Skip to comments.American Border Secrets
Posted on 04/26/2005 7:55:09 AM PDT by jan in Colorado
What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?
In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.
This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency..
Excerpt... Read more at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
(Excerpt) Read more at JewishWorldReview.com ...
(snip) Around Baghdad, Iraqi forces arrested 11 Sunni clerics on charges of abetting terrorism, a defence ministry official said.
"We arrested 11 imams on charges of inciting terrorism, mainly in the Baghdad al-Jadida district," the official said.
"The men captured yesterday and today were, among other things, calling for a boycott of the new government," the official said, without providing the names of the arrested clerics."
I LIKE IT I LIKE IT A LOT!
you will have mail in a minute or two
"(snip) Around Baghdad, Iraqi forces arrested 11 Sunni clerics on charges of abetting terrorism, a defence ministry official said."
IRAQI FORCES ARRESTED 11 Sunni clerics!!!!!
YES.....I like it a lot, too!
"These provocative posters are very few, and are beginning to lose energy."
So, how are we to make lemonade if we have no lemons?
Regardless of the implications of words, let's go back to the original point. Is it productive to act hypocritically and suggest we are a free nation but not act like it? Is it productive to single out citizens who have committed no crime? Is it productive to weaken our Constitution when it's the strongest weapon we have against a takeover of our government?
I say no.
So, how are we to make lemonade if we have no lemons?
Well Fred, my husband and I are in the citrus business here in Central Florida. We bring our citrus to canneries and have all the juice squeezed out....and then the citrus left overs are sent to further processing to get all the oils out of the skins...then we send the rest to the feed processing plants...then we sell the feed to farmers and ranchers to fatten PIGS and cattle.
We squeeze and grind and squeeze and grind some more.
Isn't that what we do here too...on FreeRepublic?
When they stop coming to FreeRepublic..we will have prevailed once again...but we will keep on keeping on.
What culture is that? A culture of detaining and fingerprinting American citizens without cause?
No thanks to that for me! I'm glad I share mine with the Founding Fathers!
"We squeeze and grind and squeeze and grind some more..."
Useful little blighters, aren't they?
"What culture is that? A culture of detaining and fingerprinting American citizens without cause?"
Would you care to share a link for your comment?
You are becoming unhinged by the subject of this thread.
Oh yeah, all those Catholic terrorist blowing up America way back when? Get real and up to date. Islam says one thing, "Join us or pay a submission tax".
I believe it will survive the current crisis as well, though if we are speaking of the Patriot Act, I just don't see it as a threat to the Constitution.
And it depends on what you mean by singling out citizens who have committed no crime. Do I believe in deporting or putting them in internment camps? No, not at all. Do I believe in surveilance of certain so-called charities, houses of religion, and Islamic web sites? Yes, in accordance with the Patriot Act. And what has brought me to this belief? The actions of the parties in question, no more, no less. When soldiers frag their own officers because they believe their religion is a higher order than loyalty to their country, we have a problem. That is, admittedly, one example, but there are many more.
It is a fine line to walk, and we must step carefully, lest we lose what we are fighting so hard to preserve.
No Profiling no fingerprinting allowed at airports or borders, hey Gondring?
CAIR Defends Man Testing Security Procedures
On April 12, 2004, the Star-Telegram reported the conviction of a man who was testing the security system at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport. According to the paper, Fazal Karim, a Pakistani national in the United States Illegally, attempted to smuggle 32 double-edged razor blades tucked in a coiled belt carried inside a cardboard box in carry-on luggage. (Karim is a Canadian citizen who was an illegal alien at the time of his arrest).
Just what did Karim do that attracted the attention of screeners?
1. He lied about his immigration status. (Illegal alien)
2. He placed his carry-on luggage on the conveyor belt; then walked away from it to a non-adjacent passenger screening device.
3. Told screeners the blades:
a. For shaving the bottom of his full beard. (Note: He had blades, no handles).
b. Said the blades were for a friend in Houston. (Note: ACAIR can find no record of there being a razor blade shortage in Texas)
c. Stated he didnt know the blades were in the luggage.
And the response of the Council on American-Islamic Relations?
According to the Star-Telegram,
A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in an earlier interview that Karims prosecution fit a pattern of singling out travelers from predominantly Muslim nations after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Once again, CAIR attempts to turn this into another example of profiling Muslims, despite there being absolutely no evidence that the screeners acted against Karim because of his religious beliefs.
Karim attempted to carry 32 double-edged razor blades onto an aircraft. His explanations were disingenuous and he was acting suspicious. CAIR disparages law enforcement again, when it implies that good security work is simply a case of profiling.
Karims defense attorney, Marlo Cadeddu had this to say:
I dont believe the government would have taken the position that it took if Mr. Karim were not a Muslim.
Cadeddu can make all the unreasonable statements he cares too, but the simple fact remains that he has not told anyone how the screeners knew that Karim is a Muslim.
In any case, Karim has five years to do in the prison system and we wont have to worry about him, or his razor blades, any time soon. He is to be deported following completion of his sentence.
The Words Of
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.
We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an ever lasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
* * *
FD, glad to see you pop in for a word or two; you have been MISSED very much--hope to see a little more of your always spot-on posts in the future.
Take care, my friend.
Seems I've had to do a lot of reading for people lately. >sigh<
I know you're an Aussie, so I'll explain... Both the United States and Canada are on North America, and the usage "American" applies to both in some cases, but when talking about citizenship, "American" generally applies to the United States only.
I LOVE the Samuel Adams quote! If a few more of the anti-Constitution types would learn to read, perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to attack our hard-fought rights! I'm gonna drink a bottle of Sam Adams tonight in support of his quote! (Thanks for that pic upthread, RS!)
Excellent analogy. (you have freepmail, sil vous plait)
Just was thinking...that should have "Foreign (e.g., Fred Nerks) or Domestic (e.g., AAC)" after "attacks". :-)
I suppose nobody is above suspicion and we should all be searched at the border, eh?
"It will bring an ever lasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
Who are the 'false and designing men', Gondring?
As opposed to supporting concentration camps?
I'm proud to stand firmly against you on that...I'm against them and am not ashamed of that.
You're right, the little labrador dog knows the drill. Nice picture.
This is for the three of you:
And we're still pulling and praying for you Texas Cowboy!
kevubg =leaving... Oh well, sorry...
" We are confronting an ideology in the form of a culture and religion that openly advocates destruction, murder and the overthrow of the United States. And we're supposed to give members of that religion and culture the benefit of the doubt, kevubg the terrorists among them are free to perpetrate their mayhem."
America... What a country ! ... Where you are not guilty of something untill you actually do it !
"RS, you have become tiresome. "
Your first post on this thread and you are tired of me allready ? How do you stay wake reading AAC's ?
( Or more specifically, the rants from whatever websites he is copying them from )
you obviously do not have even a basic knowledge of islam.
to speak out against it means death.
their goal IS for all to be islamic or dead.
Those who would weaken our Constitution to allow a takeover by militant Muslims or Communists or anyone else. But even if some FReepers of this thread are helping those groups, I wouldn't place them in that category, I like to believe you are all well-meaning but misguided.
Truly false and designing men would be those who intentionally want to harm the United States...such as many leftists...as well as those who don't mind if the US is harmed, such as many MSM personnel (yes, also leftists). Many of them are working to encourage more intrusive governmental presence, as well as division among good people of the country. They assist groups like CAIR, even if their goals are not aligned entirely.
"you obviously do not have even a basic knowledge of islam."
Nope - all I know is what I have read and experienced myself, not what I picked up from some hate-mongers who would toss OUR liberties out the window for a false sense of security.
"Preemption, frowned upon according to our rights as citizens, seems more and more to be a reasonable response to terrorism."
So your method of preemption regarding the millions of Muslims in this country, many of whom are natural-born citizens is ?
Just how far would your fear push you ?
Then please explain to me what YOU were implying in your post, if it was not something nasty.
The traditional deterrents might not work for these criminals, but there are other deterrents that can work. On the flip-side, preemption weakens our Constitution and thereby weakens us and helps our enemies. How much do you advoacate we weaken ourselves to gain a modest increase in our sense of security?
I think the strongest security is to remain a free nation, ever vigilant.
Exactly. That's the conundrum.
I was implying that your narrow POV had tipped you right over the edge into conspiracy-land where concentration camp gates are open and waiting.
You seriously underestimate who you're dealing with in me, obsequious twit. My opinions are very much my own, as are most (not all) of the narrative passages ones I have written.
I could go back through my recent posts and separate out what writings are mine (primarily the analysis, evaluation, and synthesis portions) and what are not (usually selected passages of narratives of historical fact, i.e. "in 622 A.D. muhammad did thus and such" or citations or summaries of passages from the Qur'an, or other script regarded as holy script by a majority of mainstream muslims.)
In such citings, there is no gain in playing a game of rewriting, only a need to play editor, and cut/paste relevant portions rather than entire paragraphs for brevity's sake. Where whole litanies of Qur'anic verse were enumerated as the result of a specific search, I cut/pasted most, or all, obviously. I never asserted authorship of such parts
I could have located and presented whole and uncut, a summary of Islam's "five pillars", as well as scholarly summaries of Islam's verifiably articulated views on a number of salient subjects.
But the objective is not to present an exhaustive opus complete with footnotes and other annotation on each posted reply (I get paid for that sort of writing), rather it is to respond reasonably on point in a timely fashion without all that aggravating baiting, button-pushing, name calling, argument ad hominem, and 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' which goes on in so many other replies that one may see.
What most folk find tiresome is the repetition of the same one or two-note narrow belief, with nary an introduction of fresh evidence to bolster that viewpoint's raison d'etre... a little something to stimulate the thought processes, something which does not so consistently pander to the lowest common denominator.
People will happily read two pages of well-written, reasonably supported material which takes a creative approach to challenging their thought processes and introduces historical evidence (if topically applicable) they may not have been aware of before - in preference to two paragraphs of tepid same-old same-old "It's only the extremists not the mainstreamers, cause that's what some of them say, some of the time...in the public eye...", or "The Constitution is in danger! The Constitution is in danger."
It makes them feel a writer has undertaken to educate them with warm regard for their ability to think, rather than the cold condescension of telling them they are wrong-headed if they think a certain way.
The longer you (and others) stubbornly resist acknowledging that mainstream Islam's bloody, and brutal history is anything less than fully relevant and provides no useful object lessons for us today, the greater the risk that people will see weakness in your arguments and wonder how you can be an apologist for, or supporter of muhammadanism.
Thirteen hundred eighty-odd years of history chronicling that religion's uniquely intolerant behavior and recurrent efforts to achieve it's oft-stated goal of forcibly dominating the world and the daily lives of all in it by elimination of every other competing religion or belief system, is a pretty compelling and instructive insight into the longstanding mindset and character of the religion and its adherents.
Mainstream Islam has never issued a single meaningful apology to any country or culture which suffered under its yoke, or as a result of its efforts to infiltrate overthrow, take by force, or exterminate their way of life.
They have struck treaties they immediately ignored or later violated egregiously; they have audaciously demanded such apologies from Christians for Crusades undertaken to forcibly eject them from lands they raped, pillaged, plundered and outright stole "fair and square"...casting themselves as victims. It is a violation of their rights, always, because after all, they are alla-uzza's people, everything belongs to him, and he intends that it be theirs, so it belonged to them in the first place, right?
If you are right, then maybe a few of the 6.5 million plus muslims in the US will be offended by our monitoring them, questioning them, investigating them...and once things have settled out, they can seek redress under our laws and our Constitution, because it will still exist. I am more than willing to admit the possibility that it may happen, since despite our highest aspirations there is no perfect world. But I can live with it. Millions of Americans can.
There are high chances in this country of them finding a sympathetic jury and gaining significant financial awards in court, and there is ample evidence in our recent past to suggest that kind of outcome.
If you are wrong and we lose our country by foolish virtue of having done nothing to mitigate the risks, then Islam will rule through Sharia law, the US Constitution will be null and void, and demands for redress will be met with mocking laughter by people the likes of which would make Saddam Hussein soil himself.
Islam will not tolerate our system of laws if it gains preeminence in America. Many prominent muslim leaders have said so out loud, and often, and surely they laugh amongst themselves when we choose to believe "moderates" will hold the day (How damn gullible do the muzzies believe we are?), and allow continued peaceful existence and continued standing of our system of laws.
A "moderate" muslim is an apostate muslim is a dead muslim if they are among other obedient and observant muslims. They have shown they are quite willing to kill their own.
Sounds all very liberal, "scared", "frightened". Conservatives tend to get "angry" and "pissed off", and set out to at least attempt to right what they see as wrong, not wet the bed.
I truly believe that Is real is more of a threat to the United States than any given Islamist country. The way Isreal has treated Palestine is certainly the largest cause of the grief in the middle east.
Learn some history before you start shooting, Square. There is no "Palestine".
LMHO! You kill me. Such a gem to lead into more banal droning--I just had to jump in; sorry, RS.
I have a suggestion for you, AAC: try reading a dictionary. It will give a taste of what it's like to slog through your disjointed posts full of irrelevancies, plus also teach you the meanings of the words you use.
Just whatever you do...don't become a Democrat if the Senate rules are changed. You could filibuster anyone to death.
(In case you haven't figured it out, this is not ad hominem, but is a critique of your writing and ignoratio elenchi debate techniques. Despite all your evidence against Islam, your attack on any individual American citizen boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantiam--an insidious form of "guilty until proven innocent" that hardly keeps the Constitution intact. Sorry, but some of us recognize fallacious reasoning when we see it and aren't taken in by it.)
I don't think that running from the moral high ground down into the mud with our adversaries is the way to go--I'd rather gun them down from our position of strength. One of our strengths of the American system (and of conservatives in general) is that we are an open and free society (using rational, not emotional appeal) that treats citizens equally, not one where internal security apparatus has free reign to operate without demonstrable probable cause.
And as you said, "scared" and "frightened" are liberal responses. It's a shame that Americans would rather act that way--and attack our own freedom--than to fight the true enemies of us all.
Again, I call upon the anti-rights crowd to clearly describe what they actually propose, and how it is supposed to make us safer. What good does detaining and fingerprinting American citizens at the border do, other than help Hillary have more complete FBI files to use (she is a senator, remember) and harass Americans?
Thanks in advance.
Exhaustive listings are beyond the scope of this discussion, my time, and the thread topic, so please consider "..but not limited to..." as a disclaimer here (something I have to say lest a joker tries to twist my words!)
Relevant to this thread, some true enemies are militant Muslims and other groups that would be interested in damaging the US. Some relevant freedoms--the topic of this thread--are for an American to be secure from being detained and fingerprinted without any probable cause of having committed a crime, or to be singled out and receive discriminatory treatment/unequal protection from official agents, based solely on presumed or actual religion. Note we are discussing American citizens.
Gosh, I've always wanted one of these! Thanks, FD, your good opinion means a lot to me.
"After all, we don't want to be guilty of racial profiling. "
First of all, I don't have a major problem with racial profiling when persuing criminals or terrorists
That said, it's pretty stupid to think that the bad guys would not attempt to use people who do NOT fit the profiles, so you don't gain anything.
In the case this thread is about, these people WERE singled out by racial profiling, were identified as Americans Citizens and were not given ANY information of what their rights were or what they were suspected of or why they were being held. THIS IS WRONG for anyone.
Once the Border patrol KNEW who they were and they were NOT on any list of criminals, there was NO reason to hold them.
Per your first comment, these people WERE rounded up, and WERE held for no reason.
"You seriously underestimate who you're dealing with in me, obsequious twit."
LOL - you might want to repeat whatever point it was you are trying to make in this post, this is as far as I'm reading on this one.
I'm laughing too much with a mental picture of this rooster attempting to puff out his chest, thinking that making himself appear larger will scare his enemies.
All we need is a thundering voice... I am the great and wonderous AAC - who dares to ask me to actually make sense ? ( as lightning crashes in the background )
... no, no ... don't look behind the curtain....
Perhaps you've never encountered the concept of illustrating absurdity by being absurd? In which case your failure to recognise how that first line of my response was quite deliberately designed as a point of connection to, and mockery of the general attitude of baseless bravado and denial is quite par for the course.
Makes it rather clear who can recognise a joke and who cannot. Freepmails from others laughing at that exact line showed me they understood it exactly in the context I intended. I'm sorry if it was over your head and behind a curtain, scarecrow.
My point? Resident in the repeated and unsupported claims that there is little or nothing to fear from the Islamic religion being practiced unhindered in America as it is written in the Qur'an, is a more dangerous risk than is violating the civil rights of a small percentage of the reported 6.5 million muslims who live here.
Not all of them are here legally, nor are they all American citizens, or even resident aliens, and those who are not should not expect to be afforded the rights and protections of citizenship.
Yes, some were born here and converted to Islam, but I feel it not unreasonable to be concerned about them as well (Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh...) since I reside in the city that was home to the "Portland Seven" gang of idiots.
It is a good thing that you are laughing - on any pretext - since laughter is good medicine.
>"...I don't have a Moslem background so I can't keep track of what can or can't be considered apostasy."<
Aye, and there's the rub! even reading different verses from the Qur'an may confuse that issue. Which verses to trust? The ones which say to kill the Jews and the Christians everywhere you find them, and show them no mercy because they are infidels doomed to hell, or those occasional verses which advocate a little dose of mercy?
Which verses take precedence? If history is any guide, the answer to such a question lies in what is convenient, safe, and practical for the muslim to implement in the moment. If history is no guide, then we're all screwed; there is no way to tell until we are outnumbered, outgunned, or dead, and it is too late.
Thanks Former Dodger! My second FROG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.