention of anyone anywhere for any reason, including U.S. citizens in the United States, because the “whole world is the battlefield.” Did Hitler behave similarly in contravention of the Weimar constitution? He sure did. And if the expression “global war on terror” had been around in 1933, he likely would have used it auf Deutsch.

Sadly, on the verge of a new year, it is hard to argue that Washington in 2011 is much different from Weimar and Berlin in 1933. Last week, a man in Boston was convicted and sent to prison because he had traveled to Yemen and apparently wanted to join a terrorist group. He didn’t actually join the group; he just wanted to do it. So the age of the thought crime has arrived, something that even Hitler’s house jurist might have thought preposterous. Though we are not yet at the point where the president can declare opposition political parties illegal, Newt Gingrich might entertain the possibility if he were in charge. Pledges of personal loyalty to the leader, disenfranchisement of ethnic and religious minorities, and the burning of books by government fiat have not yet occurred either, but if one parses some of the rhetoric coming out of leading Republican presidential aspirants it is not inconceivable Muslim citizens will be subject to special security monitoring while a bonfire day featuring tracts on global warming and Darwinism might join Dixie Chicks CDs and french fries on the destroy-on-sight list.

While I jest to a certain extent, the power coupled with lack of accountability that has been assumed by the White House should be regarded as a deadly serious matter by every American citizen. If you think Weimar Republic Germany is a long time ago and far away so it can’t happen here, you are wrong. It can happen here, and unless something is done to stop it, it almost surely will happen here. It is happening already.

Article courtesy Philip Giraldi

By Ann Wright

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right when he suggested that the WikiLeaks revelations were “embarrassing” and “awkward.” But his assessment — and that of so many other government officials — stems from the magnitude of what he left unsaid.

These revelations are not merely embarrassing. They also contain evidence of government actions and policies that are an abuse of power and that violate international human-rights standards to which we as Americans are committed.

For instance, through the information coming from WikiLeaks documents, the public is now aware of “FRAGO 242” — an official order not to report evidence of prisoner abuse by Iraqi security forces. This policy violates the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in 1994. The treaty explicitly requires allegations of cruel or inhuman treatment to be investigated and brought to a halt.
Advertisement

In recent days, WikiLeaks has released cables that show government officials helped conceal the heinous execution of family members of suspected combatants in Iraq. The site of the murders, which included the execution-style slaying of two children and three infants, was obliterated by a subsequent coalition airstrike.

Taken as a whole, the material shows a pattern of concealing abuse by both U.S. and coalition forces. The information revealed by WikiLeaks is thus a critically important tool for those who seek to uphold basic human-rights standards and the professional conduct of U.S. military forces.

These revelations also bring our system of classification into question. Although Pfc. Bradley Manning has not yet been brought to trial, President Barack Obama has publicly declared that the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst “broke the law” by allegedly sending this restricted information to WikiLeaks.

Many civilians — and a surprising number of military personnel — are unaware that this system of classification is not grounded in any law passed by Congress. In fact, the entire edifice that allows the use of classification rests solely on the basis of executive orders that have been renewed and modified by various presidents. The ability to restrict information from the public is essentially an unchecked assertion of executive power.

However, according to Obama’s policy for classification of government documents (Executive Order 13526), there are several situations under which government information must never be classified. The government cannot use classification procedures “to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency … or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

Administration officials have not provided any evidence that these WikiLeaks revelations have harmed our national security. They have, however, acknowledged that some of the material is personally, and professionally, embarrassing.

But they continue to act as if evidence of illegal or otherwise unethical behavior simply does not exist.

If online conversations attributed to Manning are accurate, it appears that his self-described “turning point” came when his own commanding officer refused to acknowledge clear evidence of an abuse of power. According to these conversations, Manning says he was told to investigate 15 Iraqi academics who had been brought in for questioning by Iraqi security forces, for the crime of supposedly printing “anti-Iraqi literature.”

After running the printed material through a translator, Manning realized that it was actually an article titled “Where Did the Money Go?” which sought to expose corruption within Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Cabinet. Manning’s commanding officer is said to have told Manning to “shut up” and find out how he could bring in more detainees. The message was clear: He could not rely on the chain of command to address evidence of wrongdoing.

This incident would be consistent with other revelations that have since emerged from the WikiLeaks embassy cables. Several diplomatic cables express concern about al-Maliki’s politicization of his security forces, using them to abuse political opponents.

In July, the Red Cross and a group of Iraqi parliamentarians asked for an investigation into an alleged torture facility being run by one of al-Maliki’s elite units in Baghdad’s Green Zone. That same month, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction issued a report that noted more than $17 billion in funds that have gone missing.

The pattern of ignoring or otherwise concealing clear evidence of abuse has become so familiar that, to many, it now seems normal. But pretending that problems don’t exist won’t make them go away.

A recent report from the Council of Europe, which convenes the European Commission on Human Rights, stated that the current “deficit of transparency” among Western security and intelligence institutions leaves no choice but for the public to rely on whistle-blowers to hold governments accountable.

Instead of punishing and silencing alleged whistle-blowers like Manning for revealing uncomfortable truths, we should honor their courage to stand up for what’s right.

That’s all we should ask any American to do.

Ann Wright is a 29-year veteran who retired as a U.S. Army Reserve colonel and who later served as a U.S. diplomat in nine countries and deputy ambassador in four U.S. embassies. She is a member of the Advisory Board for the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Article courtesy Stars and Stripes

http://www.moveoveraipac.org/

Beirut.

On April 13, 2011, more than a dozen Israel “First, last and always” US congressional leaders from both houses of Congress held an urgent conference call organized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). Their purpose was to discuss how best to promote Israel during next month’s US visit by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and more importantly how to confront the rapidly changing Middle East political landscape. One consensus was that no one saw it coming and that it was dangerous for Israel.

Among those participating were Jewish former Chairs of powerful committees including Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who headed the Banking Committee; Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ex-chairman of the Commerce and Energy committee; Howard Berman (D-Calif.), ex-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ex-chairwoman of the foreign operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee as well as Eric Cantor, House Majority leader, the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in history.

What AIPAC operatives reportedly told the conference attendees was that Netanyahu is once again furious with President Obama and outraged by what he sees as a vacillating US Government attitude towards Israeli needs. They were told that the Israeli PM sees real political danger for Israel in the shifting US public opinion in favor of the young sophisticated attractive Arab and Muslims increasingly seen on satellite channels from the region who remind the American public of their own ideals.

Netanyahu, the conferees were told, wants Congress to flex its muscle with the White House and deliver a strong message to President Obama that his political future is tied to Israel’s. Hence the current “America needs Israel more than ever stupid!” campaign wafting from the Israel lobby across the talk radio airwaves.

In addition, as more Israeli officials are indicted for various domestic crimes, and some harbor fears of arrest for international ones, 68 per cent of the American Jewish community, according to one by poll commissioned last month by Forward, believe the US Israel lobby is increasingly fossilized with the likes of ADL (Anti-Defamation League) director Abe Foxman’s vindictive infighting among several of the largest Jewish lobby organizations which continue to lose memberships, especially among the young.

Congressman Eric Cantor lamented that “Israel is badly losing the US College campuses”, despite heavy financial investments the past few years to curb American students’ growing support for Gaza and Palestine. Support for Palestine is skyrocketing he claimed. “Until Palestine is freed from Zionist occupation no Arab or Muslim is truly free of Western hegemony,” according to one assistant editor of Harvard University’s student newspaper, the Crimson.

Admitting that the Mossad did not foresee even the Tunisian or Egyptian uprisings, some AIPAC staffers, admit to not knowing how to react to the topics they were presented with for discussion, some of which included:

· The Egyptian public emphatic insistence that the 1978 Camp David Accords be scrapped and that the Rafah crossing be opened. The latter has just been announced and the former is expected to be achieved before the end of the year.

· The change of regimes and the dramatic rise in publicly expressed anti-Israel sentiment and insistence that Israel close its embassy and Egypt withdraw its recognition of the Zionist state.

· The apparent rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas which has been increasingly demanded by the Palestinians under occupation and in the Diaspora.

· The fact that the new regime in Cairo is seeking to upgrade its ties with Gaza’s Hamas rulers as well as Iran.

· With respect to possible PA-Hamas rapprochement, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor is trying to reassure Israel before Netanyahu’s visit by announcing this week that “The United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace, but to play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

AIPAC frequently knocks heads with the Israeli embassy in Washington for control of visiting Israeli PMs’ and important government’s schedules will control what Netanyahu says and does. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr recently told a group of visiting Jewish student activists from California that “sometimes there is confusion in this town over just where the Israeli Embassy is located but let me assure you it’s no more than 300 yards from the Capitol Dome on North Capitol Street, NW.”

AIPAC, not the Israeli Embassy will write the final draft of Netanyahu’s speeches including the themes he will emphasize. According to a Congressional source with AIPAC connections, Netanyahu’s visit will focus on the following:

· Bashing Iran to please the White House. However, this mantra will have to compete with the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world and which are terrifying not just Netanyahu, but also AIPAC and their hirelings in congress.

· Warning against the dangers to “the peace process” of any PA-Hamas unity government.

· Warnings about the threats to Israel from Egypt and popular calls for scrapping of the 1978 Camp David Accords, ending the Egyptian subsidy and supply of 40 per cent of Israel’s natural gas, calls for closing the Israeli Embassy, the dangers of permanently opening the Rafah border crossing “that will allow Hamas to in the words of, an Israeli official speaking on condition of anonymity to the Washington Post that Gaza’s Hamas rulers had already built up a “dangerous military machine” in northern Sinai which could be further strengthened by opening the border.

· The tried and tested bromide that “Israel has no peace partner to negotiate with will be used but this too has lost its bite, given that the Palestine Papers has shown that the PA for five years habitually caved into Israel demands and are widely viewed as collaborators with Israel in preserving the status quo– so what more could be expected from them? The truth is that Mahmoud Abbas and Salem Fayyad are Netanyahu, Liberman’s and Barak’s favorite “peace partners.”

· Netanyahu will hint at and AIPAC will drill in the idea that the Obama administration has been too hard on Israel.

While Netanyahu announced this week that “I will have the opportunity to air the main parts of Israel’s diplomatic and defense policies during my visit in the United States”, informed sources report that his main goal and timing of his visit is to undermind a rumored initiative that President Obama’s team has been working on.

Netanyahu, according to AIPAC, also plans to attack the UN’s plan to admit Palestine and its offices are preparing a media blitz in an attempt to undermine the U.N. recognition of Palestine by arguing that such a General Assembly action would not in reality mean Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and East Jerusalem because of the fact that Israel currently controls those territories. AIPAC is arguing that such United Nations recognition of Palestine would only reiterate the principle, previously articulated by the U.N which denies the legitimacy of Israel’s claim to territories acquired by force in the war of June 1967.

In reality, and as AIPAC well knows, UN recognition of Palestine would have a devastating effect on Israel’s legitimacy and would fuel an international campaign to force every colonist out of the West Bank. Given the feelings of virtually all people in the Middle East and North Africa toward Israel this could dramatically undermine the apartheid state. AIPAC and Israel’s agents in Congress also ignore the fact that the U.N. is the only the international body that admitted Israel as a member state in May 1949, although the resolution noted a connection between Israel’s recognition and the implementation of resolution 181 of November 1947, which called for partition of what had been British Mandate Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

The reason that intense angst and even fear stalks the Houses of Congress and AIPAC is that some US officials are starting to express treasonous thoughts long kept to themselves.

One seemingly shocking statement was made to a visiting Oregon delegation during a recent visit to Congressional offices by a Member of Congress never known for being publicly critical of Israel. As reported via email: “He said recent events suggest that while (the revolts spreading, across the Middle East) are not the immediate end of the State of Israel, he believes they are harbingers and signal the ‘beginning of the end of the State of Israel as we have known it. And that will be good for America and humanity.”

“What seems to have particularly upset him was his own mentioning to the group was a recent report about a conference of Rabbis in Israel who are demanding the expulsion of non-Jews, especially Palestinians, from occupied Palestine in order to maintain the “ethnical and religious purity of the peoples of Israel.”

He quoted Dov Lior, the rabbi of Kiryat Araba, an illegal settlement near Hebron, who according to media reports told a conference organized to discuss how to get non-Jews in mandatory Palestine to leave the country for the sake of Jewish immigrants who had no roots in Palestine: “Today there is a lot of land in Saudi Arabia and in Libya, too. There is a lot of land in other places. Send them there.” As scholar Khalid Amayreh reminds us, it was Lior, who in 1994 praised arch-terrorist Baruch Goldstein for massacring 29 Arab worshipers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in downtown Hebron, said peace in the Holy Land was out of the question because the Arabs wouldn’t allow Jews to usurp the land.

Meanwhile, a large coalition of pro peace and pro-Palestinian organizations, under the umbrella of http://www.moveoveraipac.org/ is preparing a new and different American reception for the Israeli Prime Minister.

(Courtesy Franklin Lamb and CounterPunch.org)

Franklin Lamb

Prof. Todd Green of Luther College spoke in Des Moines at a monthly Interfaith Alliance of Iowa event on April 15

By Michael Gillespie, Contributing Editor

Interfaith Alliance of Iowa’s monthly lunch and discussion event, Crossroads, featured Prof. Todd Green of Luther College on April 15. Green, who teaches courses on European and American religious history, spoke about and facilitated discussion of recent conflicts over mosques and minarets in the USA and Europe and the underlying causes of the controversy.

“It is difficult, and I know this from personal experience, it is difficult in this country and across the Atlantic in Europe as well, to have a calm, rational, civil conversation about Islam. It’s harder than it seems, particularly when talking about the conflicts that we’re going to be dealing with today, over mosques, over minarets, and starting with the conflict over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City, because when that conflict emerged last year in the late spring early summer, it was pretty clear to me that this was not a conflict over a building, it was first and foremost a conflict over a religion, and the place of that religion in the West, in the United States. It’s a conflict over a religion that many in the West still don’t quite trust or understand,” Green told an audience numbering about 60 who had gathered in Waveland Hall at Plymouth Congregational Church.

Green provided a brief history of the development of the conflict over what became known as the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ which he described as “a major national controversy,” and identified four points of contention. The first was location, the proximity to Ground Zero being sensitive to the families of those affected by the attacks of 9/11. The use of the building was another, said Green. Was it to be a mosque or an Islamic center, and what is the difference? Most Americans don’t have an adequate vocabulary to distinguish between the two, noted Green. The third issue was funding. Would there be foreign contributions and influence? And finally there were questions about the organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposed building the center that was to be named Cordoba House.

Green spoke about similar controversies in Europe and compared and contrasted them with events in the USA.

“Muslims had been worshiping in Europe for decades in significant numbers, and no one cared,” said Green, explaining that when their numbers increased and they began to build mosques, they became more visible. “That’s when we have controversy,” said Green.

“Similarly, in the United States, it’s not like in the past decade, we now suddenly have Muslims worshiping in America. But we have the increasing visibility of Islam, and as mosques are being built we can see Islam, and that’s when we have the tension in Europe and in America,” said Green, who noted that in some European countries the controversy has shifted to minarets.

“A minaret is a prayer tower, usually attached to or located adjacent to mosques, sometimes compared to steeples, but they are very tall towers,” explained Green, adding that in many Islamic countries, minarets are where the call to prayer is broadcast, but in European countries, with but a few exceptions such as the Netherlands, the call to prayer is not allowed.

Minarets, being tall, are much more visible, and there is a fear that one day the call to prayer in Arabic would be broadcast from minarets in the West, said Green.

“That drives some of the anxiety as well,” said Green, who noted that in Switzerland a recently adopted law prohibits the building of minarets though there are only four such towers in the entire country, while France has new legislation banning the wearing of the burqa, a woman’s loose body-covering that includes the head-covering, hijab, and the face-veil, in public.

Green noted that, “the diversity of political and legal approaches to religious liberty in Europe make it more possible in some European countries to restrict freedom of religion in a way that the First Amendment in the United States makes very difficult. … In New York, there’s a good example of how quickly the debate shifted away from whether Muslims have a right to build an Islamic center there. Even the greatest opponents said, ‘OK, Muslims have a right to do this.’ The First Amendment trumped that. The argument had to take on a different tone, a different angle,” said Green, who noted that Europe is much more secular than the USA.

“Those who are uncomfortable with Islam on both sides of the Atlantic tend to define Islam as inherently oppressive, anti-democratic, anti-woman … dangerous, and incapable of being reconciled with Western values and Western ideals,” said Green.

Green pointed out that Europeans and Americans who are opposed to Islam and the building of mosques frequently attempt to portray Islam as not really being a religion.

“When Newt Gingrich came out against the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero, he made this move. … There is a method to his madness, in that he wanted to say, ‘This is not a religion and we don’t need to be worried about being sensitive to another religious community because this is about a political movement. This is about political conquest.’ I can think of plenty of examples in Europe where you hear the exact same language, including the case in Switzerland against minarets. As the Swiss Peoples Party, which is a far-Right political party that led that campaign, often said to the Swiss People as it was trying to gear up for its referendum, ‘If you are worried about infringing upon the religious freedom of Muslims, don’t worry about it, this isn’t a religion. You can go to bed and sleep peacefully. This is a political movement bent on conquering the West. Minarets’, as one member of the party said, ‘are like flags that generals plant in the ground when they have conquered territory,’” said Green.

By transforming Islam from a religion to a political movement in public discourse, opponents of Islam seek to make it acceptable for Westerners to put aside their own traditions of pluralism and tolerance, and their longstanding commitment to religious freedom, said Green.

“That tactic was used on both sides of the Atlantic, and I assure you that in Switzerland it was used quite effectively,” said Green.

Connie Ryan Terrell, Executive Director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, introduced Prof. Todd Green

Finally, Green addressed Muslim leaders’ inability to be heard in the West, touching on obstacles presented by Western media outlets and the reluctance of some Muslims leaders to speak publicly about controversial issues.

“When conflicts emerge in Europe and in the United States pertaining to Islam, it becomes very difficult, I’m not going to say impossible, but very difficult for Muslim leaders to assert their points. Sometimes it’s a conscious choice for some of these leaders to recede and allow leaders like Mayor Bloomberg to be their spokesmen. … I don’t know what to make of that. It concerns me. It’s a challenge that any interfaith organization has, including this one, when they are dealing with interfaith dialog and understanding. Who gets to speak for what religion? And particularly when conflicts emerge, Muslims have trouble having a voice. Or sometimes they actually make the decision to cede that to someone else to make matters better. That troubles me. It should trouble all of us. Interfaith dialog isn’t really interfaith dialog when we are talking about Muslims and it’s not Muslims who are articulating their own religion, other people are talking for them in an autonomous voice. I assure you that in the United States, many Christians wouldn’t stand for that, people who aren’t Christian defining Christianity in a public space. But that standard seems not to apply across the board, and we need to address that,” said Green who then invited his audience to ask questions.

The response was enthusiastic with about half a dozen members of the audience asking questions and in some cases engaging in dialog and a wider discussion facilitated by Green.

In response to a question by David Drake, a member of the Des Moines Human Rights Commission, regarding the recent French legislation banning the burqa, Green noted that he had visited France last summer.

“I was there four days in Paris. I saw one burqa. Estimates are that less than 2,000 women in the entire country wear the burqa. It reminds me of Switzerland and the minaret ban. France doesn’t seem to have a real burqa problem. Why ban it? Why ban minarets? Is it because burqas are flooding the streets? Or is it something else? This is also an example of the very people who might have something to say about what that religious clothing means to them, Muslim women, aren’t given a voice. Others are telling them, ‘This is an oppressive garment. You’re probably being forced to wear this by your husband or your Imam,’ and Muslim women cannot speak for themselves,” said Green.

Among those who put questions and comments before the group were Samar Sarhan, an American and a Muslim of Palestinian descent, and Mirza Baig, President of the Islamic Center of Des Moines.

Baig noted that most Muslims are immigrants and that the Muslim community in America is growing and changing.

“Christianity went though this 200 years ago. Muslims are doing this under an excruciating amount of pressure from the Western society and media,” said Baig, who explained why some Muslims are reluctant to speak publicly.

“One reason why we are not [more actively involved in the discussion] is that we are not eloquent. My parents and most of my, um, parishioners, in my community are immigrants. They don’t speak proper English. It comes out badly when somebody is very passionate about something and is having trouble speaking the language and is trying to impress something, it never comes out properly. Trust me, when it comes to the media and the two second sound bite, it never comes out right,” said Baig.

Baig declined to be drawn into a discussion about particular passages in the Holy Quran or particular statements made by scholars of Islam, saying, “I’m not a historian or a religious scholar. … If you go to Jordan or Syria, these issues [that may be controversial here] are not that relevant. They are more relevant here because of the identity that we are establishing in Western society,” said Baig.

Sarhan, who was wearing hijab, declared that she has a voice.

“I am a Muslim woman. I have a voice. Hijab doesn’t cover my face, it doesn’t cover my mouth, it doesn’t cover my mind. … I’m American; I was born in Dayton, Ohio in case you were wondering. I can show you my passport. [general laughter and applause] I have a Catholic mom, but I choose to follow Islam. We don’t hear that story. We hear the story about the Muslim man who killed his wife. We hear the story of the woman who was beaten up. I work as a social worker. I don’t have a harrowing story of, ‘My family persecuted me and I ran away from home.’ … We don’t hear the ordinary, everyday stories of Muslims living life. Instead, we hear the stories of Muslims who are in trouble. … I’m not oppressed. I’m making choices,” said Sarhan.

Interfaith Alliance of Iowa celebrates religious freedom by promoting the positive and healing role of religion in public life, encouraging committed community activism, challenging extremism, and defending the rights and freedoms of all Iowans.