Once we boasted that we were living in the "Land of the Free and the
Home of the Brave".
How different we are today. Now we creep about spying upon one
another, fearing that the Boogey Man will get us, if we don't watch
out.
The Empire will use fear to subjugate its subjects, believing that
force and fear will keep them in line. But history tells a different
story.
Violence begets violence.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"By the fruit of their labor you shall know them...".
Carl Jarvis
On 10/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Why We Should Be Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the
'Front Lines' of the War on Terror
________________________________________
Why We Should Be Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the 'Front
Lines' of the War on Terror
By Sarah Lazare [1] / AlterNet [2]
October 20, 2016
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that in
order
to address our "internal challenges" with ISIS and radicalization, it is
necessary "to work with American Muslim communities who are on the front
lines to identify and prevent attacks."
Casually repeated throughout her campaign, proclamations like these have
been drowned out by Trump's bombastic calls to impose a ban [3] on Muslims
and kill [4] the family members of ISIS. However, Clinton's remarks demand
scrutiny, as they reflect her support for the Obama administration's
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, in which Muslim-American
communities are targeted for suspicionless surveillance and instructed to
report their own community members under the banner of the War on Terror.
Under the cover of 24/7 horse race media coverage, the White House on
Wednesday issued [5] its latest iteration of its CVE program, which Clinton
has repeatedly championed [6]. The new "Strategic Implementation Plan"
replaces a 2011 version [7], identifying three priority areas: "(1)
enhancing engagement with and support to local communities; (2) building
government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism;
and (3) countering violent extremist propaganda while promoting our
ideals."
According to the new document, the "goal is to enable communities to
develop
their own solutions to build local resilience while appropriately
protecting
civil rights and liberties, fostering greater trust, and fulfilling public
safety objectives."
In reality, the new guidelines double down on the most controversial
elements of the CVE, which has been dogged from the outset by accusations
that it violates the civil rights of Muslim Americans. Among these measures
is the reinforcement of "local intervention teams" through which health
practitioners, faith-based leaders and educators are obligated to
collaborate with law enforcement to monitor and report members of their
community for signs that they could become violent extremists in the
future.
The CVE program was first publicly launched [7] by the White House five
years ago to "address ideologically inspired violent extremism in the
Homeland." It involves multiple federal agencies including the FBI,
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. In 2015,
Attorney
General Eric Holder rolled out three "pilot programs" in Boston,
Minneapolis
and Los Angeles which solely targeted [8] Muslim-American communities --
and
not adherents of right-wing extremism like neo-Nazis. Earlier this year,
the
FBI released guidelines instructing [9] high schools across the country to
surveil and report children for indicators that they are at risk of
committing an violent act in the future.
According to the latest plan released by the White House, "Local
intervention teams will play a critical role in assessing the needs of
individuals who may be radicalizing to violent extremism; developing
appropriate support plans tailored to the individual; and making resources
available to increase resiliency. The document states that such
interventions will include "alternative pathways or 'off-ramps' for
individuals who appear to be moving toward violent action but who have not
yet engaged in criminal activity."
Shannon Erwin, executive director of the Muslim Justice League, warned that
these friendly sounding alternatives are cover for heightened surveillance:
"The plan, in using the term 'off-ramps' suggests CVE interventions will
direct youth away from prosecution and towards social services, which
sounds
great. But that message suggests the FBI and Department of Justice are
seeking to reduce terrorism prosecutions," Erwin told AlterNet. "If so,
they
have wide prosecutorial discretion to do so already, and can decline to
engage in aggressive pre-emptive prosecutions of Muslim youth with mental
health and intellectual challenges that have been well-documented. Whether
or not the government calls these interventions community-driven doesn't
change the fact that they may involve the eliciting of information by law
enforcement from social services providers about individuals' beliefs and
lawful activity."
Unlawful intelligence gathering disguised as counter-extremism?
A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern
California, Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian revealed in
2012 that a years-long "Mosque Outreach" initiative led by the San
Francisco
office of the FBI was used to unlawfully gather and disseminate
intelligence
on Muslim community members. The ACLU notes [10], "The San Francisco FBI's
own documents show that it recorded Muslim religious leaders' and
congregants' identities, personal information and religious views and
practices."
"It is important to remember that these interventions are not necessarily
going to be targeted at folks who have committed any crime," said Erwin.
"From what we have read, and based on experience in the U.K., they will
instead target people who exhibit vaguely defined or undefined 'concerning
behaviors.' This is in spite of official acknowledgments that sound
research
has concluded there are no reliable 'pre-crime' indicators."
The "intervention teams" appear to rebrand a role that previously fell
under
the auspices of the FBI through panels termed "shared responsibility
committees." Those bodies were allegedly abandoned by the FBI after falling
under criticism [11] for civil rights and privacy violations.
Michael German, a former special agent with the FBI, is now a fellow with
the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. He
told AlterNet, "I'm most concerned about the codification of what was
previously presented as an FBI program. The concept of a multi-disciplinary
board of community members, educators and psychologists doesn't seem to
acknowledge that these professional roles have a legal and ethical
obligation to protect the privacy of students and patients. When teachers
and doctors are seen as conduits to the justice department and homeland
security, rather than safeguarding the health and welfare of students and
patients, it undermines their ability to provide services in an effective
matter."
The CVE model: A failed, debunked program in the UK
A report [12] released this week by the Open Society Institute (OSI) found
that the CVE program's U.K. counterpart-known as Preventing Violent
Extremism Prevent-has eroded trust between teachers and students, as well
as
doctors and patients. Since the U.K. government passed the
"Counter-Terrorism and Security Act [13] in the summer of 2015, hundreds of
thousands of public workers-including doctors and teachers-have been
mandated to monitor and report members of the public for signs of
"radicalization." The OSI report outlines the consequences of this policy:
Prevent's overly broad and vague definition of "non-violent extremism"
creates the potential for systemic human rights abuses. On the basis of
this
definition, schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other "specified
authorities" subject to the Prevent duty, are required to assess the risk
of
children, students, and patients being drawn into terrorism and report them
to the police-led Channel program where necessary. By the government's own
admission, thousands of people have been erroneously referred to the
Channel
program. Individuals (including children) erroneously referred under
Prevent
experience the referral as inherently stigmatizing and intensely
intimidating.
According to German, the newest iteration of CVE implements the same
methodology criticized in the OSI report. "If you confront the U.S.
government about how they're following the U.K. model, they'll say we're
not, because it's voluntary," said German. "But in Britain they first tried
it voluntarily, and then when that didn't work, they made it mandatory."
The latest strategic plan states that the CVE Task Force will "cooperate
with a variety of departments and agencies to find opportunities to
integrate CVE activities into existing public safety initiatives and
networks, such as those focused on bullying prevention and Internet
safety."
The implication that a counter-terror initiative backed by multiple federal
agencies will insert itself into local anti-bullying efforts, presumably
targeting children, raises further concerns about civil rights violations.
However, the CVE approach has a more fundamental problem. The claim that
there is a single path to violent extremism, or profile of a future
"terrorist," has been debunked by scholarly consensus [14], Britain's M15
spy agency [15] and an academic study [16] supported by the Department of
Homeland Security. Earlier this month, the London-based human rights
organization Cage exposed [17] new evidence that the government's
guidelines
for identifying at-risk individuals at the "pre-criminal" stage are based
on
flawed science.
The Strategic Implementation Plan makes a nod towards this consensus by
stating, "There is no single cause of or pathway to violent extremism. This
requires a comprehensive response that empowers stakeholders at the local
level." However, the document goes on to indicate that there are
"activities
or behaviors" that suggest "an individual is being radicalized or has
violent intent." The plan does not elucidate what these behaviors are, nor
what evidence it is drawing on to back up this claim.
Arun Kundnani, author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism,
and the domestic War on Terror, told AlterNet that the new plan "assumes
incorrectly that there is a way of predicting who might be a terrorist in
the future. What this will do is add to the ways that young Muslims are
treated with suspicion based simply on their religious affiliation."
Could CVE be expanded to other communities facing repression?
Facing mounting criticism, federal agencies have sought to defend
themselves
from charges that they are singling out Muslims by claiming that the
program
will go after extremists of all types. Brette Steele, the acting deputy
director of the CVE task force, emphasized on a call Wednesday with
community partners that the federal program is tackling white supremacist
movements and hate crimes against LGBTQ communities and others. She framed
the initiative in terms of local empowerment, stating that "we need to
allow
communities to shape these programs."
"The proof of whether that rhetoric holds up is where the policies are
rolled out," said Kundnani. "It's clear that CVE focuses on Muslim
populations, and there's no indication that hot spots of the far right are
being targeted."
However, he added that "the solution is not to roll it out to everyone, but
to not have anyone impacted by the policies." At a time when police
departments across the country are baselessly smearing [18] the Black Lives
Matter movement leaders as "terrorists," and militarized police are being
deployed [19] against Native American activists at Standing Rock, many
worry
that broad application of CVE policies would end up targeting communities
already facing repression.
Civil rights campaigners say they do not want Muslim-American communities
to
be used by Clinton or any other politician as a wedge to expand CVE
programs.
"I do believe that general discourse, whether from mainstream politicians
or
anybody else, that portrays Muslims as chips in the War on Terror is
dehumanizing and a form of structural violence that makes people think
programs like CVE are normal," said Erwin. Regarding CVE, she noted,
"Attempts to redefine lawful behavior as 'pre-criminal' behavior can do a
lot of harm to a lot of people."
Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for
Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn
Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare [20].
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [21]
[22]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
[x]
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before clicking
Subscribe:
Rights & Liberties
Education
Drugs
Economy
Environment
Labor
Food
World
Politics
Investigation
Personal Health
Water
Media
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/why-we-should-be-concerned-when-cli
nton-says-muslims-are-front-lines-war-terror
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sarah-lazare-0
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
[4]
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-
members/
[5]
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2016_strategic_implementat
ion_plan_empowering_local_partners_prev%20%282%29.pdf
[6]
http://www.startribune.com/clinton-to-praise-local-anti-terror-efforts-in-sp
eech-at-the-u-tuesday/362329881/
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf
[8]
https://www.cair.com/government-affairs/13063-brief-on-countering-violent-ex
tremism-cve.html
[9]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-school-st
udents-across-country
[10]
https://www.aclu.org/news/foia-documents-show-fbi-using-mosque-outreach-inte
lligence-gathering
[11] http://www.khou.com/news/feds-drop-muslim-outreach-program/338668177
[12]
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/eroding-trust-uk-s-prevent-co
unter-extremism-strategy-health-and-education
[13]
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurity.html
[14] https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/rethinking-radicalization
[15] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
[16] http://www.brynmawr.edu/psychology/documents/McCauleyMoskalenko.pdf
[17]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/junk-science-behind-uks-massive-pro
gram-deradicalize-potential-terrorists
[18]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/police-leader-who-smeared-black-liv
es-matter-terrorists-tied-white-power-linked
[19]
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/militarized_police_from_multiple_stat
es_deployed
[20] https://twitter.com/sarahlazare
[21] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Why We Should Be
Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the 'Front Lines' of
the War on Terror
[22] http://www.alternet.org/
[23] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Why We Should Be Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the
'Front Lines' of the War on Terror
Why We Should Be Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the 'Front
Lines' of the War on Terror
By Sarah Lazare [1] / AlterNet [2]
October 20, 2016
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to MoreShare to
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that in
order
to address our "internal challenges" with ISIS and radicalization, it is
necessary "to work with American Muslim communities who are on the front
lines to identify and prevent attacks."
Casually repeated throughout her campaign, proclamations like these have
been drowned out by Trump's bombastic calls to impose a ban [3] on Muslims
and kill [4] the family members of ISIS. However, Clinton's remarks demand
scrutiny, as they reflect her support for the Obama administration's
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, in which Muslim-American
communities are targeted for suspicionless surveillance and instructed to
report their own community members under the banner of the War on Terror.
Under the cover of 24/7 horse race media coverage, the White House on
Wednesday issued [5] its latest iteration of its CVE program, which Clinton
has repeatedly championed [6]. The new "Strategic Implementation Plan"
replaces a 2011 version [7], identifying three priority areas: "(1)
enhancing engagement with and support to local communities; (2) building
government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism;
and (3) countering violent extremist propaganda while promoting our
ideals."
According to the new document, the "goal is to enable communities to
develop
their own solutions to build local resilience while appropriately
protecting
civil rights and liberties, fostering greater trust, and fulfilling public
safety objectives."
In reality, the new guidelines double down on the most controversial
elements of the CVE, which has been dogged from the outset by accusations
that it violates the civil rights of Muslim Americans. Among these measures
is the reinforcement of "local intervention teams" through which health
practitioners, faith-based leaders and educators are obligated to
collaborate with law enforcement to monitor and report members of their
community for signs that they could become violent extremists in the
future.
The CVE program was first publicly launched [7] by the White House five
years ago to "address ideologically inspired violent extremism in the
Homeland." It involves multiple federal agencies including the FBI,
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. In 2015,
Attorney
General Eric Holder rolled out three "pilot programs" in Boston,
Minneapolis
and Los Angeles which solely targeted [8] Muslim-American communities --
and
not adherents of right-wing extremism like neo-Nazis. Earlier this year,
the
FBI released guidelines instructing [9] high schools across the country to
surveil and report children for indicators that they are at risk of
committing an violent act in the future.
According to the latest plan released by the White House, "Local
intervention teams will play a critical role in assessing the needs of
individuals who may be radicalizing to violent extremism; developing
appropriate support plans tailored to the individual; and making resources
available to increase resiliency. The document states that such
interventions will include "alternative pathways or 'off-ramps' for
individuals who appear to be moving toward violent action but who have not
yet engaged in criminal activity."
Shannon Erwin, executive director of the Muslim Justice League, warned that
these friendly sounding alternatives are cover for heightened surveillance:
"The plan, in using the term 'off-ramps' suggests CVE interventions will
direct youth away from prosecution and towards social services, which
sounds
great. But that message suggests the FBI and Department of Justice are
seeking to reduce terrorism prosecutions," Erwin told AlterNet. "If so,
they
have wide prosecutorial discretion to do so already, and can decline to
engage in aggressive pre-emptive prosecutions of Muslim youth with mental
health and intellectual challenges that have been well-documented. Whether
or not the government calls these interventions community-driven doesn't
change the fact that they may involve the eliciting of information by law
enforcement from social services providers about individuals' beliefs and
lawful activity."
Unlawful intelligence gathering disguised as counter-extremism?
A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Northern
California, Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian revealed in
2012 that a years-long "Mosque Outreach" initiative led by the San
Francisco
office of the FBI was used to unlawfully gather and disseminate
intelligence
on Muslim community members. The ACLU notes [10], "The San Francisco FBI's
own documents show that it recorded Muslim religious leaders' and
congregants' identities, personal information and religious views and
practices."
"It is important to remember that these interventions are not necessarily
going to be targeted at folks who have committed any crime," said Erwin.
"From what we have read, and based on experience in the U.K., they will
instead target people who exhibit vaguely defined or undefined 'concerning
behaviors.' This is in spite of official acknowledgments that sound
research
has concluded there are no reliable 'pre-crime' indicators."
The "intervention teams" appear to rebrand a role that previously fell
under
the auspices of the FBI through panels termed "shared responsibility
committees." Those bodies were allegedly abandoned by the FBI after falling
under criticism [11] for civil rights and privacy violations.
Michael German, a former special agent with the FBI, is now a fellow with
the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. He
told AlterNet, "I'm most concerned about the codification of what was
previously presented as an FBI program. The concept of a multi-disciplinary
board of community members, educators and psychologists doesn't seem to
acknowledge that these professional roles have a legal and ethical
obligation to protect the privacy of students and patients. When teachers
and doctors are seen as conduits to the justice department and homeland
security, rather than safeguarding the health and welfare of students and
patients, it undermines their ability to provide services in an effective
matter."
The CVE model: A failed, debunked program in the UK
A report [12] released this week by the Open Society Institute (OSI) found
that the CVE program's U.K. counterpart-known as Preventing Violent
Extremism Prevent-has eroded trust between teachers and students, as well
as
doctors and patients. Since the U.K. government passed the
"Counter-Terrorism and Security Act [13] in the summer of 2015, hundreds of
thousands of public workers-including doctors and teachers-have been
mandated to monitor and report members of the public for signs of
"radicalization." The OSI report outlines the consequences of this policy:
Prevent's overly broad and vague definition of "non-violent extremism"
creates the potential for systemic human rights abuses. On the basis of
this
definition, schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other "specified
authorities" subject to the Prevent duty, are required to assess the risk
of
children, students, and patients being drawn into terrorism and report them
to the police-led Channel program where necessary. By the government's own
admission, thousands of people have been erroneously referred to the
Channel
program. Individuals (including children) erroneously referred under
Prevent
experience the referral as inherently stigmatizing and intensely
intimidating.
According to German, the newest iteration of CVE implements the same
methodology criticized in the OSI report. "If you confront the U.S.
government about how they're following the U.K. model, they'll say we're
not, because it's voluntary," said German. "But in Britain they first tried
it voluntarily, and then when that didn't work, they made it mandatory."
The latest strategic plan states that the CVE Task Force will "cooperate
with a variety of departments and agencies to find opportunities to
integrate CVE activities into existing public safety initiatives and
networks, such as those focused on bullying prevention and Internet
safety."
The implication that a counter-terror initiative backed by multiple federal
agencies will insert itself into local anti-bullying efforts, presumably
targeting children, raises further concerns about civil rights violations.
However, the CVE approach has a more fundamental problem. The claim that
there is a single path to violent extremism, or profile of a future
"terrorist," has been debunked by scholarly consensus [14], Britain's M15
spy agency [15] and an academic study [16] supported by the Department of
Homeland Security. Earlier this month, the London-based human rights
organization Cage exposed [17] new evidence that the government's
guidelines
for identifying at-risk individuals at the "pre-criminal" stage are based
on
flawed science.
The Strategic Implementation Plan makes a nod towards this consensus by
stating, "There is no single cause of or pathway to violent extremism. This
requires a comprehensive response that empowers stakeholders at the local
level." However, the document goes on to indicate that there are
"activities
or behaviors" that suggest "an individual is being radicalized or has
violent intent." The plan does not elucidate what these behaviors are, nor
what evidence it is drawing on to back up this claim.
Arun Kundnani, author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism,
and the domestic War on Terror, told AlterNet that the new plan "assumes
incorrectly that there is a way of predicting who might be a terrorist in
the future. What this will do is add to the ways that young Muslims are
treated with suspicion based simply on their religious affiliation."
Could CVE be expanded to other communities facing repression?
Facing mounting criticism, federal agencies have sought to defend
themselves
from charges that they are singling out Muslims by claiming that the
program
will go after extremists of all types. Brette Steele, the acting deputy
director of the CVE task force, emphasized on a call Wednesday with
community partners that the federal program is tackling white supremacist
movements and hate crimes against LGBTQ communities and others. She framed
the initiative in terms of local empowerment, stating that "we need to
allow
communities to shape these programs."
"The proof of whether that rhetoric holds up is where the policies are
rolled out," said Kundnani. "It's clear that CVE focuses on Muslim
populations, and there's no indication that hot spots of the far right are
being targeted."
However, he added that "the solution is not to roll it out to everyone, but
to not have anyone impacted by the policies." At a time when police
departments across the country are baselessly smearing [18] the Black Lives
Matter movement leaders as "terrorists," and militarized police are being
deployed [19] against Native American activists at Standing Rock, many
worry
that broad application of CVE policies would end up targeting communities
already facing repression.
Civil rights campaigners say they do not want Muslim-American communities
to
be used by Clinton or any other politician as a wedge to expand CVE
programs.
"I do believe that general discourse, whether from mainstream politicians
or
anybody else, that portrays Muslims as chips in the War on Terror is
dehumanizing and a form of structural violence that makes people think
programs like CVE are normal," said Erwin. Regarding CVE, she noted,
"Attempts to redefine lawful behavior as 'pre-criminal' behavior can do a
lot of harm to a lot of people."
Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for
Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn
Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare [20].
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [21]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[22]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/why-we-should-be-concerned-when-cli
nton-says-muslims-are-front-lines-war-terror
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sarah-lazare-0
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
[4]
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-
members/
[5]
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2016_strategic_implementat
ion_plan_empowering_local_partners_prev%20%282%29.pdf
[6]
http://www.startribune.com/clinton-to-praise-local-anti-terror-efforts-in-sp
eech-at-the-u-tuesday/362329881/
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf
[8]
https://www.cair.com/government-affairs/13063-brief-on-countering-violent-ex
tremism-cve.html
[9]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-school-st
udents-across-country
[10]
https://www.aclu.org/news/foia-documents-show-fbi-using-mosque-outreach-inte
lligence-gathering
[11] http://www.khou.com/news/feds-drop-muslim-outreach-program/338668177
[12]
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/eroding-trust-uk-s-prevent-co
unter-extremism-strategy-health-and-education
[13]
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurity.html
[14] https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/rethinking-radicalization
[15] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
[16] http://www.brynmawr.edu/psychology/documents/McCauleyMoskalenko.pdf
[17]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/junk-science-behind-uks-massive-pro
gram-deradicalize-potential-terrorists
[18]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/police-leader-who-smeared-black-liv
es-matter-terrorists-tied-white-power-linked
[19]
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/militarized_police_from_multiple_stat
es_deployed
[20] https://twitter.com/sarahlazare
[21] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Why We Should Be
Concerned When Clinton Says Muslims Are on the 'Front Lines' of
the War on Terror
[22] http://www.alternet.org/
[23] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
