Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Denies Entry to Teen, Father
The Washington Times ^ | August 30, 2006 | Shaun Waterman

Posted on 08/30/2006 2:16:58 AM PDT by George Maschke

A California teenager suspected of attending a terrorist training camp and his father are being denied re-entry to the United States after spending four years in Pakistan unless they submit to interviews and lie-detector tests, their attorney says.


    Julia Mass says the rights of her clients, Muhammad Ismail, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, to return to the United States are being violated because they are on the "no fly" list.


    Miss Mass said an official at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad told Jaber Ismail that he and his father would be allowed to return only if he submitted to a lie-detector test. Airlines have refused to sell the Ismails tickets without "clearance" from the embassy.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1994; 2006; antipolygraph; antipolygraphorg; drugs; fbi; georgemaschke; ginoscalabrini; hamidhayat; hayat; interrogation; ismail; jaber; jaberismail; juliamass; keepowt; lodi; lodicell; maschke; muhammadismail; polygraph; scalabrini; terrorism; translators
One need not sympathize with the individuals involved here to recognize that no citizen should be denied re-entry to the United States simply for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent. Our government's action in this regard is an unconstitutional power grab with broad implications for our freedoms. If the government has a case against these men, it should bring charges.

The requirement that these citizens take a polygraph test before being permitted to return to the U.S. is especially outrageous. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis, and as used by law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations, often serves as little more than a pretext for interrogating a suspect in the absence of legal counsel.

Moreover, be aware that polygraph "tests" are easily passed through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraph examiners have no demonstrated ability to detect. Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadists know this. See "The Myth of the Lie Detector" from an Iraqi jihadist electronic magazine and the section on lie detection from Al Qaeda's Encyclopedia of Jihad. The FBI's reliance on such pseudoscience as polygraphy for national security purposes reflects great irresponsibility and incompetence.

1 posted on 08/30/2006 2:16:59 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

Thats why they make sodium pentathal. Bottom line we are either at war or we are not. In 1943 If your Nazi son had attended a 4 year hiatus in Germany at say Auschwitz training camp should he have been granted access to the U.S. Thats why we won that war. They already used the excuse "Failed to imagine the Threat" What can our government possibly say the next time?


2 posted on 08/30/2006 2:30:58 AM PDT by tomnbeverly (Radical Islam is a disease and George W. Bush is the cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

I'd be interested in hearing more details on the case... Are they actually being "denied entry" into the US, or is it that the airlines refuse to sell them tickets until they get embassy clearance, and the embassy won't give them clearance until they do what the embassy wants?

Meaning, what if they decide to take a ship? Would the US still stop them from entering the US?

Mark


3 posted on 08/30/2006 2:31:23 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
Its not exactly clear. In fact the information is conflicting.

It appears however, that they are not being denied entry into the US PER SE, but rather denied entry onto an aircraft.

No airline will let them fly, unless the embassy gives them the thumbs. The embassy won't do that unless they believe their story. If these Islamics won't cooperate with the embassy, thats their prerogative....but that doesnt compel the airlines to turn a blind eye.

Assuming the above is true, Im ok with this.

Airlines are not required to allow folks to fly, and disallowing suspicious characters like these two is a good idea.

Embassys are not required to state an opinion (to a private company) on the character of an individual.

As it is, these two very suspicious people, imo Americans in name only, have a choice. They can find another way back to the US that does not involve flying, or they can comply with the airlines wishes.

We still have cruise ships and you can actually book passage on freighters.

Now Im as big a critic of TSA as they come, but profiling extremely suspicious people is a good idea.
4 posted on 08/30/2006 2:40:20 AM PDT by dman4384
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

If they can't buy a plane ticket, they should take a ship. Freighters used to take on a few passengers. I expect they still do.


5 posted on 08/30/2006 2:40:23 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
A California teenager suspected of attending a terrorist training camp should be denied entry into the country.

End of story!
6 posted on 08/30/2006 2:42:20 AM PDT by Beckwith (The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

I agree. It's a start.


7 posted on 08/30/2006 2:45:56 AM PDT by Syberyenta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

It doesn't seem as if these individuals are being denied entry into the US at all. They are merely being forbidden to fly here on the privately owned airliners owned by private businesses.

Considering their history, I wouldn't let them on my vehicle, I wouldn't pick them up if they were hitchhiking either.

Maybe they can find another way.


8 posted on 08/30/2006 2:47:55 AM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
These are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, convicted terrorist. They have just spent 4 years in Pakistan where the 18 year old son now fits the profile of all of the terrorists who have committed acts of terrorism on US soil or interests. Damn right they should be interrogated. I know lots of Pakistani Americans who travel back and forth to Pakistan without difficulties because they are not under suspicion.

If the polygraph is as unreliable as you say, then if Jaber has been properly trained, he should be able to duck it easily so why is he resisting?

Now, if you do not believe we are engaged in a long and costly war against Islamic terrorism and that recent events in the UK demonstrates that the greatest terrorist threat may be homegrown, then I suppose you will see this as a great usurpation of our civil liberties. I see it as protecting American lives in a time of war.
9 posted on 08/30/2006 2:49:38 AM PDT by Roy Tucker ("You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality"--Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

It's really a two edged sword isn't it?

While they may be American citizens - they're also suspected of being aligned with a group that have vowed to destroy America. That's called TREASON... I think it's perfectly alright to require some questioning to return..


10 posted on 08/30/2006 2:51:01 AM PDT by pamlet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pamlet

You know, there was this foregin student who was living in the hotel across the street from the WTC. He was evacuated with everybody else on 9/11. A security guard found a high-tech radio/walkie talkie in his room.

The FBI gave him a polygraph test, denied him access to a lawyer, under intense interrogation he admitted to owning the radio - changing his story several different times about how he came into possession of the radio.

The FBI charged him with lying, threw him in solitary confinement for a month. He was released when the security guard said he made the whole thing up.


11 posted on 08/30/2006 3:02:18 AM PDT by Hong Kong Expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

Why does the viability of polygraph tests matter at all if the critical issue, as you see it, is the threat against the constitutional right of a citizen to remain silent? Are you saying that it'd be permissable to violate that constitutional right if polygraphs were more reliable?

Aaron


12 posted on 08/30/2006 3:14:31 AM PDT by AHerald ("Do not fear, only believe." Mk 5:36)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
Why does the viability of polygraph tests matter at all if the critical issue, as you see it, is the threat against the constitutional right of a citizen to remain silent? Are you saying that it'd be permissable to violate that constitutional right if polygraphs were more reliable?

No, I'm saying that both are wrong. I think that the key problem here is clearly our government's unconstitutional power grab. Its reliance on voodoo science for national security is of secondary importance, but it is nonetheless important.

For more on how misplaced governmental reliance on polygraphy has harmed our national security (as well as how to fool the polygraph), see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1mb PDF).

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

13 posted on 08/30/2006 3:30:31 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

We will be destroyed from within using our own laws and freedoms against US. Sad day for all Americans. What in heaven's name were these people doing in Pakistan for the last four years and why do they want to come "home" now? If they have known ties to terrorists why should we let them back into this country just to have to watch them 24/7. The ACLU strikes again.


14 posted on 08/30/2006 3:32:05 AM PDT by flynmudd (Proud Navy Mom to OSSR Richard T. Blalock-USS Ramage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

There is no constitutional right to air travel. Though if we could firm up that "terrorist training camp" business, I wouldn't mind flying them as far as Guantanamo. I'd even pay for it.


15 posted on 08/30/2006 3:32:32 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
"Are you saying that it'd be permissable to violate that constitutional right if polygraphs were more reliable? "

I think that once they became suspects, they lose some of their right. As citizens, they still have the right to counsel.If they wish to be citizens AND live in the States, they have the right to comply with the Stat Dept.

16 posted on 08/30/2006 3:33:05 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Religion of peace my arss - We need a maintenance Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: prion
There is no constitutional right to air travel. Though if we could firm up that "terrorist training camp" business, I wouldn't mind flying them as far as Guantanamo. I'd even pay for it.

But there is a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. The FBI is unconstitutionally coercing U.S. citizens to waive that right as a condition of re-entering our country.

17 posted on 08/30/2006 3:37:52 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

But there is a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. The FBI is unconstitutionally coercing U.S. citizens to waive that right as a condition of re-entering our country





But they aren't being denied entry into the US at all. The FBI is just giving the heads up to the airlines about these suspicious characters, and the airlines are just banning them from their private property. A very prudent move on the part of the airlines, who could be held liable depending on what could happen.


18 posted on 08/30/2006 3:44:33 AM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
"unconstitutionally coercing U.S. citizens"

"Naturalized" U.S. citizens.
19 posted on 08/30/2006 3:57:14 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
If the government has a case against these men, it should bring charges.

You're right: lie detector tests are worthless.

It's time to start stripping those who attend terrorist camps, or who facilitate others to attend those camps, or who openly advocate violent jihad, of their naturalized status.

20 posted on 08/30/2006 4:11:44 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

These Pakistanis should never have been allowed in the USA.
My husband and I had a new home built in an area near to Lodi where these people live, and then it was a good area.
But so much immigration to this part of California that it became a place where I do not want to live. My husband died and I sold my home, and left the place where my family had lived since 1870.


21 posted on 08/30/2006 4:16:28 AM PDT by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: loboinok
"Naturalized" U.S. citizens.

Actually, one of those being denied entry to the U.S. is a native-born citizen. But in any event, the only distinction that our Constitution makes between the rights of native-born and naturalized citizens is that the latter may not serve as President of the United States.

22 posted on 08/30/2006 4:17:42 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

Right to remain silent when you have spent time in a terrorist training camp? OK - so it's just a suspicion, but I would imagine that there is some evidence to cause the suspicion.

Club Gitmo sounds like a good place for them to visit for a while until cleared or convicted.


23 posted on 08/30/2006 5:07:01 AM PDT by TheBattman (Islam (and liberalism)- the cult of a Cancer on Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

But the oath taken by the naturalized citizen implies a contract. If it's later found that the oath was taken without "good faith", citizenship can be revoked and they can be sent packing. Most recently used with former Nazis who lied to get into the US.

"hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."


24 posted on 08/30/2006 5:20:28 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
"But in any event, the only distinction that our Constitution makes between the rights of native-born and naturalized citizens is that the latter may not serve as President of the United States."

Then you would agree that a terrorist whos sole intent is to secure constitutional protections, perjures themselves by swearing a (false)oath of allegience, is a legal citizen?
25 posted on 08/30/2006 5:25:18 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

What sort of training did they get in Pak? Blowing up an airplane, perhaps?


26 posted on 08/30/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

This is war and I am not one who believes that it is right and proper that an airplane and hundreds of passengers be destroyed in order to spare a terrorist profile fellow's feelings.


27 posted on 08/30/2006 5:38:37 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: loboinok
Then you would agree that a terrorist whos sole intent is to secure constitutional protections, perjures themselves by swearing a (false)oath of allegience, is a legal citizen?

Of course. But there is a legal process for addressing such situations, and those who commit fraud in seeking U.S. citzenship may be legally stripped of it.

But the U.S. Government's conduct in this case appears to be outside the law. No U.S. citizen -- naturalized or native-born -- should be stripped of his right to enter our country simply because some government official suspects he has broken a law.

28 posted on 08/30/2006 6:04:11 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
What sort of training did they get in Pak? Blowing up an airplane, perhaps?

The U.S. Government has not alleged that these two U.S. citizens received terrorist training of any sort, nor has it charged them with any crime.

29 posted on 08/30/2006 6:07:13 AM PDT by George Maschke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

Ah, that's your angle.


30 posted on 08/30/2006 6:21:10 AM PDT by AmishDude (`[N]on-state actors' can project force around the world more easily than Canada". -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tomnbeverly

Does anybody know if there are any differences between natural and naturalized citizen? Could it be that naturalized citizens do not enjoy a full complement of rights that people who were born in the US do? Can anyone educate us on the matter?


31 posted on 08/30/2006 6:32:59 AM PDT by Mi-kha-el ((There is no Pravda in Izvestiya and no Izvestiya in Pravda.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

OK. Thanks.


32 posted on 08/30/2006 6:36:01 AM PDT by Mi-kha-el ((There is no Pravda in Izvestiya and no Izvestiya in Pravda.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: flynmudd
We will be destroyed from within using our own laws and freedoms against US.

Ben Laden said he would use our laws and freedoms to defeat us many years ago.
33 posted on 08/30/2006 6:51:20 AM PDT by Beckwith (The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tessalu

Sorry for your loss of both your husband and your home.

Illegal aliens are flooding most of the country. Yours just happens to be one of the harder hit areas.


34 posted on 08/30/2006 7:03:44 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke
"But there is a legal process for addressing such situations, and those who commit fraud in seeking U.S. citzenship may be legally stripped of it."

Not being a lawyer or knowing much about the legalities of it, I will have to study up on it.

I look at it as a contract that is null and void due to fraud.
35 posted on 08/30/2006 7:09:42 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: George Maschke

You're on the no-fly list you don't fly. Too bad. Maybe they can swim back.


36 posted on 08/30/2006 7:11:32 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Ah, that's your angle.

Oh! Hahahaha...duh. I didn't even notice that.

37 posted on 08/30/2006 9:02:27 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson