Terror on the dole (4-22-04)

Evening Standard ^ | 4-22-04 | David Cohen

[libertarianben]

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

[ghost of quidam]

Wasn't necessary for which war to begin?

Maybe it's a bad example/analogy, just the first and most
obvious that popped into my skull. I thought of FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII as well, but that
was shameful, and not something I'd advocate in the current situation either.

My whole point to Mylos is what do you do with folks like those in the original article - those who openly call for and cheer the idea of terrorism in the state in which they live?

[Mylo]

You keep them under observation, infiltrate their organizations, and arrest them when evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime arises. Just like the FBI does to NAMBLA. We cant stop them from saying what they want to say and organizing; but we can sure as hell keep them under observation.

I'm not sure all the "Brit-Muslims" cited in the article were citizens. I think non-citizens in the USA who join such groups should have their immigration status revoked, citizenship denied (if they are applying for it), and be deported.

U.S. citizens should never be denied their rights under the Constitution; even if they are working to destroy our Constitution. Nothing will destroy it faster than the USA deciding that some have more equal rights than others.

[ghost of quidam]

If you'll double-check the article, the Muslims quoted are all U.K. citizens, I believe.

If you are going to let this type of rhetoric go unchecked,
you'll get things like the tube bombings, or worse. Law enforcement after the fact can help arrest the perpetrators, but leave in place the support network and mindset that spawned the attacks.

I agree that pro-active and pre-emptive law enforcement/monitoring would be better, but it's one thing to penetrate NAMBLA or some other such organization, quite another to penetrate and compromise a terrorist cell(s).

[Mylo]

I don't think the two are that different. Both are groups of nut-cases who publicly proclaim their proclivity and intention to commit crimes. Either can be infiltrated, monitored, bugged, tailed, and eventually arrested (like they got those NAMBLA pervs here in San Diego planning to do some pedophilia south of the boarder).

The alternative to letting "this type of rhetoric go unchecked"; is to infringe upon our right to free speech. Curtailing our Constitutional rights under the pitiful attack of these jokers incapable of anything more than killing a few tens, hundreds, and occasionally thousands of civilians is just not an option to anyone who values our Constitution and the freedoms assured to us by our founding fathers.

[ghost of quidam]

tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thou.....

Where does it end?

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be much more pro-active and investigative terrorist crime prevention in the West, but what of the absolute hail of criticism that would come from such an effort?

Do we put FBI guys undercover into radical mosques? What would the reaction be to that, regarding constitutional rights etc., in the media and the public?

[libertarianben]

OK. I forgive ya. I was talking about the War Between The States, btw. Sorry, I am not a big fan of Abe Lincoln, I go off when people make him out to be a God.

What should we do to them?

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to anything other than Islam. I stole this from Ann Coulter, I hope she doesn't mind.