Posted on 08/27/2006 4:59:42 PM PDT by tobyprissy
Upon returning to the US last April a cousin/nephew of these two men admitted attending a jihadist camp while in Pakistan for the last nine years. The uncle/brother of these two was just convicted for having lied to the FBI about financing his sons activities at the camp.
The maternal grandfather, Qari Saeed ur Rehman, founded the Jamia Islamia Madrassa in 1962 (and still runs it), is a leader in the Jamiat Ulema Islam Party (Assembly of Islamic Clergy). No that is not a US political party that is a Pakistani political party run by the Muslim clergy. Ideologically, JUI party is regarded as uncompromisingly rigid and insisting on the strict enforcement of traditional Islamic law. They established the largest number of madrasahs in Pakistan and are associated with the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We don't and it's very unlikely the FBI has that authority either.
What's the FBI going to do, if he arrives and refuses to speak with them? They can't deport him and neither can CBP.
Unless the FBI has enough to arrest the guy, there is not much they can do.
Our government could not send the US citizen to Hong Kong, or any place else for that matter, even if they wanted too.
LOL, sorry, that was not the case. We don't video record nor do we audiotape our interviews.
Also, you we not held up, only your wife was, you could have left at any time.
"LOL, sorry, that was not the case. We don't video record nor do we audiotape our interviews.
Also, you we not held up, only your wife was, you could have left at any time."
Well, I stand corrected. It certainly seemed like the inspector [not front line, we were in a private room] was speaking for an audience other than my wife and I, who were the only others in the room.
As for me being free to leave at any time, and leave my wife behind, I think what you mean was that I was under no LEGAL compulsion to remain. However, if I had left that would have resulted in a whole lot bigger problem than cooling my heels in Toronto for a night!
"Why would they pick on me?"
What part of "because they can" do you not understand?
Bureacracies that are given power tend to exercise it. Bureacracies that are given unrestrained power tend to exercise it without restraint. That's how the world works.
He's on the "no fly" list. He was barred from a flight to the US in Hong Kong. If he can make it to Canada or Mexico somehow, he's deal with his problems when he crosses the border.
As a matter of curiosity, are you opposed to the "no fly" list across the board, of simply Americans being listed?
"As a matter of curiosity, are you opposed to the "no fly" list across the board, of simply Americans being listed?"
Actually, I was not referring to the "no fly" provision, but the "no entry" provision.
The "no fly" criteria do seem rather mysterious, and mistakes have been made in identifying people whose names appear on it, as being someone else, but in principal I do not have a big problem with it as it applies to Americans or anyone else.
Some of the posters here have implied that the "barring" of entry to these two citizens is purely a result of their inability to board an aircraft to fly home. However, that is not what the article says. The article quotes Federal officials as saying that the two "will not be let back into the country" unless they answer questions. That is different from saying they will not be permitted to travel here by air. The "no fly" rule appears to be an ADDITIONAL impediment. Those who say that the article has the matter wrong have not stated the source of their purported superior knowledge of the matter. I have read the other thread on this topic, all 203 posts, and there was nothing there supporting this view.
Also, while I have heard of lots of people turned away from flights because they were on the "no fly" list, I have never heard of any who were offered the chance to board a later flight if they would only submit to questioning from the FBI. The cases I have heard they have just been turned down flat, no explanation, no reconsideration. So it is possible that even if these two American Citizens do answer the FBI's questions to their satisfaction, they STILL might not be allowed to come back by air.
Not my interpritation, my impression from this and other articles is that this is a "no fly" issue, being recharacterized by posters and the media as "no entry". I doubt they have any basis to bar the US citizen based on an interview. Clearly they can immediately detain him if he makes it here.
I've heard of "no fly" horror stories, a few fixed quickly, Ted Kennedy comes to mind, but most causing missed flights and delays. I've only heard of misidentifications thought, I suspect it's tough to get off the list if you're suspected of terror connections. The only one who comes to mind is Cat Stevens, and he threatened but didn't bother with an appeal. I don't know that he was on the "no fly" list either, he may simply have been barred from entry.
Help me with the math here.
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.