N.Y. Muslim group held at border

NY Daily News ^ | 12/30/2004 | LESLIE CASIMIR

[Marine Inspector]

Carloads of Muslim New Yorkers, all U.S. citizens, were detained for hours by federal agents after they returned from an Islamic convention held in Toronto over the weekend. A Pace University student said she was asked by a border patrol officer at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge crossing whether the wire in her bra was a weapon. A white Flushing resident said U.S. officials refused to tell her why she was being held for eight hours.

"It's just appalling," said Jean Tassi, 53. "If I didn't have on a head covering, I would have never been stopped."

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official said agents acted on intelligence that conventioneers may have terrorists in their cars.

"We understand that most of these conferences are legitimate, but it is our duty, it is incumbent on us to verify the identity of everybody entering the U.S. - even citizens," said Kristi Clemens, a Washington spokeswoman. "I understand their frustration."

More than 30 people had attended "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" convention at the Skydome that was billed as a spiritually uplifting event.

"I refuse to be treated like this in my own country," said Miriam Soliman, 20, a Brooklyn-born finance major who said she was interrogated about her underwire bra.

[broadsword]

Didn't think your bigoted "kill all muslims" mutual masturbation sessioun would get interrupted, didya?

Can this vile, profane creep do anything but LIE? Do these Islamonazi-defenders ALL have to LIE?

Chemist_Geek has, once again, shown himself to be a LIAR.

[Former Dodger]

I do not know of any law they were breaking, but they were not arrested, merely detained because they were uncooperative and, dare I use the dirty word, fit the PROFILE of known terrorists. It was their lack of cooperation and attitude that probably caused them the most problems. Had they been civil, cooperative and non-confrontational they probably would have been treated in a civil, cooperative and non-confrontational manner.

Before you ask how I know, I don't know that specific incident, I couldn't, nor could you, but I do know something about dealing with people on a daily basis, and how all it takes is one with a chip on their shoulder to make your day miserable. Additionally, logic dictates that if ALL Muslims passing through this Border checkpoint were treated this way, this MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A REAL STORY!

Since this is the only reported incident, and the left-wing AP tried very hard to push it, I would have to believe that the "complainants" were more than a little at fault, since no other follow-up stories came to light.

There were over 10,000 attendees and only this group of 30 to 40 drove over the border? And of that, only 4 or 5 had a problem?

[Former Dodger]

The CBP were profiling, but they can't say that (ACLU, thanks again!)

As for the Anti-Catholic hysteria, it's not that far gone, it's more of just a prejudice, especially if the RC is not Liberal: I was amazed that they did not make more of sKerry being a Catholic, but he is an accepted Catholic: Abortion, Gay Unions, are OK.

The generalization you use hits close to the truth, in fact women were never used by the jihadist madmen until 2003, I believe, and now that changes everything, and thus the need to check women with Headscarves, etc.

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying it seems necessary, at least until the enemy decides to play by some kind of civilized rules.

And as far as right-wing Christians, let's look at how they are treated by the media and the law, for example, the anti-gay protestors arrested in Philly.

Sometimes the extreme Christians scare me, any type of "Fundamentalism" is scary, but these guys are getting railroaded.

[Nesher]

"Do these Islamonazi-defenders ALL have to LIE?"

Yep. Isnt there a part of the Koran that says it's ok to lie to non-Muslims to further the cause of Islam?

And anyway, there is no way to use the truth to defend the terrorists, because the truth exposes them for what they really are.

[Former Dodger]

Hey Geek, only ALIENS can be deported, and last time I looked, it was not against the law to express an opinion. I don't think anyone has stated that we should "kill all Muslims", while there have been a lot of Muslims who have stated that they should "Kill ALL Americans, and non-Muslims".

We didn't start this world war fundamental lunatic jihadists did.

[Former Dodger]

Then I'm still waiting for you to explain how their views on slavery and women's rights are relevant to their views on the power of government to keep free citizens under surveillance.

Their"views" on slavery and women's rights were "unconscious", so to speak, it was merely a part of who they were. They did not think about it because it was just how society accepted it.

They saw no need for the government to keep people under surveillance because there was no need to: a smaller population, less access to large weapons (there was nothing equivalent to what is available today for complete and utter destruction), and society itself acted as government surveillance in many cases, until people were corrupted or coerced into silence: the Coast Guard was formed to fight smuggling, kind of fits the surveillance bill, yes?

However, if they could not foresee the need, does that NEGATE the need? If the surveillance of "free citizens" had been conducted McVeigh might have been caught before those innocents died. Additionally, without surveillance of "free citizens" the government may not have caught the "93 WTC bombers, and the Al-Queda cell in Lackawanna County, near Buffalo, NY (coincidentally, right near where this "border incident" occurred)

The only way it adjusts is through amendments. If you're not referring to an existing amendment which gives government these kinds of powers, or if you're not proposing such an amendment, then that comment is likewise irrelevant.

I never suggested that change could occur any other way. But amending takes time, that's why we have LAWS which are written to adhere to the Constitution. The Patriot Act has changed certain laws, and if it is unconstitutional, then it needs to be challenged in SCOTUS.

As I've said before, this is the 21st Century and ONE person can kill, maim, destroy a lot more than some 18th Century armies could.

You insist on trying to paint me as some type of "anti-Founding Father" person and it won't work, I am not.

I await your next volley.

[inquest]

Their"views" on slavery and women's rights were "unconscious", so to speak, it was merely a part of who they were. They did not think about it because it was just how society accepted it.

They saw no need for the government to keep people under surveillance because there was no need to: a smaller population, less access to large weapons (there was nothing equivalent to what is available today for complete and utter destruction), and society itself acted as government surveillance in many cases, until people were corrupted or coerced into silence

So...what does one have to do with the other? You were saying before that some connection exists, so I'm still curious to see if you have any intention of telling us your view of what it is.

I never suggested that change could occur any other way.

So are you proposing an amendment or aren't you? If you aren't, then your "living Constitution" remark is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[RS]

So your "defence" is basically that you think there were only a few citizens that were treated as second class, and because the AP was covering it, it must be false ?

How about this instead - 30 citizens, who had commited no crime, were LIED to at the border and taken aside by agents who assured them it was just a random check. After showing their documents, they were then held until they also submitted to photos and prints, being told they would be arrested if they attempted to leave. They are checked with metal detectors. They are never informed what they were suspected of. They are finally released, and some are given veiled warning that they better keep their nose clean, we are watching you.

Could the government plant their prints somewhere ?
Might they keep their mouths shut and NOT speak out ?

Before you ask how I know, I don't know that specific incident, I couldn't, nor could you ... But it is more plausable then yours.

[Former Dodger]

isn't this "living document" crap one of the basic tenants of the liberals ?

Perhaps in the way they use the term, it is not the way I meant the term.

I have the greatest respect for Justice Scalia and agree wholeheartedly with him concerning the Constitution and the use of the democratic process for change. I refer to the Costitution as a "living document" because it is "alive", it grows and matures, so to speak.

It is not a "dead" document like the Bible (with all due respect) which has not changed "officially" in nearly 2000 years; and all "changes" were due to translations and interpretations.

"What makes you think that a living Constitution is going to evolve in the direction of greater freedoms?" Scalia asked. "It could evolve in the direction of less freedom, and it has."

I could not agree more. Government has stuck it's nose where it should not be, and the people have lost rights because of that. With all the talk of what the Founding Fathers maeant or didn't mean, do you think they ever imagined that the Constitution would be used to protect Abortion?

Please do not put words in my mouth, I am quite able to speak for myself, and don't assume to know what I mean.

Ask me and I'll tell you what I mean, if it isn't rather obvious already.

Justice Scalia's "living document" and mine are two different things, to my mind, sorry for any confusion.

[Former Dodger]

You know, you are become a tiresome contrarian, and this is turning into the famous Monty Python "Argument Sketch".

Perhaps you have a learning disorder and cannot understand clear English? You insist that I am doing and saying things that I am not doing or saying.

I love a good discussion, and I have been enjoying this for 4 days now (?), although it should have ended in 1 day.

It really is VERY simple: the Constitution is the basis for our Laws, any law that is passed must be Constitutional. I never suggested amending the Constitution again, it would take too long, any change I referred to was meant to deal with the law.

The Patriot act and similar were hurried into pace to try and prevent a recurrence of 9/11, and some rights have been stepped on, but if that is un-Constutional, let SCOTUS decide.

I hope you listen better than you read.

[RS]

"Please do not put words in my mouth, I am quite able to speak for myself, and don't assume to know what I mean."


LOL-

after the third time attempting to have you explain your "But that was 218 years ago, and times were different", and watching you dance around explaining it to others I get -

Post 774 "It is fairly evident what is meant, no further explanation needed."

[inquest]

You insist that I am doing and saying things that I am not doing or saying.

In response to a statement talking about how the Founders would have been alarmed at what the government is doing, you wrote, "the Founding Fathers would not have had a problem with it since many of them still believed in selling and owning human beings, and that women had no right to vote." Obviously you think there's a connection between the two, but you have yet to say what that connection is. Is there some reason why you take umbrage at being asked to back up your statements?

I never suggested amending the Constitution

I didn't say you did (speaking of being able to comprehend English). I asked you if you did, and if the answer was no, why you brought up this "Living Constitution" business if it had no relevancy to the discussion? Again, your overreaction to such a basic request speaks volumes.

[Former Dodger]

Ok, RS we'll play the game:

So your "defence" is basically that you think there were only a few citizens that were treated as second class, and because the AP was covering it, it must be false ?

No, my defense(that's how we spell it in the colonies) is that a simple situation got out of hand because people caught attitudes and were probably less than cooperative. I don't know which "side" did it first. But this happens in America and can be easily resolved, after all, people only lost their heads figuratively, didn't they? I never suggested that the AP story was fals, you did, I inferred that they were pushing it in an attempt to embarass the president by proxy, as they have in many other "Non-stories".

How about this instead - 30 citizens,(were they ALL citizens? They dress in traditional clothing which may make any reasonable person suspect their citizenship.) who had commited no crime (The 19 monsters of 9/11 were innocent of crimes, too, yet everyone wonders why the weren't stopped. Because the ACLU would have cried "PROFILING!" and allowed them to go free.), were LIED to at the border and taken aside by agents who assured them it was just a random check. After showing their documents(and complaining loudly about doing so), they were then held until they also submitted to photos and prints, being told they would be arrested if they attempted to leave. They are checked with metal detectors. They are never informed what they were suspected of. They are finally released, and some are given veiled warning that they better keep their nose clean, we are watching you.(And since September 11, 2001, they have lived in a vacuum? Or perhaps they have the bunker next to yours? NEWS FLASH RS: this ain't the America you grew up in. There are people out ther that believe the same things that this group does who wpould like nothing more than to wipe us -AMERICA: The Great Satan - OUT. Until these "peaceful Muslims" in the US and Canada, and other parts of the free world come out and CONDEMN the actions of the Islamofascist, they are all suspect - NOTE: I said SUSPECT, NOT GUILTY.)

Could the government plant their prints somewhere ? Might they keep their mouths shut and NOT speak out ? (That's right the evil American Government is trying to frame poor innocent Muslims. Maybe they'll plant the prints on the Capitol, and then burn it down. And you say you're NOT a Muslim apologist?)

[RS]

My turn-

"I never suggested that the AP story was fals"

True - you never said it was fals ( which colonies were those again ? )

"They dress in traditional clothing which may make any reasonable person suspect their citizenship." ...absurd - This would surprise a border agent who was supposedly told that they were coming ?

(and complaining loudly about doing so)...absurd - Everyone shows documents, and a bad guy terrorist would make a scene ?

"yet everyone wonders why the weren't stopped. "... absurd - 911 hadn't happend yet, just why would you have stopped them ?

Oh, I suppose I should check that last one... are you one of those who think Bush knew all about 911 before it happened ?

[Gondring]

Well, you weren't writing to me, but I'd like to respond...

The Patriot act and similar were hurried into pace...

I hope you listen better than you read.

I read better than you write...here in the colonies, we spell it "place"...

"...some rights have been stepped on, but if that is un-Constutional, let SCOTUS decide."

What part of "rights" don't you understand? The "endowed by our Creator" or "unalienable" part?

Hint about the Constitution...it doesn't give us rights...it protects them.

Just writing laws that you know violate rights isn't a very nice thing. In fact, I believe that's one of the problems we have these days...instead of writing good law, we have a lazy legislative branch that just throws things at the wall and watches what sticks. If it doesn't stick, they throw again.

Probably the best thing Ahnold has done in CA from my outside perspective is that he's forced the legislative branch to think a bit more.

[Former Dodger]

No the conspiracies are your game.

The absurdities were meant to be such, except the one about traditional dress. And they were forewarned that they were coming? Why? Because they had intelligence that they might try to smuggle people in (a reason!)

And my spelling of False as fals is a simple typo, not the Commonwealth spelling of defense that you chose.

Everyone shows documents, and a bad guy terrorist would make a scene ?

If everyone shows documents, why did they complain that they had to show documents?

[Gondring]

Their"views" on slavery and women's rights were "unconscious", so to speak, it was merely a part of who they were. They did not think about it because it was just how society accepted it.

So they debated slavery in some sort of dream-sleep? The three-fifths compromise was done unconciously? Did Washington channel someone when he wrote that he felt possessing slaves was "very repugnant...to [his] own feelings." Did Jefferson mumble the words "hideous blot" in a drunken stupor?

I fail to see how this is directly relevant to the discussion, but the factual correction was begging to be made, else we continue the revisionism that's trying to get a foothold these days.

[ariamne]

Deported? Really? To where? That sounds like fascism to me. Do you really think someone should be rounded up and deported simply because you don't agree with him? THAT is unamerican. Your agenda is showing.

[Fruitbat]

How can we tell which Muslims are not threatening? Myself, I will look upon them suspiciously for a long time to come.

Right. Until they begin to distinguish themselves by tatooing a "T" on their foreheads for 'terrorist' or some other distinguishing mark, clearly it's impossible to tell. If it weren't, then the 9/11 hijackers would have been identifiable.

[ariamne]

I think the most revealing thing he has shown is a propensity for fascist language--the suggestion that we round up Americans who have a legitimate fear of islamic terrorism and deport them (where? and who would do the deporting?) invokes images of Nazis and concentration camps. Which, by the way, has not happened to muslims here in America, despite the breast beating on the left about Gitmo.