Is the War on Terrorism Turning into the War on Islam?

After reading Mr. Bolos's latest blog, I found myself with a lot of leftover thoughts. To many thoughts, in fact, for a simple comment. My thoughts are pretty all over the place, so I'm sorry if this post is a little random. However, the blog mostly reminded me a lot of a case I was reading about when researching The 2001 USA Patriot Act as a part of my Perilous Project.

It is the story of a man named Albader Al-Hazmi.

Al-Hazmi's name is significant because it is very similar to the names of two of the suicide hijackers known to be involved in the attacks on 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, when Al-Hazmi (our innocent radiologist from San Antonio, Texas) tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference, he was arrested as a "material witness." He was held incommunicado for six days before his lawyers were able to access him, and was not ultimately released for a few more days after that.

After his release, Al-Hazmi's lawyer said "This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are. It's how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world" (Feinstein 2001).

Without a doubt, this story shows some existence of bias against Muslim Americans, mostly following the 9/11 attacks. Are "random security checks" at airports really random? I believe "The Narrative," and I know that if I was an active Muslim living in America, I would feel that my religion was being threatened by the War on Terrorism. Just like with the Japanese in WWII, the American people are blaming a large group of people for the actions of a select group. In my opinion, we all need to get more educated about the war we're fighting, and unite with the primarily peaceful Muslim community to stop the bias and the hate. But how can we do this? What do you think America is doing wrong in terms of educating the public on the War on Terrorism and our enemies? How can it be fixed?

My Father, the Nazi.

Barbara Cherish has had to deal with the aftermath of her father's occupation her whole life. It has become her identity, she has been judged for it, and punished for it. Her father, Arthur Liebehenschel, was the Kommandant of Camp I in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp during World War II. As I was reading an article I discovered on the subject, I found myself sympathizing incredibly with Cherish. Her father was executed following the end of the war, and her mother later committed suicide in a mental institution, leaving her in foster care since age six. She never even had the chance to build a relationship with her parents, and yet she faces the consequences and feels the guilt of their actions every day. In her book, "The Auschwitz Kommandant: A Daughter's Search for the Father She Never Knew," Cherish addresses her situation, and what kind of emotions it has left her with. She speaks about the good reputation that her father had with the prisoners at Auschwitz, and why she believed he did the things that he did.

Reading this article made me wonder a lot about family guilt. If a person is guilty of a crime, what consequences should fall on the person's family? Think about a child getting in trouble at school- should the child's parents be blamed? In my opinion, they should (in part) be at fault. The distinction becomes much more complicated as people age, however. Of course, Barbara Cherish should not have been blamed for her father's actions; she was only a small child when the war was even taking place. But how should a family take responsibility for the actions of their kin?

In "The Crucible," Arthur Miller writes in the "Echoes Down The Corridor" that "Twenty years after the last execution, the government awarded compensation to the victims still living, and to the families of the dead" (135). Did the families of the wrongly-accused witches deserve compensation for their ancestor's executions? Does Barbara Cherish deserve compensation for her father's execution?

Lost and FOUND

Last Thursday, I went to LitFest. It was incredible. I loved every guest, I never took my eyes off the stage. The performances had me enticed from beginning to end. I'd have to say that my favorites were either Reggie Gibson (the poet/writer who visited us in class) or The Handsome Family. Butt, there was one guest who I found particularly...interesting. Davy Rothbart, of FOUND Magazine.

Found Magazine is a magazine created and edited by Rothbart, showcasing written items and photos that he, his team, and even random strangers have found. While this is a very interesting idea, and many of the "found" items were hilarious, one thought stuck in my head throughout the whole presentation. That would suck so bad if one of those was mine. Of course the magazine is mostly a joke, but Rothbart also read some pieces that were pretty sentimental (i.e. a son's letter to his deceased mother, found in a graveyard tied to a balloon).

Do these people know that their seemingly private notes are being published for the world to see? It reminded me a lot of our class discussions about the right to privacy. I personally don't believe that everybody has the right to see these things. And while I'll admit that I bought a FOUND Magazine, I felt pretty bad about it afterwards. I know I wouldn't want my letters, diary entries, or pictures published- why would I want to see other peoples'? What right does this magazine have to publish things like that? I work in a medical office, I file paperwork every day, and I know how private those things are and how secretive I have to be about even the names of the patients that I see. What if it was a "found" medical record? Where do they draw the line?

I noticed on the website, on the list of "contacts," that there was a man with the job description of "ethicist." At least FOUND Magazine realizes that there is an ethical controversy behind what they're doing, but I wonder what that guy's job really is. Maybe I'll email him.