Saying No To Tear Gas

[An excerpt from an article of the same name by Frida Berrigan, originally published on Waging Nonviolence, June 22nd, 2012.]

I have an assignment for you.

Have you ever been tear gassed? I have not. It does not sound like fun. Brad Lyttle, an activist living in Chicago, described the experience like this: “my eyes began to water, and shut, and I felt as if I were being choked. I was nearly totally incapacitated.” Samah was gassed in Tahrir Square. “Blindness, skin on fire, utter panic,” were her words. These are just two of more than a dozen stories being told in the War Resisters League’ new “Facing Tear Gas” campaign.

The ultimate goal of this campaign is to stop the use of tear gas as a weapon of state repression (mostly against nonviolent groupings of people) and to end U.S. export of tear gas to nations around the world. In the process, the project hopes to shine a light on the pervasive use of tear gas against social movements in all corners of the world and to provide a forum for people to share their painful, harrowing stories and their overcoming stories.

Tear gas is used to incapacitate and create panic, but people keep going out into the streets, people keep protesting, people keep exercising their rights, even with faces full of tears. As one Quebecoise activist writes of their student street movement:

Every night is teargas and riot cops, but it is also joy, laughter, kindness, togetherness, and beautiful music. Our hearts are bursting. We are so proud of each other; of the spirit of Quebec and its people; of our ability to resist, and our ability to collaborate.

Do you have a story like Brad or Samah? Write it on a placard, take a picture of yourself and post it on the Tumblr.

The United States is one of the largest manufacturers and exporters of tear gas (are you surprised?). NonLethal Technologies, Defense Technology and Combined Systems Inc. are three of the big manufacturers. They have exported tear gas to dozens of nations including Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Yemen, East Timor, Israel, Cameroon and Sierra Leone.

Tear gas can be more than a non-lethal crowd dispersant. It can be a death sentence. In Tunisia in January 2011, a French journalist was killed after being hit in the head with a tear gas canister. In Oakland, Cairo and many other places, people have been grievously injured by tear gas canisters used as projectiles by the police or military.

A reporter for Pro Publica pushed the State Department for comment, asking why did the State Department license the sale of American-made tear gas to be used by the Egyptian police, when the State Department itself has documented the police’s history of brutality? The response?

The US government licensed the sale of certain crowd dispersal articles to the government of Egypt. That license was granted after a thorough vetting process and after a multi-agency review of the articles that were requested.

Not much of a response, right?

The WRL project is not the first effort to draw attention to U.S. tear gas manufacturers. Just a few months ago, the hacker group Anonymous shut down Combined Systems Inc.’s website to protest its sale of tear gas to Egypt, where it was being used to brutally put down the democracy movement. In December, Egyptian activists and members of Occupy staged a die-in before the doors of CSI in Washington, D.C. and there were simultaneous demonstrations in New York and Canada and at the company plant in Jamestown, PA. But one of the most valuable things about the Facing Tear Gas project is that it helps to universalize the experience of tear gas and link all of those people in the work to outlaw this pernicious weapon. Already posters have included Palestinian, Egyptian, Swedish, Quebecoise and U.S. activists. Tomorrow you could be there too.

Peace and Global Justice Groups: “End Stop and Frisk!”

On Father’s Day, June 17th , Peace and Global Justice groups walk together with New Yorkers in a Silent March to End Stop & Frisk

We are a diverse gathering of groups working for global justice and peace around the world. Our focus is usually on the actions of global economic powers and governments as they foster inequality, suppress human and civil rights and use military force. As US-based organizations, we struggle to end U.S.-led wars and militarism and to confront economic and political policies that deprive people of their freedom and justice.

At the same time, we are keenly aware of the US government’s policies at home. Police brutality and repressive policies are nothing new to communities of color, especially to Black and Latino communities in the U.S.  We are alarmed by recent developments in institutionalized racial profiling, increased surveillance, the continued chipping away of constitutional rights, and the expansion of police presence in many communities. These are the domestic expressions of the foreign policies we rigorously oppose. As the police at protests look more and more like soldiers and as the NYPD continues to pull people of color off the streets at random and throw them into prisons and detention centers, we see that the militarization of the state has been crucial for the maintenance of both U.S. foreign and domestic policies. The militarized state tries to keep us from organizing against these policies by forcibly dispersing protests and locking people up so they can’t lead movements for local and global change in their neighborhoods and communities.

On Sunday, June 17th, a broad coalition of civil rights, labor, religious, youth and student, and diverse community groups led by the communities most targeted by policing will silently march down Fifth Avenue to demand an end the stop and frisk policy of the New York Police Department. Grounded in racial profiling, this policy has unjustly targeted young Black and Latino men in communities across New York City. Last year some 685,000 stops were made, and the numbers are growing this year.

We know the struggle for peace and justice abroad is and must be linked to the struggle for racial and economic justice at home. On June 17th we will march to strengthen that link. And we call on all peace and global justice organizations and activists to join us.

Brooklyn for Peace

Campaign for Peace and Democracy

Code Pink

DRUM – Desis Rising Up and Moving

Fellowship of Reconciliation

The Global Justice Working Group of Occupy Wall Street

Havaar: Iranian Initiative Against War, Sanctions and State Repression

Jews Say No

Northern Manhattan Neighbors for Peace and Justice

Peace Action – NY State

Progressive Democrats of America

Raha: Iranian Feminist Collective

South Asia Solidarity Initiative

United for Peace and Justice

Veterans for Peace – Chapter 34

War Resisters League

Image: The New York Times

On the Ground in Basra: An Interview with Hashmeya Muhsin al-Saadawi

Originally published on May 2nd, 2012 on Jadaliyya.

by Ali Issa

[Hashmeya Muhsin al-Saadawi with colleagues at the 2012 May Day march in Basra. Image from Electrical Utility Workers Union in Iraq]

Iraqi unions demonstrated yesterday on May Day 2012 at a difficult historical moment. Still operating without a labor law that sanctions their organizing, and under the consolidation of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s growing police/military powers, their movement faces an array of antagonistic forces. In this wide-ranging discussion with Ali Issa, Basra-based Hashmeya Muhsin al–Saadawi, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union in Iraq, and the first woman vice-president of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers in Basra, discusses Iraqi security after the US withdrawal, the legacy of the US occupation, the state of union organizing and electricity, and finally the Iraqi protest movement – one of the least covered of the Arab uprisings. The sectarian quota system to which Ms. al-Saadawi repeatedly refers is a constitutionally mandated “power-sharing” agreement that divides power in almost all of Iraq’s political institutions among “representatives” of various ethnicities, sects, and religions, and was initiated by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in 2003. This system has also been strongly supported regionally by the governments of Iran and Turkey, just to name a few.

Ali Issa (AI): Has the withdrawal of official US forces changed Iraq’s security situation on the ground?

Hashmeya Muhsin al-Saadawi (HMS): To answer that question, let me start with 31 August  2010, because it was an important step in ending the occupation, and in regaining sovereignty, according to the timetable included in the withdrawal agreement signed by Iraq and the US. On that day, US forces completed their withdrawal from cities, and their mission shifted to training Iraqi forces. Complete withdrawal was then realized on 31 December 2011, leaving only very few troops, whose sole mandate is to “provide training.”

Iraqi security and military forces are still  facing problems including not being oriented properly – which goes back to a few causes, among them that some Iraqi political forces did not want a US withdrawal. There is also the fact that the sectarian quota system is reflected even within the structure of the Iraqi armed forces, while there of course ability and patriotism should be the basis, not loyalty to a party or sect.

The deterioration of the political situation, and the putting off of any serious decisions, the weakness of the Council of Representatives (majlis al-nuwab), in-fighting between winning blocs, and the deadlock that now governs the relationship between them. All that has had negative effects on the strength of the security forces and their role in these difficult and sensitive times.

AI: Are there Iraqi demands, wishes or ideas, with regard to the responsibility of the US government that lead and managed this occupation?

HS: Iraqis lived under a repressive, all-encompassing dictator for over three decades. That regime brought great suffering to Iraq, and the entire region. I do not want to get into this because it has become clear to the whole world (now it is clear to the world, after it had been deaf and blind to the oppression and torture of Iraqis by Saddam and his agents.) We wanted to get rid of this regime, but not through war and occupation. Because all the occupation did was bring new pain: including destroying what was left of the country’s infrastructure, and the undoing of its institutions, opening its borders to killers, terrorists and weapons dealers. As well as planting the seeds of sectarianism that thousands and thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of. Now the occupation is leaving after it has finished its mission and got what it came for. The occupation is the central responsible party in Iraq, but we do not really imagine for one minute that the US government will help with the true crises we have on many levels. So there is no way out except for serious and responsible efforts by forces acting politically in Iraq, both that are in power and outside of it, to deeply reassess the political process and the sectarian quota system on which it is based. Reform of that process, and getting it on the right track, could allow us to build a civil, democratic, united country.

AI: The union movement in Iraq has faced, and is still facing, great challenges from several successive Iraqi governments and the occupation since 2003, like the maintenance of Saddam’s 1987 law that criminalized independent union organizing. But in the face of all this, parts of that movement were able to launch a successful and populist campaign against the “Oil and Gas Law” from 2006-2009. What are the movement’s greatest challenges now?

HMS: Under the past regime, there was no union organizing in the public sector due to the terrible “Labor Law 150″ of 1987. After that regime fell, the workers quickly put together unions in the public sector, worked very hard, but faced many agendas the US occupation brought with it. The occupation launched several consecutive attacks against the union movement: the attacks on the Baghdad headquarters of the General Federation of Trade Unions in Iraq by occupation forces, the parliamentary order 8750 in 2005 that froze the accounts of that federation, then the ferocious attack on the oil and electricity unions – that stated anyone unionizing in the public sector could be charged under article 4-2 of the anti-terrorism law.

The union movement challenged the “Oil and Gas Law” project and launched a campaign, aided by patriotic forces, Iraqi academics, and international labor allies, that revealed the faults with this law and the parts that needed to be revised. We are not against the passing of a law that includes that rights of the people and protects our oil wealth, and reinforces the role of the “Iraq National Oil Company” [Iraq’s public oil company which has been government owned since 1972].

At the same time, The General Federation of Trade Unions in Iraq launched a campaign to pass a labor law that is fair for workers and that matches work standards and international agreements. A proposal for this law was introduced in 2005, and the parliament and the government are still dragging their feet and playing with it. They have removed key parts, including not covering the public sector for union organizing as well as deleting the section on non-union workers’ role, until in its present form it no longer meets international standards.

Most recently, the electrical worker unions in Basra launched a campaign called “Social Security is the Right of Every Iraqi” relying on constitutional rights, which is supported by some international friends, the Federation of Unions in Holland being one of them.

AI: What is the situation with electricity like on the ground?

HMS: The issue of electricity has remained a daily battle. A sad thing that has become great fodder for sarcasm. It bears mentioning the gap that Saddam’s regime left—with its foolish policies and destructive wars—and the subsequent terrorist attacks that have targeted generators and grids. Most recently, there has been a gross exaggeration on much money has been spent on this sector, with no tangible results after their promises of improvement.

The Ministry of Electricity had promised a minimum of ten hours a day for ordinary people, based on what is left from State health and security needs. In reality, people get between four to six hours, with some houses getting no power for a full day, or even several days.

The Ministry of Finance estimates that twenty-seven billion public dollars have been spent on electricity since 2003. With all that, the Ministry of Electricity has failed in rebuilding this sector, complicated by the security factor which includes sabotage. This is partly due to a lack of consultation with Iraqis that know what they are doing, as well as mismanagement and widespread corruption. Now, just like every Spring, officials appear on TV and start making their brittle and hilarious promises, with some unionists joking that we might be exporting electricity to our neighbors or even Europe!

AI: What is your opinion of the Arab uprising-style movement in Iraq that started 25 February 2011, and has been called by some “the forgotten uprising?” Did unions participate in the mobilizations? Since recently they have been smaller in number do you think they will come back? Finally, do you have any explanation for the lack of media coverage, even in the Arabic-language media?

HMS: Iraq has seen successive waves of sit-ins, demonstrations, and protest activities. They have been the result of the continued hardships in daily life and lack of services for people, as well as the deterioration of security since April 2003 that I described. On top of all that, are the efforts to limit civil liberties and silence people, while cementing the hated ethno-sectarian-quota system; we consider all this an open and direct violation of the constitution. Many sectors of society have participated in these protests: youth, women, civil society groups, unions, and the newer pro-democracy formations.

The right of citizens to demonstrate, express opinions and take positions is a constitutional right, and the government and its apparatuses should provide the necessary amount of security to whoever is exercising it. It should also listen closely to people’s legal demands and seek to satisfy them. As well as pay attention to their calls for reform of the political process, and correct its course on the path to building a civil, democratic state, based on the text of the constitution that citizens voted for in October 2005.

It should be obvious that our Iraq is not isolated from what is happening, in the countries of the region, though it might differ in its internal dynamics and specifics. The storms of change around us have also energized our people to break the wall of silence and take the streets. The role of the youth in this movement has been especially key, with them taking advantage of new social media technology.

But the way the Iraqi government and its apparatuses have treated the protest movements is a serious violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and an attempt to stifle the citizens’ practicing of that right. That is when the people understood that the first and last concern of influential ruling political blocs is to look after their own interests, struggle with each other over power, and divide the pie among themselves, without any regard for ordinary people living under cruel conditions in a country whose yearly budget exceeds 100 billion dollars.

The protest actions of 25 February 2011 were a great success, as were the actions preceding and following, in expressing the clear and just demands of the people, despite being exposed to attempts to distort the depth of the movement and its goals. Then there has been the intrusion of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, with all its influence, to try to stop it, the attempts of the government as a whole to abort it, and all the surveillance and incarceration that followed.

Whether to expect the return of the protests depends on the reasons that lead to them breaking out. To this day, none of the protesters’ demands have been met, so if the government continues on its present path, disregarding people’s rights, it is very likely the protests will return.

As for media coverage, there had been coverage from several TV stations, but the government put pressure on them, and shut down some of their offices. In addition, a good number of journalists were beaten by infiltrators at the protests—thugs–while others were arrested and detained. And of course there have been assassinations of journalists – those brave, honorable people– including the writer and poet, Hadi al-Mahdi.

AI: In a recent interview you have talked about your work with “The Iraqi Women’s League.” Have there been developments there?

HMS: I am a member of the women’s league and am proud of my affiliation to this Iraqi organization that has sacrificed so much, and aided in the fight against the Iraqi monarchy and played a big role in the glorious revolution of July, 1958. A few weeks ago, we celebrated sixty years of the league. Right now though, the union work is what takes most of my time.

“You Can’t Take What’s All of Ours”: New NATO/G8 Workshop Released!

To mark the upcoming NATO summit to be held in May 2012 in Chicago and the simultaneous G8 summit to be held in Camp David, Maryland, War Resisters League and the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance release a new popular education resource.

This participatory workshop explores:

  • The story of NATO and G8: who makes them up, what they do, and how they have grown over time;
  • How NATO and G8 have worked together to profit from and control most areas of the world, especially the Global South;
  • How the countries that control NATO/G8 have imposed an economic and/or military agenda on the people of Afghanistan, Libya, Greece, Iraq and other countries throughout the world, including the U.S.;
  • How specific banks central to NATO/G8 countries’ economic policies profit from militarism;
  • How struggles against economic austerity, war and militarism are connected across the globe; and
  • What we can do make the connections for our networks and communities between global and local struggles for justice.

Agenda of Workshop

  1. Introduction and Goals (15 min)
  2. G8/NATO 101 (20 min)
  3. Historical Context (25 min)
  4. NATO: Ideology, Lies and Justifications for War (20 min)
  5. The G8: Economic Crisis and Austerity (15 min)
  6. Occupation as Austerity: NATO and G8 at Work in Iraq (20 min)
  7. Austerity Comes Home: Policy, Protest, and Police Crackdown (15 min)
  8. Banking on Militarism (20 min)
  9. Local Impact and Application (15 min)
  10. Next Steps and Evaluation (5 min)

Total time: 2 hours, 50 minutes

Download the curriculum here.

Download the slideshow supplement to the curriculum.


كفى دموعا!

كفى دموعا!

بمناسبة يوم الارض الفلسطيني 2012, تُنشر النسخة العربية للكاريكاتير”كفى دموعا!” الذي يربط حركات للتغير حول العالم من خلال تحليل من ابرز الاسلحة التي تُستدخدم ضدها: الغاز المسيّل للدموع.

بشكل سهل التناول, يسمّي “كفى دموعا!” الشركات التي تربح من صنع, بيع وتصدير هذا الغاز, سي اس اَي في ولاية بنسلفانية مثلا, يسمّي ايضا الوسائل التي تشتري من خلالها حكومات مصر والبحرين وغيرها  هذا الغاز من الشركات اوالحكمومة الامريكية, مثل “التمويل العسكري الاجنبي”.

انقر هنا لتحميل نسخة سهلة للطباعة, وهنا للنسخة الانجليزية.

مع خالص الشكر لفريق العمل المعني بالعدالة الاجتماعية في حركة “احتلو وال ستريت” والفنان ايثان هايتنر. وايضا لعدالة نيو يورك, ور رزسترز ليج, والجنة الخاصة للدفاع عن الثورة المصرية

A Story and a Book

by Matt Meyer

[This article was originally published on 'New Clear Vision' on February 15th, 2012.]

On the Nature of Violence and Nonviolence

Amidst a bombardment of Black Bloc commentary, questions about the militarized nature of tear-gas toting police, and the ever-frustrating all-too-abstract dialogues about the meanings of nonviolence, violence, strategy, tactics, and principles, comes a simple story (and a complicated book) straight out of Occu-politics. First, though, some defining of terms:

Nonviolence (a term some have called ‘a word seeking to describe something by saying what it is not’) is used in as wide a variety of ways as there are flavors of ice cream. For some, it is strategic and revolutionary, for others principled and philosophical; for some it is a way of life and for others a mere tactic. For most practitioners, it is an often-tantalizing combination of the above. Our story will hope to add some clarity.

Violence, as we sadly know too well, goes well beyond war to include domestic violence, random street crime, repression, and even poverty — responsible for more death than most other forms combined. But sometimes, despite this variety, it seems that the images of violence which come quickest to our minds are that of an angry kid with a rock or a gun. Our book will try to turn that image on its head.

The story is about a very small demonstration, held recently in the Bronx. Though far to the north of that now-historic original site of Occupy Wall Street, a contingent of OWS folks, especially associated with the People of Color caucus, the Anti-Racist Allies group and working with the Stop “Stop and Frisk” campaign (targeting abusive and brutalizing cops), were a key part of this mobilization. The basis of the campaign is the intensified policy of the New York Police Department, replicated throughout the country, of arbitrarily detaining individuals — usually without cause and almost always Black or Latino youth — searching them, and sometimes arresting them (most of the time, not). When the numbers of young people “stopped and frisked” reaches close to 2000 per day, as they have in New York over the past months (with over 85% youth “of color”), and increases also occur in the number of unarmed young people from these same communities shot to death by police officers, people tend to get more than a little bit mad.

The early February Bronx protest was in response to the latest of too many incidents of police murder: 18-year-old Ramarley Graham killed in his own home, no weapons but those of the police, no warrant, and substantial video footage and witness testimony to the vicious nature of the police crime. Demonstrators marching around the precinct and the neighborhood were not looking to be antagonistic, but nether were they subdued; “NYPD . . . Guilty!” and “F**K the Police” could be heard.

Though some complained that the language was too rough, and the fear was that there would be a near-riot, the mobilization encouraged community members to speak out about what they’ve experienced. One after another young person, mother, local business owner, or teacher “testified” to the terror of “stop and frisk” and beyond. The militarization of the police, for communities like this one throughout the US, is nothing new at all.

Because some activists have been consistently working on these issues for years (or even just months), faces in a crowd — including the faces of police officers — become familiar very quickly. So it was that one OWS Anti-Racist Ally and Stop “Stop and Frisk” organizer Greg Allen noticed one cop who began to cry as she heard the barrage of community fury. Greg approached the officer. “Do you know the writings of James Baldwin?” he asked. She did. This officer was well aware that Baldwin’s classic essay book The Fire Next Time spoke not only of the frustrations of African Americans throughout US history but also referenced the Biblical quote, often used in spirituals: “God gave Noah the rainbow sign: No more water but the fire next time.” If we do not set right the wrongs of today, and properly vent and process the feelings of the moment, we will pay dearly in the future when tragedy befalls us again. The officer and the activist didn’t have a rainbow-sighting epiphany or come to some great unity, but they did share a moment, in the midst of the madness.

This story is not about how the police are part of the 99%. If we are to break down some of the racial barriers which have deepened since the writings of James Baldwin, to use the word “our” in as inclusive a manner as possible, we must say clearly: the police are killing and imprisoning our future — a generation is being criminalized and beaten down. It is also not a story about how we should always be yelling curses at the cops, or turning the entire energy of the Occupy or peace movement in the direction of local precincts. We must be more strategic and farsighted than that. This is a story, however, about the complexity of nonviolent direct action. With all its shouting and rage, curses and grief, testifying and dialogue, militancy and uncertainty, this is the epitome of what nonviolence has got to look like if it is to have any relevance in the years ahead.

Late last year, a small book was published with a profound title and focus: The Violence of Financial Capitalism. Swiss political economist Christian Marazzi put together in five short chapters an interpretation of the global crisis (always seen as opportunity from the corporate point of view) that doesn’t view the current moment as a shocking response to failures in the “system.” Finance Capitalism, in this view, and the intensified stratification between rich and poor, are a continuation of the process of capital accumulation which requires the violence of re-colonization, increased inequality, and a world of poverty unlike anything previously experienced. “Austerity” — another word for cutting basic needs and services from the people who produce most of what we use in the world — is not a temporary correction to ensure future widespread prosperity, but a permanent way of life for the 99%.

This violence will continue unless we build massive, popular international mobilizations to fight for “investment policies in public services, education and welfare, the creation of public employment for the conversion of energy, a refusal to defiscalize high incomes, assert the right to wages, employment and social income and the construction of autonomous, self-determined spaces.” While Marazzi is clear that there are no single “recipes” for the best way to build alternatives, he is adamant that if we don’t do something, the violence will increase. Death by curable diseases, extreme destitution, and the repression required to keep people from doing more than mouthing off is the real violence we are facing.

Between the story and the book lie a series of choices. We can spend a lot of time, energy, and words looking to root out violence in the current movement and searching for nonviolence in the past glories of Gandhi and King. Or we can look humbly to one another (and the many not yet organized but very sympathetic), and pick our positive examples from our very midst.

Together we can focus our attention on the local, regional, and global purveyors of violence on a mass scale, and choose to resist. We can understand the links between our struggles, and Occupy the Prisons and the halls of injustice. We can struggle to create safe spaces amongst us, understanding that oppression anywhere will breed inequality and ineffectiveness everywhere. We can take our money and our bodies out of the banks and taxes and armies and police forces and corporate offices that promote war and the causes of war. We can chose constructive programs that will rebuild our broken communities, and create beloved communities where nonviolence takes on a new meaning and is not just a blast from the past.

Matt Meyer is an educator-activist, based in New York City, and serves as convener of the War Resisters International Africa Working Group. His recent books include Guns and Gandhi in Africa: Pan-African Insights on Nonviolence, Armed Struggle and Liberation (Africa World Press, 2000), the two-volume collection Seeds of New Hope: Pan African Peace Studies for the 21st Century (Africa World Press, 2008, 2010), and Let Freedom Ring: A Collection of Documents from the Movements to Free U. S. Political Prisoners (PM Press, 2008). Meyer is a contributing member of the Editorial Advisory Board for New Clear Vision.

“Exigent times call for very strenuous reactions”: Enemy Alien by Konrad Aderer

[The WRL blog is excited to feature a film review by Jeanne Strole, co-director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, with which the War Resisters League shares a long history, as well as the building at 339 Lafayette St. in Manhattan.]

Enemy Alien (2011), Directed by Konrad Aderer [http://lifeorliberty.org/enemy-alien]

Review by Jeanne Strole

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, through the Alien Absconder Initiative, which allowed local law enforcement access to INS information on over 300,000 immigrants with standing deportation orders, task teams of local police, INS and FBI officials began to round up persons from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries of origin. In the time period from September 2001 through 2003, this initiative was the U.S. Government’s first effort to show that they were doing something about terrorism in the wake of the attacks. In the first waves, from September 2001 to the Spring of 2002, thousands of people were detained and deported. They were targeted solely due to their countries of origin and none were ever linked to any acts of terrorism.

In the decade since 9-11, administrative detention and the detention industry has grown in leaps and bounds in the United States and the freshly minted National Defense Authorization Act will undoubtedly further erode constitutional protections against arrest and detention without due process. Recent headlines tell of continued surveillance and profiling of Muslim neighborhoods and organizations by the NYPD while the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is expanding its contracts with local jails in states like New Jersey to further increase detention capacity. It is crucial then, in light of this continuing trend, to have a clear understanding of what the profiling and targeting of Muslim and South Asian immigrants looked like in the immediate post 9-11 environment and how it contributed to the continuing erosion of rights in the United States.

Enemy Alien, a film by Konrad Aderer, serves as a useful, if somewhat flawed, historical document toward that end. It tells the story of Farouk Abdel-Muhti, a NY-based Palestinian immigrant and activist, who was taken into custody in the subsequent wave of detentions beginning in 2002.

On April 26 of that year, Abdel-Muhti was held, first at the Federal Building in lower Manhattan, then in detention in New Jersey. This began a two year battle by his son Tarek, his friends, activist colleagues and an ad hoc legal team to secure his release. Before winning his freedom, Abdel-Muhtl would be detained in 6 different facilities in three states.

In March of 2002, Farouk had begun working at Pacifica Radio station WBAI. What is not specified in the film is that he was using his contacts to obtain and translate into English interviews with Palestinians from inside the West Bank for the morning radio program “Wake-Up Call.” These interviews began to air about a month before his arrest.

Adbel-Muhti was born in 1947 in a village outside of Ramallah, a Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank which was, at the time, under Jordanian control. He left the West Bank in 1960 and, being a stateless person, moved to Lebanon and then to Latin America before settling in the United States in the early 1970s. He had lived in the NYC area ever since. Though several attempts had been made to deport him over the years and he had a standing order of deportation, all attempts were, of course, unsuccessful because there was no place to deport him to.

During his two years in administrative detention, including 8 months and 10 days in solitary confinement, Abdel-Muhti faced a harrowing situation common to 9-11 detainees: he was subjected to extensive interrogation, verbal and physical abuse, beatings, and, often times, denied edible food and adequate medical care. He developed high blood pressure and a worsening thyroid condition while in detention and was repeatedly denied his medication for both for as long as five and six days at a time. In spite of these inhuman conditions, Abdel-Muhti was still able to continue his activism while in detention, organizing support on the outside for himself and the other detainees.

To give context to the case and to the targeting of immigrants from certain countries, Aderer’s film also explores the history and development of the deeply racialized immigration policies in the United States, beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1897 and the Plenary Powers Act, a supreme court decision allowing the executive and legislative branches of government to make immigration policy free from judicial oversight. He uses his own family history and his grandparents’ experience in the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, comparing it to the post 9-11 round-up of Muslim immigrants. The narrative of the film weaves back and forth between his family’s history with structural racism and detention and Abdel-Muhti’s story as a 9-11 detainee, giving the viewer an introduction to understanding the blatantly racist nature of immigration policy and how it dovetails with the government’s “war on terror.” The title of the film is a reference to Japanese-Americans being categorized as enemy aliens during that historic period of detentions. These comparative moments are some of the strongest parts of the documentary.

Through a mix of interviews and clandestinely filmed encounters with various law enforcement officials, Aderer illustrates well the government’s paranoia as well as their attempts to make Abdel-Muhti’s detention about a criminal and not an immigration case. This is startlingly illustrated by the accounts of the verbal abuse and ethnic slurs Abdel-Muhti endured during beatings in jail and written accusations against him which included claims that Abdel-Muhti recruited other detainees to Islam with rewards of money, “endorsed anti-American rhetoric”, and claims that he had knowledge of a suitcase nuclear weapons in the U.S., based on the discovery of drawings in his cell that he had copied out of detention facility library books.

At one point in the film, the absurdity of the government’s reaction to 9-11 and the scapegoating of immigrants is brought into sharp relief when an immigration lawyer and Democratic official, Michael Wildes, seems to be defending the Japanese-American internment.

“What about the argument that when we look back at what happened with Pearl Harbor and the Japanese Americans, everyone agrees that it was wrong?” Aderer asks him.

“Who agrees? Who agrees?” asks Wildes. He then adds, “I think, you know… exigent times call for very strenuous reactions.”

Cyrus Mehta, the Chairman of the NY Immigration Law Committee, is quoted in the film regarding the dragnet detention and deportation of Arabs and South Asians, post 9-11, stating that “these are people, that if they were connected with terrorism, they should not have been deported. You don’t use deportation against terrorists. This was a way to just get rid of Muslims who come from countries where al-Qaeda is normally present. It’s a way to show that something was being done.”

Aderer cites statistics from the 9-11 Commission Report regarding the activities of the FBI, the INS and the Absconder Initiative task forces: 140,000 people targeted for Special Registration; 13,000 people taken into custody on immigration violations, 6,000 Arabs and South Asians targeted for arrest and interrogation. Of these, the Department of Homeland Security claimed 11 people had connections to terrorist groups, but the Commission found these claims to be unsupportable, and one person was convicted of terrorism. That conviction was later to be overturned.

Key to the legal strategy to get Abdel-Muhti out of detention was  his status as a stateless Palestinian. Zadvydas v. Davis, a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2001, maintained that indefinite detention of immigrants who had no recognized home country was not permissible. To justify holding immigrants in detention for more than six months, the government needed to demonstrate that deportation was imminent or that the detainee was to be indicted on criminal charges. In Abdel-Muhti’s case, there were no legal charges and, because he was stateless, there was simply nowhere to deport him. As his attorney from the Center for Constitutional Rights, Shayana (Shane) Kadidal, points out in the film, “Farouk is undeportable, even in theory, by din of the fact the he left the West Bank before 1967. He can’t get an Israeli travel document and he can’t get a Palestinian travel document. So we’re looking at indefinite detention and that’s just not permissible for people who are not guilty of a crime.”

At a hearing in March of 2004, a judge finally ordered his release, maintaining that the government had no grounds to continue holding Abdel-Muhti. In a final act of abuse, he was suddenly transported from Bergen County, NJ, to a Federal prison in Atlanta, hundreds of miles from his family, his supporters and his legal team. After much wrangling from his attorney, he was finally released on April 12, 2004. He immediately went back to activism, organizing for the other detainees he had met inside and speaking tirelessly about his experiences and the conditions of detention. During one of these panel discussions on detention, in Philadelphia in July of 2004, Abdel-Muhti collapsed shortly after finishing speaking. He died at the hospital that night of an apparent heart attack.

Aderer seems to be working on the film from within the movement to free Abdel-Muhti and, as a consequence, seems too close to the subject matter to document it effectively. He employs a kind of visual shorthand that would leave a viewer who is unfamiliar with the case without enough information to contextualize many parts of the film. Aderer relies  heavily on shots of events and quotes from activists, lawyers and officials to tell the story. He also alludes several times to his difficulty in getting the film made and his underlying fatigue. These factors contribute to an overall weakness in the narrative story telling.

For example, the filmmaker could have done a better job elaborating on Abdel-Muhti’s treatment in detention and, more importantly, on the information he gathered about the other detainees who, because they were not necessarily activists, were much easier for the government to disappear within the system. Knowing more about their stories would have added greatly to the film as a case study and an historical record.

It would have also been useful to have his entire time in detention outlined in more cohesive detail: How many times was he moved and in how many states was he held? What happened to his defense strategy when he was moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania and back again? An activist working on the case mentions in the film that Abdel-Muhti’s habeas petition needed to be filed all over again from scratch, when he was moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, but more information on how this set back the effort to gain his release would have been useful; especially since moving detainees from state to state is a favorite government tactic to deprive them of access to their families, support systems and legal teams. This kind of information, if expanded on in the film, would have been very useful to give a deeper understanding of the harrowing circumstances that thousands of detainees face.

The filmmaker also takes the documentary in several different directions, with mixed results. The film is strengthened by parallels drawn between his family’s internment history and the Abdel-Muhti case, but is weakened by his attempt to make the film partly about his efforts to complete it. These moments in the film increase the narrative timeline confusion and detract from strong, clear storytelling. Showing the film in progress to people unfamiliar with the case, or with the post 9-11 targeting of immigrants in general, to get feedback on the completeness of the storytelling, might have resulted in a better documentary. The film’s timeline jumps back and forth, often without enough context, at times making the film confusing and the chain of events difficult to follow.

The legal strategy and the arguments used by his attorneys are described, and several members of his legal team appear in the film, but, again, a fuller picture of how the defense strategy developed is never fleshed out. The activist strategy, too, was shown in footage and images from demonstrations and committee meetings, and snippets of interviews with activists working on the case but not enough to give a full picture of the effort.

This film, with all its flaws, is still useful and worth seeing, but it misses an opportunity to delve much deeper and expose more of the early landscape of the “war on terror” and the targeting of immigrant communities.

Jeanne Strole is an artist and social justice activist living in New York City. She is currently a co-director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute.