Posted on 11/16/2001 5:26:42 PM PST by Roy Tucker
DALLAS (AP) - Arabs and Muslims expressed outrage Friday at the U.S. Justice Department's plan to interview 5,000 young male foreigners, who are not suspected of any crimes, as part of the terrorism investigation. Civil rights activists say the action constitutes racial profiling.
"Unless the government has credible evidence that all these 5,000 men were involved in terrorism, which is very unlikely, then what Mr. Ashcroft is advocating is racial profiling at its most fundamental level," said Ramzi Dakour, vice president of the Arab American Students Association at the University of Texas at Austin.
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Tuesday that the Justice Department has distributed a list of 5,000 men it wanted to interview about the Sept. 11 attacks. The list comprises men ages 18 to 33 who entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2000, from certain countries.
The countries represented were linked to the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks or were waystations for the terrorist organization, al-Qaida. The department acknowledges the men are likely to be Arab and Muslim, but says the list wasn't based on ethnic origin.
"This is yet another example of the heavy-handedness that's being used without any rhyme or reason," said Sohail Mohammed, an immigration lawyer in New Jersey. He represents several men who were questioned shortly after the attacks and are now jailed on immigration charges.
Mohammed said he would advise people to cooperate with questioners "if there's a good, well-articulated reason other than just a general fishing around."
Earlier interviews seemed to be just that, he said, "Stupid questions like, 'What do you think of American civilization?' and 'Why do you pray five times a day?' If that's what they're going to ask this time, people will say, 'No fishing in this house.' "
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas is distributing hundreds of pamphlets, some in Arabic, explaining civil rights under federal and state law.
The Justice Department interview initiative is "formalized, black-and-white stated policy directing law officers to racially profile," said William Harrell, executive director of the state ACLU.
Hana Saleh, a member of the Muslim Student Association at the University of Texas at Dallas, said students are increasingly concerned about racial profiling.
"You can't just say that because a person is from this part of the world, they will act this way," she said. "People who know us personally would never approve of this. As human beings, we all want freedom."
Najat Elsayed, president of the University of Houston's Council of American-Islamic Relations, said people with no connection to the attacks may feel nervous about talking to investigators for fear a miscommunication could land them in jail.
"We want to help as much as possible, but we haven't done anything wrong and we are legal, productive citizens," she said. "We don't see why we should be subjected just because someone from our race did something."
Right. Critics nvere look at the actual cause for stopping a certain person, which is as often as not completely unrelated to race. A car without a taillight, or a missing or obscure license plat, or a luxury car "cruising" in a poor neighborhood.
My guess--and that is what this is, a guess--is that if war is formally declared, we will have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This 'intelligence' war cannot afford to be hampered by the edicts/rules of the Geneva Convention. In other words, if you don't declare war, you take no prisoners either.
I understand your point. I even respect it. It is just that we are not looking at the full picture here. We already have examples of the government taking one Bill that was intended for something totally unrelated to what it is eventually used for.
The FBI has already issued a list of Terrorist Characteristics to the police. These characteristics are so broad that ANYONE could fit it. (they are covering all bases see?)
It IS just a matter of time before the Orwellian Patriot Bill is used against us. By then, it will be too late.
There are many, many Socialists on this site who will try to attack me because they don't like the message. Many of these people have admitted that they work for, or have worked for the Feds. DO NOT TRUST THEM! Their livelyhood depends on the ever-broadening reach of their god, government. They will sell you for a few gold coins. Mark my words. The constitution does not say what it says unless it has the approval of government, in their minds.
I understand your point. But listen carefully to what you are saying (unintended I'm sure).
You are saying that in order to keep a pact our government made with foreigners, they are justified in destroying the pact they made with US. How patriotic is that?
only your mind.
A little convoluted thinking here. Almost everyone responding to you are saying "let's get the terrorists" and you're spinning "We can't because we didn't declare a real war." that is my problem with your concept.
You wish.
Tough noogies. Its war, baby. Deal with it, Arab/Muslim-ACLU. ;-P
It is pretty much as you say, the troops in the field are not certain which rules of engagement to follow. (They realize the Taliban and Co. will not follow any rules.) I heard a soldier say on O'reily that he was not sure what would be expected if a Taliban fighter threw down his weapon and surrendered. Our guy said he intended to follow the Geneva Convention, but that the rules of engagement were not that clear.
The reason they don't formally declare war and haven't done that is because of our NATO alliances and the embarassment of having to ask certain countries to join us in war when their parliaments might refuse (causing political troubles for allies).
By extension of your logic, the last legitimate war the US fought was WWII. If Hitler had not declared war on 8 December, 1941, you would have been opposed to us declaring war on Germany. Most of Europe would be very different if we had followed your dictum.
Furthermore, there were curtailing of liberties during WWII such as rationing and biletting of soldiers in homes, wage and price controls that came off after the war. I think citizens have to be vigilant about their liberties, but I also think that you have to be realistic about the world we live in.
The short answer is, it's not, but then this isn't the first time that citizens are being given the bait-and-switch. Particularly, the switch.
Now I'll just go and crawl back into my hole and think about this for a while. Flame away.
There is a difference. And I most definitely would not have agreed with the government had they decided to round up ALL white men.
Excellent point.
[From JRadcliffe]
Read my post #47. YOu still have not shown me where the President is authorized to take this action without a formal declaration of war.
I don't see how a formal declaration of war is necessary to conduct a criminal investigation. You seem confused about what is going on here, so I'll summarize: the Justice Department is planning to interview 5,000 young male foreigners who are not suspected of any crimes as part of the terrorism investigation. They want to ask them questions, apparently many inane questions at that.
So just where does a declaration of war come into this? It's a criminal investigation, and the DOJ is planning to interview a bunch of people who may or may not know something useful. There are people who are upset because they characterize this as racial profiling.
As far as I know, there is no prohibition against the DOJ talking to whoever the hell they want to for whatever reason they want to. We're talking about interviews here, not arrests or summary executions.
Your diatribe in Post #47 is remarkable in many ways, not the least of which is its complete irrelevance to the subject of this thread.
Oh, and as for Post #50, your statement about acts of force being unconstitutional suggests that the executive has no law enforcement powers. You may want to study the Constitution more thoroughly.
As for Pearl Harbor, the point you apparently missed is that the attack itself was an act of war, and regardless of what Congress may have subsequently declared, Japan was waging war against us as of December 7, 1941. It only takes one belligerent party to start a war. Even without a formal declaration by Congress, the executive branch, including the armed forces, was compelled to defend the nation.
Imal
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.