Here's the whole article!

The FBI “witch-hunt” in Lodi
By Veena Dubal and Sunaina Maira

On June 7th 2005, national and international media attention focused on the small, agricultural town of Lodi, located approximately forty miles south of Sacramento. The FBI arrested and detained two individuals, both Pakistani-Americans, who they suspected had al-Qaeda affiliations. The investigation was presented as a “terrorism case” by the government and news sources. The initial affidavit released to the media said that U.S.-born Hamid Hayat, had attended a terror-training camp in northeast Pakistan along with “hundreds” of other terrorists, and returned to the US intending to “attack . . . hospitals and large food stores.” This kind of detail resulted in a flood of sensationalized media coverage, portraying 23-year old Hamid as a prospective mass murder and his father, Umer Hayat, a 47-year old ice cream truck driver, as the financial supporter and mastermind of an alleged “Lodi terrorist cell”.
Neither allegation, however, was in the affidavit filed with a federal court in Sacramento the same day. The FBI retracted their affidavit alleging Hamid’s plot to attack domestic targets and began downplaying the seriousness of the presumed threat the men posed. Both Hamid and Umer were ultimately charged only with lying to federal investigators about Hamid’s visit to Pakistan in 2003. Three other Muslim men from Lodi, among them two respected imams, were also detained on suspected visa violations. One of the imams had actually been the target of FBI surveillance beginning three years ago when a secret court used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to approve wiretapping of Mohammed Adil Khan. While the Justice Department has maintained that it was not deliberately trying to precipitate an anti-Muslim witch hunt, the difference between the two affidavits – the one released to the media and the one filed in court – as well as recent FBI activity in Lodi, speak a different story. None of the five men have been charged with carrying out or planning to commit any act of violence. The many inconsistencies in the case and the hysteria it stoked coincided very neatly with Bush’s campaign to renew and expand the 2001 Patriot Act, which can only be justified if there was an ongoing “terrorist threat” and the public continues to fear that there are Muslim or Arab terrorists in their midst.
On June 14, we traveled up to Lodi to assess the impact of the arrests and surveillance of the local South Asian community, which is estimated to consist of over 2500 Pakistanis, some of whom have been living in the town for three generations. Basim Elkarra, Executive Director of the Sacramento office of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) has been diligently organizing in response to the arrests and interrogations of local Pakistanis by FBI agents swarming into town and warned us prior to our arrival about the extent of surveillance and the fear the community felt. But no amount of warning could have prepared us for the state of near siege in the town. As soon as we stepped out of our car in Lodi, we were made aware of the FBI’s presence. Not only is the entire Muslim community being surveilled by the FBI, which had interviewed many of its members, sometimes without an attorney present, in the days following the arrest – so are the attorneys and activists who are making sure that constitutional rights are upheld. During our brief visit with Mr. Elkarra and civil rights attorneys from the ACLU, a man with a large afro-wig in a blue SUV circled us and took photos. When we tried to approach him, he fled, only to return later to take more photographs. His conspicuous appearance made us realize the extent to which the FBI harassment is not at all a secret investigation: it is an overt act of intimidation of the community at large.
One of the attorneys we spoke to noted that the community feels “terrorized.” Residents believe that they are being interrogated by the FBI and placed under automatic suspicion because they are Muslim.. Pakistanis who attended the “Know Your Rights” workshops held by CAIR in Stockton, Lodi, and Pleasanton were all subject to obvious FBI surveillance. One Muslim mother told an attorney that her young child was followed from her home to an ice cream store by an FBI car. Others complained that they were taken out of their places of employment by the FBI for questioning and then could not return because their co-workers became suspicious of them. The most shocking of these reports was that of an incident where the FBI stormed the Hayat home, when only women and children were present, by ramming down the front door and putting a gun to a woman’s head. When her eleven-year old daughter passed out, she was denied medical attention, a gross violation of human rights that outraged even the local emergency care personnel.
After handing out “Know Your Rights” fliers to community members who have been repeatedly questioned, we went to visit the Lodi mosque that is under FBI scrutiny. The mosque is a small, humble structure – a former Jehovah’s Witness church – next to the cannery where Pakistani men have worked as fruit packers, in some cases for more than thirty years. South Asian and Latino children were playing basketball together across from the mosque while older South Asian men sat on the grass, presumably relaxing after a long day’s work. Most of the Muslims who attend this mosque speak Pashtu and are from the Northwest Frontier area of Pakistan. Some have family that had been in the area since as early as 1908, working on the railroads. They told us that the FBI began coming to Lodi immediately after September 11th, making “friends” with mosque members. The men all seemed undaunted by the FBI siege. However, it was clear within minutes that beneath the welcoming, calm exterior, was a harassed, interrogated, and scared community. One man described to us, without looking around, exactly where each federal agent’s car was parked; we saw the three large, black-tinted SUVs just yards from the mosque and the courts where the young boys were playing. Another middle-aged man said calmly, “Let them come ask us questions; we have nothing to hide.” While this resilience was encouraging, we were reminded by another Pakistani man who had already been questioned several times that while he did not mind speaking to the FBI, it was frightening for his wife and children. In addition, this has led to a racist backlash by some Lodi residents agitated by the lurid media reports about Islamic terrorists and sleeper cells.
The government’s investigation in Lodi has been conducted in a way that does not respect the legal rights and dignity of the Muslim community: individuals have been systematically discouraged from exercising their right to an attorney and have been disallowed access to attorneys; there has been at least one detention of an individual who was not read his Miranda warnings; and women and children have been intimidated and denied medical care. Perhaps equally disturbing, however, is that the general public has been given new reason to fear South Asians and Muslims as presumed terrorists. A community that has made this area home for over one hundred years has been investigated, intimidated, and cast under a shroud of suspicion, all within days.

*Veena Dubal is a law student at the University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall, and Sunaina Maira is an Associate Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of California at Davis. Both are volunteers with the SF Bay Area organization, ASATA – Alliance of South Asians Taking Action.

Good job Veena.
I am a little confused though.
There are two issues here. First whether Hamid attended a terrorist camp in Pakistan and second whether he was planning an attack in the US. As I understand from your article, the FBI has dropped the second charge. Have they dropped the first charge as well ?

Dear Al Mujahid:
Thank you for your comment. I hope this post clarifies things. Hamid has been charged with only one thing: lying to federal agents. It is true, however, that this "lie" concerns his itinerary while in Pakistan. The complaint filed in Sacramento alleges that Hamid first said he did not attend terrorist training camps, but then later admitted to attending "jihadi" camps. The complaint is written rather craftily b/c it avoids ever saying that Hamid admitted to attending a "terrorist" camp - only a jihadi camp. The idea, I think, is to let the reader conflate the two - while at the same time not technically saying that Hamid attended a terrorist camp. Another really important point here is that Hamid COULD have been charged with something that actually relates to terrorism - like for being an "enemy combatent" - but he was not. What this says, really, is that the evidence around any terrorism-involvement is incredibly scanty - we all know how aggressive these prosecutors are. It is notable that Hamid and his father Umar plead not guilty this past Tuesday to allegations that they misrepresented facts to FBI agents. Nothing that the two have been charged with legally relates to terrorism.
I hope that clears things up.
Veena

Ms.Dubal:

A few questions for you. Does the defense of the Lodi father & son indeed rest on drawing a distinction between 'jihadi' and 'terrorist' camps ? Do the law-enforcement agencies of the U.S. (routinely) draw a distinction between 'jihadi' camps and 'terrorist' camps ? Your reply above surely stands or falls on whether they routinely do that.

I don't think that sort of distinction is a principled one--it's a distinction without a difference. Certainly, the graduates of Pakistani 'jihadi' camps operating in J&K state don't seem to have heard of your rather artful distinction.

All of the above, of course, should not be construed to suggest that the Lodi father & son are guilty as charged. They may well be the targets of an overenthusiastic FBI. Or not.

Kumar

A later article indicates that he went to a school where his uncle or something was principle, not some terrorist camp. These Ghoray just don't get it. They have a simple equation: Brown=terrorist.

Dear Kumar,
I think you might be a little bit confused about my point. The distinction does not rely upon whether law enforcement agencies "routinely" use the terms jihadi and terrorist interchangeably. Terrorist has a legal definition with a large and long history of caselaw that supports that definition, "Jihadi" does not. Therefore, in a legal document, when one is accused of "terrorist affiliations" the implication and meaning is quite different. Nevertheless, I'm really not interested in debating Hamid's guilt or innocence (and please make note again that the only thing that he can be legally "guilty" of is misrepresenting information to the FBI - b/c that is all that he has been charged with). My "artful distinction," as you call it, is really not that artful - I'm just drawing upon the differences between what the government sent to the media and what they sent to the courthouse - and trying to find an explanation for why the version that the public got was so much more insidious. I'm also afraid that you're focusing on a point that is of little relevance to the article. We most hoped to spread the word about how the community feels terrorized, how their constitutional rights have been violated, and how this whole "investigation" of the entire South Asian Lodi community has served little purpose beyond instilling fear and distrust.

And to "Honestly" . . . Right on.
in solidarity,
Veena

Ms. Dubal:

Actually, my point goes to the heart of your argument. While 'terrorist' may be the term-of-art based on caselaw, perhaps the govt. thinks 'jihadi' fits the legal definition of a 'terrorist'. Hence my question about whether law-enforcement agencies use those two terms interchangeably.

So, another question for you: Could the govt. not amend its brief later on, and explicitly argue that 'jihadi'='terrorist'?

In any case, I don't doubt that there's a great deal of anxiety in the Lodi Muslim community. Whether it amounts to "...feel[ing] terrorized" is something about which I'm less certain. Certainly, the divergent petitions are 'prima facie' evidence that the Muslim community's reaction isn't monolithic.

Kumar

Dear Kumar:
Again, thank you for your reply. However, you are still misunderstanding all of this from a legal perspective. THERE ARE NO TERRORISM CHARGES. And thus, there would be no need to argue that terrorist and jihadi are interchangeable words - nor could they because there is no legal precedent for that. They could amend the complaint if they wanted to and change jihadi to terrorist - but they would never do that b/c their word use was purposeful. Even if they used the word terror, there would be no terrorism charges - b/c the only thing that the complaint charges Hamid with is misrepresenting facts. BUT that "terror" was used in the affidavit submitted the press and not in the one submitted to court tells us that the word use was purposeful nad that perhaps there is something not accurate about the use of the word "terror." Nevertheless, in order to make the complaint look as dramatic (but accurate) as possible, it helps for them to use the word "jihad."

Since you haven't been to Lodi and haven't spoke to the Muslim community, I would venture to say that you are not in any place to speculate about how the community feels. No one is saying the community is monolithic with regard to its beliefs - however, the ENTIRE South Asian community is viewed monolithicly. By the larger American public (and apparently the government as well), we are all racialized the same way. Our comment about how the community feels is not with regard to the Hamid arrets, it is with regard to the actual siege that the Muslim community is under - the constant interrogations, the constant monitoring. I implore you to read the whole article.
I cannot expend any more time engaging in this discussion so I will let you "have the last word." I do hope, however, that you have some greater level of understanding from this interchange.
best,
Veena

Veena, thanks for doing this reporting; the context is really helpful in trying to understand what's going on.

Ms. Dubal:

I'm really not interested in whether you or I have the 'last word'. I have indeed read the entire article. However, your reportage is not the last word on the subject. Those of us who haven't visited Lodi must weigh various, often conflicting, reports emerging from Lodi.

I don't have to remind you that weighing the merits of such conflicting reportage (or "speculation" as you put it) is a pre-requisite for being an informed citizen--let alone for any sort of political mobilization.

Finally, I must demur from your suggestion that all South Asians are viewed monolithically in this country. I think that such statements amount to a 'reductio ad absurdum' of your view.

Kumar

While it seems that there is nothing
overtly guilty about the Lodi family
(when was the last time anyone guilty
admitted right away to anything), the
hard thing about terrorism charges
is that conventional law enforcement
thinking does not work. Because all current civilian law enforcement is based around being reactive, i.e, pressing charges AFTER a crime.
However, is society willing to take that risk with respect to terrorists, given what we have seen so far ? The terrorists are crafty enough to know exactly what buttons to press to invoke the protections of a conventional legal system. The whole controversy over "rendering" is because US laws and society are still unable to deal an intelligent uniformless enemy fighting an asymmetric war against the US. Iyman Faris claimed to be an innocent truck driver intially too.

http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull1.asp?id=11682

Lodi Imam Admits Giving Speeches Urging Pakistanis to Fight Americans
The spiritual leader of the Lodi mosque who was arrested in a sweep earlier this month admitted to the FBI that when he was in Pakistan he gave speeches to Muslims urging them to fight Americans in Afghanistan in the months following the September 11 attacks.

However, in his immigration hearing on Friday, Shabbir Ahmed told a judge that "it was a requirement of all imams. If you don't people turn against you. They sort of force you to say something."

Ahmed, 39, a citizen of Pakistan, is fighting to stay in the U.S. after he being arrested two weeks ago in a sweep that also netted two men accused of having ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda.

Ahmed was a student and then a teacher at the Jamia Farooqia, an Islamic university in Pakistan, during the 1990s. He came to the United States in January 2002 after he was recruited to be the imam at the Lodi mosque.

Today's testimony came during an immigration hearing in which Ahmed's defense attorney argued to have his client released on bail. During questioning today Ahmed denied ever being affiliated with or supporting any terrorist organization. While he admitted making the speeches against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, he said that since he's been in this country he realized he was wrong. "Having come here, there are true values and respect for human life," Ahmed said, speaking through an interpreter. "When I saw such a picture, my mind changed. Now I know what the truth is. I think there is justice here, respect here."

Ahmed has returned to Pakistan several times since emigrating to the United States, because his wife and family still live there. He said that since he has been in Lodi, he has made speeches in favor of the U.S.

When asked why he admitted the earlier speeches to the FBI, he said "I don't remember everything I said." Ahmed was interviewed three different times after his arrest. One interview lasted 12 hours. At another, which lasted almost 20 hours, Ahmed said he nearly fell asleep.

Unlike many of his fellow students at the Jamia Farooqia, Ahmed said he did not volunteer to fight the Russians during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He denied support for Osama bin Laden.

Prosecutors said the U.S. government had identified the Jamia Farooqia as a terrorist organization. Ahmed said he was not aware of any direct terrorist affiliation.

Members of Muslim mosque have pledged support for Ahmed and said they would provide bail if it is granted.

Because all current civilian law enforcement is based around being reactive, i.e, pressing charges AFTER a crime.

I agree that it's essentially impossible to prevent violent attacks on U.S. soil (or in any other place) because of the widespread accessibility of technology and the relatively low cost of obtaining it, compared to prior eras ("terrorism" is essentially inevitable in one form or another). Your specific claim here is something of a fallacy though; I find it hard to believe that U.S. laws are "unable" to deal with ongoing criminal activity when laws like this) are on the books and widely used, particularly given how many people--even U.S. citizens--are arrested on pretexts (like Al Capone) and actions like sending a donation to particular organizations' hunger relief efforts without knowing what it is to be used for or showing up to a training camp run by designated organizations is legally considered "material support" of "terrorism" and prosecutable these days.

I think it's more that it is very difficult to find out what's going to happen and when; particularly when you're not particularly smart about it or committed to the process. See: Iraq War; firing of lgbt arabic-speaking linguists in defense department; FBI Director's claim that knowledge of Middle Eastern societies is irrelevant to understanding Al Qaeda; failure to inspect ports; distribution of counterterrorism resources by state; alienation of potential allies domestically and abroad who might have insight; mass roundups of immigrants; complete waste of resources in rounding up nonviolent drug offenders; undermining of international arms control treaties; etc., etc.

Also, you have to be careful of people with other agendas (like Ashcroft) who are going to use the kinds of arguments you're making to push for greater enforcement powers without much accountability and with little or no benefit to work to reduce or eliminate Al Qaeda's capacity. This kind of structural change seems more likely to contribute to monitoring of "subversives" like Martin Luther King than to making a substanital contribution to the elimination of violent acts within U.S. borders.

Once again, one should not equate fighting conventional crime with fighting terrorism. RICO and most crime fighting laws are based around the assumption of criminals doing something illegal for profit i.e drug smuggling , robbery etc, with the ultimate goal of getting away with their ill gotten gains. And then the law steps in to trace and track down the perpetrators. But when you are faced with a group who potentially have no interest in getting away (if they haven't been "martyred" in the course of their mission) with their crime and relish the idea of dragging the legal system through a expensive and high profile trail costing the tax payers millions of dollars, with no real conclusive outcome many a time because of , once gain, the application of conventional thinking to an unconventional group. Al Capone just wanted to be rich. These guys have no interest in anything material.

Granted that the FBI et al have bungled so many investigations ... but who is to blame for that ? The FBI is a product of the way American society fights crime and the serious short comings of that approach are very evident. Criminals can be coaxed to talk for money and other promises of personal favors. That's how most law enforcement works. Nothing short of controversial psychological and physical methods will work in fighting terrorism. The US has never had a history of fighting terrorists in its recent past, except for the SLA (the Patty Hearst story) in the early 70s. The closest comparison to what is going on now is the 7(I think) German saboteurs who were captured in NY during WW II. They were promptly executed. We are faced with potential sleeper cells who are carefully planning their next move.

Remember, their view of history is long, ours tends to be very short. And of course everybody is who taken into custody is always innocent. I think we need to give this story a bit of time to unfold. Remember, the FBI is not always stupid at the individual agent level. It was a sharp agent who figured something was fishy when so many Arabs were taking flying lessons in AZ. Of course, their supervisors, who were possibly inept paper pushers who got promoted via the Peter Principle shelved the reports for fear of it being taken as "racist profiling". You can't have it both ways in this war. There are going to be mistakes made. But is your warm fuzzy PCness going to interfere with practical realities of the world as it exists today ?

But is your warm fuzzy PCness going to interfere with practical realities of the world as it exists today ?

B.S.-- the current approach lowers effectiveness in fighting terrorism. It chokes off tip flow and deports 16-year-olds.

We may not have much antiterror experience, but we can certainly learn from the Brits, who with the IRA grew much better at infiltration. The Brit squads turned into the ninjas of antiterror, while we're still the Keystone Cops.

Hmm... your abrupt "B.S" comment sounds a bit too self righteous my friend....

Have you studied the methods the Brits used to fight the IRA ? It has been a long brutal war, almost a 100 years long. Yes,that is why the Brits have that experience. And there have been horrible cases of excesses by the Brit govt too. Have you heard of H Block ?

http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/racs/obscenity.html

And all the hunger strikes by people who were potentially wrongly incarcerated ? Yes, long before Guantamo which the world bleats about today , there was H block. So don't give me your BS about
"ninjas of terror". The IRA also almost killed Prime Minister Thatcher in 1984:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/301223.stm

A gross failure of British intelligence aka your "Ninjas of Terror" wouldn't you
say ? She escaped just out of sheer luck and not due to any fancy Sherlock Holmesian sleuthing.

As for infiltration, the Brits could infiltrate the IRA, because to put it bluntly, in N Ireland, the Protestants and Catholics physically look the same and speak withe same accent. Lets call it for what it is really is we are talking about here... Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists. How many people are there in US intelligence forces who can physically and culturally pass for that group ? That is the crux of the problem. There is the occasional John Walker Lindh type who is part of the group, but I doubt he was anything more than a stupid foot soldier. I doubt a non-Arab person/agent would have much luck penetrating the inner Al Qaeda leadership. And frankly I don't think there has been or will be much cooperation by the Muslim community in America and the FBI/law enforcement in helping to infiltrate such groups. There was a case of a Muslim FBI agent refusing to surveil Muslim groups as they were "fellow Muslims". Your precious Brit intelligence I'm sure did not cases of Catholic agents refusing to penetrate Catholic IRA groups because they were "fellow Catholics". And I would appreciate any attempts on your part to refute what I have said to backed up with clear arguments and facts and not blanket "BS" remarks...

It has been a long brutal war, almost a 100 years long. Yes,that is why the Brits have that experience.

You don't start by reinventing fire and re-deriving algebra. You start from the state of the art in antiterror, where the Brits and Israelis have taken it, and move it forward.

Nothing short of controversial psychological and physical methods will work in fighting terrorism... there have been horrible cases of excesses by the Brit govt too.

The mentality that you must always break eggs to make an omelet is lazy and dangerous. That's exactly why tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq have been killed. That's precisely why people have rationalized torture, the one thing in our national story we were proudest of not doing. You need to work always to asymptotically take errors to zero. Innovation, yes; torture, no.

... the Brits could infiltrate the IRA, because to put it bluntly, in N Ireland, the Protestants and Catholics physically look the same and speak withe same accent.

I grant that recruiting is difficult, but again we've screwed it up. We've fired and demoted FBI agents and translators who are native Arabic speakers (those whose loyalty was not questioned) instead of using them in the cause. To infiltrate cells already in the U.S., we need to recruit American Muslims to live and work here, not Saudis to live in an Afghan bunker.

There was a case of a Muslim FBI agent refusing to surveil Muslim groups as they were "fellow Muslims".

It happens, but it's a rare outlier. There was also a case of a Muslim FBI agent causing a 16-year-old Muslim girl to be deported for the sin of listening to an Internet radio broadcast.

These guys have no interest in anything material.

These guys got that way in part because of economically failed governments which we are still backing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, like amnesiac dunces.

Perhaps I was not clear enough ... The Brits and the Israelis have both used very controversial methods in fighting terrorism. Do you think US airlines will use the profiling techniques used by the Israeli El Al airlines on their passengers ? Everyone is screaming about "invasion of privacy" already because the FBI wants detailed information about passengers. Mossad probably knows what El Al passengers had for breakfast a week ago. There is no concept of Miranda Rights in many of those countries. There is no "one size fits all" state of the art in antiterror. It is a work in progress as the terrorists are always evolving. What works in one culture and system of government will fail miserably in another. And it is foolish to adopt techniques from another country's anti terror campaign which is just part of a completely different legal and social system. If the British and Israeli systems were that successful, then there should be no more terrorism in their countries. That hasn't happened.

The death of civilians in both Afghanistan and Iraq is a tragedy. But given that no war has been without civilian casualties, it is not unexpected. One can debate the validity of the war in Iraq, but I am just for the sake of brevity here only going to say that even in Germany in WW II possibly more civilians were killed than SS and Gestapo members. There is no current state of the art to prevent that even in 2005.

The biggest US Islamic public relations group CAIR has done bafflingly little to integrate into American culture over the years even prior to 9/11. Rather , one hears disturbing statements from CAIR's National Chairman Omar Ahmad in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America. And Islam the only accepted religion on earth...." Do you think this is going to help the Muslim community's image in America to have such a high profile group represent them ? It is not suprising that there more than a little suspicion of the patriotism of Muslims in sensitive positions in the FBI and military. If CAIR does not represent the voice of the Muslim community, then perhaps they should dismantle its current structure and replace it with something else. But that has not happened. If they are unable to clean up things happening in their own community, I don't see them being able to bridge the perception gap outside their community.

And the sad truth about the Arab and Muslim world is that there are no functioning democracies. It is either an Islamic Theocracy or a dictatorship. The US government unfortunately has to choose the less of two evils to deal with. Of course that brings up the question as to why didn't we just deal diplomatically with Saddam. As we can see, he was a secularist despite being a dictator. Now the various factions have ripped Iraq apart. Just as what happened after the death of Marshall Tito to the former Yugoslavia.

Vikram

Earlier you said, "Nothing short of controversial psychological and physical methods will work in fighting terrorism." Would you have supported the internment of Japanese in WW2? What about the controversial methods used by the British against Indian independence agitators? And what exactly are these controversial method? I suppose you in your state of benign omniscience know what literally millions of judges, lawyers, professors, police officers and intelligence agents just can't seem to figure out!

Should criminal sanctions be applied to a certain group of people based on their relgion or race? Do you know anything about American legal theory, or even the basis for American/British criminal justice? Seems like you want to revert to some sort of Gestapo type tactics.

Your last post was a bit discursive, let me summarize and comment on each of the paragraphs into a sub-thesis:

p1. We shouldn't use techniques used by British/Isreali counter-terrorism forces.
p2. Killing civilians is inevitable
p3. CAIR has done bafflingly little to integrate into "American culture"

To support this proposition you quote the following:

"The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America. And Islam the only accepted religion on earth...."

What is so "un-American" about this viewpoint? Replace Koran with Bible, and Islam with Christianity, and that quote could just as well come from a true blue, white, protestant, fully "integrated" AMERICAN from Alabama.

All this point does is exhibit your bias against Muslims.

p4. There are no functioning Muslim democracies
This post was about whether or not surveillance of Muslims in Lodi is excessive. Your slander of Muslim countries is absolutely irrelevant to this issue, and all it does is exhibit your obvious bias against Muslims. Ok assuming there are no functioning Muslim democracies...does that mean Muslims people in the US have less rights? What an irrelevant point. Ever heard of Equal Protection?

You probably haven't since you don't seem to hold constitutional rights and civil liberties in very high esteem.

Moreover, go to Malaysia or to a lesser extent, to Pakistan for a fully functioning Muslim country.

Kumar

Finally, I must demur from your suggestion that all South Asians are viewed monolithically in this country. I think that such statements amount to a 'reductio ad absurdum' of your view.

You have not used that term in the proper sense. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm
Nor have you provided any relevant evidence to refute Veena's argument.

No one wants to discriminate against anybody else

If people can forget about prophets and angels and tolerate others, we can get rid of problems that face the world. However, if people on this forum expect everybody to tolerate intolerance (as is expected by some extremist muslims inspite of them not tolerating other communities), this forum is just going to the waste bin.

Iam suprised that many indians are on this forum yelling out pro-extremist statements. iam sure these have always lived in ivory towers.