Skip to main content

In yesterday’s Liberty and Justice for Non-Muslims, NY Times opinion editor Andrew Rosenthal finally speaks about the US policy of no legal rights for Muslims.

It’s so important that Rosenthal and the Times finally lift this veil -- prompted in part by the outrageous, warrantless, widespread, federally funded, illegal NYPD surveillance of innocent Muslims, uncovered this year in a series of stories by the Associated Press.

Here are the rules now being followed:
For a Muslim to be spied upon by anyone in government, search warrants or evidence of a crime is optional.

For a Muslim to be kidnapped and/or imprisoned for life indefinitely detained, no evidence is required.  A magic word can be uttered secretly in the White House.

If there is evidence a Christian or Jew has been tortured, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture require a mandatory investigation and prosecution -- no exceptions.  If a Muslim is tortured by Americans, that requirement is waived.  There’s no prosecution or investigation -- even when those who ordered and condoned the torture, like Vice President Cheney, confess that they’re proud and would “do it again” -- on Sunday morning TV while launching their book tour.

The rest of the rules, including the magic word, below the fold.

Scrabble players know the magic word.  QAID is a Q word that doesn’t need a U.  The Scrabble dictionary defines it: a Muslim leader.  It’s also the root of Al Qaeda.  While the organization “Al Qaeda” has no official membership list, the phrase is written into the new bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that explains who can be locked up permanently without evidence, charges, or a trial.  A Muslim leader.

And the US government can kill any Muslim anywhere, with a drone or however it can -- without sharing evidence, charges or trial, let alone a conviction -- and without ever revealing how they were chosen or why.  Simply utter the magic word.  “Al Qaeda” is all we’ve been officially told about why US citizens Anwar Al Awlaki and his teenage son were killed by bombs from drone weapons.

Our leaders, like Senator Feinstein, believe these policies will keep us safer -- as long as our government is secretive enough about them.

But they actually makes things much worse.

The actual terrorist attack attempts since 9-11 were made by Americans who say they were outraged by those policies -- incensed that innocent Muslims in Guantanamo and elsewhere are treated as less than human, denied a chance to prove their innocence, and are usually found innocent if evidence ever is presented.

Senator Feinstein considers herself an expert on national security, but she and her colleagues have this exactly backwards.

Imagine if instead, people all over the world could see: in America, spying on Muslims without evidence or warrants is truly illegal --  because those who do it, like NYPD Commissioner Kelly, are punished.  Imagine we all could see that kidnapping, torturing, or killing a Muslim leads to an investigation or prosecution instead of being condoned -- even if that means challenging someone powerful in the US government.  Imagine the world could see Muslims being treated like citizens with rights, not presumed criminals or animals.

How long would America remain ‘The Great Satan” in anyone’s eyes?  If we followed the law, how could the latest “Al Qaeda” ever convince anyone that violent jihad is the path to justice?

Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times joins Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and a growing chorus of Americans who realize our national security policy is illegal, immoral and bigoted; recklessly endangers our troops; and makes us all less safe.

If I'm elected to the US Senate, these issues and counterproductive, unjust laws like the NDAA will finally be debated in the US Senate.  A Senator from America's largest state will tirelessly work to repeal them.  We'll all be safer when America sets aside its fears and acknowledges that even Muslims deserve justice.

David Levitt is challenging Dianne Feinstein to represent California, on the ballot as a Democrat in the 2012 US Senate race.  You can show your support on Facebook at, follow us on Twitter @Levitt2012, or contribute to a unique citizen-funded campaign with no lobbyist or corporate money.

If in the June primary he receives more votes than Republican birther Orly Taitz, Levitt and Feinstein can be the only choices on November’s California Senate ballot.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

    by David Levitt for US Senate on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 02:07:19 PM PDT

  •  We will look back with shame. nt (3+ / 0-)

    The founding fathers knew of the mutually corrupting influences of Church and state, wisely sending them to opposite corners.

    by emidesu on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

  •  Is there any conventional Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    running for this Senate seat?

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 02:51:05 PM PDT

    •  orly taitz and someone who lost to jerry mcnerney (4+ / 0-)

      other than that, nope. since it's a top-2 primary, it's as safe a primary challenge as exists in this world.

      the CAGOP is in a state of complete collapse. i wouldn't be surprised to see them eventually adopt a strategy of running "independents" for statewide races before long, to try and lose the stench of their party label.

    •  Not really! It's perfect timing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, elwior, cacamp

      Feinstein actually said "the Republicans chose not to run anyone against me" at the convention.  It's not arrogance, it's fact.

      Elizabeth Emken, an autism advocate endorsed by the state Republican party, appeals to 2% of Republicans in the recent poll.

      Republican candidate Al Ramirez who ran the poll got 15%

      Orly Taitz's is in front with 19% of Republicans.   Democrat Feinstein's own appeal to Republicans is almost as high.

      Likewise, right leaning millionaire Feinstein may be far more appealing to Republican base than Ramirez.

      Dick Konopik is an evangelical with a bible verse for every point in his platform.

      It seems like there couldn't be a better time for a progressive Democrat to take the empty spot in the November ticket by placing in the primary!

      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

      by David Levitt for US Senate on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a challege to balance civil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank Knarf

    rights of US citizens and legal immigrants with  the continuing threat of jihad attacks like 911.  IMO you're oversimplifying.

    •  no, the challenge is protecting the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

      besides the real threat from terrorists don't come from jihadists they come from home grown wingnuts.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:47:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is incoherent. Abrogation of civil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    liberties is not formally restricted to Muslims.  Fight these policies on principle without resorting to fake distinctions.  That drone strikes are currently directed at Muslims is simply a practical matter.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 04:56:02 PM PDT

    •  wrongs are often de-facto not de-jure (0+ / 0-)

      so this diary is indeed factual and very coherent, you just don't like it.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:44:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the NDAA explicitly does (0+ / 0-)

      target Muslims -- with language that doesn't require any evidence once a Muslim group is named in a secret accusation.  There's never been any such language for say, anyone accused of aiding the terrorist IRA -- like Congressman Peter King.

      And you agree the drone program uses secret criteria that have thus far only been applied to Muslims.  You seem to be saying that since some day it might instead be applied to Julian Assange or an atheist albino, Arabs and Muslims aren't "formally" being denied their rights -- just "currently".  Do you honestly think that prospect justifies the policy or dissuades potential jihadists?  Doesn't that potential for drift really make the policy far more dangerous to the innocent of every religion and race?

      Particularly amid documented NYPD activity targeting every Muslim in the New York area, it's beyond disingenuous to suggest these lawless activities aren't being directed at Muslims -- as the NYTimes said, in a manner reminiscent of Japanese internment camps.

      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

      by David Levitt for US Senate on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 01:36:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  References please. I've not read the publicly (0+ / 0-)

        available text of the NDAA.  Is there something in the text that limits it's applicability to Islamic groups?

        I am arguing that such infringements on civil liberties should be opposed on general grounds and not turned into a religious or ethnic discrimination issue.  Of course I understand that Muslims will be the current targets.

        Where are we, now that we need us most?

        by Frank Knarf on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 10:19:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  you sure play fast and loose with the facts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site