NYPD Monitored Muslim Students

The New York Police Department monitored Muslim students at colleges and universities all over the Northeast.

The police recorded whether or not the Muslim students belonged to Muslim student associations (identified as "MSAs"), how many times the students prayed each day, and where they traveled off campus.  The police were most concerned with travel to conferences involving Muslim scholars who may have anti-Western views, as well as outdoor activities that could be interpreted as "terrorist training".  The NYPD built their secret programs with help from the CIA, and monitored Muslim students from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania colleges and universities without informing the institutions.

While police reports revealed no wrongdoing, students who discovered their names in the police reports are worried that this will affect their employment opportunities, security clearances for research opportunities, and any possible air travel.  Whether or not the NYPD overstepped the boundaries of authority is being investigated.

He's Not in Prison for Being Queer

LGBT news magazine The Advocate made the claim that Barack Obama would like us to forget Bradley Manning, whom Advocate writer Victoria Brownworth called "the first openly gay political prisoner" and also "the most dangerous man in America".

The Advocate is treading some pretty dangerous waters here, in implying that:
1. Bradley Manning could have been imprisoned due to his gender identity (not the case);
2. Bradley Manning should not be in a military prison, or tried by a military tribunal, for his crime (he was an enlisted man when he leaked military documents to Wikileaks);
3. Frustration over how the military addressed his gender identity is legitimate justification to commit treason (Manning expressed the discrimination he faced as a gay servicemember as the reason he leaked documents).

According to Brownworth, Manning's treatment in the Fort Leavenworth military prison is similar to what prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are getting, and that it violates the Geneva Convention.  Instead of fighting for the human rights of all prisoners in military detention, however, Brownworth makes a distinction--that Manning should receive different treatment because he is a US citizen.  She does not understand that he was not a free citizen at the time of his incarceration--he was an enlisted man, and thus subject to military law as well as the US Constitution and federal law. 

The question is--do Manning's actions make him a terrorist?  Do his actions make him a threat to national security, or military security?  The question is not whether he should receive special treatment due to his queer American status. 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012) was passed by the House and Senate this month.  Most of what the Act proposes will help our veterans and do positive things for the military, veterans, and United States defense and peacekeeping operations.  Certain parts of NDAA 2012 has caused an uproar across a wide swath of Americans, from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to Ron Paul.  It is possible, however, that certain parties want to see this bill fail for reasons other than what they say.

The majority of people enraged about NDAA 2012 have focused on "Sections 1031: Indefinite Detention" and "1032: Requirement for Military Custody". 

According to the NDAA text of Section 1031, the President will have the authority to allow the military to detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."  This would apply to US citizens and other legal residents of the United States as well as any other human being. 

According to the NDAA text of Section 1032, all persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1031, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to serve their time in military prisons run by the US Armed Forces.  Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."

Sections 1031 and 1032 could potentially put many innocent people at risk for persecution, incarceration, and deportation.

NDAA 2012 has redefined sexual assault and rape, and sets out to make punishments for the perpetrators more strict.  Marriage will no longer be a shield that perpetrators can use for abusing their spouses.  While this is a positive aspect to NDAA 2012 that should not go overlooked, NDAA 2012 provides no abortion services for women who were sexually assaulted or raped.  Military women have less access than civilian women in the United States to abortion services, but are the most at risk for rape.

What no one has mentioned about NDAA 2012, which is buried in the myriad of sections, definitions, and amendments, is that NDAA 2012 sets out to repeal the Sodomy Article--article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Repeal of the Sodomy Article will allow gay and lesbian soldiers to have consensual sexual intimacy in the same way that heterosexual soldiers do.  Repeal of the Sodomy Article also will help people in the Armed Forces report sexual assault or rape in a more accurate way that will not discriminate against gay or lesbian soldiers.  As the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has already taken place, repeal of the Sodomy Article would drive the final nail in the coffin where discrimination against gay and lesbian servicepeople would be put to rest.

Government documents are long, laborious things to read.  They are written that way on purpose, to hide details that might get approved along with major points.  For this reason, it is worth the time to locate the original government documents and read them for yourself before reading what others have to say about them.  Saint Cloud State University has a great list of resources to help you find any state or federal government document; do not hesitate to contact a helpful librarian to learn how to use them.

"Cops Ready for War"

Minnesotans have been hearing a lot about the economic boom in North Dakota, but terrorism--not so much.  In the meantime, Fargo police have received funds from federal grants to turn local police departments into "small army-like forces".   This means military uniforms, shields, more powerful firearms, and tanks.  To fight against whom? 

This Too is a Form of Terrorism

According to this New York Times article, "A government advisory board is afraid that the details of certain biomedical experiments could be used by terrorists to create deadly viruses and touch off epidemics."

Apparently, the government advisory board believes that active terrorists could be studying and working at university libraries, where such medical and scientific journals would be housed and indexed.  They must also not be aware that access to the online databases which index the articles from those medical and scientific journals are password protected and closed off to people who do not work or study in higher education.  Either that, or this government advisory board must believe that people working or studying in academia have the potential to share this password protected information with others.

If scientific research is censored for fear of "terrorism", then how will people in the medical and scientific fields acquire knowledge about advances in their field, especially when health is concerned?  Will the potential lack of complete published knowledge cause scientific study in the United States to stagnate, or cause millions of dollars to be wasted on repeated experiments?  Or will there be two sets of published information--one "censored" version for the general public, and one "uncensored" version for those working in the field, which would be kept under some strong security system?

If researchers in the United States cannot have full access to the details of published research studies for fear of terrorism, this could mean that such research will be conducted in other countries, and the results sold to us in exchange for our ignorance.  How would we know that what we were sold was the truth, and not in fact results of inaccurate, biased research which could harm us more than help?