How did the “war on terror” pave the way for the deportation of students in the United States Conflict news

When the Lion of Dandia received a message from a young man named Chamour Rahman in March 2012, he had no reason to suspect that he was under the eye of government observation.

Rahman seemed simply interested in deepening his relationship with Islam and participating in charitable work. As a Muslim community organizer in New York City, Dandia was happy to help.

The young man soon became regular in social meetings, events and efforts to help members of low -income community. Rahman spent a night in the home of the Dandia family.

But nearly seven months later, Rahman presented a recognition of social media: He was a secret informant at the New York City Police Department (NYPD).

Dandia eventually joined a collective lawsuit, claiming that New York City had identified Islamic societies for monitoring as part of the broader “war on terror” in the United States.

Four years later, the city settled, and agreed to protect against unjustified investigations into political and religious activities.

But Dandia sees an echo of his experience in the current arrests of students who support students supporting Palestinians from abroad.

It is among the activists and experts who have noticed the escalation of patterns and practices that have become the basic features of “war on terror” – from unjustified observation to the wide use of the executive authority.

“What she endured was very similar to what we see students today,” said Dandia.

He pointed out that the lawyer who represented him is now working in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who demanded the University of Colombia and the permanent resident who faces the deportation of his pro -Palestine activity.

President Donald Trump’s administration accused Khalil of supporting terrorism, although it has not yet received a crime or issuing evidence to prove the claim.

Dandia said that the belief that Islamic, Arab and immigrant societies are suspected of nature in the common thread between their experiences. “Even if Trump is not now unprecedented, it derives from long -term traditions and policies.”

From neighbors to enemies

Scientists and analysts say that one of the advanced lines is the peer of the most cruel migration enforcement with the discourse that focuses on national security.

The “war on terror” began to a large extent after the attacks on September 11, 2001, one of which targeted New York City.

In the days after this, the administration of former President George W. Bush began detention of dozens of immigrants – almost all of them from Muslim and Arab societies and South Asia – due to the alleged relations of terrorism.

The American Immigration Council, a Washington -based non -profit organization, estimates that 1,200 people were arrested in the initial survey. Much was eventually deported.

However, immigration raids did not lead to a single condemnation of terrorism -related charges. A 2004 Report The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) indicated that the government has announced the deportation as “linked to an investigation on September 11.”

“Immediately after almost September 11, Islamic societies were not treated as colleagues in New York who were living in a shock of an attack on their city, but as possible accessories, witnesses or perpetrators of a follow -up attack,” said Spencer Akirman, a correspondent of the war on terror and the author of the horror care book.

The ACLU report says that some detainees are detained in solitary confinement and were only allowed to leave their cells with shackles on their hands and legs. Some of them were kept in detention long after the government cleared any violations.

Fear in “Al -Watan”

Necious Singh, a history professor at New York University, believes that the increasing period of fear caused the United States to look at the enemies, among its societies.

Singh said: “The argument that the United States was fighting these non -governmental groups that did not have borders means that the battle against these enemies could take place anywhere, including what the Bush administration began naming the” homeland. “

He pointed out that this frustration, after September 11, had a wide point of view of the executive authority, in order to justify the lack of alleged legal measures for the alleged terrorist suspects.

“A lot of what happens can now be returned to this moment, as this argument has become normalized that the executive authority is responsible for preserving the safety of the country, and for this reason, it should be able to suspend basic rights and ignore constitutional restrictions.”

Art Eisenberg, CEO at the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, explained that the history of migrant societies targeting national security concerns extends beyond the “war on terror.”

“The police, monitoring and secret work targeting migrant groups dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century. The New York City Intelligence Office used to call it the red team, but earlier it was called the” Italian team “,” Eisenberg said.

Over time, these operations have turned to targeting new sources of the potential opposition: Communists, civil rights activists and black leopards, among other things.

But he added that “the war on terror” was distinguished by an escalation of this targeting. These types of procedures can have permanent effects on societies.

ACLU notes that in the years after the September 11 attacks, more than a third of the Pakistanis were deported in the Brooklyn neighborhood known as “Small Pakistan” or chose to leave the area.

Later, in 2012, when it was found that the authorities were spying on Dandia, the donations began to dehydration, and the mosque they held their meetings asked to meet abroad instead.

No one was accused of committing a crime. But the superficial monitoring effect caused the organization to be closed at the end of its doors, according to Dandia.

“People always ask this question: If you do not do anything wrong, why should you worry?” Dandia said. “But it is the government that decides what is right and wrong.”

Rising attacks

Under the Trump administration, critics say that terrorist allegations are still being seized as an excuse to silence the opposition.

In a statement on the arrest of Khalil, the Ministry of Internal Security Claim His involvement in protests on the campus against the Israeli war on Gaza showed that he was “compatible” with the Palestinian Armed Group Hamas.

On Wednesday, convincing federal agents also grabbed a 30 -year -old Turkish student named Romisa Ozturk off the street near the University of Tatz and took her away while she was on her way to dinner.

In this case, the Ministry of Internal Security has accused Ozturk of participating in “support for Hamas” activities, without providing details.

The United States has appointed Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997. American law prohibits citizens and residents of providing “material support” to such organizations.

But Samuel Mouien, a professor of law and history at Yale University, said that the recent arrests have failed to meet this threshold.

“The frightening thing is that they dropped an excuse until people accused material support for terrorism,” “They depend on the claim that these opinions are inconsistent with US foreign policy.”

Singh noted that the arbitrary arrests apparently allow Trump to benefit from the legacy of “war on terror”, while following his own goals, including a migration campaign.

“It is the migration agenda that intersects with the war on terror,” Singh said. “The first includes slowly cutting into traditional constitutional rights, while the latter gives you a framework for the vast presidential authority.”

If you leave without deterrent, Akraman said that a wide vision of the presidential authority can pave the way for more human rights violations, even outside migrant societies.

“If there is no accountability for institutional violations, these violations will continue and intensify them,” he said. “This is the lesson not only the war on terrorism, but a lot of the history of harmful humanity.”

He added: “If the Trump administration can say that what it says is what you publish on social media, and what you put on a sign, and run out in favor of a terrorist entity, then there is nothing that you can do to protect your freedom to say the things that people reject in power.”