Crasstalk recently covered Congressman Peter King’s double standard on extremism and the betrayal of his Muslim constituents. Today, I am pleased to offer you a counter-point from House Representative André Carson (D-IN), Representative King’s peer in the Legislative branch, a former law enforcement officer, and an American Muslim.
Congressman Carson represents Indiana’s 7th Congressional District; he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in early 2008 as part of a special election, voted in to his first full term in Congress in November of 2008, and was reelected again in 2010. Before his career as an elected official, Carson devoted himself to law enforcement and protecting Hoosiers across the state. He first served as a Local Board Investigative Officer for the Indiana State Excise Police for nine years covering 22 counties before being detailed to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence Fusion Center in 2006 where he worked in an anti-terrorism unit to protect Indiana and the United States from terrorist threats at home and abroad.
Congressman André Carson graciously shared the following perspectives with us:
Representative King claims that American Muslims and Muslims in general do not speak out against Islamic extremism. Do you agree with this statement?
Since 9/11, seven out of the last ten Al-Qaeda plots threatening the U.S. were prevented by Muslim cooperation. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca testified he was overwhelmed by the number of Muslims who were ready to assist him in response to his outreach. That is just one of many examples, and the call into question whether Representative King is ill-informed.
Until Representative King has reviewed the statements of thousands of American Muslim organizations nationwide who have denounced every act of violence perpetrated by a person who claims to be Muslim, any generalization he makes regarding whether Muslims do enough to “speak out” against extremism is selectively anecdotal, outcome-driven, and patently unfair.
He also stated that the hearings are aimed at protecting Muslims from being pressured to commit terrorist acts. Do you have concerns about these hearings and do you think that they will accomplish what Rep. King claims?
I fear these hearings will exacerbate suspicion of Muslims in our country. Simply by making Muslims the sole focal point and phrasing the inquiry in terms of whether Muslims “cooperate enough,” Chairman King invites non-Muslims to put all of their American Muslim neighbors under a microscope.
There are extremists who pervert Islam to serve violent ends, and they must be deterred, but violence caused by ideological extremism is a threat in all its forms, regardless of the religion or ideology in which it is rooted. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, terrorism has a Muslim face, and I believe it is causing many, including Chairman King, to ignore other homegrown threats. We should never ignore or downplay ANY form of violent extremism. But we also should not be focusing our attention on a single form of extremism while so many others continue to put the American people at risk.
How do you think that the Muslim American community should respond to these hearings?
The Muslim community is broad and diverse with no single organization speaking for all Muslims. But we need to make our voices heard and show we are proud and an important part of America. Muslims Americans are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, and police officers. Muslims want their families to be safe, just like every other American.
What kind of impact does rhetoric like King’s have on the Muslim community as a whole? Is it ignored or directly addressed in community outreach initiatives?
It is dispiriting. To peace-loving, patriotic American Muslims, it serves as a reminder that no matter how many millions fully embrace our country, and no matter how deep their civic commitment, the acts of a misguided handful who pervert the faith creates a tragic guilt-by-association mentality at the highest levels of government. Cooperation of the Muslim community around the world will play a critical role in our effort to prevent future attacks. But this cooperation will never be possible if we further alienate and disparage the Muslim community in our own country.
As a country with constitutionally protected religious freedom, we risk extremism in every religion. Is this liberty worth the risk?
Absolutely. The very first words of our very first amendment give all Americans the right to practice our faith without government persecution. By targeting American Muslims, these hearings run contrary to centuries of upholding religious freedom in the U.S. and further contradicts the proud American history many Muslim families can trace back for generations. This hearing would be just as wrong if they were focusing on any other religious group. It hearkens back to the era of Senator Joseph McCarthy, when similar witch hunts pitted neighbor against neighbor while failing to improve our national security and distracting Americans from more pressing issues confronting the nation.
As a former law enforcement officer, how important is it to factor racial or religious components into an investigation? Does profiling based on these factors make us more or less safe from terrorism?
During my time in law enforcement, I worked with informants and cooperating witnesses from all backgrounds on a wide variety of cases, and one reality held true: those who trusted law enforcement, the judicial system, and the government provided more useful information in a timely manner than those who felt singled out or targeted. Security is based on trust. When leadership does not have the trust of a community, regardless of religion or race, it’s extremely difficult to maintain security.
____________________________________________________________________________________
H/T: Grand Inquisitor, ihatediamonds, Kenneth Gibson, and a special thanks to Lady_E for putting me in touch with Congressman Carson.
Header Photograph: Flickr.
