"You are against Bush or you are with the Terrorists!"

[bloom]

"You are with us or you are with the Terrorists!" - that's what Bush says.

What if you were a German person in Germany in 1939 and Hitler said, "You are with us or you are with the Jews!"

Or if in 1943 he said, "You are with us or you are with the Americans!" (He probably had a derogatory term for Americans - the Jews had already been demonized).

Would you have been able to say, "I am with the Jews, then!" or "I am with the Americans." Would you have kept your mouth shut?

We have Bush (and other Republicans) saying, "You are with us or you are with the Terrorists!"

and I say "You are against Bush or you are with the Terrorists!" (and that Bush is a terrorist)

______________________________________

I am for the so-called "terrorists" - if by "terrorist" they mean innocent people people being held in Guantanamo Bay and people like Tariq Ramadan*** - a scholar (teaches Islamic studies and philosophy at Oxford) who is being kept out of the US because at one time he gave money to to a group that gave humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

That's often what it seems to come down to. "Are you with 'us' or are you with the Palestinians?" as if people cannot be for both. As if people cannot be Americans and support the cause of the Palestinians. The cause of having a Palestinian state separate from and not controlled by Israel. The cause of having a Palestinian democracy where the people are allowed to choose and elect who they want to represent them.

The underlying question is also - "Are you with us or are you with the Muslims?"

The people making the arguments hem and haw and say that they are not against all Muslims - just the Islamist ones (? see Pipes reference in footnote) or just the ones who hate the west. Meanwhile - Bush (and everyone who is with him) - is doing everything that he can to make nearly all of the Muslims against him and us. Invading Iraq, supporting the bombing of Lebanon, abusing authority, abusing innocent Muslims, justifying torturing Muslims, passing laws that justify secret detentions and torture - of Muslims and people who support Muslims.

Some people actually seem to buy this (or some representatives - including Democrats - might think that their constituents buy it) so they are with Bush instead of for human rights. Bush calls those of us 'naive' who see the obvious connection of the US actions in Iraq inciting a reaction against it. Bush sees the reaction - the resulting "insurgency" as a vindication of his views.

As if since people fight back that he is right to have had the US on the offensive against them.

As if we are supposed to think, "see how bad those people are - we invade their country and destroy their culture - and they don't like it. Those bad, evil, people. Terrorists. You are either with us or you are with them."

Even if we say we are for Habeas Corpus - we are "For the terrorists". That is the essential argument for whatever the Republicans want these days. It's amazing how they get away with it.

The question should be "Are you for or against Human Rights?" or even "Are you for the rich or for the oppressed?" (the rich are taking care of themselves pretty well - I don't think they need my support).

I will not be intimidated against being on the side of oppressed people - even if it is my country that is causing that oppression.


__________________________________________

***How Daniel Pipes "reasoned" this out:

That he has formally resigned from Notre Dame suggests just how solid the DHS evidence against him is. And this, by the way, does not surprise me. A senior DHS official looked me hard in the eyes a few weeks ago and assured me, "The evidence we have is damning."

Ramadan's exclusion marks a signal victory for the effort to keep the enemy out of the United States, for few in the Islamist ranks will deploy the highly respectable and high-powered support that Ramadan has enjoyed. If this man can be kept out, then anyone can be.

That said, it is not a perfect victory, for it depended on Ramadan's connections to terrorism; in the future, I hope that being an Islamist will in of itself – without necessarily having ties to violence – be grounds for keeping aliens out of the United States, much as being a communist was grounds for exclusion in an earlier era. (December 14, 2004)

Sep. 26, 2006 update: ...Cooper would not identify the groups that received the donations that led to the visa denial but the New York Sun reporter who got this quote, Josh Gerstein, narrowed the list to the "Comité de Bienfaisance et Secours aux Palestiniens," based in Paris, and the "Association de Secours Palestinien, based in Basel, Switzerland, both blacklisted by U.S. authorities in August 2003."

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/385

___
What Mr. Ramadan said recently on Democracy Now!

TARIQ RAMADAN: Yes. Look, you know, I have been waiting for two years, and, you know, I heard so many allegations, that I met a terrorist, that I was teaching to terrorists. So at the end it’s good that I have a ledger just clearing me from all these allegations and saying this had not -- you know, it’s not in my record and that my record is clear. The only thing which is now the reason of my denial is that I gave money to a French organization, which is not suspected in France and connected to many, you know, cities in France and connected even with the mayor of Lille.

But much more than that, which is really incredible, is that I gave money to this organization between December ’98 and July 2002, meaning one year before this organization was blacklisted in the States. And I received today a letter telling me, ‘You should reasonably have known that this organization was connected to Hamas,’ so meaning by that I should have known it before the United States administration itself knew it, which is nonsense. It’s just incredible. It’s not a reason. I’m denied because of other reasons, and mainly what I’m saying about the U.S. administration and the current U.S. administration.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/28/1446237&mode=thread&tid=25

[bloom]

1. I think that the Democrats are going to have to come up with a way

to defeat this message.

I think the way to do it (I would be happy to hear other ideas) is to convince people that the Bush Administration has cast their net too wide - that they are expecting us to be against innocent people. And that their strategy does not work.

Tariq Ramadan is the perfect example. He is a Muslim who is an expert on peace strategies and he is being kept out of our country.


Some people say that to talk about terrorism at all is a win for the Republicans. But it shouldn't be. And talking about the torture that the US engages in shouldn't be a win for them, either.

Maybe the simplest message is that the Bush gov't is a terroristic one - so "you are with terrorists or you are with terrorists" and we aren't being given any other choice. But most people are not ready to admit that the US engages in terrorism.

[RoseMead]

3. Someone on another forum said yesterday

something to the effect that "losing your rights is a given when you're suspected of a crime." I thought my head was going to explode.

People need to understand first what innocent until proven guilty means. Too many people assume that if the U.S. is detaining people, those people *must* be guilty. I think we have to break down that assumption first, before the wide net thing will really sink in.

[bloom]

4. While I think

that in general - since police are supposed to have "probable cause" to make arrests - and that they are supposed to have some proof - that it is mostly guilty people (as far as US citizens) who are arrested. There are certainly exceptions and there have been a lot of problems if a group gets demonized. Like black people and poor people being assumed to be guilty - worthy of arrest more than others. And whether guilty or not - there are still many important rights to be had. (It's sad that people don't recognize them.)

In this case - people like Pipes are arguing that anyone that he considers to be an "Islamist" is already guilty - "much as being a communist was grounds" before.

Being a "communist" shouldn't be grounds for anything - nor should be a Muslim or "Islamist" as Pipes likes to say. Pipes is trying to make the religious into the political - but neither political, nor religious persecution should be allowed.

It's interesting that Ann Coulter considers herself to be a proud defender of Joe Mccarthy - thought McCarthyism was great. She gets her talking points from someone - that seems to be where this is going.

[bloom]

2. Lest people forget....

'Bounty hunters...mass arrests...sold(at $5k per) to the US as terrorists

(from this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2253704)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20496534-1702,00.html

RIGHTS group Amnesty International has condemned the abuse of terrorist suspects caught in Pakistan, saying hundreds had "disappeared", while others were tortured or sold on to US authorities. In a report the London-based group said bounty hunters routinely help arrest suspects, who are then sold on abroad including to the United States' infamous prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The road to Guantanamo very literally starts in Pakistan," said Amnesty's Claudio Cordone, commenting on the report. "Hundreds of people have been picked up in mass arrests, many have been sold to the USA as 'terrorists' simply on the word of their captor, and hundreds have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase (a US base in Afghanistan) or secret detention centres run by the USA," he said....

"A large number of war on terror detainees have been literally sold into US hands by bounty hunters who have received cash payments in return, typically $US5000 ($6700)," it said.... The report said that 300 people - previously labelled as "terrorists" and "killers" by the US government -have since been released from Guantanamo Bay without charge, the majority to Pakistan or Afghanistan. "Many detainees remain unaccounted for, their fate and whereabouts unknown," it said, saying they include a baby and a 13-year-old Saudi boy called Talha, according to reports. "More than two years later, nothing is known about the fate and whereabouts of Talha and the other children and women," said Amnesty.

Also:

92 PERCENT at Guantanamo NOT terrorists, according to US military

http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/adels-anniversary-guantanamo-tale.php

&

US spy agency CIA paid Pakistan for al-Qaeda suspects: Musharraf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060924/wl_afp/pakistanusattacks

The US Central Intelligence Agency paid Pakistan millions of dollars for handing over more than 350 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists to the United States, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly said.

The assertions come in the military ruler's upcoming memoir "In the Line of Fire," serialized in The Times newspaper.

Musharraf does not reveal how much Pakistan was paid for the 369 Al-Qaeda suspects he ordered should be handed over to the United States, the newspaper said, noting, however, that such payments are banned by the US government.

...The military leader also says that he decided to make the revelations to counter claims that Pakistan had not done enough to combat Al-Qaeda in the war on terror.

The REAL Reason for Secret Tribunals? Pakistan Terrorism Timeline

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/18/82548/4524

[angstlessk]

5. I am very interested to see what this new bill does to immigration

I think it will go WAY down REAL quick...why come to the US when you can be put in prison for no good reason, FOREVER and have no way to defend yourself?

[bloom]

6. It seems that that must be one of the goals.

It would certainly be one of the outcomes.