NationStates Jolt Archive

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.

Federal authorities said Friday that the men, both Lodi residents, would not be allowed back into the country unless they agreed to FBI interrogations in Pakistan. An attorney representing the family said agents have asked whether the younger Ismail trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan.

The men and three relatives had been in Pakistan for more than four years and tried to return to the United States on April 21 as a federal jury in Sacramento deliberated Hayat's fate. But they were pulled aside during a layover in Hong Kong and told there was a problem with their passports, said Julia Harumi Mass, their attorney.

The father and son were forced to pay for a flight back to Islamabad because they were on the government's "no-fly" list, Mass said. Muhammad Ismail's wife, teenage daughter and younger son, who were not on the list, continued on to the United States.

Sort of a self-rendition.

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.



Sort of a self-rendition.

Grrr is history always doomed to repeat itself … people who can remember the time of McCarthyism are not even dead yet

Grrr is history always doomed to repeat itself … people who can remember the time of McCarthyism are not even dead yet

Don't say I didn't warn you. Back when I posted it before, there was a substantial amount of disbelief that it was even possible.

And here it is...

"Mm-hmm. I see that you once lived within a five mile radius of a man who's wife's husband's coworker's nephew was suspected of friendship with someone who once used the word Allah in public. And you want to come back into the country? Hah!

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.



Sort of a self-rendition.

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

I like you. You're silly. :)

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

Yeah? So who decides who's an 'Islamo-Nazi' or not? You? Not likely. A jury of their peers? Apparentally not.

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

Why is the right so intent on making up stupid names for people ... "Islamo-Nazi" is a rather meaningless word that borders on just an appeal to emotional fallacy.

At least “Islamofacist” did not sound as stupid nor godwin like

From the article:

Mass said Jaber Ismail had answered questions during an FBI interrogation at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad soon after he was forced back to Pakistan. She said the teenager had run afoul of the FBI when he declined to be interviewed again without a lawyer and refused to take a lie-detector test.

Um, strike anyone as unconstitutional that?

Why is the right so intent on making up stupid names for people ... "Islamo-Nazi" is a rather meaningless word that borders on just an appeal to emotional fallacy.

At least “Islamofacist” did not sound as stupid nor godwin like

Why do you hate freedom?

And on a more serious note, I feel compelled to blurt out USian.

From the article:



Um, strike anyone as unconstitutional that?

I think the real important bit in that quote, and something that's been bothering me for a while is 'Islamabad'. I mean, I can understand the 'Islama' bit, but why add 'bad'? Seems kind of self defeating if you ask me. If they needed to add an adjective, why not 'Islamagood?'

I think the real important bit in that quote, and something that's been bothering me for a while is 'Islamabad'. I mean, I can understand the 'Islama' bit, but why add 'bad'? Seems kind of self defeating if you ask me. If they needed to add an adjective, why not 'Islamagood?'

Or for extra credit, how about Islamagroovy. :)

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

So having a relative who has been convicted for a crime automatically declares your rights invalid now?

Shit

Islamo-Nazism

:D

So having a relative who has been convicted for a crime automatically declares your rights invalid now?

Shit

In fact, let's be really sneaky and add in (in small print) that it doesn't matter whether you ever knew the relative or were alive at the same time as them. That will get rid of almost all these pesky rights at once.

Pesky? That's sarcasm right?

Pesky? That's sarcasm right?

What? Can you think of any purpose rights serve besides preventing our loving and benevolent government from protecting us from a group of people who somehow embody both religious fanaticism, and a political party that didn't really have much use for religion?

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.



Sort of a self-rendition.

greeat, the usa takes a step back 50 years!
hmm,doesnt help that pakistan supports torture.
dont people realise,by actions such as these the terrorists win.what terrorists want is for us to change our way of life.They want us to change our justice system,to make us commit injustices against muslims so that theyb are given justification to fight against the west!
we shouldnt give up our feedoms.There should always be a charge and always be a trial, and people should always be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.



Sort of a self-rendition.

We all knew this was coming. Well thats and exaggeration but it doesnt surprise me in the least.

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

and with this post the terrorists have already won.

and with this post the terrorists have already won.

No, it doesn't mean "they've won". It just means we're not being too nice about how we try to deal with terrorism.

When we shoot women in the head at half-time during the SuperBowl for the crime of listening to music, or we slit people's throats on national television, and our nation has an official religion enshrined in the Constitution, then you can say they've won.

When *snip* our nation has an official religion enshrined in the Constitution, then you can say they've won.

I knew Harris was an Islamo-Nazi!

No, it doesn't mean "they've won". It just means we're not being too nice about how we try to deal with terrorism.

When we shoot women in the head at half-time during the SuperBowl for the crime of listening to music, or we slit people's throats on national television, and our nation has an official religion enshrined in the Constitution, then you can say they've won.

It does.In the west we have rights and freedoms.The terrorists want to stike 'terror'in our heart,and by giving up some of freedoms-that we believe it or not ,hold dear,we are showing the terrorists that we are afraid of them(note the term terrorists).Yes, of course we should arrest those we suspect of terrorism,but in line with the law.If we have enough evidence to arrest, we have enough to charge and put on trial-within our laws.If we go outside the law we risk alienating young muslims-who may be converted to the extremists cause because of our actions!
Believe me, I can see your point, and I nearly agree with you, but we should stay within the law!
And just because the extremists and certain groups and countries decide to chop peoples heads off on tv ect, doesnt mean we have the right to drop our moral standards.

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

I think you can wear the crown for a day.

The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

The war against worldwide communism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to communists, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the communist enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of communists and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.


Sounds genuine to me.

New Mitanni, do you have a briefcase which contains a list of Commu...sorry, Islamo-Nazi sympathisers?

I think the real important bit in that quote, and something that's been bothering me for a while is 'Islamabad'. I mean, I can understand the 'Islama' bit, but why add 'bad'? Seems kind of self defeating if you ask me. If they needed to add an adjective, why not 'Islamagood?'

Islamabad is a city. It's the capital of Pakistan, genius. :rolleyes:


Edit: I just realized you were probably making a joke, weren't you? sorry.

Islamabad is a city. It's the capital of Pakistan, genius. :rolleyes:

Psst, he was joking genius.

Islamabad is a city. It's the capital of Pakistan, genius. :rolleyes:


Edit: I just realized you were probably making a joke, weren't you? sorry.

Yeah. That was a joke.

Sounds genuine to me.

yup, radical islam is europe and amerca's new boogeyman

yup, radical islam is europe and amerca's new boogeyman

The difference is, the boogeyman has no counterpart killing kids in their bedroom that really exists, whereas there have been more than a few radical Islamic terrorists who have actually killed people in Europe and the US.

Or was Theo stabbed to death by an imaginary fiend?

Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law. And citizenship is meaningless to Islamo-Nazis, as we've seen countless times, most recently with the thwarted attempt to blow up our airliners over the Atlantic.

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy. I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us. In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

Whoever said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," was spot-on.

So can I take a loyalty oath in front of God and the world to the United States to prove my American-ness, or should I just shoot myself in the face right now if it makes no difference? How about it, chief?

Also I don't know what the term "Islamo-nazi" is supposed to mean, except that your use of it indicates you don't know what words mean.

Also A WINNER IS YOU

The difference is, the boogeyman has no counterpart killing kids in their bedroom that really exists, whereas there have been more than a few radical Islamic terrorists who have actually killed people in Europe and the US.

Or was Theo stabbed to death by an imaginary fiend?

so did communism, Red Brigades, Red corps., Red Army Faction

Sound familiar? and then there was Korea...

The difference is, the boogeyman has no counterpart killing kids in their bedroom that really exists, whereas there have been more than a few radical Islamic terrorists who have actually killed people in Europe and the US.


The difference is, the boogeyman has no counterpart killing kids in their bedroom that really exists, whereas there have been more than a few radical communist terrorists who have actually killed people in Europe and the US.


Sounds still genuine.
McCarthyism is back. US Democracy is dead. Or at least in a deadly danger.
(Yes, I believe that McCarthyism was by far the biggest threat to democracy in the United States since the british "have been gone away".)

I'm perfectly fine with not according the full legal rights due American citizens to those who have renounced, or never had, loyalty to America and who have aligned themselves with the Islamo-Nazi enemy.

What evidence is there that either of these citizens were not loyal to the US? Or that they had aligned themselves with any enemy? Generally, we need more than, "A criminal said your name," to prosecute.

LOL, "I saw Goody Proctor with the devil!"

I'm perfectly fine with not allowing our enemies to use our own Constitution against us in order to further their war against us.

The Constitution applies to all citizens. Who are you to pick and choose how and when it will be applied?

In short, I value my life and the lives of my family, friends and fellow (loyal) Americans more than I value the "rights" of Islamo-Nazis and their allies and enablers.

And what about ordinary US citizens who are losing their rights?

Sounds still genuine.
McCarthyism is back. US Democracy is dead. Or at least in a deadly danger.
(Yes, I believe that McCarthyism was by far the biggest threat to democracy in the United States since the british "have been gone away".)

Same shit, different day. Or as the French said "plus ca change, c'est la plus ca meme chose."

Same shit, different day. Or as the French said "plus ca change, c'est la plus ca meme chose."

So, when are you moving?

Originally Posted by New Mitanni
Have to disagree with you here, DK. The war against worldwide Islamo-Nazism is just that, a war--not a matter of criminal law.

BULLSHIT! There has been no declaration of war, signed by the President and ratified by the Congress. Without that, the United States CANNOT be at war, and wartime security measures CANNOT be justified.

BULLSHIT! There has been no declaration of war, signed by the President and ratified by the Congress. Without that, the United States CANNOT be at war, and wartime security measures CANNOT be justified.

So, if there was an official declaration of war, you would be OK with the security restrictions, say, Franklin Roosevelt used during WW II?

So, if there was an official declaration of war, you would be OK with the security restrictions, say, Franklin Roosevelt used during WW II?

Or, say, Ghengis Khan used?

Did he actually officially declare war? Whatever.

Or, say, Ghengis Khan used?

Did he actually officially declare war? Whatever.

Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt got an official declaration of war.

And he had some interesting ideas on domestic security.

Or are you not versed in US history around the time of WW II?

I think the real important bit in that quote, and something that's been bothering me for a while is 'Islamabad'. I mean, I can understand the 'Islama' bit, but why add 'bad'? Seems kind of self defeating if you ask me. If they needed to add an adjective, why not 'Islamagood?'

bad means city/town/dwelling place in Urdu. Isamabad, Allahabad, Aurangabad, Jehanabad etc are all cities.

So, when are you moving?

Depends. It's not quite bad enough yet, to my mind, and I've got a minor child to think about, but she'll be of age in two years, and then there won't be as much holding me here. I don't want to go, but if we got to a situation like that you posited in your "would you hide a muslim" thread, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt got an official declaration of war.
And he had some interesting ideas on domestic security.
Or are you not versed in US history around the time of WW II?
Well, I'm about as versed in it as I am with most foreign history. I *did* hear some stories, but, please, do tell me more - this sounds interesting.

So, if there was an official declaration of war, you would be OK with the security restrictions, say, Franklin Roosevelt used during WW II?

I think FDR went a little overboard - or rather, his government did (not exactly the same thing. FDR's position re:the Japanese-American internment appears rather ambivalent - though he did sign it, so he obviously wasn't totally opposed). But I'd certainly feel better about some of the things the US has been doing anyway (like the UNpatriotic Act) if we at least had the guts to put down in writing that we considered ourselves to be in a war.

But my main point was, that in a war some actions can be delt with extra-judiciary. In peacetime, that is never acceptable, and we are officially at peace.

Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt got an official declaration of war.

And he had some interesting ideas on domestic security.

Or are you not versed in US history around the time of WW II?

I know Roosevelt officially declared war, I was asking about Ghengis Khan.

"Mm-hmm. I see that you once lived within a five mile radius of a man who's wife's husband's coworker's nephew was suspected of friendship with someone who once used the word Allah in public. And you want to come back into the country? Hah!

Two men (father and son) from Lodi, California (where the dudes on OP are from ) were arrested on terrorism charges because the son went to Pakistan to take training from Lashkar-e-toiba and the father hid these details. Both IIRC, are under trial in California.

US has set up massive surveillance IN Pakistan (humint, elint and such, they have their own space in Pak airports too) to monitor Pakistanis travelling from there to USA. Recently the US has also banned direct flight from the PIA (Pak International Airlines) due to securty concerns.

Given the fact that Pakistan is the epicentre of islamic terrorism, I would say that these steps are to be expected. I know for a fact that the green passport of Pakistan does get you extra "attention and screening" in most countries. Profiling IS being done.

I know Roosevelt officially declared war, I was asking about Ghengis Khan.

And I had asked before that, since FDR declared war officially, are you OK with his domestic security policies?

Two men (father and son) from Lodi, California (where the dudes on OP are from ) were arrested on terrorism charges because the son went to Pakistan to take training from Lashkar-e-toiba and the father hid these details. Both IIRC, are under trial in California.

US has set up massive surveillance IN Pakistan (humint, elint and such, they have their own space in Pak airports too) to monitor Pakistanis travelling from there to USA. Recently the US has also banned direct flight from the PIA (Pak International Airlines) due to securty concerns.

Given the fact that Pakistan is the epicentre of islamic terrorism, I would say that these steps are to be expected. I know for a fact that the green passport of Pakistan does get you extra "attention and screening" in most countries. Profiling IS being done.

They were charged with something. These two weren't.

Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, have not been charged with a crime.

There's a difference. Not to say that that's any better.

Two men (father and son) from Lodi, California (where the dudes on OP are from ) were arrested on terrorism charges because the son went to Pakistan to take training from Lashkar-e-toiba and the father hid these details. Both IIRC, are under trial in California.

If a man traveled from Atlanta to China in order to buy a child, should be held in suspicion of the same crime if I try to get on a flight to China?

US has set up massive surveillance IN Pakistan (humint, elint and such, they have their own space in Pak airports too) to monitor Pakistanis travelling from there to USA. Recently the US has also banned direct flight from the PIA (Pak International Airlines) due to securty concerns.

Given the fact that Pakistan is the epicentre of islamic terrorism, I would say that these steps are to be expected. I know for a fact that the green passport of Pakistan does get you extra "attention and screening" in most countries. Profiling IS being done.

Interestingly enough, neither of the men mentioned in the OP are Pakistani citizens. They are US citizens who happened to be traveling in Pakistan.

Interestingly enough, neither of the men mentioned in the OP are Pakistani citizens. They are US citizens who happened to be traveling in Pakistan.
And I pointed out that I had predicted this would occur, because it was done in the 1950s, and is not illegal.

It also requires no court hearing.

And I pointed out that I had predicted this would occur, because it was done in the 1950s, and is not illegal.

It also requires no court hearing.

I don't really care what you predicted. The fact that you predicted that our government would start mistreating citizens is unsurprising, as you seem to support such treatment, but is also irrelevant.

And yes, it absolutely is illegal. US Citizens have constitutionally protected rights, even if they happen to be traveling outside the country.

And I pointed out that I had predicted this would occur, because it was done in the 1950s, and is not illegal.

It also requires no court hearing.

Hmm, they'd better be careful about using that power. Violating the "Freedom of Travel" clause in the constitution is likely to get them a SCOTUS slapping.

Hmm, they'd better be careful about using that power. Violating the "Freedom of Travel" clause in the constitution is likely to get them a SCOTUS slapping.

By that do you mean a gentle SCOTUS slap on the wrist?

Hmm, they'd better be careful about using that power. Violating the "Freedom of Travel" clause in the constitution is likely to get them a SCOTUS slapping.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

By that do you mean a gentle SCOTUS slap on the wrist?

While I have criticised the SCOTUS on more than one occasion, I will give them this - when they have chosen to act, they tend towards the heavy handed rather than the light. They don't act often, but their actions are usually decisive. (There have been a few exceptions.)

Let me get this straight - if me and my family were American citizens by birth, and one of my siblings would turn astray, all family members would lose their U.S. citizenship/travelling rights and/or their passport?

Mmh. Let me think. I've heard this before, somewhere... Oh. Yeah. Now I remember. It's called "Sippenhaft" and up till now the English language didn't have a word for it (or so my dictionary tells me.)

"Sippenhaft" = liability of a family for (political) crimes or actions of one of its members. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft

Enjoy your freedom while it lasts, for tomorrow one of your family might decide to turn rogue - and you're going to pay for it, too. Way to go, land of the free. :rolleyes: With livertee and puffed rice for all.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

Now, that's a new one on me. Still, they can always shoehorn it in under the 10th.

They were charged with something. These two weren't.


I am not approving or defending the actions of the US authorities. As a non-US citizen, I have no stake in this. I am merely giving certain background info and reasons why I feel this particular incident is of no surprise to me.

Now, that's a new one on me. Still, they can always shoehorn it in under the 10th.

The point is, it's not an absolute right. Plenty of people in the US had their passports revoked in the 1950s as soon as they left the US.

bad means city/town/dwelling place in Urdu. Isamabad, Allahabad, Aurangabad, Jehanabad etc are all cities.

shame when people can only think in western tems:p (joke btw not trying to be offensive)

Don't say I didn't warn you. Back when I posted it before, there was a substantial amount of disbelief that it was even possible.

And here it is...

People like us have been saying that alot latley. Lots of examples of the Federal Government "policestating up" It doesnt happen fast, until its too late for you to do anything about it. It starts off slow, nitpicking. Then by the time it picks up fast (or seems like it does) the populace is paralyzed.

People like us have been saying that alot latley. Lots of examples of the Federal Government "policestating up" It doesnt happen fast, until its too late for you to do anything about it. It starts off slow, nitpicking. Then by the time it picks up fast (or seems like it does) the populace is paralyzed.

Well said. It's why I support the ACLU and the NRA; these are groups that monitor the government in a depth I never could, and fight for things I believe in.

Psst, he was joking genius.

Why, yes. I figured that out. Thus the edit, which I posted before your post was up. But thank you for reading my entire post.

Same shit, different day. Or as the French said "plus ca change, c'est la plus ca meme chose."

I agree with what you're saying but I'm pretty sure the french needs editting. If it wasn't summmer I'd help but as it is summer I cannot even think enough to be sure that that is wrong. So I'll just stare at it for a second shake my head then continue to agree with you.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

And yet they point out in that very case that the right to travel is protected.

As for your suggestion that the actions of the government in the '50's regarding travel were Constitutional, see Kent v. Dulles:

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

The fact that the government has done something does not mean that such an action is constitutional.

Why do you hate freedom?

And on a more serious note, I feel compelled to blurt out USian.

there wont be freedom with people like you in charge.

Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt got an official declaration of war.

I think he was refering to Kahn there . . .

If a man traveled from Atlanta to China in order to buy a child, should be held in suspicion of the same crime if I try to get on a flight to China?


No, but if a man who fits the profile (young muslim Pakistani male) travels from a Pakistani-dominant area of Lodi (from where two Pakistanis are under trial for terrorism charges) to Pakistan, I would not be surprised if the intel/security agencies there want to question them about where they went to in Pakistan during their stay there. Given the history of Pakistani citizens of UK travelling to Pak and getting training from there to plan/committ terror acts in UK (7/7, recent air terror plots etc all were done by people of similar background to the dude in the OP), I am not surprised when US authorities located in Pakistan and tasked with screening Pakistanis travelling to US, wanting to talk to them. If they refuse, then I understand the security people getting suspicious and deciding to ban their travel to the US until they comply.

Note that I do not preseume that the concerned Pakistani is actually a terrorist or not. I am merely noting the reasons behind the events as it happened. As I noted above, active profiling IS actually being done, whether you/me agree with it or not, whether you/me like it or not.


Interestingly enough, neither of the men mentioned in the OP are Pakistani citizens. They are US citizens who happened to be traveling in Pakistan.

Does not matter much. Shehzad Tanveer was a British citizen of Pakistani descent. Was it his British heritage that caused him to blow himself up or his Pakistani heritage?

If the authorities had some vague idea of Tanveer's movements while he was in Pakistan, they would have tried to stop him from coming to the UK, regardless of him being a legal British citizen.

Call it racism/islamophobia/zenophobia/rightwingness/nazism/fascism/whatever.....but I feel that this will become more and more commonplace in the face of increasing terror attacks. We ARE in the vicious cycle and we ARE going to see terror attacks and profiling incidents like this increasing.

Well said. It's why I support the ACLU and the NRA; these are groups that monitor the government in a depth I never could, and fight for things I believe in.

Yeah, they're great. really. The people need to be able to defend themselves. wether in a peaceful way with investigations and court hearings, or if taken to the extreme, which it very well may, violence and war against the police state.

And yet they point out in that very case that the right to travel is protected.

As for your suggestion that the actions of the government in the '50's regarding travel were Constitutional, see Kent v. Dulles:

The fact that the government has done something does not mean that such an action is constitutional.

You overlook something. Neither makes the claim that it's an absolute right in the Constitution.

And no one ever was able to come back from the passport suspensions in the 1950s.

It was essentially permanent revocation of US citizenship - even for those born with it. Then, in order to travel here, they would have to have the passport of another nation - a nation that would accept them as citizens.

I had predicted that the US would start doing what it did in the 1950s to US citizens.

Back then, if you were identified as a Communist sympathizer, and made "trouble", and made the mistake of travelling abroad, they cancelled your passport and refused to let you come back in. I distinctly remember one professor who went to Brazil, and was never allowed to return.

A purely administrative function - no trial or court hearing necessary.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

Now this is slightly different - two relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorism (they weren't convicted), and both US citizens - told they can't come back in until they answer some questions - in Pakistan.



Sort of a self-rendition.

Seems like time for the Revolution...:mp5:

No, but if a man who fits the profile (young muslim Pakistani male)

He isn't Pakistani. He is over Pakistani descent. I'm of Irish descent. Does that mean I'm a member of the IRA?

travels from a Pakistani-dominant area of Lodi (from where two Pakistanis are under trial for terrorism charges) to Pakistan, I would not be surprised if the intel/security agencies there want to question them about where they went to in Pakistan during their stay there.

"want to question them" and "remove their constitutional rights" are two very different things.

If they refuse, then I understand the security people getting suspicious and deciding to ban their travel to the US until they comply.

Without charging them, the authorities have no right whatsoever to ban their travel to the US. They are US citizens. Unless they are charged with a crime, they have every right to travel to and within the US freely.

Meanwhile, their travel was blocked outside of compliance/non-compliance. Of course, the article suggests that "non-compliance" is equivalent to asking to have a lawyer present - something EVERY US CITIZEN is to be granted.

Does not matter much.

Of course it does. US citizens have rights under the US Consitution. If we wish to ban travel of citizens of a given country into the US, that is permissable. Banning the travel of US citizens to and throughout the US without due process of the law is not.

Shehzad Tanveer was a British citizen of Pakistani descent. Was it his British heritage that caused him to blow himself up or his Pakistani heritage?

Neither. It was his viewpoint regarding the government and how to deal with it. His ethnicity couldn't cause him to do something.

If the authorities had some vague idea of Tanveer's movements while he was in Pakistan, they would have tried to stop him from coming to the UK, regardless of him being a legal British citizen.

Oh wait, you mean if they actually had reason to believe he had done something illegal? You mean some sort of due process under the law?

Seems like time for the Revolution...:mp5:

jk... or am I? :p

You overlook something. Neither makes the claim that it's an absolute right in the Constitution.

It is a right protected by the Constitution.

There is no "right to vote" or "right to privacy" or any number of other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It doesn't stop them from being protected by the Constitution.

US citizens have a right to travel freely that can only be legally and constitutionally removed with due process under the law. The fact that the US government has, at times, done so without due process and these injustices have not been taken care of is irrelevant. It's like saying, "The cops sometimes beat a prisoner up and hold him for weeks without charging him and don't get punished. Obviously, this means that it is perfectly legal for them to do so."

I agree with what you're saying but I'm pretty sure the french needs editting. If it wasn't summmer I'd help but as it is summer I cannot even think enough to be sure that that is wrong. So I'll just stare at it for a second shake my head then continue to agree with you.

C'est normal, c'est l'Amerique, c'est la même merde.

jk... or am I? :p

well if your not, you'll find more support than you probably think ;)

there wont be freedom with people like you in charge.

And there probably won't be humor with people like you in charge.

And there probably won't be humor with people like you in charge.

Of course not, humor is the tool of the devil.

He isn't Pakistani. He is over Pakistani descent. I'm of Irish descent. Does that mean I'm a member of the IRA?

What kind of silly question is this?

Maybe yes, maybe not. How can I say before investigating you further? But you certainly fit the profile of someone who could be a member of the IRA and if I was on the lookout for IRA trained terrorists, I would be interested in asking you a few questions. Would it be wrong to question you?


"want to question them" and "remove their constitutional rights" are two very different things.

Without charging them, the authorities have no right whatsoever to ban their travel to the US. They are US citizens. Unless they are charged with a crime, they have every right to travel to and within the US freely.

Meanwhile, their travel was blocked outside of compliance/non-compliance. Of course, the article suggests that "non-compliance" is equivalent to asking to have a lawyer present - something EVERY US CITIZEN is to be granted.

Of course it does. US citizens have rights under the US Consitution. If we wish to ban travel of citizens of a given country into the US, that is permissable. Banning the travel of US citizens to and throughout the US without due process of the law is not.


I REPEAT, I am not APPROVING or DEFENDING the action of the US authorities in Pakistan in this case. I was merely giving background info and reasons why I am not surprised by this event.

Neither. It was his viewpoint regarding the government and how to deal with it. His ethnicity couldn't cause him to do something.
:rolleyes:

lemme rephrase, was it his British part (for lack of a better word) or his Pakistani part that cause him to travel to Pak and take training in Pak and blow himself up in the tube?


Oh wait, you mean if they actually had reason to believe he had done something illegal? You mean some sort of due process under the law?

Save your moral outrage and righteous indignation for somebody else.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

says
federal government has barred two relatives of a Lodi man convicted of supporting terrorists from returning to the country after a lengthy stay in Pakistan, placing the U.S. citizens in an extraordinary legal limbo.

Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his no18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, have not been charged with a crime. However, they are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, a 23-year-old Lodi cherry packer who was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp.

Federal authorities said Friday that the men, both Lodi residents, would not be allowed back into the country unless they agreed to FBI interrogations in Pakistan. An attorney representing the family said agents have asked whether the younger Ismail trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan.

They are NOT mere residents of the same city as somebody said above in an attempt of sarcasm. Like I said before, I am just noting. I could care less if this is constitutional or not.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/26/LODI.TMP

says

They are NOT mere residents of the same city as somebody said above in an attempt of sarcasm. Like I said before, I am just noting. I could care less if this is constitutional or not.

Sounds like the Feds want to know if they went to training, and they don't want to answer any questions, because they certainly did.

Sounds like the Feds want to know if they went to training, and they don't want to answer any questions, because they certainly did.

The other dude, Hayat, says this dude did go to the training. It's in the same link above

Jaber Ismail was one of several people mentioned by his cousin, Hayat, during a videotaped interview with the FBI in Sacramento in June 2005 that prompted Hayat's arrest.

Hayat himself had just returned from a two-year trip to Pakistan. His flight, too, had been diverted because Hayat was on the no-fly list as a result of conversations he had with an informant who had infiltrated the mosque in Lodi that Hayat attended.

Prosecutors said Hayat told FBI interrogators that he had trained at a terrorist camp in Pakistan, although defense attorneys argued that the videotaped confession was contradictory and suggested that agents had manipulated the interview.

When agents asked him who else had gone to training camps, Hayat said, "I can't say 100 percent, but I have a lot of, you know, names in my head," according to a transcript of the interview.

Hayat said Jaber Ismail "went, like, two years ago." Asked if his cousin had gone to the same camp he had attended, Hayat said, "I'm not sure, but I'll say he went to a camp."

:rolleyes:

lemme rephrase, was it his British part (for lack of a better word) or his Pakistani part that cause him to travel to Pak and take training in Pak and blow himself up in the tube?



Save your moral outrage and righteous indignation for somebody else.

Sorry, rephrased it still sounds like racist bullshit.

Sorry, rephrased it still sounds like racist bullshit.

lol. Add the bigot label too. Why leave that?:D

bigotbigotbigotbigot....racistracistracistracist...that ought to shut up everyone...

DK, can you provide any more detail on that case involving the Brazilian professor from the 50s? I'm having trouble tracking anything down on that story.

Edit: I'm finding all sorts of cases where passport requests were denied, but never one where it was cancelled while the person was abroad and was left without a way to reenter the country.

lol. Add the bigot label too. Why leave that?:D

bigotbigotbigotbigot....racistracistracistracist...that ought to shut up everyone...

Don't confuse Eris. He's not concerned with the fact of where the majority of terrorists get their training.

What kind of silly question is this?

Maybe yes, maybe not. How can I say before investigating you further? But you certainly fit the profile of someone who could be a member of the IRA and if I was on the lookout for IRA trained terrorists, I would be interested in asking you a few questions. Would it be wrong to question you?

Without some particular reason to suspect me? Absolutely! The fact that I happen to share some lineage with a criminal does not in any way implicate me as a criminal.

lemme rephrase, was it his British part (for lack of a better word) or his Pakistani part that cause him to travel to Pak and take training in Pak and blow himself up in the tube?

Your rephrase doesn't make any more sense than the original. Neither his "British part" nor his "Pakistani part" make him do anything. It was his own personality and his own views that led him to take the actions he did. The fact that he was British or had a lineage that included Pakistani has nothing to do with it.


Sounds like the Feds want to know if they went to training, and they don't want to answer any questions, because they certainly did.

According to your own article, they have already answered questions. The Feds are pissed off because they don't want to answer more questions without a lawyer. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to tell a cop anything without a lawyer present. Too many innocent people get screwed by the system. I'd want to make sure it was all watched. And, guess what? Having a lawyer present for questioning is a constitutionally protected right!

blah, blah, blah, blah,

the islamic world has made it's position quite clear. if we want peace we have to stop our women behaving the way they do, and stop all the drunken parties.

that's their position.

but whatever, continue arguing the rights and wrongs of minutia.

blah, blah, blah, blah,

the islamic world has made it's position quite clear. if we want peace we have to stop our women behaving the way they do, and stop all the drunken parties.

that's their position.

but whatever, continue arguing the rights and wrongs of minutia.

Really? I know a few Muslims who would be very, very surprised to find out that they hold such a position. Be a good lad and tell them, will you?

Without some particular reason to suspect me? Absolutely! The fact that I happen to share some lineage with a criminal does not in any way implicate me as a criminal.

You are deliberately underplaying the fact that Ismail was a COUSIN to Hayat and not some lineage as though he was an unknown and vaguely related person to Hayat. Plus you have ignored Hayat's testimony that Ismail took training in a camp.

Note that I am not implicating Ismail as a criminal yet as you constantly accuse me of. The wanting to question part does not surprise me at all.

The lawyer part is dicey because obviously there would be no American lawyer in Pakistan and US does not recognise the validity of a Pakistani lawyer to be present while questioning.

It was his own personality and his own views that led him to take the actions he did. The fact that he was British or had a lineage that included Pakistani has nothing to do with it.

Most of the islamist terror incident in recent years have got some or other connection to Pakistan. After the removal of taliban in AFG, Pakistan is THE place where terrorists get training. That is why US authorities have got camped there screening passengers travelling from there to here.

Ismail being of Pakistani descent has got everything to do with him being wanted for questioning. That is a fact of life. You denying it or Eris Rising crying I am a racist won't change it.

You are deliberately underplaying the fact that Ismail was a COUSIN to Hayat and not some lineage as though he was an unknown and vaguely related person to Hayat. Plus you have ignored Hayat's testimony that Ismail took training in a camp.

Note that I am not implicating Ismail as a criminal yet as you constantly accuse me of. The wanting to question part does not surprise me at all.

The lawyer part is dicey because obviously there would be no American lawyer in Pakistan and US does not recognise the validity of a Pakistani lawyer to be present while questioning.



Thats tough shit cause they are required to provide one if asked and if they don't any info they get is inadmissable in court.... of course that assumes the person would ever be alowed to have a trial.

Thats tough shit cause they are required to provide one if asked and if they don't any info they get is inadmissable in court.... of course that assumes the person would ever be alowed to have a trial.

Do US rights apply in Pakistan?

Do US rights apply in Pakistan?

To US citizens being questioned by US officials they do, ecspecially if they were being questioned in an embassy which is US soil.

You are deliberately underplaying the fact that Ismail was a COUSIN to Hayat and not some lineage as though he was an unknown and vaguely related person to Hayat.

Not at all. You are the one who stated that simply being of Pakistani lineage and being a young Muslim male was enough.

Meanwhile, my cousin was arrested for drug possession once. Does that mean that I should be picked up and questioned regarding drug use?

Plus you have ignored Hayat's testimony that Ismail took training in a camp.

Actually, all that Hayat said was that his cousin went to a camp. He never stated that any training was involved and the article even mentions camps in which the Qu'ran is studied.

Not to mention the whole, "I saw Goody Proctor with the devil," idea.

Note that I am not implicating Ismail as a criminal yet as you constantly accuse me of. The wanting to question part does not surprise me at all.

Nor me. What does surprise me is the completely unconstitutional removal of his rights. If they have reason to suspect him, they can get a warrant to arrest and question him. If they do not have enough to do this, they have no reason whatsoever to restrict his travel.

The lawyer part is dicey because obviously there would be no American lawyer in Pakistan and US does not recognise the validity of a Pakistani lawyer to be present while questioning.

If a US citizen cannot provide his own lawyer, the US government is required to provide one for him. Every citizen has the right to due process under the law - even if he happens to be in another country at the time. Even if they have to wait for a lawyer to travel to Pakistan, one has to be provided.

Most of the islamist terror incident in recent years have got some or other connection to Pakistan. After the removal of taliban in AFG, Pakistan is THE place where terrorists get training. That is why US authorities have got camped there screening passengers travelling from there to here.

And?

Ismail being of Pakistani descent has got everything to do with him being wanted for questioning. That is a fact of life. You denying it or Eris Rising crying I am a racist won't change it.

You don't follow conversations very well, do you? That portion of the post had nothing whatsoever to do with Ismail.

Meanwhile, wanting someone for questioning merely because of their lineage is racism, no matter how you look at it.

Now, the fact that his cousin may have implicated him is a reason to question him. However, just like any US citizen, he has the right to refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present. He has the right to walk out of a questioning room and go home at any time, unless they choose to charge him with something. He has the right to travel freely, unless they go through the due process of law to remove that right - ie. charge him with something.

You are making this sound like they simply wanted to question him, and ignoring the fact that they have removed his rights as a US citizen, without charging him with anything, or even demonstrating that they have reason to do so.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Back when I posted it before, there was a substantial amount of disbelief that it was even possible.

And here it is...

When did you post it before?

Really? I know a few Muslims who would be very, very surprised to find out that they hold such a position. Be a good lad and tell them, will you?

you live in the islamic world?

you live in the islamic world?

I live in the world. There's only one. And I know Muslims. That which is associated with the Muslim faith (Islam) can be termed Islamic. Thus, "Islamic world" would refer to that within the world associated with Islam. I am not personally Muslim, but I do know some of those who are. They are, by virtue of being Muslim, part of "the Islamic world."

I live in the world. There's only one. And I know Muslims. That which is associated with the Muslim faith (Islam) can be termed Islamic. Thus, "Islamic world" would refer to that within the world associated with Islam. I am not personally Muslim, but I do know some of those who are. They are, by virtue of being Muslim, part of "the Islamic world."

Since you are obviously the sort of person who engages in pointless semantic arguments, this debate can go no further.

plz, go to iran and tell them about you sex life. then TG me and tell me how it works out.

Since you are obviously the sort of person who engages in pointless semantic arguments, this debate can go no further.

It isn't pointless at all. What did you mean by "the Islamic world"? Predominantly Muslim countries? Islamic theocracies? People who have family in such countries? All Muslims?

Different people use words very differently, and you did not define the way you used it. Considering that you obviously have a problem with anyone who thinks that the rights associated with US citizenship should not be removed simply because the citizen in question happens to be Muslim or have family in/travel in predominantly Muslim countries, the best guess was to assume that you meant all Muslims. Otherwise, your comment would be pretty out of place.

plz, go to iran and tell them about you sex life. then TG me and tell me how it works out.

Why on Earth would I want to do that? Iran isn't high on my list of countries that I wish to visit.

Islamo-Nazism I think we get the stance on Jews, but can you tell me what Islamo-nazism has to say about gypsies? What about the superiority of the aryan race? And are arabs still 'culture-destroyers'? Or have they been upgraded to 'culture-holders', or even 'culture-creators'?! What about economically?! Are they into state-socialism, or more fascism more akin to WWII Italy? :D

Since you are obviously the sort of person who engages in pointless (semantic) arguments, this debate can go no further.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497676 :(

Different people use words very differently, and you did not define the way you used it. Considering that you obviously have a problem with anyone who thinks that the rights associated with US citizenship should not be removed simply because the citizen in question happens to be Muslim or have family in/travel in predominantly Muslim countries, the best guess was to assume that you meant all Muslims. Otherwise, your comment would be pretty out of place.


not only are you obtuse, you put words in plps mouths.

is winning that important to you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497676 :(

oh come on.

define pointless.

oh come on.

define pointless.

Debating on the Net.

oh come on.

define pointless.
Don't have to with such a shinig example at hand. :p

not only are you obtuse, you put words in plps mouths.

is winning that important to you?

Winning what? I'm trying to find out if you have a point? And no, I didn't put any words into your mouth. Your own work just fine:

blah, blah, blah, blah,

the islamic world has made it's position quite clear. if we want peace we have to stop our women behaving the way they do, and stop all the drunken parties.

that's their position.

but whatever, continue arguing the rights and wrongs of minutia.

Apparently, the removal of constitutional rights from US citizens is just "minutia" since the "Islamic world" has "made it's position quite clear."

Or were you actually not referring to the topic of the thread?

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060904&s=bergencruickshank090406
Kashmir on the Thames.

by Peter Bergen & Paul Cruickshank
Post date 08.25.06 | Issue date 09.04.06

London, England

On New Year's Eve in 1999, Islamist militants had plenty to celebrate. At the Taliban-controlled Kandahar airport, a planeload of hostages was being swapped for terrorists held in India. The hijackers--Kashmiri militants--had managed to secure the freedom of three key allies. Two, Maulana Masood Azhar and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, were Pakistani; but the third, a man named Omar Sheikh, was the scion of a wealthy British Pakistani family and had studied at the London School of Economics.

That a British citizen figured so prominently in the Kandahar hostage crisis was disturbing but far from anomalous. The eleven people charged this week with conspiring to blow up planes using liquid explosives are all British citizens. So were the terrorists who attacked London in 2005, almost all of the plotters who allegedly conspired to detonate a fertilizer bomb in England in 2004, the suicide bombers who attacked a beachfront Tel Aviv bar in 2003, and an alleged Al Qaeda operative who, along with would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid, planned to explode a plane in the fall of 2001.

Besides holding British citizenship, most had one other thing in common with Omar Sheikh: They were of Pakistani descent. For terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda--which, in the years since American troops deposed the Taliban, has reconstituted itself in Pakistan--ethnic Pakistanis living in the United Kingdom make perfect recruits, since they speak English and can travel on British passports. Indeed, in the wake of this month's high-profile arrests, it can now be argued that the biggest threat to U.S. security emanates not from Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan--but rather from Great Britain, our closest ally.:p


Anecdotal evidence for the influence of Muslim extremism on British Pakistani communities is not hard to come by. We visited the Al Badr Health & Fitness Centre in East London on a balmy June night to hear Abu Muwaheed--a leader of the Saviour Sect, an Islamist group--discuss who was to blame for the 2005 London bombings. His answer? Just about everyone but the bombers themselves--the British government, the British public, even moderate Muslims who betrayed their co-religionists by cooperating with the government. The evening included a video montage of fighting in Iraq that ended with footage of Osama bin Laden calling for jihad. One Pakistani man attending the session told us he considered the lead suicide bomber in the London attacks to be "a glorious martyr." Two months later, five of the Fitness Centre's regulars would be among those arrested in connection with the plot to bomb transatlantic flights.

How did Al Qaeda's militant worldview become so popular among a subset of British Pakistanis? For one thing, there is the generational divide in the community. Just as in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons--which depicts the rift between an older generation of nineteenth-century Russian liberals and their more militant, socialist sons--some of Great Britain's young Pakistanis are filled with contempt both for the moderation of their parents and for a British society that won't quite accept them. For many, this leaves a vacuum in their identities that radical Islamist preachers have been all too glad to fill. Now, young disciples of those preachers--Abu Muwaheed, for instance--have come into their own, and they are often even more radical than their mentors. Add to this the fact that one-quarter of young British Pakistanis are unemployed, and you have a population that is especially vulnerable to the temptations of radicalism.

Still, homegrown militancy can only partly account for the problem. That's because it is primarily in Pakistan--not the United Kingdom--where British citizens are being recruited into Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. About 400,000 British Pakistanis per year travel back to their homeland, where a small percentage embark on learning the skills necessary to become effective terrorists. Several of the British citizens recently suspected of plotting to blow up airliners reportedly went to Pakistan to meet Al Qaeda operatives. According to a government report released this year, British officials believe that the lead perpetrators of the 2005 attacks in London--Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer--met with Al Qaeda members in Pakistan. Several individuals allegedly involved in a 2004 plot to explode a fertilizer bomb in Great Britain also spent significant time in Pakistan. In April 2003, Omar Khan Sharif, whose family immigrated to Great Britain from Kashmir, attempted to carry out a suicide attack in a bar in Tel Aviv after visiting Pakistan. In 2001, according to British prosecutors, he e-mailed his wife from there, writing, "We will definitely, inshallah, meet soon, if not in this life then the next." And, in the fall of 2001, Sajit Badat plotted to explode a transatlantic airliner with a shoe bomb shortly after spending time in a Pakistani training camp.

But how to explain the lure of militancy for those who travel to Pakistan to become terrorists? The answer, in many cases, is Kashmir. A disproportionate number of Pakistanis living in Great Britain trace their lineage back to Kashmir. Though conventional wisdom holds that anger toward U.S. foreign policy is most responsible for creating new terrorists, among British Pakistanis, Kashmir is probably just as important. What's more, for the small number of British Pakistanis who want terrorist training, the facilities of Kashmiri militant groups have become an obvious first choice--as well as a gateway to Al Qaeda itself.

Al Qaeda's ties with Kashmiri militant groups date to the Afghan war against the Soviets, when bin Laden's forces fought alongside Pakistani groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, many of those groups turned their attention to Kashmir--the key reason why the Kashmiri conflict re-erupted in the 1990s. These ties endured throughout the decade and grew closer after Al Qaeda left Sudan and settled in Afghanistan in 1996. President Clinton's August 1998 cruise-missile strike against an Al Qaeda base in eastern Afghanistan killed a number of members of Harakat Ul Mujihadeen, one of the largest Kashmiri militant groups--suggesting that it was sharing training facilities with Al Qaeda.

Since September 11, the relationship between Al Qaeda and Kashmiri groups has only deepened, as demonstrated by the fact that Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was arrested in an LeT safehouse in Pakistan in 2002. Al Qaeda has been able to regroup in Pakistan after losing its base in Afghanistan in part by cooperating with Kashmiri militants. A senior American military intelligence official told us that there is "no difference" between Al Qaeda and Kashmiri terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda has also attempted to fit the Kashmir dispute into its anti-American narrative: Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who is writing bin Laden's authorized biography, told us that Al Qaeda propaganda accuses Pakistan's government of selling out Kashmir under pressure from George Bush and Tony Blair.

The danger to the United States of the nexus between British Pakistanis, Al Qaeda, and Kashmir is becoming clear. One of the alleged ringleaders of the recently exposed plot to blow up transatlantic flights is Rashid Rauf, a Pakistan-born British citizen whose family immigrated to Great Britain from Kashmir. According to the Associated Press, Rauf is married to a sister-in-law of Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of the Kashmiri terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed (and one of the men released as part of the deal that ended the Kandahar hostage standoff in 1999). Previously, in 2004, British authorities had charged eight men--many of Pakistani descent--with planning terrorism, including a plot to blow up the New York Stock Exchange. The cell's alleged leader, Abu Issa Al Hindi, a British convert to Islam, wrote a book explaining how he was radicalized by his experience fighting in Kashmir. In March 2006, British citizen Mohammed Ajmal Khan was sentenced to nine years for fund-raising on behalf of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Khan admitted attending a terrorist training camp run by LeT. The judge in Khan's case described him as "a terrorist quartermaster" for LeT. According to The Daily Telegraph, he was a frequent visitor to the United States and talked about attacking U.S. synagogues. American prosecutors say Khan was in touch with a group of Virginia militants also tied to LeT.


All of this should raise two concerns for American officials. The first is that American Pakistanis could pose a similar threat. "Homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda, if not more so," FBI Director Robert Mueller warned in June. There are reasons to worry that he is right. Two and a half months ago, an FBI affidavit contends, Syed Haris Ahmed, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, traveled from Atlanta to Ontario to meet with a terrorist cell. The FBI alleges that Ahmed, now in U.S. custody, planned to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. In 2003, Iyman Faris, an American citizen born in Kashmir, pleaded guilty to helping Al Qaeda plan attacks in the United States. Faris admitted to meeting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--the mastermind of the September 11 attacks--in Pakistan to plan those operations in 2002.

Yet it seems unlikely that radicalism in the American Pakistani community could pose as large a threat as radicalism in the British Pakistani community. American Muslims are, on average, more politically moderate than their British counterparts. According to a 2001 survey, 70 percent of American Muslims strongly agreed that they should participate in U.S. institutions. By contrast, a recent Pew poll found that 81 percent of British Muslims considered themselves Muslims first and British citizens second.

Of more concern, then, is the likelihood that British Pakistanis will continue to target Americans--both in the United States and abroad. To address this problem, the Bush administration should encourage the British government to monitor more closely the activities of U.K.-based extremist groups. Simply banning these organizations is not enough. Weeks after we attended one of their meetings, the Saviour Sect was outlawed by British Home Secretary John Reid. But, when we spoke to one of the organization's leaders, Anjem Choudhary, by phone, he told us, "Of course we don't use that name anymore. We just hold our meetings under another name." :p ;) In addition, Great Britain must step up efforts to identify its own citizens who attend Kashmiri or Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, there are limits to what the British government can do alone. It will need help from moderate Muslims, some of whom are waking up to the threat posed by the radicals in their midst. "These people are ill," says Ghulam Rabbani, the imam of the mosque adjoining the Fitness Centre, where the Saviour Sect held meetings. "I say very categorically and very clearly that they are misguided and they don't know the basics of Islam."

Rabbani faces a steep challenge: According to a recent poll, a full quarter of British Muslims consider the 2005 London bombings justified. And anyone who doubts how dangerous the intersection of such sentiments, Al Qaeda, and Kashmiri militants can be should consider what became of Omar Sheikh, the former London School of Economics student who won his freedom on New Year's Eve in 1999: Two years later, he was under arrest for orchestrating the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Peter Bergen is a senior fellow at the New American Foundation and the author of The Osama bin Laden I Know. Paul Cruickshank is a fellow at New York University Law School's Center on Law and Security.

Not at all. You are the one who stated that simply being of Pakistani lineage and being a young Muslim male was enough.

I merely said he fits the profile. And it just turned out that he was a cousin of Hayat who says that Ismail attended a training camp.

But you have to say "some lineage" even after the post above you clearly establishes that he was a cousin.


Meanwhile, my cousin was arrested for drug possession once. Does that mean that I should be picked up and questioned regarding drug use?

No. But if ur cousin turned out to be a terrorist and you were his buddy and your cousin says you attended training, then damn yes you will be picked up for questioning.


Actually, all that Hayat said was that his cousin went to a camp. He never stated that any training was involved and the article even mentions camps in which the Qu'ran is studied.

Qur'an studies is part of many terrorist training camps. It can still mean that he went to some genuine madrassa. All I am saying that "Qur'an studied there" does not exclude terrorist training.


Nor me. What does surprise me is the completely unconstitutional removal of his rights. If they have reason to suspect him, they can get a warrant to arrest and question him. If they do not have enough to do this, they have no reason whatsoever to restrict his travel.



If a US citizen cannot provide his own lawyer, the US government is required to provide one for him. Every citizen has the right to due process under the law - even if he happens to be in another country at the time. Even if they have to wait for a lawyer to travel to Pakistan, one has to be provided.

Why are you arguing this with me when I have no interest in arguing the legal/moral validity of denying him a lawyer and banishing him from travelling?


Meanwhile, wanting someone for questioning merely because of their lineage is racism, no matter how you look at it.

Buddy, profiling (/racial discrimination/whatever name you call it) IS going on ALL THE TIME.

Why is US allowing Canadian citizens in without VISA restrictions whilst applying all sorts of restrictions to people from say Mexico/China/Nigeria/etc?

Is it because Canadians won't settle here and abuse the entry permission and the Chinese/Nigerians would?

Clearly the govt thinks so and makes these different laws for different countries based on statistics.

Now just because say 100,000 Mexicans/Chinese/Nigerians have entered US abusing the border/VISA entry does not mean that the 100,001th Mexican would do so, does it?

Is THAT not profiling?

Living in Pakastain for 4 years? As in going there basicly right after the invasion of Afghanstain? That's sort of strange if you really think about it... But I think it's a little extreme, maybe put at most on a watch list but forced exile? A little much without further evidence.

lol. Add the bigot label too. Why leave that?:D

bigotbigotbigotbigot....racistracistracistracist...that ought to shut up everyone...

Well when you talk about someones heritage causing their actions you walk and quack an awful lot like chinese dinner . . .

Well when you talk about someones heritage causing their actions you walk and quack an awful lot like chinese dinner . . .

When there's something in your heritage that tells you to kill people, and you act on it, it's perfectly valid to bring up your heritage.

When there's something in your heritage that tells you to kill people, and you act on it, it's perfectly valid to bring up your heritage.

Just like the part of an African Americans heritage that tells them to rape and steal, right DK?

<Please note my sarcasim. I am not stating that this is my beleife>

When there's something in your heritage that tells you to kill people, and you act on it, it's perfectly valid to bring up your heritage.

So why don't we have more threads relating to the blood thirsty nature of christianity, and hows its message of intolerance and violence has enabled Americans to sponsor atrocities world-wide for the last 50 years?

Just like the part of an African Americans heritage that tells them to rape and steal, right DK?

<Please note my sarcasim. I am not stating that this is my beleife>

It's not my belief either. You don't see any African-American religion that is documented to advocate raping and stealing.

There are, however, religions that do advocate killing all non-believers. And if someone is a known fundamentalist in such a religion, and people from that religion are showing a pattern of killing people, it's useful to question them - on that basis.

If there's a string of abortion clinic bombings by fundamentalist Christian groups that claim responsibility, shall we question the atheists and Buddhists, or shall we focus on fundamentalist Christians?

If there's a string of terror attacks by fundamentalist Muslims, shall we question the Christians, atheists, and Buddhists, or shall we focus on fundamentalist Muslims?

Follow up on the case

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/us_nm/security_teenager_dc_1
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Pakistani-American born in the United States said on Wednesday he has been barred from re-entering the country apparently because he chose the wrong person to list in the emergency contact portion of his U.S. passport.

Jaber Ismail, 18, and his 45-year-old father, Muhammed, a naturalized citizen, five years ago listed as an emergency contact in their U.S. passports a close relative who was convicted of a terrorism-related crime in April.

Jaber Ismail arrived in Pakistan with his family nearly five years ago to study and memorize the Koran. He completed that task and tried to return to Lodi with his family in April, the same month his cousin, Hamid Hayat, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by attending training camps in Pakistan, and of lying about it to the
FBI.

U.S. Customs officials at the Hong Kong airport, where they were catching a U.S.-bound connecting flight, told the father and son, "your passports aren't in the system. You have no record in the U.S.," Jaber Ismail told Reuters in a telephone interview from Rawalpindi on Wednesday.

"I said, 'I am a U.S. citizen. I was born there.' I showed them my birth certificate, my school ID. They wouldn't listen."

Jaber Ismail's mother and two younger siblings, who were not on the no-fly list, returned to home to Lodi.

The Ismail men were forced to return to Pakistan and have been living with relatives in Rawalpindi, he said.

FBI agents in Islamabad told the Ismails that they had been placed on the no-fly list because they had listed the Hayats as emergency contacts on their passports, Jaber Ismail said.

His uncle, Umer Hayat, was sentenced last week to time served after pleading guilty to lying about how much money he was carrying on a trip to Pakistan from the United States.

U.S. officials say that even though the Ismails are on the no-fly list and cannot fly from Pakistan to the United States, they probably could re-enter the country by land or sea, provided their passports haven't been revoked.

But Julia Harumi Mass, an
American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the Ismail family, said the men fear being stuck in Mexico or Canada if they are not admitted.

"There aren't any charges against them.... They are effectively holding them hostage in a foreign country," Mass said.

Jaber Ismail said FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad interviewed him at length about his uncle and cousin and whether he knew anything about terrorist training camps.

He said the agents told him that he and his father would be denied entry into the United States unless they submitted to more questioning and a lie detector test.

"I was at a mosque. I was memorizing the Koran because it was important to my mom," Ismail said. "I want to go home and finish high school and get a good job."

Grrr is history always doomed to repeat itself … people who can remember the time of McCarthyism are not even dead yet

It is when the people running everything are tools.