Muslims’ Position in the United States’ Society

Subject: Sociology
Pages: 5
Words: 1521
Reading time:
6 min
Study level: College

Allam, H. (2021). Muslims see disparities in January 6 investigation. The Washington Post. Web.

Say investigation reveals disparities in the processing of terrorist cases. For example, Dean Obeidallah, a Muslim comedian and radio broadcaster, refers to the riots at the US Capitol against Al-Qaeda in the United States that carried out a terrorist act on January 6.

Islamophobic conservatives, who once applauded Republican administrations for their systematic persecution of Muslims, are now using that legacy to spread conspiracy theories about a witch hunt against Trump supporters, one of the most outspokenly anti-Muslim politicians in American history, according to Muslim activists.

The goal is to draw attention to the violence perpetrated by right-wing extremists. The tactic, however, continues to rely on the stigmatizing Muslim-terrorism link, as if identity-based terrorism were an imported danger instead of one inherent to the nation’s establishment, according to activists.”

Terrorism, according to Arab American Institute’s executive director Maya Berry, serves as a typical pattern for researchers analyzing the January 6 investigation because of its association with Arabs and Muslims.

Muslim activist groups are also debating how to respond openly to the events on January 6.

An outgrowth of this discussion is the proposal to enact domestic terrorism legislation, presumably to provide investigators with the same powers available in overseas instances.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, many Muslim and Muslim-related groups supported the conviction of violent White extremists. Still, they were firmly against using January 6 to justify expanding federal authorities.

May brought news to the media’s attention that Jenny Cudd had asked for approval to take a pre-paid holiday to Mexico. It was made clear that Obeidallah’s request was to conduct an investigation based on facts, not to watch everyone who waves a Trump flag.

Brooks, R. (2021). Are US civil-military relations in crisis? Parameters, 51(1), 51-63. Web.

This article investigates and discusses some of the most prevalent assertions regarding civil-military conflicts. Fairness considerations encourage a more gender-balanced military in which women and minorities are more represented at the top ranks and in all branches and military occupational specialties.

Trump has appointed many active-duty and retired military members to executive branch leadership posts. However, Congress prevented former military members from leading the Department of Defense without a seven-year cooling-off in 1947.

Even in this situation, it cannot be established with absolute certainty that such ethical and legal concerns indicate a civil-military confrontation. The United States civilian management of its armed forces has become increasingly detached from its fundamental mission. Arguably, this strategy is no longer an effective technique for accomplishing the normative ends we continue to admire legitimately. In contrast to the year 1789, states and non-state actors have increasingly discovered ways to gain significant power and influence without having the potential to cause widespread death and harm. These discoveries have led to an increase in the number of options available to them.

The most significant threats to the health of democracy in the United States are electoral gerrymandering, information warfare, and efforts to exert foreign and domestic influence. These threats are compounded by large amounts of data and money, growing economic disparity, and party divisions that skew our political system. However, suppose we only concentrate on the notion that the United States is going through a civil-military crisis. In that case, we risk losing our history and ignoring the threats we face right now.

Kris, D. S. (2021). Part III – surveillance, oversight, skepticism, and race: Lessons for the next twenty years: What the two decades since 9/11 have taught us about the future of foreign intelligence surveillance law. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 12(1), 109-117. Web.

This essay, written for confidential US government audiences, analyses five significant developments and identifies five major takeaways. The first happened in the mid-1970s when abuses by intelligence services were uncovered, and public uproar spurred support for curbs on government surveillance. Then, following 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP), a gathering of messages with one end in the United States.

A few months after the September 11 attacks, the PSP quietly began a bulk collection of metadata from telephony and email. The FISA Court has repeatedly approved the two bulk database programs, unlike the TSP. George W. Bush and several of his supporters were upset with David Kris’ selection to assist the FISA Court with accuracy issues in 2020. On at least three different occasions, accuracy has been a significant problem, the first of which occurred before the 9/11 attacks. The same supervisor oversaw both investigations and was responsible for screening all of the FBI’s agents.

It’s impossible to list all of the mistakes that have been made here, but a 2011 FISA Court ruling emphasizes their overall importance. He argues that the occurrences of 2011 and 2012 are essential to understanding the law’s future effects because they represent a succession of inflection points.

He claims that the FAA and the Freedom Act were enacted despite, rather than as a result of, effective oversight. Absent a galvanizing exogenous at or above 9/11 or the mid-1970s disclosures, little change is expected in the foreseeable future. Compliance measures in government, like in business, tend to lag behind operations. Emerging technology and threats will leave their imprint on US intelligence organizations.

Aziz, R. (2021). 9/11 didn’t change everything. Old fights and illusions still haunted us. The Washington Post. Web.

The Cold War and World War II became popular after September 11, 2001. Politicians tried to bring back an ancient period through their rhetoric. There appears to be a limit to American power after 20 years. The “war on terror” is defined by foreign policy pitfalls. The events of September 11, 2001, evoked images of the Second World War and the Cold War in the minds of many.

When George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union speech, he called al-Qaeda “the axis of evil.” The newly formed Department of Homeland Security invoked the post-Pearl Harbor fortress state. Both parties attacked “big government” in the context of economics. Despite this, support for the State’s security apparatus, including the military, the CIA, the FBI, and the police, was widespread.

Bush declared the post-Cold War political doldrums over on September 11, 2001. But sadly, he did not lead to a significant pursuit of new worldviews and solutions to issues. Instead, he returned the United States to a time when it was a national necessity.

Following 9/11, President George W. Bush envisioned a global victory in the war on terror.

According to Edward McClelland, officials couched specific and dangerous partnerships in nebulous terms of freedom and democracy. He claims that such efforts damaged the United States’ attempt to claim moral superiority. He thinks it was difficult to maintain that Muslims were treated differently than other Americans. The choices made after 9/11 did affect American life, but not necessarily in ways most Americans would have expected or preferred. Trumpism is tinged with a yearning for a fabled era that existed before threatening foreigners.

David Rothkopf, Bush-era rhetoric and policy employed a triumphalist view of conflict to achieve harmful goals. Moving forward will necessitate reckoning with the past. But that Will not happen if we continue to be captivated by a false vision of a bygone America, argues Cornell Law School professor Richard R. A. Fairbairn, author of “The Two Faces of American Freedom.”

Sciutto, J. (2021). The Capitol rioters speak just like the Islamist terrorists I reported on. The Washington Post. Web.

Jim, the Capitol riots sound like the Islamist militants I described on Sciutto. Domestic radicalism, however, bears striking similarities to jihadist terrorism. Political disenchantment and the consequent breakdown in social norms are the driving forces behind both movements.

Right-wing radicals have recently outperformed jihadi terrorists in terms of crime. One hundred fourteen people have been killed by right-wing terrorists in the United States after 9/11, compared to 107 people who Islamist terrorists slew.

A tremendous sense of victimization and shame lies at the heart of this problem.

Today’s American extremists feel that the system is corrupt against them and is out to destroy all they hold dear. According to Justice Department files against three Capitol riots, they were posted on social media. This is the year 1776. Similarly, US authorities lamented a lack of public faith in institutions during the Middle East’s fight against terror. They vowed to repair them to divert recruits away from extremism.

US officials have told me they are increasingly concerned about domestic terrorist threats following the Capitol Hill uprising, even if the country is not in that region. According to law enforcement officials, radicals might be encouraged by the attack’s scale and impact to carry out more acts of domestic terrorism in the wake of the Capitol bombing.

Anger over Trump being found not guilty in the Senate was likely seen as a justification for the protests by his supporters. It became easier for Trump to interfere in the political system after his first acquittal in an impeachment trial. In the minds of extremists, January 6 was a day of triumph rather than shame.