One need not sympathize with the individuals involved here to recognize that no citizen should be denied re-entry to the United States simply for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent. Our government's action in this regard is an unconstitutional power grab with broad implications for our freedoms. If the government has a case against these men, it should bring charges.
The requirement that these citizens take a polygraph test before being permitted to return to the U.S. is especially outrageous. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis, and as used by law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations, often serves as little more than a pretext for interrogating a suspect in the absence of legal counsel.
Moreover, be aware that polygraph "tests" are easily passed through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraph examiners have no demonstrated ability to detect. Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadists know this. See "The Myth of the Lie Detector" from an Iraqi jihadist electronic magazine and the section on lie detection from Al Qaeda's Encyclopedia of Jihad. The FBI's reliance on such pseudoscience as polygraphy for national security purposes reflects great irresponsibility and incompetence.
To: George Maschke
Thats why they make sodium pentathal. Bottom line we are either at war or we are not. In 1943 If your Nazi son had attended a 4 year hiatus in Germany at say Auschwitz training camp should he have been granted access to the U.S. Thats why we won that war. They already used the excuse "Failed to imagine the Threat" What can our government possibly say the next time?
2 posted on
08/30/2006 2:30:58 AM PDT by
tomnbeverly
(Radical Islam is a disease and George W. Bush is the cure.)
To: George Maschke
I'd be interested in hearing more details on the case... Are they actually being "denied entry" into the US, or is it that the airlines refuse to sell them tickets until they get embassy clearance, and the embassy won't give them clearance until they do what the embassy wants?
Meaning, what if they decide to take a ship? Would the US still stop them from entering the US?
Mark
3 posted on
08/30/2006 2:31:23 AM PDT by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
To: George Maschke
Its not exactly clear. In fact the information is conflicting.
It appears however, that they are not being denied entry into the US PER SE, but rather denied entry onto an aircraft.
No airline will let them fly, unless the embassy gives them the thumbs. The embassy won't do that unless they believe their story. If these Islamics won't cooperate with the embassy, thats their prerogative....but that doesnt compel the airlines to turn a blind eye.
Assuming the above is true, Im ok with this.
Airlines are not required to allow folks to fly, and disallowing suspicious characters like these two is a good idea.
Embassys are not required to state an opinion (to a private company) on the character of an individual.
As it is, these two very suspicious people, imo Americans in name only, have a choice. They can find another way back to the US that does not involve flying, or they can comply with the airlines wishes.
We still have cruise ships and you can actually book passage on freighters.
Now Im as big a critic of TSA as they come, but profiling extremely suspicious people is a good idea.
4 posted on
08/30/2006 2:40:20 AM PDT by
dman4384
To: George Maschke
If they can't buy a plane ticket, they should take a ship. Freighters used to take on a few passengers. I expect they still do.
5 posted on
08/30/2006 2:40:23 AM PDT by
PAR35
To: George Maschke
A California teenager suspected of attending a terrorist training camp should be denied entry into the country.
End of story!
6 posted on
08/30/2006 2:42:20 AM PDT by
Beckwith
(The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
To: George Maschke
It doesn't seem as if these individuals are being denied entry into the US at all. They are merely being forbidden to fly here on the privately owned airliners owned by private businesses.
Considering their history, I wouldn't let them on my vehicle, I wouldn't pick them up if they were hitchhiking either.
Maybe they can find another way.
To: George Maschke
These are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, convicted terrorist. They have just spent 4 years in Pakistan where the 18 year old son now fits the profile of all of the terrorists who have committed acts of terrorism on US soil or interests. Damn right they should be interrogated. I know lots of Pakistani Americans who travel back and forth to Pakistan without difficulties because they are not under suspicion.
If the polygraph is as unreliable as you say, then if Jaber has been properly trained, he should be able to duck it easily so why is he resisting?
Now, if you do not believe we are engaged in a long and costly war against Islamic terrorism and that recent events in the UK demonstrates that the greatest terrorist threat may be homegrown, then I suppose you will see this as a great usurpation of our civil liberties. I see it as protecting American lives in a time of war.
9 posted on
08/30/2006 2:49:38 AM PDT by
Roy Tucker
("You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality"--Ayn Rand)
To: George Maschke
It's really a two edged sword isn't it?
While they may be American citizens - they're also suspected of being aligned with a group that have vowed to destroy America. That's called TREASON... I think it's perfectly alright to require some questioning to return..
10 posted on
08/30/2006 2:51:01 AM PDT by
pamlet
To: George Maschke
Why does the viability of polygraph tests matter at all if the critical issue, as you see it, is the threat against the constitutional right of a citizen to remain silent? Are you saying that it'd be permissable to violate that constitutional right if polygraphs were more reliable?
Aaron
12 posted on
08/30/2006 3:14:31 AM PDT by
AHerald
("Do not fear, only believe." Mk 5:36)
To: George Maschke
There is no constitutional right to air travel. Though if we could firm up that "terrorist training camp" business, I wouldn't mind flying them as far as Guantanamo. I'd even pay for it.
15 posted on
08/30/2006 3:32:32 AM PDT by
prion
(Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
To: George Maschke
If the government has a case against these men, it should bring charges. You're right: lie detector tests are worthless.
It's time to start stripping those who attend terrorist camps, or who facilitate others to attend those camps, or who openly advocate violent jihad, of their naturalized status.
To: George Maschke
Right to remain silent when you have spent time in a terrorist training camp? OK - so it's just a suspicion, but I would imagine that there is some evidence to cause the suspicion.
Club Gitmo sounds like a good place for them to visit for a while until cleared or convicted.
23 posted on
08/30/2006 5:07:01 AM PDT by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberalism)- the cult of a Cancer on Society)
To: George Maschke
What sort of training did they get in Pak? Blowing up an airplane, perhaps?
26 posted on
08/30/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by
arthurus
(Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
To: George Maschke
You're on the no-fly list you don't fly. Too bad. Maybe they can swim back.
36 posted on
08/30/2006 7:11:32 AM PDT by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson