Skip to comments.U.S. Denies Entry to Teen, Father
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 ...
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.
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?
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?
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.
I agree. It's a start.
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.
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..
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
What sort of training did they get in Pak? Blowing up an airplane, perhaps?
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.
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.
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.
Ah, that's your angle.
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?
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.
You're on the no-fly list you don't fly. Too bad. Maybe they can swim back.
Oh! Hahahaha...duh. I didn't even notice that.
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.