What I find most frightening about this, is that it's very sneaky. Young
people will be targeted for intervention, not because they actually
committed a crime, but because someone thinks that they are showing signs
that they are vulnerable to radicalization. These judgments are subjective,
not based on science or evidence. It's like the preventive drone strikes
aimed at young men deemed to be of military age and considered to be
potential terrorists.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 8:26 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Why We Should Be Concerned When Clinton Says
Muslims Are on the 'Front Lines' of the War on Terror
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:
the banner of the War on Terror.
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
Under the cover of 24/7 horse race media coverage, the White House onPlan"
Wednesday issued [5] its latest iteration of its CVE program, which
Clinton has repeatedly championed [6]. The new "Strategic Implementation
replaces a 2011 version [7], identifying three priority areas: "(1)surveillance:
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
"The plan, in using the term 'off-ramps' suggests CVE interventionssaid Erwin.
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,"
"From what we have read, and based on experience in the U.K., theyconsequences of this policy:
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
Prevent's overly broad and vague definition of "non-violent extremism"mandatory."
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
The latest strategic plan states that the CVE Task Force willviolations.
"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
However, the CVE approach has a more fundamental problem. The claimreligious affiliation."
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
Could CVE be expanded to other communities facing repression?the banner of the War on Terror.
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-wh
en-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-immigra
tion/
[4]
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-f
amily-
members/
[5]
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2016_strategic_imple
mentat 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-viol
ent-ex
tremism-cve.html
[9]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-sch
ool-st
udents-across-country
[10]
https://www.aclu.org/news/foia-documents-show-fbi-using-mosque-outreac
h-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-prev
ent-co unter-extremism-strategy-health-and-education
[13]
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurit
y.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-massi
ve-pro gram-deradicalize-potential-terrorists
[18]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/police-leader-who-smeared-bla
ck-liv es-matter-terrorists-tied-white-power-linked
[19]
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/militarized_police_from_multipl
e_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 Email
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
Under the cover of 24/7 horse race media coverage, the White House onPlan"
Wednesday issued [5] its latest iteration of its CVE program, which
Clinton has repeatedly championed [6]. The new "Strategic Implementation
replaces a 2011 version [7], identifying three priority areas: "(1)surveillance:
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
"The plan, in using the term 'off-ramps' suggests CVE interventionssaid Erwin.
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,"
"From what we have read, and based on experience in the U.K., theyconsequences of this policy:
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
Prevent's overly broad and vague definition of "non-violent extremism"mandatory."
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
The latest strategic plan states that the CVE Task Force willviolations.
"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
However, the CVE approach has a more fundamental problem. The claimreligious affiliation."
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
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-wh
en-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-immigra
tion/
[4]
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-f
amily-
members/
[5]
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2016_strategic_imple
mentat 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-viol
ent-ex
tremism-cve.html
[9]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-sch
ool-st
udents-across-country
[10]
https://www.aclu.org/news/foia-documents-show-fbi-using-mosque-outreac
h-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-prev
ent-co unter-extremism-strategy-health-and-education
[13]
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurit
y.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-massi
ve-pro gram-deradicalize-potential-terrorists
[18]
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/police-leader-who-smeared-bla
ck-liv es-matter-terrorists-tied-white-power-linked
[19]
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/militarized_police_from_multipl
e_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
