Power, Leadership & Auditing the Second Insurgency

Power, Leadership & Auditing the Second Insurgency

This December 10 will be Human Rights Day. Just a reminder to you and me that there are many human rights disasters that need action as well as the power of prayer.

Muslim leaders should lead their communities in responding to these human catastrophes. It is good they work for civic inclusion and against hate crimes; but we need more vocal leadership on secret prisons, CIA renditions, and all the abuses of executive power since 9/11.

Moreover, while Muslim community members are beginning to recognize the Darfur emergency, national Muslim American organizations have not found their voices on this burning issue. Yes, the House of Darfur is on fire! Do we not expect leaders to use their power to act? Or do we sit on our hands because we think all power corrupts?

The Second US President John Adams wrote: “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond comprehension of the weak.” Convinced by its own rhetoric, state power uses media and culture to sanctify its aggressions. We have seen this all too clearly during the Bush Administration. But finally, our fellow Americans have found their own power to question Mr. Bush’s crusade, and the War On Terror powers he has amassed.

While Popular Culture and Media continue to tar Muslims with the brush of terror, this week some of us remembered that Law, at least, protects against mere “guilt by association.” On November 29, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that President Bush’s designation of 27 groups and individuals as “specially designated global terrorists” violated the Constitution because it was made without any announced standards.

Problematically, the President also authorized the Treasury to add more people or groups who provided services to or were “otherwise associated with” the original ones. “Subject only to his unfettered discretion,” Judge Collins wrote, “The president’s designation authority is constitutionally vague… It is axiomatic that the Constitution prohibits punishing a person for mere association.”

This is good news for charities and individuals nervous about being linked to “extremists” through a long chain of association out of our control. It seems that Bush administration over-reaching was intended to build his powers with or without an actual threat. I have never understood why suspect charities monies needed to be frozen –why not simply an audit?

Of course, we see now that it is his administration and its friends who should have been audited. As it turns out, the Bush Administration has empowered its enemies far beyond any measly “associates.”

You will recall that we were shocked last month to hear how funding for auditing the Iraq reconstruction was stripped from a military spending bill just before the vote. Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction in charge of auditing Iraq's reconstruction since 2004 had found that more than 14,000 guns paid for out of US reconstruction funds for Iraqi government use could not be accounted for. Moreover, when the US military handed out the guns it noted the serial numbers of only about 10,000 out of a total of 370,000 US-funded weapons, contrary to defense department regulations, making them impossible to track.

Moreover, a classified report publicized by The New York Times last week, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. Over $35 million comes from ransoms; another $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials. What Mr. Bowen calls a "virtual pandemic" of corruption costs the country $4 billion a year. "Corruption is the second insurgency, and I use that metaphor to underline the seriousness of this issue," Mr. Bowen said.

Though arising out of a desperate situation, Iraqi corruption should be condemned. But much of the corruption is American. After Kellogg, Brown and Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company) was awarded an oil industry repair job, more than half the company's $300 million project costs from 2004-06 went on overheads, an audit found. KBR was also found to have overcharged the US military about $60 million for fuel deliveries, but that did not stop it winning more government contracts.

Tragically some Muslims have been punished with years of detention in Guantanamo for associating at a very low level with Taliban soldiers. But why no punishment for corruption? The UK Guardian reported, “A California company, Parsons, had its contract terminated this year after it was found to have finished only six of more than 140 primary healthcare centers it was supposed to build, after two years work and $500m spent. However, the contract was ended "for convenience", meaning Parsons was paid in full.”

To some extent, the new (if slight) democratic majority in Congress should lead to some reform on these matters. However, if you meet with your local officials, city, state or federal, clearly let them know you are concerned about corruption. Let’s not let cynicism excuse business as usual. Sure, bring them baklava, or home baked red velvet cake; but don’t just speak sweet words. And don’t bribe them! They are paid to represent you.

And if you play a local leadership role, however small, share the results with the wider community. Post the results on the internet; send a press release to the Mirror; don’t fall into the trap of secret negotiations. Public life must be public.

We note that some Muslim organizations take a very elitist approach. Some of them denigrate other groups, while claiming to be “moderate Muslims.” Some of these Washington insiders even claim to be representing the community—but most of us have never even heard of them!

However, like so many mosques, many of our national groups seldom respond to phone messages on a range of important issues. They are often too bureaucratic. Some of them increasingly follow a corporate model rather than a grassroots model; which means control will not be transparent. But do we want our organizations to resemble corporations like Halliburton? Surely not! Let the leaders know.