Eight years, four hearings, eighteen witnesses and no
support for his longstanding allegations against American
Muslims
June 2012
Some of the material in this report was originally published
in written testimony CAIR submitted to Rep. King’s first
hearing.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Before the Hearings: King Places an Entire Community Under
Suspicion………………………………………5
Hearing 1: The Extent of Radicalization in the American
Muslim Community and that Community’s
Response……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Hearing 2: The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in
U.S. Prisons…………………………………10
Hearing 3: Al Shabaab Recruitment and Radicalization within
the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the
Homeland……………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Hearing 4: Homegrown Terrorism the Threat to Military
Communities Inside the
United
States…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
Evidence Available Prior to the Hearings Contradicts King’s
Allegations Against American
Muslims…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16
Appendix: Rep. King’s Questions to Witnesses During the First
Four Hearings…….…………………18
Appendix: Hearing
Witnesses…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..21
KING’S CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE ON MUSLIMS
King: Muslim community makes “tremendous contributions”
“…there's no desire on anyone's part to denigrate the
tremendous contributions made by the Muslim American
community. We're talking about a very small, small minority,
but a lethal minority.”
–Rep. Peter King, during the fourth hearing, December 7,
2011.
King: Muslim community “does not cooperate”
“When a war begins, we’re all Americans. But in this
case, this is not the situation. And whether it’s pressure,
whether it’s cultural tradition, whatever, the fact is the
Muslim community does not cooperate anywhere near to the
extent that it should.”
–Rep. Peter King interview on Secure Freedom Radio
With Frank Gaffney, January 6, 2011.
King: “There is a real threat to the country from the
Muslim community”
There is a real threat to the country from the Muslim
community and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to
investigate what is happening."
-Rep. Peter King, interview with Associated Press,
February 22, 2011.
Established in 2002, the House Homeland Security Committee’s
mission is to “better protect the American people against a
possible terrorist attack.”[i]
A sober and objective examination of violent extremism and the
threat it presents to our nation is the committee’s legitimate
business. Sweeping indictments of an entire religious community
are not.
Since 2004, current committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) has
maintained two sweeping indictments of the American Muslim
community: that its leadership is overwhelmingly extremist and
that its members do not cooperate with law enforcement.
CAIR believes that eighteen witnesses and four hearings were
more than enough opportunity for the chairman to prove his case.
This paper examines his results.
In 2011, Rep. Peter King, chairman of the U.S. House Homeland
Security Committee, held four hearings investigating
radicalization within the American Muslim community.
For seven years prior to the first hearing, King had
maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are
controlled by Islamic fundamentalists"[1]
and that average Muslims "are loyal," but "don't come forward,
they don't tell the police what they know. They won't turn in
their own."[ii]
In December 2010, he staunchly announced that he will “stand-by”
the 85 percent number.[iii]
King substitutes other terms for “Islamic fundamentalists” such
as “Islamic radicals” or “radical imams.”
After announcing the hearings, King wrote, “Federal and local
law enforcement officials throughout the country told me they
received little or - in most cases - no cooperation from Muslim
leaders and imams.”[iv]
King promised Fox News that during the hearings, “There will be
law enforcement familiar with the facts.”
[v]
Today, after eight years, four hearings and eighteen
witnesses, King has failed to produce the promised evidence to
support his stigmatization of America’s Muslims.
Not a single witness attempted to factually validate the
allegation of a Muslim community run by extremists. King made
only one foray into backing up his allegation during the entire
series of hearings. He asked Zuhdi Jasser if extremism is a
“systemic problem” in the American Muslim community.
Jasser, a physician who works closely with the anti-Muslim
movement, is not an expert and has conducted no research on the
topic. Jasser’s response: “It's a minority, but there's an
ideology that exists in some mosques -- not all, not a majority
-- but in some mosques. And it's a significant number.”
Five of the six law enforcement representatives who testified
did not support King’s assertion that Muslims do not cooperate
with law enforcement. Instead, these witnesses described “strong
relationships” with Somali Muslims, “strong bonds” with the
American Muslim community and “outreach and engagement with
Muslim communities…” Prior to the hearings, FBI Director Muller
had told the House Judiciary Committee, “that many of our cases
are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the
United States."
Over the course of four hearings, King did prove what was
already known: that a small number of individuals within the
American Muslim community are susceptible to violent extremism.
King’s record of leveling unsubstantiated allegations and
biased attacks on the Muslim community and habit of naming
people with records of anti-Muslim bias as potential witnesses
and information sources denies him any current credibility in
discussions about American Muslims and homeland security.
King’s committee is charged with helping better protect the
homeland against terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda and its allies
remain the most significant terrorist threat to our nation, but
other groups have carried out attacks. King’s decision to give
these other groups a free pass allows them a safer space to
operate outside the light of his committee’s scrutiny.
Before the Hearings: King Places an Entire Community
Under Suspicion
In December of 2010, as the incoming chairman of the U.S.
House Homeland Security Committee, King announced his intention
to hold a series of congressional hearings examining the
“radicalization of Muslim Americans.”
The announcement generated broad-spectrum disapproval
centered on two main themes that persisted through the year: 1)
King’s record of leveling unsubstantiated allegations and biased
attacks on the Muslim community; 2) King placing an entire
community under suspicion.
Additional concern was generated prior to the first hearing
as King repeatedly named people with records of anti-Muslim bias
as potential witnesses and information sources.
King’s record of leveling unsubstantiated allegations and
biased attacks on the Muslim community
In February of 2004, Rep. King was promoting a novel he had
written when he told interviewer Sean Hannity, "You could say
that 80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by
Islamic fundamentalists" and that average Muslims "are loyal,"
but "don't come forward, they don't tell the police what they
know. They won't turn in their own."[vi]
In December 2010, he staunchly announced that he will “stand-by”
the 85 percent number.[vii]
In 2007, he said, "Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in
this country.”[viii]
In December 2010, after announcing the hearings, King wrote,
“Federal and local law enforcement officials throughout the
country told me they received little or - in most cases - no
cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams.”[ix]
In early 2011, King added more to the allegation of
non-cooperation and implied that American Muslims are not
“American” when it comes to protecting our nation during times
of war:[x]
“…when a war begins, we’re all Americans. But in this case,
this is not the situation. And whether it’s pressure, whether
it’s cultural tradition, whatever, the fact is the Muslim
community does not cooperate anywhere near to the extent that it
should. The irony is that we’re living in two different worlds.
One is the real world that I find when I’m talking with police
officers, talking with federal law enforcement authorities. And
when I raise the question of Muslim cooperation, they look at me
like ‘oh of course not, no there’s no cooperation, we don’t
anticipate that.’ You know, ‘We never expect cooperation.’ They
try but hardly ever get it.”
Concerns that King is Putting an Entire Community Under
Suspicion
Criticism has abounded regarding the repercussions King’s
hearings would have on innocent American Muslims tainted by the
acts of a tiny minority of violent extremists.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) the Homeland Security
Committee’s most senior Democrat sent a letter to King in
February urging him to expand the focus of the hearings to cover
ideological-based violence of all kinds. In his letter, Thompson
cited a 2008 survey of state police by a DHS entity that found
local police naming “neo-Nazi groups” as a “serious threat” in
more states that “Islamic extremist groups.”[xi]
The Hill later reported that, “…nearly 100 of [King’s]
Democratic House colleagues pleaded with him to cancel it.”[xii]
Among those appealing to King was Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) who
spent time in his youth in a WWII internment camp for Japanese
Americans. In an op-ed posted on CNN’s web site, Honda
wrote, “These hearings do little to keep our country secure and
do plenty to increase prejudice, discrimination and hate. I
thought we learned a lesson or two from my internment camp
experience in Colorado. I hope I am not proven wrong.”[xiii]
In early February, a coalition of 51 interfaith and human
rights groups, led by Muslim Advocates, sent a letter to the
House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, asking the congressional leaders to“...urge
[King] to address violence motivated by extremist beliefs, in
all its forms, in a full, fair and objective way. The hearings
should proceed from a clear understanding that individuals are
responsible for their actions, not entire communities."[xiv]
The Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, a coalition of over 200 organizations, sent their own
letter to congress in February, stating that they “strongly
believe that as currently framed, these hearings will inevitably
stoke anti-Muslim sentiment and increase suspicion and fear of
the American Muslim community.”[xv]
Similarly, two days before the first hearing on March 10,
2011, the American Civil Liberties Union, along with over forty
other civil liberties groups, sent a letter to King saying,
“Treating an entire community as suspect because of the bad acts
or intolerant statements of a few is imprudent and unfair and in
the past has only led to greater misunderstanding, injustice and
discrimination.”[xvi]
Additionally, over 80 faith leaders from across Long Island,
King’s home district, followed suit and also sent a letter to
King with comparable appeals.[xvii]
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim to be elected to
Congress called the hearings a “witch hunt,” likening them to
the Cold War-era McCarthy hearings.[xviii]
Media critics of the hearing made their voices heard, too. A
New York Times editorial called the hearings a “sweeping
slur on Muslim citizens.”[xix]
In advance of the second hearing, the National Jewish
Democratic Committee issued a statement saying, "Once again,
King has singled out the adherents of the Muslim faith, calling
into question the loyalty of an entire community."[xx]
Naming People with Questionable Records as Potential
Witnesses and Information Sources
In January, King told Politico that Ayaan Hirsi Ali
was a potential witness. The Politico article was
subsequently placed on the House Homeland Security Committee’s
web site belaying any arguments that the reporter was
misinformed.
After this announcement several groups called King’s
attention to Ali’s extreme anti-Muslim and anti-Constitution
rhetoric. For example, during the course of a single 2007
interview with Reason Magazine Ali said, “I think that we
are at war with Islam” and called for Islam to be “defeated.”
Later in the interview, Ali suggested that the U.S. Constitution
should be amended to allow for discrimination against Muslims.
King dropped Ali, but the question of where he was getting his
advice about potential witnesses was in place.
Subsequently, a National Review article–again posted
on the House Homeland Security Committee’s website–announced
that Walid Phares was a planned witness for the first hearing.
In a letter to King, CAIR noted that Phares is a former
official with a Christian militia implicated, by Israel’s
official Kahan inquiry and other sources, in the 1982 massacre
of civilian men, women and children at the Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps in Lebanon.
In the late 1990s, leading members of Phares’ World Lebanese
Organization (WLO) included the deputy commander of a group
known for systematically torturing prisoners during the Lebanon
conflict. Another leading WLO member headed a militia known for
atrocities during the Lebanese civil war.
Phares was dropped as well. However, even after learning of
Phares’ associations, King issued a statement saying he will
rely on Phares “for his advice and counsel as these hearings go
forward.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Walid Phares as either potential
witnesses gave reasonable pause to anyone who was still hoping
King’s plan was to hold sober and objective hearings.
King was also comfortable appearing with known Islamophobes
in the lead-up to the hearings. In January, King appeared on
Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom radio program. Among other
things, Gaffney is known for birthing the conspiracy theory that
a military patch with a crescent on it was a sign that Islam is
taking over America. In February, King appeared on the debut
episode of ACT! For America’s new cable TV show according to a
press release issued by the group. ACT! Founder Brigitte Gabriel
is known for her belief that “every practicing Muslim is a
radical Muslim.”
Hearing 1: The Extent of Radicalization in the
American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response
The first hearing was held on March 10, 2011. Given that the
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life later called it the “top
Islam-related story of the year” this was King’s moment to have
government, law enforcement and expert witnesses support the his
allegations against the Muslim community.
Instead, three of the four witnesses on the hearing’s key
second panel had no homeland security or other professional
expertise relevant to the hearing’s topic. These men were not
the law enforcement familiar with the facts King had promised
Fox News. The only witness who did represent law enforcement
was selected by the Democrats.
[2]
Two of King’s witnesses offered anecdotal stories of personal
tragedy.
Mr. Melvin Bledsoe related his tragic personal experience of
watching his son become a violent extremist who attacked a
military recruiting center in 2009.
Mr. Abdirizak Bihi suffered the tragic experience of having a
nephew disappear from Minnesota only to later reappear with a
terrorist group in Somalia. Bihi has been described as a
“lightening rod” in the Minneapolis Somali community.
[xxi] As a substitute for law enforcement or otherwise
expert verification of King’s charge of Muslim non-cooperation,
Bihi was an unusual choice given his own troubles with police.[3]
Allegations Bihi made against against Minnesota Somali
leaders were not supported by the FBI. Special Agent E.K Wilson
of the FBI’s Minneapolis division was quoted the next day
saying: "At this point, we have uncovered no evidence to show
there was any effort of any mosque or mosque leadership or
mosque imam to take part in any recruitment or radicalization of
these young men.”[xxii]
King’s third witness, M. Zuhdi Jasser, believes,
“…operationally, Islam is not peaceful.”[xxiii]
He has previously acknowledged that he is not an expert in
Islam, saying, “I reassert the fact that I am not a formal
expert in Koranic Arabic, or in sharia (Islamic jurisprudence).”[xxiv]
The New York Times said Jasser “has little following
among Muslims but has become a favorite of conservatives for his
portrayal of American Muslim leaders as radical Islamists.”[xxv]
Jasser’s limited following among Muslims may be a result of
his close ties with known Islamophobes. Jasser narrates the
Clarion Fund’s anti-Muslim propaganda film Third Jihad.
His organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy
(“AFID”) “applauded” an anti-Muslim amendment to Oklahoma’s
constitution,[xxvi]
even though the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids the government
from singling out one religious faith.[4]
In King’s only foray into backing up his “80%, 85% of the
mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic
fundamentalists” allegation during the entire series of hearings
he asked Jasser if extremism is a “systemic problem” in the
American Muslim community. Jasser, a physician, is not an expert
and has conducted no research on the topic. Jasser’s response to
King is unenlightening: “It's a minority, but there's an
ideology that exists in some mosques -- not all, not a majority
-- but in some mosques. And it's a significant number.”
Aftermath of the First Hearing
Media and public attention on the first hearing was
significant. In Religion in the News: Islam and Politics
Dominate Religion Coverage in 2011, a report released on
February 23, 2012, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
called the hearing the “top Islam-related story of the year” and
noted that “media coverage of the hearing characterized it as
emotional and combative.”
Analysis in the wake of the hearing echoed the concerns
leveled in weeks leading to the hearing:
- “The fury surrounding New York Representative Peter
King’s March hearing on the radicalization of
Muslim-American communities was an embarrassment for the
House and its Homeland Security Committee. Not a single
meaningful recommendation came from the politically charged
investigation.” -Editorial Board, Rep. King finds a new
target,” Boston Globe, June 15, 2011
- “This is the very definition of McCarthyism: false
allegations of subversion.” -Dana Milbank, “Rep. King’s
red scare,” Washington Post, March 13, 2011
- “By the end of hearing, Mr. King was claiming personal
courage in defying ‘political correctness.’ There is nothing
courageous about pandering or sowing hatred and fear.”
-Editorial Board,” Mr. King’s sound and fury,” New York
Times, March 12, 2011
- “The committee's witch hunt for Muslim radicals will do
little to make our nation safer…The result is a conviction
in the trial of the public arena, giving some in our society
a chance to deepen their prejudices against Muslims.”
-Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), “Anti-Muslim hearing is an affront to
patriotic Americans,” San Jose Mercury News, March 10, 2011.
- “[Minnesota Rep. Keith] Ellison charged that King was
‘stereotyping and scapegoating’ Muslims. Rep. Sheila
Jackson-Lee of Texas, shouting over King's pounding gavel,
labeled the proceedings ‘an outrage.’ Rep. Yvette Clarke, a
New York Democrat, dismissed the hearings as ‘great
congressional theater’ and ‘the equivalent of reality TV.’
Rep. Laura Richardson of California compared King to the
notorious Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who led the
anti-Communist witch hunts of the 1950s. -James Oliphant,
Muslim 'radicalization' hearing a success, say Rep. Peter
King, Republicans,” Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2011.
- “But King wasn’t going to let the heroism of a Muslim {Saleem
Hamdani, a first-responder who died on 9/11] in the face of
terrorism get in the way of a good witch hunt.”-Sarah
Posner, King Hearing Cast Muslims as Clueless, ‘not
intellectually equipped,” The Nation, March 11, 2011.
- “Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones, who watched the
[hearing held by Rep. Peter King], also took exception to
[Minnesota Rep.] Cravaack's characterization [of CAIR]. "I'm
frustrated by the blanket condemnation of (the council),"
Jones said. He said his terrorism unit of prosecutors has a
working relationship with the council's local chapter as
well as other entities in sniffing out extremism or
wrongdoing. "I hope that (the hearing) does not have an
adverse impact on the good things happening here in
Minnesota with our Somali community," Jones said. "We are on
a good path with closer collaboration. -Rubén Rosario,
(Minnesota) Pioneer Press, March 11, 2011
Hearing 2: The Threat of Muslim-American
Radicalization in U.S. Prisons
King’s second hearing, held in June, focused on prison
radicalization. The hearing did not feature any witnesses from
the Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Justice.
In his opening remarks, King noted this was the third
Congressional hearing on the issue in recent years. King noted a
“large number” of prison radicalization cases.
Seven months earlier, the Congressional Research Service
(CRS)—the non-partisan entity within the Library of Congress
that does research for Members of Congress—reported, “Based on
CRS analysis of the 43 violent jihadist plots and attacks since
9/11, only one involved radicalization in prison. A study of 117
homegrown jihadist terrorists from the United States and the
United Kingdom found only seven cases in which prison had a
significant impact on an individual’s radicalization process.”
This led CRS to conclude, “The lack of conclusive
prison-based radicalization among the jihadist terrorism plots
and foiled attacks since 9/11 suggests that the threat emanating
from prisons does not seem as substantial as some experts may
fear.”[xxvii]
When CRS updated the report in November 2011 one of 53 plots
involved prison radicalization, the conclusion on prison
radicalization from the first report remained unchanged.
Witnesses reflected this conclusion.
Michael Downing, deputy chief and commanding officer of the
CounterTerrorism and Special Operations Bureau of the Los
Angeles Police Department's said it “remains a phenomena (sic)
of low volume.”
In his written testimony, Professor Bert Useem of Purdue
University, whose work was funded by institutions affiliated
with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Justice, concluded, “My core argument, then, is that U.S.
prisons are not systematically generating a terrorist threat to
the U.S. homeland.”
Patrick Dunleavy a retired deputy inspector formerly with the
New York Department of Correctional Services and Kevin Smith, a
former U.S. attorney both addressed isolated cases of prison
radicalization. Duleavy’s testimony focused on the group Dar ul-Islam.
While Smith focused on Jam'iyyat Ul Islam Is Saheeh( JIS).
Media coverage of the second hearing was minimal.
In its reporting on the second hearing, Politico said,
“…though King painted the threat as serious, the evidence to
support that claim provided by witnesses was mixed.” According
to Politico “…all [the witnesses] seemed to emphasize the
low occurrence of such cases…”[xxviii]
Hearing 3: Al Shabaab Recruitment and Radicalization
within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the
Homeland
The third hearing in the series was held in July. Again,
there were no witnesses representing the federal government, the
most important entity engaged in protecting the homeland from
international terrorism.
In the days prior to the hearing, Anders Breivik, a lone wolf
violent extremist in Norway, murdered sixty-nine people in an
anti-Islam rampage. Breivik’s writings showed significant
influence from U.S.-based anti-Muslim elements. Despite this
connection, King maintained his refusal to broaden the scope of
the hearing to include other forms of violent extremism.
During the course of the hearing, witnesses also lent
credence to a need for vigilance against terror threats of all
kinds.
William Anders Folk, former Assistant United States Attorney
for the District of Minnesota, said that his professional
experiences, “taught me that extremist views that fuel
terrorists, whether homegrown or foreign, al-Shabaab, Al Qaida,
or otherwise, are capable of extraordinary acts of violence. And
they require the unwavering attention of law enforcement.”
Questioned by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) the Chief Tom Smith
of Police of Saint Paul, Minnesota also agreed about the need to
be concerned about domestic-based terror from groups such as
white extremists. Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, senior fellow at
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, replied “certainly”
to a question about Al-Shabaab attempting to recruit in
communities other than among Muslims.
In his opening statement for the hearing, King cited an
incident in Minneapolis, saying, “When one cleric spoke out
against al-Shabaab inside the Minneapolis mosque where many of
the missing young Somali-American men had once worshipped, he
was physically assaulted, according to police.”
The Islamic scholar, cleric in King’s words, was at the
mosque by invitation of its leadership. Hasan Jama, the mosque
director, was the victim of the attack. Prior to Jama’s
leadership, Federal authorities alleged that some young
attendees of the mosque had gone to join Al-Shabaab in Somalia.
Since taking the director position, Jama had been involved in
flooding the mosque with “positive and peaceful messages.”[xxix]
A news report on the incident also noted, “[FBI] officials
say the mosque's leaders have been involved in ongoing
conversations between law enforcement and community members.”[xxx]
King’s example gives another indication of a Muslim community
leadership that is engaged in defeating violent extremism.
This mosque, the Abubakar as Saddique Islamic Center, was
soundly criticized during the first hearing by witness Abdirazik
Bihi. Bihi, who as noted earlier has had issues with law
enforcement, alleged that mosque leadership had been complacent
when the young men disappeared. In contrast, the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune had previously noted, “FBI Special Agent Ralph
Boelter, who investigated the Somalis who fled Minnesota to join
the al-Shabaab terror group, said Muslim-Americans couldn't have
been more helpful.”[xxxi]
On the same day as the hearing, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
issued a statement which said, in part, “Minneapolis’ large and
vibrant Somali community has been bravely dealing with this
problem [Al-Shabaab efforts to recruit local youths] head-on for
years, and I fully support their efforts to do so.”[xxxii]
Turning back to Rep. King’s opening statement, the chairman
also attempted to make the argument that his hearings, “are also
liberating and empowering to the many Muslim-Americans who have
been intimidated by the leaders in their own communities, and
are now willing and able to come forward.” King asked witness
Ahmed Hussen, a Canadian, to support this. Hussen said “yes,”
but spoke only to shared values between Islam and the West, not
to the dubious claim of “benefits” of King’s hearings, saying,
“…our religion is not incompatible with American or Canadian
values.” There is nothing in Hussen’s written
testimony supporting the notion of King “liberating and
empowering” Muslims.
Hussen, the hearing’s first witness, discussed the
Canadian-Somali community at length. It is reasonable to
question why this witness was selected. After the first hearing,
Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones had called attention to
“the good things happening here in Minnesota with our Somali
community."[xxxiii]
FBI agent Boelter, quoted above, also indicated a “helpful”
Somali community. Why did King feel the need to go outside the
United States for a witness, given that law enforcement
officials had indicated a Somali community in Minnesota that was
concerned and helpful?
Chief Smith also talked about a cooperative and supportive
community outlining a successful community engagement program
that had generated “positive relationships.” Smith also
mentioned “the [community] elders who regularly visit my
office.”
According to the witnesses, groups like Al-Shabaab show no
compunction about killing Muslims.
“More Muslims are killed by Shabaab than anybody. That's who
they target,” said Folk. Jocelyn concurred, “most of Shabaab's
terrorism is actually focused on Muslims, both in Somalia and
also the victimization of Muslims I would say internationally…
What they did is they found any Muslims that weren't willing to
work with them and they systematically killed them.”
Folk summed up neatly, the sober and objective reality
regarding Al-Shebab: “The reality, Congressman, is that only a
very small number of Somalis that have left the United
States--or that have joined al-Shabaab--only a small number of
Somalis have joined al-Shabaab as compared to the total number.
But the reality is even that small number as compared to the
large population is too many.”
The hearing received insignificant media and public
attention.
Hearing 4: Homegrown Terrorism the Threat to Military
Communities Inside the United States
The fourth hearing was held jointly with the Senate’s
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee in
December. This hearing featured two Department of Defense
witnesses.
In his opening remarks, Rep. Bennie Thompson expressed the
ongoing concern that singling out a faith minority as the sole
threat could stigmatize Muslims.
Rep. King responded saying, “…there's no desire on anyone's
part to denigrate the tremendous contributions made by the
Muslim American community. We're talking about a very small,
small minority, but a lethal minority.”
This remark stands in stark contrast to King’s statement,
cited earlier in this report, to Frank Gaffney a few months
earlier: “When a war begins, we’re all Americans. But in this
case, this is not the situation. And whether it’s pressure,
whether it’s cultural tradition, whatever, the fact is the
Muslim community does not cooperate anywhere near to the extent
that it should.”[xxxiv](Emphasis
is CAIRs.)
The issue of broadening King’s examination of threats to
homeland security received more attention than just Rep.
Thompson’s comment.
When asked by Rep. Laura Richardson (R-CA) if the “threat to
U.S. communities is limited to Islamic extremists only, yes or
no?” All three Department of Defense witnesses on the first
panel said no.
United States Army Senior Advisor on Counterintelligence
Operations and liaison to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Jim Stuteville, said that the Army was training its personnel to
focus on “behavioral activity, not on any specific ideology,
religion, or ethnic group. We adopted that approach because we
want to make sure that we can account for any type of threat,
both those previously and those in the future.”
Lt. Col. Reid Sawyer of the Combating Terrorism Center at
West Point cited the “Christian right movement and the identity
movement.”
While questioning the witnesses, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA)
probed the administration’s decision to identify Al-Qaeda and
its allies as our enemy. Lungren, King and some others prefer
“violent Islamic extremists” and dismiss any other terminology
politically correct. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense and Americas' Security Affairs Paul N. Stockton
responded, “That is a prime propaganda tool. And I'm not going
to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goals.”
Stockton added, “…I don't believe it's helpful to frame our
adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might
add, because we are not at war with Islam.” The Assistant
secretary finished say, “This [use of terminology] is not about
political correctness. This is about defeating our adversaries.”
The hearing’s final witness had a tragic personal story to
offer, but was not an expert on the subject a hand. Mr. Darius
Long is the father of a young soldier who was murdered by a
violent extremist. Mr. Long and his family have a long record of
honorable service to the nation and their loss is a national
tragedy.
A report issued by King’s committee staff on December 7, 2011
does acknowledge the honorable military service of many members
of the American Muslim community:
At least 6,024 U.S. service members who declared Islam as
their faith have served honorably in overseas war deployments
since the 9/11 attacks, and 14 Muslim-American troops have been
killed in action, all in Iraq, the Pentagon informed the
Committee’s Majority Staff. We honor these American heroes, four
of whom are buried in nearby Arlington National Cemetery, for
making the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation.
Media and public attention to the hearing was again limited.
In its coverage of the hearing, CNN noted that “terrorist
threats against U.S. officials and police that have nothing to
do with Islamist militancy are surely also worthy of the
scrutiny of Congress, but neither the Senate nor House homeland
security committee, nor it seems any other congressional
committee, has examined the issue in any detail since 9/11.”[xxxv]
Evidence Available Prior to the Hearings Contradicts
King’s Allegations Against American Muslims
In April 2008, FBI Director Robert Mueller, told the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee: "I re-affirm the fact that 99.9
percent of Muslim-Americans … are every bit as patriotic as
anybody else in this room, and that many of our cases are a
result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the
United States."
The following year, Mueller told a Senate committee the
Muslim community "has been tremendously supportive and worked
very closely with [the FBI] in a number of instances around the
country."
The RAND Corporation’s Brian Michael Jenkins finds the
suggestion of “an American [Muslim] population that remains
hostile to jihadist ideology and its exhortations to violence”
in his 2010 paper Would-Be Warriors.
Similarly, the December 2010 Congressional Research Service
report American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex
Threat cites numerous examples of Muslim community
activities and federal engagement and partnership activities
with Muslim-American communities.
Quintan Wiktorowicz, senior director for global engagement at
the White House National Security Council, shattered stereotypes
about Muslims and radicalization when his research found that
religious Muslims are in fact the most resistant to
radicalization. “As part of his research,” NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston
reported on January 24, 2011, “Wiktorowicz interviewed hundreds
of Islamists in the United Kingdom. After, compiling his
interviews he came to the conclusion that—contrary to popular
belief—very religious Muslims were in fact the people who ended
up being the most resistant to radicalization.”
"One of the important things about counterradicalization is
that about perhaps 10 percent of it is law enforcement and
intelligence, 90 percent of it are things that have relatively
little to do with that," said Wiktorowicz. "Counterradicalization
also has to include things like politicians visiting Muslim
communities, messaging and beefing up education about Islam
among Muslims themselves.”
A 2010 report by scholars at Duke University and the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recommended that
policymakers reinforce anti-radicalization activities already
underway in American Muslim communities.
“Muslim-Americans organizations and the vast majority of
individuals that we interviewed firmly reject the radical
extremist ideology that justifies the use of violence to achieve
political ends,” said the report’s co-author David Schanzer,
director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland
Security. Co-author David Kurzman also said, “Muslim-American
communities have been active in preventing radicalization.”
In February, 2011 the scholars at Duke University and the
University of North Carolina published “Muslim American
Terrorism Since 9/11: An Accounting.” The study reports that:
· While 47
Muslim-Americans committed or were arrested for terrorist crimes
in 2009, the number dropped to 20 this past year.
· The number
of Muslim-Americans engaged in terrorist acts with domestic
targets declined from 18 in 2009 to 10 in 2010.
· Eleven
Muslim Americans have successfully executed terrorist attacks in
the United States since 9/11, killing 33 people. This is
about 3 deaths per year. There have been approximately
150,000 murders in the United States since 9/11. According
to the FBI there were approximately 15,241 murders in the United
States in 2009.
· Tips from
the Muslim American community provided the source of information
that led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases
involving Muslim Americans.
Similarly, the Post 9/11 Terrorism Database created by
the Muslim Public Affairs Council in 2009 revealed that “Muslim
communities have stepped forward to help law enforcement foil
over 1 out of every 3 Al Qaeda-related terror plots threatening
America since 9/11.”
These are sources anyone can verify that were available to
anyone with internet access prior to King’s first hearing.
In the eight years since he first asserted the allegations of
fundamentalist control of the Muslim community and
non-cooperation with law enforcement, King has never pointed to
an evidentiary source for the “80%, 85%” figure that objective
observers can review.[5]
Instead he cites a speech given at the U.S. Department of
State in the late 1990s by Hisham Kabbani, a figure who is
unknown to most U.S. Muslims.
One man’s opinion. Kabbani to this day has not produced his
source for this allegation
1) After four hearings, King has failed in proving
allegations against the American Muslim community is led by
fundamentalists and does not cooperate with law enforcement.
Evidence available prior to the first hearing, as well as five
of the six law enforcement officers he brought to testify do not
support these allegations.
Not a single witness attempted to factually validate the
allegation of a Muslim community run by extremists. Zuhdi Jasser,
the only witness to attempt to back King up on the allegation,
gave a rambling response to the charge best summed up in the
contradictory positions taken in these sentences: “It's a
minority, but there's an ideology that exists in some mosques --
not all, not a majority -- but in some mosques. And it's a
significant number.”
Five of the six law enforcement officers brought to testify
at the hearings did not support King’s assertion that Muslims do
not cooperate with law enforcement.
Chief Smith of Saint Paul, Minn. talked about “strong
relationships” with Somali Muslims.
Sherriff Baca of Los Angeles described “strong bonds” with
the American Muslim community.
LAPD Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau
Commander Michael Downing said, “Los Angeles is known for its
outreach and engagement with Muslim communities…”
Neither of the two U.S. attorneys who testified criticized
Muslim leadership or mosques. Former U.S. attorney Kevin Smith
did describe a Muslim community committed to the Constitution:
“…in our outreach and engagement with Muslim communities, we
recognize, and the Muslim communities recognize, that the law of
the land is the Constitution. And that there may be sharia
principles in their community that they look at, similar to
Jewish laws, but the law of the land, the rule of law is the
Constitution of the United States.”
Additionally, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs Paul Stockton said in his
written testimony, “Muslim-Americans are important allies in the
effort to counter violent extremism in the United States.”
Speaking during the hearing, Stockton said, “And that is
recognizing the tremendous contributions of Muslim Americans to
national security and the armed forces in particular. We need
Muslim Americans in the United States military.”
Evidence and public statements of senior law enforcement
officials available prior to the hearings also contradicted
King.
To date, King has neither retracted his unsubstantiated
allegation nor sought to admit that he was wrong.
Instead, even as recently as January 2012, he continues to
assert that Muslims somehow lack in their efforts to protect the
homeland. In a January 12, 2012 statement on the House Homeland
Security Committee’s web site King said, “The good citizen or
citizens who reported [Florida terror suspect Sami] Osmakac to
authorities deserve great credit for doing what too many leaders
in the Muslim American community too often fail to do. I have
long advocated for increased cooperation between Muslim leaders
and law enforcement, so this development is a positive sign.”[xxxvi]
(Emphasis is CAIR’s, given the evidence laid out in this
document the information from Florida represents a pattern of
constitutionally-informed cooperation and not a “development.”)
King’s rhetorical smearing of an entire faith community is
not based in fact. He needs to explain how standing by the
allegations serves domestic security.
2) Over the course of four hearings, King did prove what
was already known: that a small number of individuals within the
American Muslim community are susceptible to violent extremism.
Over the last year King has proven—perhaps
unintentionally—what everyone already knew: a small number of
individuals within the American Muslim community are susceptible
to Al-Qaeda’s ideology. Given this lack of revelation, it is
difficult to justify both the time and expense of these hearings
to tax-payers and stigmatization of the American Muslim
community.
American Muslims are aware that even a small fraction of
violent extremists represent a threat to their nation.
Rather than joining Muslims and their representative
organizations in expanding efforts to deny Al-Qaeda and its
ideology any minute safe haven, King unapologetically continues
casts suspicion on the entire community.
3) King’s record of leveling unsubstantiated allegations
and biased attacks on the Muslim community and habit of naming
people with records of anti-Muslim bias as potential witnesses
and information sources denies him any current credibility in
discussions about American Muslims and homeland security.
A sober and objective examination of terrorism and the threat
of violent extremism is important. King’s penchant for spicy,
self-serving sound bites makes for entertaining TV, but it
belittles the subject.
CAIR asserts that Rep. King’s politically exploitive approach
to the subject resulted in both broad-spectrum pushback against
him and public disinterest in his hearings subsequent to the
significant attention given to the first one.
Chairman King’s general response to criticism of his hearings
was that political correctness needed to be put aside for the
sake of examining this threat to the homeland. CAIR agrees.
However, we also believe that King’s broad brush indictments of
an entire religious minority can play no role in a serious
examination of threats to our nation.
4) King’s committee is charged with helping better protect
the homeland against terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda and its allies
remain the most significant terrorist threat to our nation, but
other groups have carried out attacks. King’s decision to give
these groups a free pass allows them a safer space to operate
outside the light of his committee’s scrutiny.
Three Department of Defense witnesses agreed that threats to
military communities emanate from multiple sources, not just
violent extremists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam.
William Anders Folk, former Assistant United States Attorney
for the District of Minnesota, said that his professional
experiences taught him that threats from multiple ideologies,
“require the unwavering attention of law enforcement.” Chief Tom
Smith of Police of Saint Paul, Minnesota also agreed about the
need to be concerned about domestic-based terror from groups
such as white extremists. Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, senior fellow at
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, replied “certainly”
to a question about Al-Shabaab attempting to recruit in
communities other than among Muslims.
Appendix: Rep. King’s Questions to Witnesses During
the First Four Hearings
The text below is taken directly from official hearing
transcripts. During a congressional hearing, each committee
member is allotted a short time to ask questions of the
witnesses. The below questions were posed by King. They are
provided so the reader can evaluate King’s efforts to validate
his allegations against the American Muslim community during the
hearings.
Hearing 1: The Extent of Radicalization in the American
Muslim Community and that Community’s Response
KING: Dr. Jasser, thank you for your testimony. You listened
to the testimony of Mr. Bledsoe and Mr. Bihi. I would ask you,
do you see these as isolated cases? Or as a part of a -- or is
it part of a
systemic problem in the Muslim American community? And if it
is, how would that be impacted
as far as mosques, as far as CAIR, and as far as overseas
funding?
KING: Thank you, Dr. Jasser. In my final seconds, Mr.
Bledsoe, I was very moved by your testimony. In the lead-up to
these hearings, this hearing was attacked by everybody from CAIR
to Kim Kardashian to the New York Times as being such a
dangerous moment that we were going to have here today. Why did
you come to testify? What do you hope your testimony will bring
about? And what is your opinion of this hearing?
Hearing 2: The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in
U.S. Prisons
KING: Thank you very much, Professor, for your testimony. Mr.
Dunleavy, you, in your testimony, talk about what appears to be
the lack of proper vetting for chaplains in state prisons. And I
know our staff has visited the maximum security prisons, and we
have been impressed by steps taken at the federal level. But 97
percent of prisoners are in state and local prisons. And you
gave the example of the imam, the chaplain, in a New York
prison, who was arrested and convicted last year for smuggling
razor blades into Ryker's Island. He had been certified as a
chaplain by the Islamic Leadership Council, which actually is
located right outside my district in Wyandanch. And I know it
somewhat well, because the leaders are always picketing my
office. But the fact is you had an organization such as that
certifying a chaplain who is a convicted murderer, and yet he
was certified to be a chaplain in the state prison system. Has
that situation improved at all?
KING: But he was still serving in 2007?
KING: Professor Useem seemed to say that he does not believe
the threat is that significant from the prisons. And yet, Chief
Downing, you say it's a subject which (inaudible) great concern.
It's an important phenomenon relating to the evolving threat of
Muslim Americans radicalization in prisons, and prisons are in
fact communities at risk. As the person who's on the ground, who
has to deal with this issue every day, you consider it to
be a serious issue?
KING: I'm not asking you to divulge any facts of ongoing
investigations. But in your written statement you say there are
several ongoing cases whose story is yet to be told. However,
the common denominator in these cases is conversion to a radical
form of Islam while in prison. So are you concerned about
ongoing cases relating to Islamic terrorism?
KING: Mr. Smith, in the Kevin James case, it seems it was the
perfect confluence of a radical form of religion, organized gang
members and almost an assembly line of radicalization in the
prison, going in post-prison to a mosque to recruit and
radicalize more, and then attempting to carry out terrorist
plots. Can you say what -- what makes -- is there anything
unique about a religious radical as opposed to a gang member, a
skinhead or a neo- Nazi?
Hearing 3: Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization
within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the
Homeland
KING: Chief Smith, thank you for your testimony and your
service. I will begin the round of questions. Mr. Hussen, let me
begin with you, please. As you probably know, these hearings
have been attacked as anti-Muslim bigoted, biased, racist - pick
your terminology - that's come at us from all directions. You
said in your testimony these hearings have actually empowered
your community.
KING: If you could expand on that? And in the course of doing
that, you also said that you believe the narrative has to be
changed that goes to the Somali-American community to show that
they should not be anti-Western. That in effect, they should
work with the governments of Canada and the United States. I
would ask you, first of all, to the extent these hearings have
helped out, but even more importantly, do you find that the
leadership in your community agrees with you? Has it changed?
Has it gone for the better? If you could just basically tell us
what the level of leadership is and how they react to what
you're saying about the narrative of being pro-Western?
KING: If I could ask you, what is your relationship with CARE
in Canada?
KING: Does CARE share your narrative?
KING: OK. If I could ask Mr. Folk, how would rate the
severity of a possible attack on our homeland because of the
linkup between al- Shabaab and AQAP?
KING: And we've heard various estimates of three dozen, four
dozen, 40 in the United States, 20 in Canada, maybe more,
who've gone over. If we know who's gone over, what's the
threat about them coming back?
KING: Mr. Joscelyn, do you care to comment on the potential
threat with al-Shabaab linking with AQAP?
KING: The time of the gentleman has expired. I would ask the
Ranking Member to indulge me for a moment, and ask Mr. Folk if
you want the opportunity. You were asked about your testimony.
And did you consult with the Justice Department before your
testimony? And did they put any restrictions on you?
Hearing 4: Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military
Communities Inside the United States
KING: Thank you, Colonel Sawyer. And also thank you for your
prepared statement, which I read last night. It was really a
treatise on terrorism. Thank you very much. Secretary Stockton,
in your prepared testimony and also in an article you write
entitled "Ten Years After 9/11: Challenges for the Decade to
Come," you said, among things, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
is actively recruiting U.S. military personnel to conduct lone
actor attacks on U.S. military targets. How significant do you
believe the threat is from within the military and how
successful has Al Qaeda been at recruiting members of the
American military?
KING: Secretary Stockton, we're in an open session, so I'm
not going to ask for precise numbers, but are there cases within
the military right now involving prospective jihadists and
terrorists that you are aware of or monitoring?
KING: OK. Senator Lieberman, we were going to call it (ph) in
closed session at the end of the second panel. OK. We'll
reconvene in closed session. Thank you very much. Mr. Stuteville,
as Senator Collins mentioned, during the 1990s when there were
white supremacists attacks within the military, when there were
right wing extremist attacks carried out within the military,
the military made it clear that right wing extremists and white
supremacists were the -- were those who carried out the attacks.
And that -- those ideologies were identified. And yet it appears
that the ideology of violent Islamic extremism is not identified
by name, including in your most recent documents. So I would ask
why does the Army now believe that it should not identify who
the enemy is when it was particularly appropriate to identify
the enemy 16, 17 years ago?
KING: Mr. Stuteville, if we're relying on behavioral analysis
and ignoring a person's ideology, the fact is, as Senator
Lieberman said, the enemy here is extreme violent Islam. A small
minority, a tiny minority, but the fact is they're rowling (ph)
toward Christianity or Judaism or atheism or Buddhism or
Hinduism. The particular enemy today comes from a very violent
form of Islam, just as in the 1990s there were white
supremacists and there were skinheads and there were Klan
members. And it seemed the military never hesitated in targeting
that enemy and identifying that enemy. Yet it appears like, for
instance, again, in this new Threat Awareness and Reporting
Program, you know, yes, I'm not saying we go back to the Cold
War, but the fact is white supremacists, that was not the Cold
War. That was a particular virulent ideology that was I believe
rightly and correctly and effectively attacked by the military.
And it appears as if today we're being politically correct by
not identifying who the target is. And I would say the same
thing if we were talking about Irish Catholics who were carrying
out attacks.
Identify them. Say who they are. I think we're sort of being
too politically correct here. I find that very frustrating. Let
me give you an opportunity to answer to that. And then also my
final question, and then I'll be out of time, will be we've
learned, the committee staff, that for instance in barracks that
Inspire magazine is available to members of the Armed Forces.
Now was that just as aberration? Is that policy? Because I know
for instance people can't fly federal flags or Nazi flags in a
barracks, and yet Inspire magazine is the propaganda organ of
the enemy. And a number of us, including myself, have actually
been named in that magazine by Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula. So I would ask you to answer the specific question
regarding Inspire and also why this change in policy to go from
naming someone -- naming an ideology to ignoring the ideology,
or Secretary Stockton.
KING: But if it's reported, is a person allowed to keep it in
the barracks? Is it just put up as one more indicator or is it
removed?
Appendix: Hearing Witnesses
Names and identifiers taken from witness lists posted on the
web site of the House Homeland Security Committee. CAIR
underlined the names of former and current law enforcement
officials. Because the fourth hearing was held jointly by House
and Senate committees, the usual House method for witness
selection did not apply. CAIR has identified witnesses selected
by the minority party by noting this next to their names.
Of the eighteen witnesses to testify at the hearings, six
were former or current law enforcement representatives. Of those
six, two were asked to testify by the Democrats.
Hearing 1
1. Hon. John D. Dingell,
A Representative in Congress from the 15th District of Michigan
2. Hon. Keith Ellison, A
Representative in Congress from the 5th District of Minnesota
3. Hon. Frank Wolf, A
Representative in Congress from the 10th District of Virginia
4. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser,
President and Founder, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
5. Mr. Abdirizak Bihi,
Director, Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center
6. Mr. Melvin Bledsoe,
Private Citizen
7. Sheriff Leroy Baca,
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (minority)
Hearing 2
8. Mr. Patrick T.
Dunleavy, Deputy Inspector General (Ret.), Criminal Intelligence
Unit, New York State Department of Correctional Services
9. Mr. Kevin Smith,
former Assistant United States Attorney, Central District of
California
10. Mr. Michael P. Downing, Commanding Officer,
Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau, Los Angeles
Police Department
11. Professor Bert Useem, Department Head and
Professor, Sociology Department, Purdue University (minority)
Hearing 3
12. Mr. Ahmed Hussen, Canadian Somali Congress
National President
13. Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow,
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
14. Mr. William Anders Folk, Former Assistant
United States Attorney, District of Minnesota
15. Mr. Tom Smith, Chief of Police, Saint Paul,
Minnesota (minority)
Hearing 4
16. The Honorable Paul N. Stockton, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
Affairs, Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy,
Department of Defense
a. Stockton was
accompanied by Mr. Jim Stuteville, United States Army Senior
Advisor, Counterintelligence Operations and Liaison to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation
17. Lieutenant Colonel Reid L. Sawyer, Director,
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
18. Mr. Daris Long, Private Citizen
[1] In different interviews King substitutes other
terms for “Islamic fundamentalists,” such as “Islamic
radicals” or “radical imams.”
[2] In most House hearings, the majority party will
choose most witnesses, with the minority party selecting
usually only one witness. In this case, Jasser, Bledsoe
and Bihi were the Republican-majority witnesses and Baca
was selected by the Democrat-minority.
[3] In 2008, Bihi initially misled a police officer
after a car crash but later made admissions that
resulted in a driving while impaired conviction. In
2010, a warrant was sworn out for his arrest after he
failed to enroll in a required safe driving course.
[4] Following a legal challenge to the anti-Muslim
Oklahoma amendment, both the federal district court and
the Tenth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that
it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
[5] For evidence that refutes King’s assertion, that
“fundamentalists” control most American mosques and
“Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement” see the
end of this document.
[ii] Editorial Board. “Politically Incorrect, but
King is Right,” New York Daily News, March 29,
2004.
[iii]Larry Cohler-Esses and Nathan Guttman.“Lawmaker
plans controversial hearings on Islamic threat,”
Forward, December 28, 2010.
[iv] Peter King. “What’s Radicalizing Muslim
Americans?” Newsday, December 19, 2010.
[vi] Editorial Board. “Politically Incorrect, but
King is Right,” New York Daily News, March 29, 2004.
[vii]Larry Cohler-Esses and Nathan Guttman.“Lawmaker
plans controversial hearings on Islamic threat,”
Forward, December 28, 2010.
[ix] Peter King. “What’s Radicalizing Muslim
Americans?” Newsday, December 19, 2010.
[x] Peter King interview on Secure Freedom Radio
With Frank Gaffney, January 6, 2011.
[xii] Jordy Yager. “Thompson: No need for hearing on
radical Islam in US prisons,” The Hill, June 15, 2011.
[xiii] Rep. Mike Honda. “Muslim hearings recall my
life in internment camp,” CNN.com, June 15, 2011.
[xvii] David Freedlander, “Long Island Faith Leaders
Ask King to Call Off Hearings,” New York Observer,
18 Feb 2011,
http://www.observer.com/ (accessed 27 July 2011).
[xix] Jillian Rayfield, “NY Rep. Peter King: ‘I Have
Nothing But Contempt For the New York Times,” TPM
Muckraker, 5 Jan 2011,
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
(accessed 26 July 2011).
[xx] “Jewish Dems blast GOP for singling out
Muslims,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 15, 2011.
[xxi] David Hanners. “Domestic terrorism hearing
witness from Minneapolis has had a troubled past,” St.
Paul Pioneer Press, March 10, 2011.
[xxv] Laurie Goodstein. “Muslims to be congressional
hearings main focus,” New York Times, February 7, 2011.
[xxvi] American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
“American Muslim organization applauds Oklahoma anti-shariah
law,” AIFD press release, November 5, 2010.
[xxvii] Jerome Bejelopera and Mark Randol. “American
Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat,”
Congressional Research Service, December 7, 2010. The
report was updated November 15, 2011.
[xxviii] Meredith Shiner. “Circus skips Muslim
radicals hearing,” Politico, June 15, 2011.
[xxxi] Star Tribune Editorial Board. “Terror
hearings fuel anti-Muslim fears,” Minneapolis
Star-Tribune, February 25, 2011.
[xxxiii] Rubén Rosario. “On day one of King's
circus, three Minnesotans take center stage,” St. Paul
Pioneer Press (Minnesota), March 10, 2011.
[xxxiv] Peter King interview on Secure Freedom
Radio With Frank Gaffney, January 6, 2011.
[xxxv] “Measuring the homegrown terrorist threat to
U.S. military,” CNN, December 7, 2011.
[xxxvi] “Chairman King Statement on Recent Terror
Arrests in Maryland and Florida,” House Homeland
Security Committee, January 12, 2012.
