It was in Christian Europe after all that the Jews were hounded, abused and massacred. It wasn't Hitler alone who sought to annihilate an entire race. The communist regimes of Eastern Europe too had persecuted these hapless followers of Judaism. Yes, England did not go after them the way the other in Europe. Did. But the Anglo-Saxon prejudices against these folks was pouring out of the country's mainstream culture. Thus William Shakespeare crafted the crafty Jew in the Merchant of Venice.

Anyone who has seen Charlton Heston playing Moses in the Ten Commandments or a Jewish prince in Ben Hur, would be at a loss to understand how, at what point of history, the Arabs supplanted the Egyptian pharaohs and the Romans as enemies of the Jews. And then comes Huntington's eerie thesis pitching Muslims against Christians, and the Chinese in a clash that is expected to trigger a wider, many times more resounding echo than the havoc wrecked in Washington and New York by a bunch of mad men.

It may look strange today but President George W. Bush was actually elected by a substantial swing of the traditionally pro-Democrat Muslim votes after he vowed to repeal the Clinton-era Secret Evidence Act. His narrow victory in Florida, and thereby the presidency, can be directly linked to that one vague promise he made to American Muslims that he would repeal the abhorrent Act. That promise will probably never be kept now, certainly not after the traumatic happening Sep 11.

Using a provision of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, an act that expanded in numerous ways the federal government's powers to investigate and prosecute crimes associated with terrorism, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been allowed to arrest, detain and deport non-citizens using undisclosed evidence.

The prosecution is required to provide only a summary of its evidence, which denies a defendant the opportunity to challenge the evidence directly. Opponents say the use of secret evidence is a violation of constitutional due process guarantees and Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accuser. But law enforcement insists the technique is a necessary tool to combat terrorism. Muslim and Arab groups have lobbied aggressively to repeal the secret evidence laws.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations says: Secret evidence is unconstitutional and is used disproportionately against members of the Muslims and Arab American communities. Almost all of the individual held based on secret evidence are Muslims and Arabs. CAIR argues that "the basic guarantee to due process of law contained in the Fifth Amendment should not be denied to anyone, citizen or non-citizen. To deprive any individual in the United States of liberty without a chance to confront the evidence used against him is a denial of justice. It flies in the face of American values.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee argues: "This practice is manifestly unconstitutional and stands in direct violation of long-standing traditions guaranteeing the rights of defendants to confront the evidence against them, moreover, since the passage of the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, secret evidence has been used primarily against persons of Arab ethnicity and Muslim religious affiliation. At least three federal judges have ruled that that it violates 5th Amendment rights to due process.

After the events of Black Tuesday it would be difficult, if not pointless, for these activists to press for their demands in the foreseeable future. In fact, as Noam Chomsky predicts that Tuesday's outrage is "likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.