Inventing terrorists: the nexus of intelligence and Islamophobia

The transatlantic Islamophobia industry, emboldened by US intelligence efforts to entrap Muslims, appears to have helped to increase permissible levels of Islamophobia across the US, as illustrated by the fiery anti-Muslim rhetoric during the 2016 presidential campaign. In this article, I first look at five key leaders of the Islamophobia industry who also claim to be “terrorism experts” and have links to US and Israeli intelligence. I then describe US law enforcement’s mass surveillance of Muslims and its invention of terrorists, including a map of the “successful terrorist prosecutions” claimed by the US Department of Justice, most of which were tried only as criminal cases. Finally, I explore in-depth the case against the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity based in Texas that was run by Palestinian-Americans and targeted by both the state and the Islamophobia industry for its dubious links to “terrorism”, helping to legitimate the Bush W. Administration’s “War on Terror”. I argue that this nexus of intelligence and Islamophobia has empowered anti-Muslim voices that were formerly marginal.     

By ground or by air? Voter mobilization during the United States’ 2008 presidential campaign

Aggregate studies find no effect of campaign advertising on voter turnout in the United States, thereby calling into question experimental and survey-based studies that produce strong turnout effects. In revisiting the debate over the impact of campaign ads, this paper examines the effects of both TV campaign advertising and campaign field offices on aggregate voter turnout during the 2008 US presidential election campaign. In contrast to previous studies, our analysis finds that both campaign field offices and campaign advertising help to stimulate turnout, although the effect of campaign field offices is more robust to alternative model specifications. We also find that only Obama's field offices had any discernible impact on aggregate voter turnout, thereby reinforcing the narrative that the Obama campaign had a superior ground game in 2008.     

Precautionary Behavior and Violent Victimization: Do Safer Drinking Strategies Reduce Risk?

This study was undertaken to test if precautionary drinking behaviors can be associated with reduced risk of violent victimization. Some studies have shown that these behaviors (e.g. limiting alcohol intake, eating before or during drinking, and having friends close by) reduce the negative consequences of drinking, but very few have focused on criminal victimization. National College Health Assessment data from 2012¹1. The opinions, findings, and conclusions presented in this article are those of the authors, and are in no way meant to represent the corporate opinions, views, or policies of the American College Health Association (ACHA). ACHA does not warrant nor assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented in this article.View all notes were utilized to examine the association between precautionary drinking behavior and violent victimization (physical assault or verbal threat), controlling for demographic and risky lifestyle factors. Regression analyses found that precautionary drinking behavior reduced the odds of victimization only among men who frequently drink. In this same group being “single” increased risk. Other variables were consistent predictors: drug use, multiple sex partners, mental health disorder, and first year student status. Binge drinking and having a disability were also frequent predictors. Finally, Black women but not men were more likely to be victimized. These results suggest that the risky or protective nature of types of drinking behaviors is gendered and taking precautions is especially important for men who drink frequently.     

Why does it happen? Explanations for men’s violence against women by women with interpersonal victimization histories

Men’s violence against women (MVAW) has been identified as a critical sociocultural problem. Gaining a better understanding of perspectives on the etiology of violence held by women with histories of male-perpetrated interpersonal violence provides insight into the processes of victimization and recovery. Furthermore, emerging research suggests that feminist beliefs may facilitate recovery and impact how survivors of MVAW perceive it. In this study, we aimed to explore, in women with histories of interpersonal violence, (1) the ways they explained the high prevalence of MVAW and (2) associations between the strength of their feminist beliefs and the participants’ explanations. Female college students (N = 32, ages 18–22) participated in qualitative interviews in which they were first presented with published statistics about the frequency of MVAW, then asked to provide explanations for the high prevalence of this phenomenon. Individual responses clustered into one or more of four factors: (1) societal influences, (2) blaming women, (3) familial influences, and (4) characteristics of men and women. The extent to which participants identified with feminist beliefs was associated with how they perceived their own victimization. Women who endorsed strong feminist beliefs more frequently cited societal influences on MVAW, whereas women who endorsed feminist beliefs less strongly were more likely to blame women for it and offered stereotypical views of women as passive and fragile.     

The aloha paradox: law,language, and culture in Hawai‘i

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the paradoxical relationship between law and the concept of aloha in contemporary Hawai‘i. In examples of public space, such as the airport, the courtroom, the roadway, the retail store, and the community park, the Native Hawaiian concept of aloha is culturally celebrated as the practice of social affirmation. Yet, in these same places, this same concept is commodified as an identity through which law seeks affiliation and dominance. This paper examines the socio-legal construction of aloha found in linguistic policies that convey a particularly conflicted notion of aloha that characterizes law’s dependency on custom for its legitimacy.     

Threat Perception and American Support for Torture

When do Americans support the government’s use of torture? We argue that perceptions of threat undermine the extent to which American public opinion serves as a bulwark against government torture. Although surveys demonstrate that a slim majority of the American public generally opposes torture, using a nationally-representative survey experiment, we show that Americans are considerably more supportive of government abuse when it is directed at individuals who they perceive as threatening: specifically, when a detainee has an Arabic name and when the alleged crime is terrorism. Given the malleability of public opinion as a potential constraint on abuse, our results underscore the importance of institutional protections of human rights.