While I am running against Charles Rangel in the Democratic primary in the 15th Congressional District, I have also been clear that I will praise him for the good work he has done and the positions he has taken that have been good for the district and the country (for example, he opposed the Iraq War). For that reason, I was saddened by his active participation in embracing McCarthyism in a vile and ugly fashion.
On Monday, my opponent stood with a host of other elected officials in Times Square to denounce a planned speech at the House of the Lord Church in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn by two people who participated in the Gaza flotilla:
Local officials are demanding that the State Department investigate the visa applications of Gaza flotilla activists before two of them speak at a Brooklyn church.
"We have an obligation to protect our borders against Hamas," Rep. Carolyn MaloneyManhattan/Queens) said at a Times Square press conference Monday that included City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Chelsea) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-Harlem). "Use extra caution. Take this threat seriously."
....
One is Ahmet Faruk Unsal, a member of the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, the Turkish organization that organized the flotilla.
"IHH has long been known for its affiliations with Hamas and Al Qaeda," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).
The people making those statements were engaging in a 21st Century version of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was a dual strategy: make accusations against people AND make everyone else afraid to speak up either in defense of the accused or against the underlying policy issue.
It is un-American. And vile.
The elected representatives, including Charles Rangel, who were standing in Times Square were acting in an unpatriotic manner because they are trying to silence speech--one of the hallmarks of our Constitution. By contrast, Rev. Herbert Daughtry had the courage to be rationale:
The House of the Lord's pastor said his church will defer to the State Department's judgment about whether the two men have terrorist ties.
"If someone has terrorist ties, you don't want them in the country - but terrorist as defined by whom? That's my question," said the Rev. Herbert Daughtry.
In 1977, he said, Joshua Nkomo, who was fighting against the Rhodesian government, spoke at the church. He was considered a terrorist at the time but is now a hero of the Southern African liberation movement.
"I try to be fair. I try to support causes other people reject," Daughtry said.
[emphasis added]
Let me expand with three points.
First, folks, really: in this climate, does anyone doubt that the State Department and other agencies would be looking quite closely at any visa requests coming from individuals who have been public and open about their activities and beliefs? They are not sneaking into the country--they are being open and public about their intentions.
So, the only purpose of that charade in Times Square was to try to intimidate people, to suppress debate and to make cheap political points.
Second, with all due respect, Rep. Maloney's comment is comical and sad. Can anyone take seriously the notion that the borders of the U.S. are being threatened by having two people, who, travel openly and publicly, come to TALK at a CHURCH? And the Hamas reference is a sad comment on our leadership in Congress: whether or not the two people from the flotilla support Hamas--by the way, a democratically-elected government elected by its people, which, by the way, might lose an election in the future if the U.S. and Israel were not trying to strangle the people of Gaza--the brilliant strategy of "strangling" Gaza was recently suggested by our own Sen. Chuck Schumer--what is the panic about letting people talk? Are we so afraid, as a country, that we cannot tolerate debate, even opinions we strongly disagree with? Unfortunately, that's a rhetorical point.
Last, the greatest McCarthyist smear comes from the quote from Rep. Nadler about IHH--and I do not believe Charles Rangel has distanced himself from the accusation about any links to Hamas (a democratically-elected government) and Al Qaeda.
According to this article, "In 2008, Israel became the only country to ban the organization, doing so out of concern about its alleged sympathies with Hamas."
If the allegations were true, why has Israel been the only country to ban IHH? If IHH has links to Al Qaeda, why did the U.S. allow IHH to participate in Haiti relief, when access to Haiti via the airport was controlled by the the U.S. military? Why isn't the IHH listed as a terrorist group in the US?
In fact, here is the State Department briefing on the matter:
QUESTION: P.J., on – yesterday, I think we were talking about IHH and the accusations that it is part – it supports terrorist organizations. There were some who said it supported al-Qaida in some fashion. Did you get some clarification on that?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us. That said, the IHH, which stands for the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States.
QUESTION: So the U.S. does not believe it has connections to al-Qaida?
MR. CROWLEY: We cannot validate that.[emphasis added]
No one can doubt, given the environment we live in, that if there was a shred of evidence of Al Qaida ties, that our government would be quite clear about such evidence.
This is despicable. I challenge Charles Rangel and the rest of the political leaders who stood in Time Square to present any evidence that proves the smear.
People can disagree about the politics of the Middle East crisis and what the solution should be. But, the politicians standing in Times Square showed that they are not leaders. They are people who are afraid to have open debate (not surprisingly, they are, to a person, from the political Democratic machine that despises open debate and open primaries).
They do not deserve to lead because they do not have the courage to lead.
They do not deserve to lead because they are, for political purposes, willing to cast aside, in a moment, one of the principles that this country is admired for around the world--open, vigorous, free speech.