Posted on 09/25/2003 10:13:31 AM PDT by quidnunc
The arrest of two Muslim-American servicemen based at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (a developing story originally broken by this newspaper), raises some complex questions about the conflicting loyalties of Muslim-American soldiers in the war against radical Islamic terror. Dueling it out are two policy imperatives dear to our tradition of government: equal treatment of all regardless of race and religion, and the need to guarantee national security. The threshold must be high for a policy to curtail one of these fundamental values in favor of defending the other — but it is a threshold that can be met in extreme cases. The ancient imperative of self-defense is such a case, but it remains to be seen whether we have reached that situation.
The complex connections between terrorist organizations, Islamic charities and some mainstream Muslim groups bring up the uncomfortable issue of whether Muslim chaplains and men in the ranks should be treated differently than recruits of other faiths. The military is confident in checking with the Vatican to confirm the character of a Catholic priest, but relying on the judgment of Muslim groups has proven to be less reliable.
Trouble was bound to happen eventually, as the military has sought assistance to approve chaplains from Muslim groups that are themselves questionable. According to Robert Spencer, author of the new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," the Air Force "in July 2002 asked for help recruiting Muslim chaplains from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA is subsidized by high-placed Saudi Wahhabis. Many Muslim military chaplains have been trained by the American Muslim Foundation's American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs Council; the AMF has been investigated for suspicions of funding terrorism." Because of this system, many Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military have strong Wahhabi beliefs. The risk of conflicting loyalties is not limited to the chaplain corps.
Considering that there are only approximately 4,500 Muslims in uniform, their record of religious-based crimes is significant. The most notorious case of conflicting loyalties was that of Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed two of his commanding officers in a grenade attack in Kuwait last winter and shouted, "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children." As Mr. Spencer pointed out to us yesterday, "He explicitly identified himself as a Muslim, and not an American."
The author provides other serious examples of enemies within the ranks. Naval Reservist Semi Osman was charged last May with illegally trying to become a U.S. citizen (he had altered birth certificates and other related papers) and possession of a handgun whose serial number was altered. Maj. Ali A. Mohamed, an Egyptian, joined the Army as a resident alien in the late 1980s even though he was on a State Department terrorist watch list. After leaving the Army in 1989, he joined Egyptian Islamic Jihad, worked directly with Osama bin Laden and was charged with involvement in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 1998. Army reservist Jeffrey Leon Battle was indicted last year for conspiring to wage war against the United States, and according to the Justice Department, "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America." He planned to go to Afghanistan to join up with the Taliban.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Make sure you relax and sleep with both of your eyes closed... OK?
Are you seriously suggesting that the safety of all Americans be placed in jeopardy to spare the feelings of those non-radical, peaceful Muslims?
What about your own personal safety, or that of your wife and children?
Or if you don't have a wife or children what about the safety of your parents and siblings?
I think a lot of folks can't tell the difference between the majority peaceful law abiding Muslims and the terrorists because they don't want to. Its just an easy way to justify paranoia, ignorance, and flat out hatred.
The major difficulty with this statement is that, for the past two years, we have seen so little evidence of "the majority of peaceful law abiding Muslims" that their existence has been logically called into question. What we have seen is the government and the media giving deference to organizations, such as CAIR, ISNA, AMC, that have been proven to have terrorist/extremist ties, and who are attempting to silence criticism of their highly questionable activities with cries of "racism" and "persecution."
What you are seeing is backlash effect, as the evidence of the senses -- in the form of violence, rhetoric, betrayal, and printed materials filled with naked hatred -- overwhelms political correctness.
To use the words of Robert Spencer:
The issues here are too important to be relegated to politically correct silence, wishful thinking, or lies of intimidation or politeness. It is incumbent on us to look squarely at the truth."
That "us" includes Muslims in America.
Yes, I am, if "guaranteeing" our safety includes the process of watching the activities of all Muslims. It's called freedom. The last time I checked, some of the "all Americans" includes Muslims.
I take it you are not a non-radical, peaceful Muslim, are you?
How do you tell the difference? What should the military have done to root out Yee from the beginning? Which of the actions you list would be acceptable to you?
And what of the the freedom from the threat of being blown to smithereens or being obliterated in the flaming wreckage of a downed airliner, is this not also a vital civil liberty?
The measures used to investigate suspected terroristrs are no more intrusive than those used to investigate suspected white-collar criminals.
The Muslim jihadists and those advocating for them invoke civil liberties in order to be in a position to eliminate them at a later time.
Of course it is. But should EVERY Muslim be a suspect? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then we have nothing else to say.
The measures used to investigate suspected terroristrs are no more intrusive than those used to investigate suspected white-collar criminals.
Agreed, and if there is evidence that particular Muslims are considering or engaging in terrorist activity, they should be investigated. But, should every Muslim be investigated or be considered a suspect? No.
Fact: All terrorists and practically all their support group are Muslims.
Fact: The Muslim terrorists by and large move within the Muslim community in the U.S.
So in view of these facts where do you propose that we look for terrorists, in Lutheran churches, Farm Bureau picnics or Knights of Columbus lodges?
No, you have to look where Muslims congregate.
Our domestic counter-terrorism efforts must, of necessity be directed at Muslim organizations.
And if we don't want more 9/11s we have to be proactive, not reactive.
I don't disagree, but which? All of them?
Therefore all mosques in America should be given a look-see to determine if they liable to be harboring terrorists.
The same goes for Muslim gatherings such as conventions.
The investigation of Muslim groups doesn't have to be high-profile or intrusive to be effective.
But the Muslim radicals are in the ascendency world-wide so we have to keep abreast of what's going on in the American ummah.
That comment is a nothing but casuistry.
The subject of this thread and this discussion is Islamofascism, which is the only terrorist movement posing a mortal threat to America.
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.