I didn’t respond to @paulkrugman's original tweet because I assumed it was just a bad tweet and that he’d figure that out on his own. But now I'm realizing that a lot of the events that defined the past 19 years for people like me didn’t even register with him. THREAD
The problem with the argument he makes here is that it doesn’t recognize that most of the "anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" was *officially sanctioned*. Focusing narrowly on hate crimes stats has the effect of moving all of that out of the picture.
For example, hundreds of Muslim men were rounded up in New York and New Jersey in the weeks after 9/11. They were imprisoned without charge and often subject to abuse in custody because of their religion. None of this would register in any hate crimes database.
The NYPD spent years infiltrating American Muslim organizations, surveilling mosques, extorting vulnerable people to turn against their communities—a strategy that was based on prejudice and turned up no terrorists. @adamgoldmanNYT & @mattapuzzo wrote a book about it.
Border agents harassed, intimidated, and interrogated American Muslims returning from abroad, and foreign Muslims visiting the US, often asking them to justify their religious beliefs and practices. That’s not in the hate crimes databases either.
Thanks to @attackerman, we have a lot of info about how the FBI was training its agents ten years after 9/11: wired.com/2011/09/fbi-mu…
Anyone who thinks the torture of prisoners in US military custody (at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere) had nothing to do with religion doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Here’s an email an FBI agent wrote about what he saw at Guantanamo. aclu.org/sites/default/…
Interrogators routinely exploited Muslim prisoners’ religious beliefs in order to pressure them to share information. Here’s one example: nytimes.com/2005/01/28/us/…
If you’re under the impression that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with prejudice, you’ve forgotten about stuff like this:
I could go on. The US has been in a paroxysm of "anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" for going on twenty years. That this doesn't seem to have registered with Krugman is really amazing to me, and pretty disturbing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jameel Jaffer

Jameel Jaffer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JameelJaffer

18 Jun
I don’t think DOJ is going to get its prior restraint against the bookstores, Simon & Schuster, or John Bolton. Still… (1/x)
Events of the past few days really make you wonder whether it might not have been better if the Bush and Obama DOJs hadn’t persuaded courts to defer blindly to the executive branch’s classification decisions. (2/x)
Maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to argue, as the Bush and Obama DOJs did, that government employees never have a First Amendment right to disclose info the executive branch has classified. (3/x)
Read 6 tweets
20 Mar
We need to do more to ensure that the public and press are getting timely access to reliable and complete information about the pandemic and about government’s response to it. (1/x)
Yesterday @knightcolumbia filed a FOIA request for policies regulating the speech of CDC employees. (2/x)
knightcolumbia.org/documents/cdc-…
We filed it b/c the WH has issued misleading and inaccurate statements about the pandemic even as it has imposed restrictions on the ability of CDC employees to speak to the press and public. (3/x)
Read 7 tweets
24 Oct 19
Many thoughtful people wrote about the talk that Zuckerberg gave at @Georgetown. But I’m wondering whether, even after Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony yesterday, people really get how crazy it is that Zuckerberg is casting @Facebook as champion of free speech. THREAD:
Zuckerberg got some basic things right. Advocacy for social change is impossible without the right to speak freely; social media can be a powerful tool for calling attention to injustice; censorship meant to protect minorities has sometimes ended up silencing them instead.
But the rest of what Zuckerberg had to say about free speech and Facebook was mainly wrong. One error at the center of his speech—and also of his testimony—involved his effort to equate Facebook’s effort to “give people a voice” with “free speech.”
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!