From the Archives: Academic Freedom, "Terrorism", and the University of Nottingham

I received the news just after landing in Dublin that Hicham Yezza, who has been a student and administrator at the University of Nottingham for more than 13 years, is to be deported from the United Kingdom. The original charge was that Yezza was aiding and abetting terrorism through the possession on his computer of an Al Qa'eda Training Manual --- he was keeping this as a favour for postgraduate student Rizwaan Sabir, who was working on a thesis on the group. When this couldn't be sustained, the British Home Office decided to press a technicality over Yezza's long-term status as a student and employee of the university.

In the midst of the initial detention and questioning of Sabir and Yezza, the Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham issued a statement that researchers had no right to study "terrorist" materials, in effect hanging Sabir and Yezza out to dry as well as throwing a fear-laden obstacle in the way of study, analysis, and reflection on one of the critical topics in our world today. This was my response in Times Higher Education:


Let it be noted: the vice-chancellor of a prominent university in Britain has caved in to the culture of fear ("Researchers have no 'right' to study terrorist materials", 17 July).

The University of Nottingham should be celebrating the contributions of its staff and students to knowledge and analysis, which should be at the forefront of free thinking, discussion and debate. Instead, its officials sacrifice their scholars to a craven bending of the knee before government authorities who can no longer distinguish between threat and reflection, before those gatekeepers of "common sense" who show no sensibility to our ability to think without falling prey to extremism, and before those who have carried out acts of violence these past years not only to kill us but also to bully us into giving up those liberties and qualities that should have enabled us to rise above their intimidation.

This is not a question of "access (to) and research (of) terrorist materials". No page or picture frame or moving image is "terrorist" in and of itself. It is how that material is used to fan the flames of division and hostility that can lead to acts of violence. The problem was never the typeset pages of Mein Kampf; rather, it was in the use of those pages to justify bigotry, racism, war, genocide. The problem was never Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book or Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations or the Koran or the Bible. It was, still is and always will be the manipulation of those texts to justify the taking of lives.

Vice-chancellor, do you think that, through your denial of texts to us, you make us safer? Do you think that, by denying us our ability to think, consider, criticise, you shelter us from harm? Do you think that you protect us from ourselves, prevent us from becoming extremists?

I am proud that, before and after 11 September 2001, I have worked in a British system in which my supervisors, my colleagues, my friends and my students have not only read these documents, essays and books but have used them to construct responses, critiques and publications that show that we are not enslaved either to the "terrorist" or to an ill-defined "War on Terror".

"There is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges," says the vice-chancellor. Thus we are allowed freedom of thought under the caution that we are guilty before being proven innocent. Perhaps, vice-chancellor, you know of other times and places where scholars, students and citizens have been advised that they may read their books and then, as those books are burnt, explain why they have not committed a crime. Perhaps you know of those not-so-distant times when people have been threatened, arrested, terrorised in the name of protecting them from "terror". Perhaps you know the instances where those scholars, students, citizens fled to countries where they could read, think, speak without fear of detention.

One of those countries was (and still is) Britain. Perhaps you know that some of those individuals who escaped the restrictions on their freedoms came to British universities. The professor who opened the door to my career at Birmingham was a scholar who left Nazi Germany as a teenager to work as a groundsman at the University of Oxford. The British system not only saved his life but allowed him to build that life as one of our finest historians - he took up his first chair at Nottingham at the age of 39. He was proud of that. On the day I was offered my post at Birmingham, he set me two challenges. First, he said with a smile, beat 39. Then, he added, always be inquisitive, always realise what you do not know, always put yourself in the position of another (the President, the General, the infantryman, the groundskeeper and, yes, the "terrorist"). Then, and only then, I would have earned the right to put my thoughts and my work before others.

At the age of 37 I was able to give a professorial lecture at Birmingham. But, pondering your words, I realise that my false pride was in meeting my mentor's first challenge. The real pride should be that, as I quoted both "American fundamentalists" and "Islamic fundamentalists" in that lecture, I was not giving way to either of those groups, laying down my ability to think and judge. I could not be reduced to the "us" following an injunction to avoid scandalous, dangerous texts. And, in reading those texts, I did not become part of "them".

This is why I write. And why I will defend any of my colleagues, including colleagues at Nottingham with whom I have worked for 20 years, who continue to pursue their research at risk of your approbation or the prosecution of any misguided law. And why I hope that, one day, you will not feed the culture of fear with your proclamations, but challenge it (and the terrorists) in your defence of academic freedom.

Fudging the Decision: The Obama Statement on Troop Increase in Afghanistan

The news has just come in that President Obama has approved an additional  Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Army Stryker Brigade, plus support troops, for Afghanistan. (see full statement) This is in addition to the brigade just deployed in the east of the Afghanistan.

That reads to me as a compromise with the military, which had asked for a total of five brigades. Meanwhile, Obama gets his review which seeks a "comprehensive strategy" for Afghanistan. That in turn is a kick in the teeth for the military's plan, which had sought the significant troop increase and a handover of non-military duties to NATO forces and European countries.

Which only leaves the questions: what will the review decide and when will it reach that decision?

Obama may have played for time by throwing the military a half-fulfilled request. That in no way resolves the battle, either in central Afghanistan or in Washington.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT

There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.

To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer. This increase has been requested by General McKiernan and supported by Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command. General McKiernan’s request for these troops is months old, and the fact that we are going to responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.

This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan. I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. That is why I ordered a review of our policy upon taking office, so we have a comprehensive strategy and the necessary resources to meet clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region. This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review. Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan. As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.

Barack Obama: Still A Muslim. Really.

Free Republic, the well-known Internet shout-board, is posing as a news service on Twitter. So it was with great interest that I noted their breaking story today, "Barack Obama Still a Muslim".

The world exclusive comes from The Daily Change, which has uncovered a video in which the President says: "I have Muslims in my own family. I have lived in Muslim countries."

Forget for the moment that the dogged research team of the The Daily Change is only three weeks late in finding Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya Television. Let's ponder the logic: I come from a family with a Disciples of Christ preacher, a scattering of Methodists, some very devout Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, and a large group of Mormons. I also was born in Alabama in the US South but live in Britain.

Which I guess now makes me a DiscipleChrist-Methodist-Baptist-Episcopalian-Mormon English redneck.

I guess, however, that small flaw in establishing identity and belief shouldn't deflect us from the follow-up reasoning from The Daily Change, which quotes from Obama:

And America’s a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and nonbelievers....And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.

So I guess the only way that the President can renounce his secret Muslim status is to deny that the US has any Muslims. Or nonbelievers. Or Jews. And while he's at it, he should stop that goodwill foolishness, recognising that there might be some folks in the Islamic world who dare to want the best for their families.

Meanwhile, our favourite on-line encyclopedia, Conservapedia, staggers on with its truthful exposè of Muslim Barack. It may have gotten its long-time truthful declaration that Obama would swear the Inaugural Oath on the Bible wrong, but it claims to the revelation that he "used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President, and chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath".

And, oh yeah, there's this iron-clad proof: "Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would."

Homeland Security Culture of Fear Prepare to Die Toy of the Year: Customer Reviews

Related Post: Homeland Security Culture of Fear Prepare to Die Toy of the Year

"Loosenut": "I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.



The best thing about this product is that it teaches kids about the realities of living in a high-surveillence society. My son said he wants the Playmobil Neighborhood Surveillence System set for Christmas. I've heard that the CC TV cameras on that thing are pretty worthless in terms of quality and motion detection, so I think I'll get him the Playmobil Abu-Ghraib Interrogation Set instead (it comes with a cute little memo from George Bush)."

W.C. Isbell: "My family was planning a vacation to Europe, so I purchased this item to teach my twins about what to expect at the airport and hopefully, alleviate some of their anxiety. We also downloaded the actual TSA security checklist from the American Airlines website and then proceeded with our demonstration. Well, first we had to round up a Barbie and a few Bratz dolls to play the other family members, so that cost us a few extra bucks at the Dollar General and it is aggravating that the manufacturer did not make this product "family-friendly." Of course, since the playmobil Dad could not remove his shoes or other clothing items, unlike the Barbie, the playmobil security agent became suspicious and after waving her wand wildy a few dozen times, called her supervisor to wisk the Dad into a special body-cavity search room, (which incidentally led to quite an embarasing and interesting discussion with my twin daughters about personal hygiene and a slight adjustment to the rules we had them memorize about touching by strangers). But worst of all, since the suitcase did not actually open, the baggage inspector made a call to the FBI and ATF bomb squads which then segregated the family's suitcase (which btw was the only suitcase they provided for our educational family experience) and according to the advanced TSA regulations, had to blow it up, (since they could not otherwise mutilate the luggage, break off the locks and put one of those nice little advisory stickers on it), which we had to simulate out in the backyard with a few M-80s and other fireworks. The girls started crying. They became so hysterical by the whole experience that we could not even get them in the car when the time came to actually take our trip, and so we had to cancel the whole thing at the last minute, losing over $7,000 in airfare and hotel charges that we could not recoup do to the last minute cancellations. We've now spent an additional $3,000 to pay for the girls therapy and medication over the past year since this incident occurred, and the psychologists have told us that this will affect them for life, so much for their college fund and our retirement. Then, to top it all off, when we tried to use to playmobil phone to call the company to ask for reimbursement, as you might expect, of course the damn thing didn't even work; neither did our efforts to e-mail them using the computer screen on the baggage checkpoint; and our real-life efforts to contact them to obtain re-imbursement have also likewise been ignored. Worse yet, we had the product tested and found out that it was positive for both lead paint and toxic chemicals, having been manufactured in China by workers holding formerly American jobs, so now we all have cancer and have been given only another year or so to live. My advice - educating your kids about airport security with this toy may actually be more harmful to them than just packing them in the damn luggage with some bottled water & hoping they survive."

M. Swift: "I hear Playmobil is coming out with a waterboarding torture set. I think I'll wait for that and buy them together to save on shipping."

Gitmo Cowboy: "When we first set it up we tried it with my daughters African American Magic Jewel Ken Doll and Barbie Princess of the Nile Doll but they were pulled out of line before the security checkpoint and taken to a back room for 'processing'. We haven't seen them since but received a phone call from a buddy at the state department: something about 'extraordinary rendition'. I hope they make it home it time for the holidays."

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (7 February)

Latest Post: Obama vs. The Military (Part 2) - The Battle for Iraq Continues
Latest Post: Obama vs. The Military: The Battle for Afghanistan Continues
Latest Post: Twitter and the Obama Foreign Policy of Engagement: Style or Substance?

8:45 p.m. We've just put up a separate post on another heated battle between President Obama and the military, this one over Iraq.

3:15 p.m. Reports that another Iranian blogger, Omid Reza Mirsayafi, has been jailed.

3:10 p.m. Pitching in for America. In his speech at the Munich Security, NATO's Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has backed the US call for a military "surge" in Afghanistan, criticising Europe's response: ""I'm frankly concerned when I hear the United States is planning a major commitment for Afghanistan but other allies are already ruling out doing more."

I'm not sure Scheffer appreciates that European leaders thinking the military-first initiative in Afghanistan, as a dubious if not losing cause, will drain the alliance rather than bolster it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel paid lip service to the military effort but did not commit to additional deployment, especially in southern and central Afghanistan, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for all his warm talk of security "from Vancouver to Vladivostok", did not mention Afghanistan at all.

3 p.m. Hope in Somalia? The new President, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has arrived in Mogadishu for the first time since his election. He will be holding talks with politicians, tribal elders, and Islamic resistance groups to try to establishing a functioning government.


1:40 p.m. Reason Number 452 why the Obama Plan for Iraq Withdrawal Should be Set Aside: Collapsing Oil Prices.

The latest effort from the US military to rationalise a long-term stay comes from Lieutenant General Frank Helmick, the commander of the training of Iraqi forces. Because of diminished revenues, Helmick says, "They are not going to be able to grow as fast as they want to grow."

12:15 p.m. Biden's speech is over. He finally got to the one to watch in next weeks, calling on NATO to support US efforts in Afghanistan.

12:05 p.m. Biden offers two important confirmations: "American will not torture" and "American will act aggressively against climate change".

There are also signs of an emerging and important relationship: after Nicolas Sarkozy's call this morning for a new security arrangement "from Vancouver to Vladivostok", Biden has pointedly praised France's new cooperative relationship with NATO.

And there's a jab at Russia: ""We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence". Specifically, US will not join Moscow in recognising the independence of South Ossetia.

11:55 a.m. Vice President Joe Biden now speaking at the Munich Security Conference. Despite the bigging up of the speech by US officials, nothing significant so far. It's pretty much a restatement of the Obama Inaugural Address and general line on issues such as Iran. Interesting but vague statement: "America will do more. That's the good news. The bad is America will ask for more cooperation."

11:30 a.m.An interesting development, given the state of play in US-Iran relations. The Department of the Treasury has designated as a terrorist organisation the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK), which operates against Iranian security forces to "free" the "occupied lands of Kurdistan".

Stuart Levey, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, stated that PEJAK is a branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is battling Turkey has been struggling. (Ali Yenidunya)

9:15 a.m. Eight Pakistani police have been killed in a bomb attack in Punjab province. In Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry claims 10 militants have been killed.

8:20 a.m. And there's a separate entry on the continuing battle between President Obama and the military over the build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

8:10 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry on a possible State Department initiative, using Twitter, to support engagement with Iran.

Morning Update (7:45 a.m. GMT; 2:45 a.m. Washington): The Kyrgyzstan Government is not backing down on its decision to close the US Manas airbase. President Kurmanbek Bakiyev said that "all due procedures" were being pursued for a speedy conclusion.

The Government is claiming that it receives too little payment for the base. In support of its case, and to ensure public support, it is also citing ecological concerns and highlighting the case of a Kyrgyz citizen killed by a US serviceman.

North Korea, offering a contrast to its hard-line rhetoric in recent days about relations with South Korea and its missile programme, has signalled to a former senior US diplomat that it is willing to discuss nuclear disarmament if its requests for aid are met.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has visited Iraq and praised the provincial elections, which we analysed in detail yesterday.