Posted on 01/14/2016 6:22:58 AM PST by Kaslin
When Donald Trump in December called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," I replied that changing just one word - "Islamists" instead of "Muslims" - would transform his outrageous and dead-end effusion into a politically feasible and operationally viable policy idea.
In response, came this valid question from readers: And how does one distinguish between Muslims who are Islamist from those who are not? This is a very doable task, though an expensive, time-consuming one demanding great skill.
By Islamists (as opposed to moderates), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (the Shari'a) in its entirety. Islamists, not all Muslims, are the modern barbarians; they, not all Muslims, must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries.
Both in-depth research and intensive interviews before allowing aliens into the United States. The process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant's family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. The immigration services should look for anomalies, gaps, questionable activities, and dubious relationships; when it finds these, it must probe them.
It's no longer just public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and imams whose thinking can be traced, but most everyone, thanks to the proliferation of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), plus the Internet's open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner.
In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide the evidence to keep them out. Even some non-violent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation. But most Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone. Research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate. Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, a (voluntary) interview is needed and it must be very rigorous. To be specific, it should be:
Recorded: With the permission of the person being questioned, the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are known to be on the record, with the interviewee's words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language all available for further study. Form matters: does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, need repeated toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself in non-verbal ways?
Polygraph: Attaching the interviewee to a lie detector might induce truth-telling, even if the machine does not, in fact, provide useful information.
Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of "Is Islam a religion of peace?", "Do you condemn terrorism?" "How do you respond to the murder of innocents," depend too much on one's definition of words like peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person's outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: "May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?"
Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.
Variety: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases.
Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions and the time lapse between their being asked. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.
This interviewing protocol is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period of time using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follows-up about the respondent's line of reasoning or depth of feeling. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.
In short, truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims.
Hey Daniel Pipa...
Islamist = terrorist = moderate muslim = radical muslim = mulsim
get it!
I could never understand how terrorists could get by the Did-you-pack-your-own-bags question at the airport. Seems designed to stop all bad guys.
Lovely dissertation on how to make it work and I agree totally with 99.95%. But there is ONE question which can determine an Islamist almost immediately.
Should Israel control Jerusalem?
Watch the body language on that question and you will know immediately where their sympathies lie.
Useful suggestions and all, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go to, just to let a bunch of muslims into the country.
The cost benefit thing doesn’t really work for us; its not clear how Americans benefit from letting any of these people in.
Many radicals become radicalized later. They may be perfectly moderate earlier in life, but a crisis pushes them back to the faith, and deeper into the faith; Islam is the only religion I can think of that the deeper you go the worse human being you become.
Immigration policy should always serve the interests of citizens. What is the benefit to citizens of letting another million muslims into the country?
Wrong. Normal humans are incapable of detecting lies by subhuman savages. This will get a few, but most will be missed.
Applying normal human criteria to savages won’t work.
See the Noble Savage Delusion.
Interrogate that arrogant pos and then sentence him to lifelong prison plus 200 years at Leavenworth, KS
All shia and sunni muslims support the replacement of all government with sharia law. They are all islamists. Terror is just a distraction.
The article is written by a fool.
I think we have to go back to square one regarding immigration—this is our country and we are under no moral obligation to let anyone in. Immigration is a privilege and not a right.
If we are to let in muslims it has to be few and far between. We have to realize that their world view is not our world view. Muslims were barely noticeable until after the 1965 immigration law. What was wrong with the pre 1965 immigration laws as they existed? The pre 1965 laws understood the importance of national sovereignty, ethnicity and culture. This is what a nation consists of, people who are tied together by history, culture and blood. Now we feel apologetic for keeping anyone out that means that we are psychologically undermined from the beginning. We cannot talk about ethnicity or culture. We cannot even talk about numbers. We just can’t say no—it is not our house anymore if we cannot just say no.
I think that we have to at least reduce the number of muslims that can come into our country to just a very small number maybe under ten thousand then maybe they can be carefully vetted by real professionals. As far as the vetting process, where are these skilled impartial professionals who are going to do this work? How are we going to keep the usual Democrat party machine workings from infiltrating the process with their relatives and other party hacks. In the Democrat machine it is all about rewarding cronies with government jobs.
I think that poisoned candy analogy really hits the target.
Do you believe in the prophet Mohamed?
Yes.
BANG!
Bring in the next suspect.
I absolutely agree with you.
Superior Revolutionary Guard Naval Forces ...... Using 19’ center console shallow water fishing boats with outboards against 2 armed naval fast boats? What’s wrong with this picture? I’m sure Kerry will recommend Purple Hearts for the crew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.