Quantcast

Moustafa Bayoumi | The Nation

Moustafa Bayoumi

Moustafa Bayoumi

Guest blogging until September 11, 2011.

Text Size A | A | A

A Poem for the Wounded City

Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, when we remembered the innocents who lost their lives so tragically that day. Let us also realize that the best way to honor the loss of innocent life on one day is to remember the taking of innocent life on all days, and not just here but everywhere, and to work toward a future without terrorism, war, the terror of war and the “war on terror.” “I play not marches for accepted victors only, I play marches for conquer'd and slain persons,” says Walt Whitman in “Song of Myself.” My colleague Elliot Colla reminded me of this Walt Whitman poem, and it’s worth posting today:

 

Mannahatta
 

I was asking for something specific and perfect for my city,
Whereupon, lo! upsprang the aboriginal name!
Now I see what there is in a name, a word, liquid, sane, unruly, musical, self-sufficient;
I see that the word of my city is that word up there,
Because I see that word nested in nests of water-bays, superb, with tall and wonderful spires,
Rich, hemm’d thick all around with sailships and steamships—an island sixteen miles long, solid-founded,
Numberless crowded streets—high growths of iron, slender, strong, light, splendidly uprising toward clear skies;
Tide swift and ample, well-loved by me, toward sundown,
The flowing sea-currents, the little islands, larger adjoining islands, the heights, the villas,
The countless masts, the white shore-steamers, the lighters, the ferry-boats, the black sea-steamers well-model’d;
The down-town streets, the jobbers’ houses of business—the houses of business of the ship-merchants, and money-brokers—the river-streets;
Immigrants arriving, fifteen or twenty thousand in a week;
The carts hauling goods—the manly race of drivers of horses—the brown-faced sailors;
The summer air, the bright sun shining, and the sailing clouds aloft;
The winter snows, the sleigh-bells—the broken ice in the river, passing along, up or down, with the flood tide or ebb-tide;
The mechanics of the city, the masters, well-form’d, beautiful-faced, looking you straight in the eyes;
Trottoirs throng’d—vehicles—Broadway—the women—the shops and shows,
The parades, processions, bugles playing, flags flying, drums beating;
A million people—manners free and superb—open voices—hospitality—the most courageous and friendly young men;
The free city! no slaves! no owners of slaves!
The beautiful city, the city of hurried and sparkling waters! the city of spires and masts!
The city nested in bays! my city!
The city of such women, I am mad to be with them! I will return after death to be with them!
The city of such young men, I swear I cannot live happy, without I often go talk, walk, eat, drink, sleep, with them!
WALT WHITMAN
Email | Print | Share | Web Letter (0) | Write a Letter | Take Action | Subscribe Now

The Rites and Rights of Citizenship

On Tuesday I became a citizen of the United States. Almost ten years ago, I was granted permanent residency. Between my green card and my naturalization certificate lies the seemingly endless decade of the “war on terror.”

I was in New York on September 11, 2001, but back then I was neither a resident nor a citizen. And if you weren’t a citizen, and you had a Muslim name, you couldn’t help but think that your life was about to change for the worse. I was already teaching at Brooklyn College, on a work visa. I had come to New York in 1990 from Canada to attend graduate school at Columbia University and, when I got the job at Brooklyn College, I transferred my student visa into a work visa and applied for a green card. My immigration attorney worked in lower Manhattan, a block away from the towers, and he was among the first people I called to make sure he was fine. He was, thankfully. He was shaken up to be sure, and there was ash all over his building, he told me, but he was okay. His voice was breaking with emotion over the phone.

 I remember many things about September 11, the solemnity mixing with the acrid smells in the air in particular, but also the tremulous anxiety surrounding Arabs and Muslims in the city in those days. The sweep arrests that John Ashcroft regularly announced on the airwaves in the first weeks following the attacks sent shudders through all the Arabs and Muslims I knew in the city. We would meet up regularly to trade FBI stories, which was weirdly consoling. There came a point when I realized that every Arab person I knew in New York had either been visited or knew someone who had been visited by the FBI. At that point, I was waiting for my green card to arrive, and when it did, on October 15, I felt my own personal sigh of national security relief. A green card may not carry the protections of citizenship, but it’s a far less vulnerable condition than a work visa.

So much has happened in these ten years: the war in Afghanistan, the drumbeat to war in Iraq, the massive worldwide demonstrations in February and March 2003 to stop the war in Iraq, and the war itself. I remember the night it began, because I called my parents in Canada and surprised myself by crying into the receiver. There is the Guantánamo Bay, the sordid revelations of torture and abuse, and the program of “Special Registration,” which required non-immigrant males from a select group of mostly Muslim countries to register their whereabouts with the governments, and which sent shockwaves through Arab and Muslim communities across the country. A friend of mine who has lived more of his life here than in the Arab world told me that he never felt more Arab than when he had to register with the government.

There’s more of course: the Bali terror attacks, the Madrid terror attacks, the London attacks, all completely horrific, immoral, and nihilistic. I remember the disgust my friends and I felt whenever Osama bin Laden’s face appeared on a screen, claiming to speak for the Muslim umma and the frustration we felt at being forced to feel that our only options were between Bin Laden’s fascism and Bush’s imperialism. Then there was the populist rage that was growing louder against Muslims (who remembers the Dubai Ports World fiasco today?). I never felt more alienated from this country and depressed by its prospects than when I observed the demonstration last September opposed to the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Thousands of people on the streets screaming “No Mosque! No Mosque” was the last thing I thought I would see in New York. It felt like a window was closing on Muslims in the United States.

What sustained me through it all, now that I reflect on it, was my lecturing. I would give talks to audiences across the country about civil liberties during wartime, about torture, about Islam, about the war, and the audiences were full of people who didn’t want a murderous clash of civilizations but needed and wanted a lens through which they could understand this complicated world that they felt they had suddenly been thrust into. (When I lecture in the Arab world, I often find myself telling my Arab audiences this about Americans.) It’s easy to caricature any people, and the caricature of Americans is that they don’t know and don’t care about the rest of the world, but that’s not my experience. The Americans I have encountered (and continue to meet) throughout my travels have always been curious and generous. There is a minority, and it has grown more vocal and powerful and frightening in the last two years, that either fears Islam beyond belief or, more likely, leverages a popular fear for their own agenda. Last year’s anti-Ground-Zero-Mosque movement illustrates that well, as does this year’s anti-Sharia frenzy. But it’s easy to fixate on a cartoon of your opposition, as they themselves prove.

The problem is magnified when government caters to the intelligence of fools. Loudmouth media braying constantly about the Muslim threat also creates huge cleavages in our culture. Brookings just released a survey on this. “Trust in Fox News is highly correlated with negative attitudes about Islam,” they found. “More than two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans who most trust Fox News for their information about politics and current events say that the values of Islam are at odds with American values. In contrast, less than half of Americans who most trust broadcast network news (45 percent), CNN (37 percent), or public television (37 percent) agree that Islam is at odds with American values.”

It’s also not surprising that the picture changes when you try to take media and ideology out of the equation. Polling data shows that if you know a Muslim personally, you’re simply less likely to hold negative views of the religion. In my day-to-day interactions with the people of this country, I see a sincere, inquiring, civil America, one that never seems to get represented in the mainstream. Muslim Americans know what I am talking about: the disconnect between the polls and the media coverage and the awkward relations with law enforcement on one hand, and the everyday warmth, generosity, and friendship from ordinary Americans on the other.

I could have applied for citizenship years ago, but bureaucracy has never been my strength and I only did so this year, in January. In May, I was granted my citizenship interview. I dutifully studied the 100 (easy) questions on American history, politics, and geography and was now wondering what to expect. What I didn’t imagine was that the interview would start off like a scene from a Harold Pinter play. After my name was called, the citizenship officer first escorted me to his office, then shut the door and next instructed me to sit down. I sat down.

“Now stand up,” he said.

I stood up.

“Raise your right hand.” I raised my right hand. He proceeded to swear me in. Then he told me to sit down again, which I did. (This was either exercise or an exercise in authority.) He asked me, “Is your name Moustafa Mohamed Bayoumi.”

I knew the answer. Yes, I answered confidently.

“Do you want your name to be Moustafa Mohamed Bayoumi?”

This seemed like a trick question. I searched for a response. None came. He repeated the question, and I was silent. He became impatient.

“Do you want ‘Mohamed’ to be a part of your name?”

Suddenly, I was swimming in pool of Jello in Arizona. I couldn’t think of an answer. What did this question mean? Was he kindly trying to suggest to me that “Mohamed” should not be my middle name? Maybe he thinks it will cause me problems in today’s United States? Or perhaps he himself holds the name Mohamed in disfavor? And why did I have to sit down and stand up and sit down again? Why am I breathing hard? Am I really that out of shape? I looked around. I was lost.

“I’m asking you if you want to change your name,” he said, finally, and I later realized I was witnessing how self-reinvention is built into the American system. My full name had served me just fine in my life thus far, so I elected to keep it whole. But the whole exchange left me confused.

I wasn’t being entirely irrational in my suspicions. There have been several lawsuits launched by Muslims because of unexplained delays in their petitions for citizenship. And recently, NYU Law School and the Asian American Legal Defense Fund released a report titled “Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations.” There are real problems with the system. But I was fortunate that, despite a minor hiccup that required me to return for a second visit, I was granted my petition without any major problems.

The citizenship ceremony itself was revealing. During the processing part prior to the actual swearing in, we were given voter registration cards (available in four languages) and a woman representing the New York City Commission on Human Rights told us about her organization. She explained how the commission advocates for civil rights protections, and listed the various ways that people routinely encounter discrimination: in employment and in housing, because of their gender, appearance, or sexual preference, and due to their accent. “If you have an accent walking into this room, then, unless if you’re less than 10 years old, you’re walking out of here with an accent!” she said, and everyone laughed, including the two Chinese—now Chinese Americans—on either side of me. She also told us that it was illegal to discriminate against someone because that person doesn’t speak English, but she said it in English, which left me wondering whether this is the kind of knowledge that everyone, not just new citizens, needs to have.

The judge finally came in. We stood up and sat down (I’m good at this now), and she told us that despite what we hear about all the terrorism, crime, and poverty in the US today, the country still holds the promise of a better life for us and our children. She explained how we now have the right to vote and to serve on juries, but she also encouraged us to exercise our other rights, naming our right to speak out and to get involved in the running of the country. Then we were given our certificates. Some people looked very happy. Most frankly seemed in a hurry to get to work.

Why did I become a US citizen? The easy answer is that my life is here now, my green card was up for renewal, I’m now married to an American, and I don’t have to give up my Canadian citizenship. But there is more to it.

The historian Rogers Smith writes that most people commonly believe that American citizenship is bestowed upon those who “subscribe to egalitarian, liberal, republican principles,” what he terms the ‘latent’ belief in what citizenship is. But, he argues,

When restrictions on voting rights, naturalization, and immigration are taken into account, it turns out that for over 80 percent of US history, American laws declared most people in the world legally ineligible to become full US citizens solely because of their race, original nationality, or gender. For at least two-thirds of American history, the majority of the domestic adult population was also ineligible for full citizenship for the same reason. Those racial, ethnic and gender restrictions were blatant, not ‘latent.’ For these people, citizenship rules gave no weight to how liberal, republican, or faithful to other American values their political beliefs may be.

Smith is describing a history of very exclusive versions of citizenship, and during these same periods, the law sanctioned all kinds of official discrimination against various categories of people. We’ve moved beyond those kinds of blatant citizenship exclusions today, and all citizenships are by their nature exclusive anyway. But there is also something essentially inclusive about the American system, namely how the Bill of Rights speaks not of the rights of citizens but of the rights of “the people.”

What this means it that there is a professed value in the United States, one that seems like it is always being contested, of protecting vulnerable minorities, citizens or not, from the passions of the majority. I became a citizen because I believe the fight for preserving the rights of “the people” in the United States, not only other citizens, is worthwhile, and I can do that more effectively as a citizen of the country where I live. In that fight lies the defense of the American values of tolerance and respect.  It also means that I can disagree with much of American foreign policy, as I do, and try to change it. Being a citizen of the United States doesn’t mean that I’m any better or worse as a person. (Nor will I drop my Canadian “pardon me?” for the American “WHAT?”) It means that the United States has recognized me as part of its family, and I have recognized the American people as part of mine. And family relationships, as we all know, require work and communication. I will try to live up to my own professed ideals of fairness and equality for all. And I expect the United States to do the same.   

Email | Print | Share | Web Letter (0) | Write a Letter | Take Action | Subscribe Now

Spy vs. Spy

The news about the NYPD’s spying (with the CIA’s help) continues to grow. In this report, Len Levitt, a former police-beat reporter for Newsday, describes “a trove of pages of Intelligence Division documents” that he received. Levitt writes that “the NYPD's spying operation has compiled information on 250 mosques, 12 Islamic schools, 31 Muslim Student Associations, 263 places it calls ‘ethnic hotspots,’ such as businesses and restaurants as well as 138 ‘persons of interest.’ ” My own workplace, Brooklyn College, is mentioned in the report.

The reporting on this story tends to portray the NYPD as a rogue organization and the FBI as its buttoned-up brother. But we shouldn’t forget that one of the last things Michael Mukasey did as attorney general was to create the category of “assessments” for the bureau. Prior to this, the FBI investigated people they suspected of wrongdoing. Under the new rules, no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing is needed to open an “assessment.” In two years, Eric Holder’s FBI opened 82,325 assessments of people and groups and continued only 3,315 investigations. (As the ACLU blog put it:  “But all of the information about the 79,000 innocent people investigated during this two-year period can be retained by the FBI forever, despite the fact no one engaged in wrongdoing of any kind.”) The FBI is also relaxing its rules, enabling agents to recruit more informers. “Agents have asked for that power,” the New York Times reported back in June, “in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others.”

The bad news is that, ten years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the national security state is alive and well and continues to invade the privacy of American citizens. The good news is that soon everyone will be on either the FBI or NYPD payroll and the unemployment problem will be solved.

On a different note, the appalling events in Syria may provoke some people to consider military intervention, but the courageous Syrian people have rejected such assistance. Here are three useful links (two from the excellent Jadaliyya.com website). The first is by the Syrian Local Coordinating Committees regarding the uprisings in Syria and the need to reject foreign military intervention. The second is from the National Alliance for Syria (based in North America), which presents “32 Questions and Answers” about what’s happening there. The third is an essential interview with the esteemed Arab intellectual Fawwaz Traboulsi about the uprisings in Syria and the Arab world.

Email | Print | Share | Web Letter (0) | Write a Letter | Take Action | Subscribe Now

The Long Life of Profiling, Ten Years After 9/11

The Associated Press has been doing some good investigative reporting lately. On August 24, the AP broke the news that the CIA and the NYPD are combining forces to spy on Muslims in New York City. Since the CIA is prohibited by law to collect intelligence on American citizens, this is more than newsworthy. It’s probably unconstitutional, which explains why the NYPD has, according to the report, kept these activities secret.

This is no ordinary program, nor does it seem to be merely about sharing expertise.

According to the report, the NYPD dispatches “rakers,” the NYPD term, into a “human mapping program” to monitor the daily lives of Muslim Americans in the places where ordinary living transpires, such as bookstores, cafés, bars and nightclubs, without the hint of criminal wrongdoing. The police department also employs “mosque crawlers,” who scrutinize imams and their sermons, and have gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs commonly associated with Muslim workers.

(There is of course a sordid history to all of this. Throughout the 1960s, about one million intelligence files were compiled on people and political groups by the NYPD through the use of “informants, wiretaps, agents provocateurs and undercover officers posing as activists, lawyers and journalists,” according to the New York Times. A federal lawsuit launched in 1971 eventually led to the Handshu Guidelines in 1985, which sought to preserve the First Amendment protections of civilians posing no threat of a crime from police surveillance. But the guidelines were weakened basically beyond recognition after 9/11.)

In the current program, the CIA sent one of its agents, Larry Sanchez, to the NYPD, and the NYPD also sent an officer to train at its school. According to the AP report, Sanchez and the head of the NYPD’s intelligence unit, another former CIA man, David Cohen, devised a strategy to stop cars in Pakistani neighborhoods for “speeding, broken tail lights, running stop signs, whatever.” Then they could look for suspicious behavior or outstanding warrants, and if an arrest was involved, leverage the arrest to turn the person into an informant. “It’s not a question of profiling,” one official is quoted as saying in the report. “It’s a question of going where the problem could arise.”

But if that’s not profiling, then what is profiling?

There’s more. A few days ago, the AP published another report providing further details on the NYPD’s activities. Inside the NYPD is the “Demographics Unit,” which keeps an “ancestries of interest” list. On it are twenty-eight countries (nearly all Muslim) and the line item “American Black Muslim.” From the information gleamed by the Demographic Unit, rakers have been sent “to local businesses, chatting up store owners to determine their ethnicity and gauge their sentiment” the AP reported. They also “played cricket and eavesdropped in the city's ethnic cafes and clubs.”

Taking an interest in cricket is already suspicious enough, as far as I’m concerned. (I never understood the game, nor its allure, but that’s just me.) Add eavesdropping, mosque crawling, list-making of “ancestries of interest,” and more and it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that domestic spying is alive and well, the requisite denials by the NYPD or the CIA notwithstanding. To many in the New York’s Muslim community, the AP report confirms what they’ve long suspected, and reminds them of the surveillance regimes they’ve left behind to come here. A coalition of groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has called for an investigation, and to her credit, Yvette Clarke, who represents much of Brooklyn, has spoken out about the program, stating that “Americans would be outraged if police infiltrated Baptist churches looking for evangelical Christian extremists.” CAIR-NY civil rights manager Cyrus McGoldrick summed it up this way: “Investigate crimes not communities.”

The AP reports are troubling, but what is surprising to me is the relative lack of interest in the story. You’d think then that this would have been front-page news. Instead, the reports seemed barely to raise an eyebrow among either a cynical or complacent public. The New York Times, as far as I can tell, hasn’t mentioned the story. The White House’s counterterrorism adviser and Mayor Bloomberg offered platitudes about the NYPD’s providing exceptional service. The day after the report appeared, the CIA issued a statement denying it was actually “spying” on Americans (“none of the support we have provided to NYPD can be rightly characterized as ‘domestic spying’ by the CIA”) but affirming that its “cooperation” with the NYPD “is exactly what the American people deserve and have to come to expect following 9/11.” This seems like odd way of putting it. Do Americans, including Muslim Americans, deserve to have their routine activities monitored by law enforcement?

Why isn’t the CIA in the NYPD bigger news? The way I see it, there are three possible answers to this question. (1) We have become so accustomed to outrages upon civil liberties that we have developed some kind of tragic civil-liberties-infraction immunity. (2) In the post-9/11 world, we expect our civil liberties to be traded for feelings of security (this seems to be the CIA’s answer). (3) We are perfectly willing to trade away someone else’s civil liberties for our own sense of security. (David Cole has brilliantly examined this position before.)

Ten years ago, there was near-universal acknowledgement that profiling was unethical and ineffective. In February 2001 President Bush said so in his State of the Union address and in 2003 issued guidelines prohibiting the practice (with, of course, a national security exception). Yet, the practice continues. In June, Wisconsin voted to repeal its anti–racial profiling law. The ACLU is currently fighting Alabama’s noxious anti-immigrant law Bill 56 on racial profiling grounds. New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy is again being challenged as racial profiling. And Muslim Americans continue to be profiled at work, in their houses of worship, where they eat and even when they play cricket.

Like this blog post? Read it on The Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.
Email | Print | Share | Web Letter (0) | Write a Letter | Take Action | Subscribe Now
Syndicate content