Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:02 am
arlos wrote:Leuyen, the issue I have isn't so much with who has been declared a Terrorist organization at present, but the POTENTIAL for abuse that an unfettered statute would create.
I meant it with my examples. If the president has unlimited power to unilaterally declare ANY group or organization a "terrorist threat", regardless of need of evidence, support, etc, and if that group has no recourse... What happens when some future president declares, say, Amnesty International to be a terrorist organization? How about Greenpeace? Hell, The Sierra Club?
I'm not saying Bush WOULD declare any such thing, but with the statute as it existed, he COULD, and that's what needed to be stopped.
I agree, I just don't think that the foreign entities in question should be able to bring the case before our judicial system. The question of the validity of inclusion of a group as a terrorist organization should not be spearheaded by that group. Internally there should be independent review, and honestly this would probably fall before congress.
arlos wrote:As for the 6 imams, WTF are you talking about? They didn't do anything other than get kicked off of a flight for nothing more serious than "making unamerican statements" while being muslim. Would they have been kicked off if they'd been white? I doubt it.
-Arlos
Passengers on the plane interviewed by the press had a little more to say. The men shortly before boarding separated and were sitting in several locations on the plane in pairs of two. Two in first class, two near the middle and two near the back of the plane. This is from an account by a passenger I watched on CNN. Note that other reports of passenger and airline employee testimony state that not only were these not their assigned seats, but the two in first class were denied pre-boarding upgrades to first class because it was full, but that is where they were when removed from the plane. Various news reports have stated that they were praying loudly before getting on the plane, and making critical statements of the US regarding various foreign policy's and actions. At least one (confirmed by his own admission) and I've heard two of the men requested seat belt extensions, in the view of the flight attendants the men were not of a size that necessitated them. I've also heard of a report that the extenders were not used but placed underneath the seat by these men. Various reports sighted a refusal by these six men to get off the plane at the request of various officials be it the police or the Captain. All in all these actions by themselves wouldn't warrant the suspicion, but together they look very much like a terrorist probe.
To be sure there is a lot of conflicting reports... conflicting in that there are events mentioned in some and not in others, but beyond a single report citing one of the imams justifying his request for a seat belt extension sighting the size of his stomach I have yet to see report refuting "facts" which others include.
The DHC is investigating the matter, and I have little doubt that not only will the true facts be found, but also a judgment made on the actions of all parties involved. Interesting enough is another case the DHC is currently investigating also involves US Airways and the removal of two other passengers from another flight. These two passengers however were not Muslims, in fact they were Air Marshals who didn't have what the airline thought was required documentation. Now really, if US Airways was basing these decisions off of some unfounded prejudice and not a mind for security concerns don't you think they would have allowed the Air Marshals to take the flight?
So yes the facts of what all actually occurred are at this point somewhat suspect, however the fact is that for some reason, and with todays political climate I'd think a reason beyond a note passed to an airline employee by someone who could just be prejudice, Airline employees, Police and FBI agents felt it prudent to remove these men from the flight and question them. Kinda points to a high likely hood that they were intentionally trying to stir up reaction doesn't it?
Before you argue that last point, consider this... and these are well documented facts.
One of the imams Omar Shahin the following Monday staged a protest at Reagan Washington airport. Omar Shahin is not just some peaceful muslim who was trying to attend a conference and say his daily prayers. Googling his name aside from the recent hits on the events last week returns a plethora of information on his affiliations, statements and actions.
Among the most interesting of these are his previous assertions that Muslims had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and admission of support (financial) for Bin Laden. Now in all fairness he did state that his group had stopped the aid when the CIA also stopped supporting him (ie the move from freedom fighter to terrorist). His assertions that 9/11 was not orchestrated by Muslims would tend to lend credibility to a lack of contact with Bin Laden... if these assertions weren't made months after the attacks after Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attacks.
He has held various leadership positions in Muslim organizations here in the US, organizations that have been found to have ties to Hamas, specifically Kinder Hearts which was one of the homeland charity organizations found to be funneling money to terrorist groups by the FBI.
No Omar Shahin is no peaceful loving Muslim who hates terrorists, he's a radical who while not directly taking part in their actions, does everything he can to wage smoke screen fight to aid them.
Considering his involvement in the incident, and the amount of smoke (as in where there is smoke there is fire) surrounding it, and one of the principal characters past affiliations and actions, I've come to the conclusion that this was very much an orchestrated event.
I don't believe the purpose of this event was to gain moneys through some law suit (although that would be a side benefit), but to weaken our resolve as a nation to keep vigilance in security. If he can drum up enough support and enough fear of reprisal for questioning suspicious acts, it makes it that much easier for actual terrorists to circumvent security to commit atrocities.
The Soviets sought to compromise our national security via moles spies and political shields, using our own system against us and infiltrating our government.
This is nearly the exact same play book.