The “Axis” at Home: Raza v.

the City of New York, The Rhetoric of Terror, & Racial

Project

Taylor Comerford
POL S 202 AG
War on Terror Paper
February 20, 2018

The United States, as a liberal democracy, codifies citizenship in a series of rights and

liberties. However, for several groups this construction has been dramatically impacted by the

1
September 11th terror attacks, and the subsequent War on Terror. In utilizing the presidential

power to persuade, George W. Bush proliferated the term “axis of evil countries”, and through

corresponding military action, proved that such rhetoric described Arab Muslims. As

demonstrated in Raza v. City of New York (2013), the NYPD was influenced by the prevalence of

this racial threat to gather secret intelligence on Arab Americans. The domestic tactics

challenged in Raza restricted the rights of Muslim and Arab citizens, thus limiting the fullness of

American citizenship experienced by these ethnic groups. In this paper, I will address

presidential action and rhetoric, its implications on domestic policy in Raza v. City of New York,

and its discriminatory affects on Arab Americans. I assert that federal language and action in

the War on Terror has resulted in racial projects which diminish the ability of Arab Americans

to experience full citizenship.

To contextualize the actions of the NYPD, one must first understand the impact of

presidential rhetoric in the War on Terror. Following the attack on the World Trade Center,

George W. Bush experienced an unprecedented “rally effect”, which boosted his approval rates

from 51% to over 90% (Jones). As Hetherington and Nelson assert, this gave Bush, as the chief

of state, a profound power to persuade the public and legislative bodies (Hetherington and

Nelson 37). This influence is exemplified by the impact of the phrase “axis of evil” in President

Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address, used to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the

greatest sources of American threat. The indictment of such states was bolstered by Bush’s

military actions, which followed the expansion of Presidential war powers under the AUMF.

Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 targeted

Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. By describing Middle Eastern states as “evil”, and

concentrating military attacks to those states, President Bush deeply racialized terrorism for the

2
American public. To utilize the theoretical framework of Haney-Lopez, “axis of evil” became a

dog whistle for the American populous, denoting that individuals of Arab citizenship or descent

were inherently radical and violent (Haney-Lopez 171).

While Bush never explicitly advocated for a racialized domestic policy, the American

public interpreted his language and action in this way. The sweeping generalization that terrorists

were Middle Eastern extended to all individuals appeared to be Arab or Muslim, including

American citizens (Volpp 562). In a Gallup poll following the September 11th attacks, one-third

of American’s surveyed supported the internment of Arab Americans (Jones). This dramatic

sentiment against an ethnic group, regardless of citizenship status, indicated the profound impact

of presidential action. In this way the American populous internalized the language of the War

on Terror to exhibit a style of nationalism embedded with Islamaphobia (Volpp 567).

The NYPD was not exempt from the pervasive influence of the presidential response to

terrorism, as demonstrated in Raza v. City of New York. The case is an example of the domestic

War on Terror, as law enforcement agencies have identified groups American citizens as

adversaries. In this case study, five Muslim community leaders partnered with the ACLU in

filing a suit against Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and

Deputy Intelligence Commissioner David Cohen, viewed as the orchestrators of the NYPD

“Muslim Surveillance Program”. Through this program, the city’s Intelligence Division used

informants, undercover officers known as “Mosque Crawlers”, and warrantless video and

internet surveillance to map the Muslim communities in New York (Chowdhury 278). The

plaintiffs asserted that “muslim beliefs” and Arab ethnicity were being used as “the basis for law

enforcement scrutiny” (“Legal Challenge to NYPD Surveillance Program”). While the

defendants claimed such actions were legal, the case was settled in January 2016 in favor of the

3
plaintiffs, securing legislation to both bar future profiling based on race or religion, and to create

oversight committees to ensure such standards (“Legal Challenge to NYPD Surveillance

Program”).

To apply the contentious actions of Raza v. City of New York to the framework of a racial

project, the NYPD must be shown to have interpreted a racial identity in order to redistribute a

resource to or from this group (Omi and Winant 125). The defendants of the case and their

supporters rebut that the actions of the Intelligence Division were discriminatory (“Legal

Challenge to NYPD Surveillance Program”). These individuals claim that markers of

radicalization for terrorist purposes include “enclaves of ethnic populations” and “ideological

sanctuaries”; in other words, the surveillance was provoked by evidence of terrorism

(“Complaint”). However, as asserted by Associated Press and subsequently by the courts, no

evidence was found linking any these individuals to acts of terror (Chowdhury 283).

Furthermore, as all the communities targeted were Muslim and Arab, the only basis of such

investigations was the stigma against these groups in connection to terror. This satisfies the

identity component of a racial project.

Furthermore the resource at hand is American citizenship, embodied through

constitutional protections. Matthew Wasserman describes the impact of the NYPD program as a

“chilling of speech and association”, as members of Muslim and Arab communities became

aware of surveillance, and intimidated into reduced societal participation (Wasserman 1790).

The plaintiffs asserted that members of their community felt they could no longer act or speak

freely, even distancing themselves from their faith and heritage out of fear of arrest or attack

(Wasserman 1791). As the freedoms of religion and association are embodied in the First

Amendment, the suppression of these rights through the intimidation of American Muslims is a

4
racial project (Chowdhury 285). Furthermore, these individuals were targeted for surveillance

due to their religious affiliation and/or ethnicity. This is a violation of their fourteenth

amendment right to equal protection under the law (Chowdhury 285). Proponents of the

Surveillance Program assert, like Cohen, that the “terrorist threat… is unique and continuing”

(“Declaration of David Cohen”). Yet, the counterclaim that this restriction of right was

necessary only further proves the existence of a racial project. In asserting that the newfound

threat of Arab terrorism justifies the infringement upon constitutional rights, one concedes that a

new understanding of a race has led to a reduction in the citizenship of that group. This is the

very definition of racial project.

The statement “not all citizens are created equal” aptly summarizes the role of both

negative and positive racial projects (Volpp 582). The assets that are allocated within the

societal hierarchy, whether it be education, wealth, etcetera, are unevenly distributed along ever

changing conceptions of race (Omi and Winant 152). The rights at the essence of American

citizenship are no different. In connecting the American view of terrorism to Arab or Muslim

identity, President Bush’s expanded influence and War Powers paved the way for racialized

domestic policies. The NYPD, clearly influenced by the sentiment of the President, translated

this stigma into targeted policy. By deeming all Arabs as capable of terrorism, the New York

Intelligence Division engaged in a racial project, limiting the rights of its Muslim residents, and

subordinating this group to an incomplete and secondary form of citizenship.

5
 Works Cited

Chowdhury, Nuzhat. “I, Spy (But Only on You): Raza v. City of New York, the Civil Rights

Disaster of Religious and Ethnic-Based Surveillance, and the National Security Excuse.”

Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol. 46, no. 1, 2014, pg. 278-331.

Hetherington, Marc J. & Michaeal Nelson. “Anatomy of a Rally Affect: George W. Bush and the

War on Terrorism.” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2003. pg. 37-42

6
Haney-Lopez, Ian. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals have Reinvented Racism

and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Jones, Jeffery M. “Rally Boosting Bush Approval Ratings.” Gallup. 3 Apr. 2003.

Jones, Jeffery M, “The Impact of the Attacks on America.” Gallup. 25 Sep. 2001.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States. Routledge, 2015.

“President Delievers State of the Union Address” The White House Archives. 29 Jan. 2002.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html.

Accessed 10 Feb. 2018.

Complaint, Raza v. City of New York, No. 13-cv-3448-PKC-JMA, 5-9 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013).

Declaration of David Cohen in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to ACLU’s Motion for

Expedited Discovery, Raza v. City of New York, No. 13-cv-3448-PKC-JMA, 5-9

(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2013)

“RAZA V. CITY OF NEW YORK - LEGAL CHALLENGE TO NYPD MUSLIM

SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM.” ACLU, 3 Aug. 2017, https://www.aclu.org/cases/raza-

v-city-new-york-legal-challenge-nypd-muslim-surveillance-program. Accessed 15 Feb.

2018.

Volpp, Leti. “The Citizen and the Terrorist.” Immigration and Nationality Law Review, vol. 23,

2002, pg. 561-586, file:///Users/Taylor/Downloads/Vlopp_The%20Citizen%20and

%20the%20Terrorist.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb. 2018.

Wasserman, Matthew A. “First Amendment Limitations on Police Surveillance: The Case of the

Muslim Surveillance Program” New York University Law Review, vol. 90, no. 1, 2015,

pg. 1786-1826.

7
8