Opinion: Why the King Muslim Radicalization Hearings Make us Less Safe

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 09:22 AM

The horrific attacks in Norway shocked and outraged the world, and especially surprised the people of that country who hadn't seen domestic violence at that level since World War II. We remember the steps that took place in America a decade ago: An increase in security as well as security theater; greater investment in police apparatus; a sense of fear, but also of community vigilance. How and whether these trends take root in Norway are unclear as the Norwegians themselves are wrestling with how to respond to this level of right-wing violence.

It's America's response, though, that concerns me now. People ask whether such a devastating act could happen here - as though Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and her staff were not gunned down seven months ago. These acts do happen here - from the attacks at Virginia Tech to Fort Hood, from the assassination of abortion provider Dr. Tiller to the failed attempt to bomb Times Square. Thankfully, the last one was prevented - as was the would-be assassination of Tides Foundation director Drummond Pike by a crazed, conspiracy-minded listener of Glenn Beck, and the plot to bomb synagogues by four home-grown terrorists in New York.

There are bad actors from demented individuals to cliques warped by radical politics - who plot violence. We are fortunate at how often they are stopped, shocked and heart-broken when they succeed.

Serious questions should follow these acts. Are our gun laws too lax that allow weapons of destruction to circulate too easily? Would a stronger mental health screening system have prevented any senseless death, or would it invade individual liberty? Are these acts really "lone gunman" or do the influences that inspire them to violence - from radio hosts to sermons, from mainstream airwaves to radical communications networks - bear any responsibility?

Unfortunately, these valuable - and difficult questions - are not the ones being asked by Representative Peter King, who continues his inflammatory Congressional anti-Muslim witch hunt today.

The right wing had its fair share of inane and extreme responses to the attack in Norway. Alternet's round-up of the worst would be hilarious if it weren't frightening. Because so many had assumed the bombing was the work of Muslim radicals (as opposed to an anti-Muslim radical), conservative pundits had to backpedal with comments that referred to the gunman's act as "jihad," said "Islamic supremacists" had incited him to violence, and refused any comparison between the Muslim terrorism and Christian terrorism.

Of course, these quotes are cherry-picked to be the most absurd (although many of them were stated in "mainstream" media outlets) and the majority of conservatives - like all Americans - recognized that an act of radical right-wing Christian violence is extreme, but isn't unique. We've seen it in our own country. In fact, the DHS had issued a report about the danger of right-wing militants during the Bush Administration - before the Bush Administration suppressed and challenged the findings.

But it isn't the extreme and sensational right-wing pundits we should worry about the most, it's our members of Congress. When Representative King (who, as is often noted, backed the IRA when they were officially considered a terrorist organization) decided that his hearings weren't about the greatest threat to America, but the Muslim threat, he made a choice.

He could have studied home-grown terrorism and the perverting influences that turn American citizens into violent actors - but he chose to specifically focus on the threat of Islam.

Congressman King is making us less safe by not dedicating resources and his platform to addressing threats that come from non-Muslim radical, violent extremists. And let's hope the comments of his witnesses, who make false and inflammatory statements about the nature of Islam and the extent of the threat of violence among American Muslims, don't intentionally or unwittingly inflame that imagination of a next generation of unbalanced individuals, lone gunmen and others who might really threaten our citizens and our civil society.

Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal."


More in:

News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [7]

Nick from Jersey!

Good piece Justin. I think you could go even further and by saying: Look at everything else that is going on right now. The fact that King decided to have hearings on terrorism right now borders on incompetency. We should just call this as it is, King trying to keep his name in the headlines. I am glad that no one seemed to care, and hopefully this will backfire come election time. If I lived in his district, I would be angry as this is a waste of time and money. Luckily, I dont!

Jul. 29 2011 03:18 PM
jose from san antonio,tx

i disagree, these hearings are necessary, ft hood should wake people up. as for oslo: so long as islam uses threats against those that criticize it and it continues to demand special treatment along with its violence and intolerance towards non muslims and women, people will continue to fight it. tho i do not agree with Breiviks methods i empathize with his frustration towards multiculturalist elites who continue their path of cultural suicide. u dont move to europe to change its culture, u assimilate and integrate with it. islam does the opposite, i fear Breivik is an example of things to come. people r fed up with islam and its incompatability with democracy and freedom of speech.

Jul. 29 2011 02:00 PM
HVS from Los Angeles

Discussion about race? Do you not know history Ed from NY, or more particularly what happened barely 75 years ago? Our great white conservative grand parents lynched African Americans, ousted the Japanese and called the Irish black when they immigrated into this country, naming a couple. Do you really believe whites have done less victimizing in the world?

Jul. 27 2011 01:31 PM
Justin Krebs from NYC

Hi Ed from NYC -

What would your suggestion be to reduce homicide?

Jul. 27 2011 12:17 PM
Ric from Washington DC

There's a bigger issue than how Americans view Muslims: it's how we view the rest of world. A Norwegian friend is a PhD student @ a major eastern university. A friend of this student's was shot on Utøya & remains comatose. On Monday coworkers knowing all this were joking about Friday's disaster in Norway.

What in the world is going on when highly educated Americans are laughing about Friday's disaster with a Norwegian in their midst?

Jul. 27 2011 11:46 AM
Stephen from Inwood

Rep King, like all other republicans and even democrats overlook the fact that Grover Norquist is married to a muslim - the two of them are deeply involved in muslim american politics. (look it up) The failure to investigate this makes our society less safe for all.

Jul. 27 2011 11:17 AM
Ed from NYC

Let's look at murders in general as opposed to these irregular, random mass killings. Are most murders committed by people listening to right wing radio? I bet not.

Here's some racial statistics:

"In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.
In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites."

I bet most blacks weren't listening to conservatives yet kill more. Who can we try to blame for their behavior, collectively? Are we allowed to do that or are we only allowed to try to blame conservatives for murders?

Of course we can't have a discussion like this about race. Its disallowed. Yet more people are killed by blacks than by lone gunmen but no one is trying to blame liberals for blacks that kill at a much greater rate.

Liberals love these events because they get to try to blame conservatives.

Jul. 27 2011 10:20 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.


About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at


Supported by