Posted on 11/21/2015 7:05:26 PM PST by Kaslin
A national-security investigation may "not [be] conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." That clause, and others similar to it, are found throughout the Patriot Act and other provisions of federal law. They protect Americans from being subjected to surveillance based on nothing except their religious beliefs.
There's an obvious reason for that at least, I thought it was obvious until Donald Trump reportedly embraced the idea of forcing Muslims to register in a database. I say "reportedly" because it is not clear to me, after hearing a recording of Trump's hectic gaggle with reporters, that he intentionally articulated such a proposal. More likely, he thoughtlessly agreed that it should be considered upon being asked some loaded questions which is better, but not much.
The reason our law forbids investigations based on religion alone is also spelled out in the Patriot Act. As Section 102 explained: "The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all religious, racial, and ethnic groups."
Guilt is personal and based on behavior. The idea of collective guilt based on religious affiliation violates our constitutional principles. It is offensive even to people like me, who believe Islam is better analyzed as a political ideology with some religious tenets than as, strictly speaking, a religion. After all, millions of Muslims believe in the religious tenets but do not want sharia imposed on civic life. For them, Islam is a religion, not a religious veneer on subversion.
Surveillance and other forms of investigation in our society have to be triggered by conduct, not religious, racial, or ethnic classifications. But from this correct premise, the commentariat goes wrong by contending that because these status classifications may not trigger investigation, they are irrelevant to investigations in all instances
To the contrary, they may be highly relevant. Most Muslims are not jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims and draw motivation from a literalist construction of Islamic scripture. You can't defend against what our enemies might do without studying what they believe.
Let's take Islam out of the equation for a moment. A great deal of crime, especially conspiracy crime, has ethnic components. To be a member of the Mafia, a person has to be an Italian male. That does not mean all Italian men are organized-crime suspects; but it does mean that if a prosecutor accused a bunch of guys named McCarthy of being members of the Bonanno Family, the case would be laughed out of court.
When I was a prosecutor, moreover, it was a commonplace for the government to plead in search-warrant applications that suspected cocaine traffickers were Colombian nationals or had taken trips between Colombia and the United States. Such circumstances would not be sufficient in a vacuum; but placed in conjunction with suspicious conduct, courts would rely on the Colombian ties in granting the warrants and upholding them on appeal. Not every Colombian was a suspect, but neither did the law require that we blind ourselves to the fact that Colombia was Cocaine Central.
Here is the point: It is against our law for a person to be targeted for investigative attention solely because of the person's race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation. But if the person's conduct is suggestive of criminal activity, terrorism, or espionage, that is a valid basis for triggering an investigation. Once there is a valid basis for investigation, it is relevant it is common sense to account for religious affiliation to the extent it may shed light on the suspect's actions and state of mind.
A Muslim registry is constitutionally offensive because it would subject a person to investigative attention based on nothing other than religious affiliation. But let's put the law aside: The notion of a Muslim registry is also stupid.
A Muslim registry is constitutionally offensive because it would subject a person to investigative attention based on nothing other than religious affiliation.
When I used to prosecute terrorists, it was a source of sardonic amusement to me that all sensitive evidence and other discovery was disclosed to defendants with the admonition that they would be held in contempt of court if they transmitted the information to unauthorized persons. "Imagine that," I'd say to myself. "A guy has willingly risked death, capital punishment, and life imprisonment in order to commit mass murder, yet we think we can stop him from leaking by threatening a contempt citation?"
A Muslim registry would suffer from the same flaw. Few if any terrorists would sign up, assuming for argument's sake that it could be enforced and just imagine what would happen the first time the Justice Department indicted a Muslim for failing to register.
Newsflash: Jihadists lie whenever lying facilitates the execution of their missions. And they have no compunction about concealing their religion, ideology, or similar personal characteristics. Al-Qaeda, for example, has long sought American, Canadian, and European members because they can freely enter those places. These jihadists may have, say, American or British citizenship and passports, but they are not, in their own minds, Yanks or Brits. They are militant subjects of the ummah who are using a cover to infiltrate and terrorize. On this, the jihadists like to quote their prophet: "War is deceit."
Therefore, the only people who would end up registering would be law-abiding Muslims, who would be justifiably angry about being coerced in such a lawless and pointless manner.I opined that the only sensible strategy for preventing terrorist atrocities like the one last week in Paris (Thursday's Mali attack had not happened yet) was to emphasize (a) intelligence collection regarding radical mosques (which are not hard to distinguish from non-radical mosques) and (b) the cultivation of cooperation from the American Muslim community, including informants.
Steve and I noted that this was the very successful NYPD approach after 9/11, but it had recklessly been abandoned by Mayor de Blasio's administration. And, as I've previously explained, the Obama administration's "Countering Violent Extremism" strategy similarly rejects the prudent NYPD surveillance approach pioneered by former commissioner Ray Kelly. Obama prefers to have our law-enforcement officers retrained by the administration's "partners" in Islamic communities including Islamist organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which insist that Islamist terror has nothing to do with Islam.
Trump came on right after I hung up, and Bannon proceeded almost as if it were a continuation of our conversation. He noted that I had made a case for reviving the NYPD approach and the surveillance of radical mosques. Trump agreed that the NYPD had it right, that the development of informants was key, and that intelligence-gathering at mosques had to be stepped up. In tossing out a barrage of ideas about aggressive surveillance, Trump never came close to suggesting a Muslim registry.
For what it's worth, I don't think Trump came up with the idea of a Muslims-only database. I do think, though, that when he was fed this noxious suggestion, he did not know enough to dismiss it out of hand. (See Byron York's report at the Washington Examiner.) And that is the yuuuge problem with a populist par excellence who knows how to give the people what they want to hear . . . with the details . . . um . . . maybe to follow, maybe not, and maybe at 7 p.m. they are different from the ones offered at 7 a.m. other than that it will be the best registry in the history of history.
Counterterrorism has been undermined by too much "outreach" to all the wrong Muslims. There is no effective counterterrorism, though, without buy-in from all the right Muslims that's how we infiltrate terror cells, gather critical intelligence, and stop attacks.
Donald Trump's blunderbuss tough-on-terror rants are understandably appealing to voters exasperated by a political class that seems more indulgent of Islamist charlatans than concerned about American security. But you can't actually be tough on terror without good intelligence. Alienating the people you need it from is not the way to get it.
Except that’s not what Trump says, not saying Muslims. And there’s already a db of incoming Syrians, it just doesn’t have any history and is not used to track them.
btw, db according to gov’t official on Hannity last night.
Hey, Mr. "Journalist", why don't you just ask Mr. Trump what he thinks about Muslim registries? I'd be surprised if he wouldn't take a call or answer an email from someone representing the National Review. Or you could tweet him up.
Being a journalist used to require using some shoe leather. Now you just have to use ten fingers (or two thumbs if you're on your phone) to communicate. Get with the program.
The real blunder is: “ They are already dbase’d” but, won’t be tracked....
You did the finger scan thingy and the oath right?
You have to admit, the more intense the attacks, the more he rises in the polls.
No, it was a Celebration of Life due to the death of a friend’s daughter. Bottled water only!
ExTexasRedhead:
I apologize for what I thought would be a funny comment which turned out to be a not so funny under the circumstances.
I’m sure that Trump was not intending to make major policy decisions during small talk to a reporter asking him a question at a noisy book signing. Unlike McCarty, who has the advantage of sitting in his office and with about twenty-four hours to come up with a whiny hit piece.
I’m surprised McCarthy is anti-Trump.
Wasn’t the tape of this by CNN shown to be doctored, so another faux-conservative bloviates over a few thousand words about a Trump quote which was fabricated. What is going on? “National Review” and “Weekly Standard” have, in a few short months become high end birdcage liners.
Geezuss Trump makes more people look stupid than Don Rickles.
Since it also encourages the believers to LIE about anything in order to further islamic conquest you could never believe them if they DID ‘renounce’ the icky parts of islam.
When are people going to get this story straight ..???
Rush had Trump’s statement on his program .. and Trump was not talking about registering Muslims .. TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BORDER FENCE AND ACCOUNTING FOR THOSE WHO COME ACROSS OUR BORDER.
Trump said NOTHING about putting all Muslims on some sort of registry. TRUMP WAS ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE BORDER. IT WAS THE MEDIA INTERVIEWER WHO INTERJECTED THE INFORMATION .. NOT TRUMP.
DAMN IT PEOPLE .. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN NOT TO TRUST ANYTHING (NOT ANYTHING) THE MEDIA TELLS US - ESPECIALLY ABOUT TRUMP (OR ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN).
Indeed. So why is Trump being castigated for (allegedly) proposing a registry (which he did not do); when there always has been such a registry — for every immigrant? Could that possibly be an example of that “media bias” I’ve heard so much about?
You’re the one with the vapors.
Trump did not say anything about registering Muslims. Rush played the tape of Trump’s statement .. it didn’t happen.
Take a breath Andrew. Its another tempest in a teapot. Trump never said he wanted a database of all muslims the reporter suggested it. Trump wanted to talk about immigration. Probably half the people in the US right now think its a good idea anyway. LOL!
Wait til the next terror attack in the US in 3-2-1 any day now. You know its coming. Ofail has brought in hundreds of thousands of these who knows who refugees. Or they waltzed across the border.
: "A national-security investigation may "not [be] conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." That clause, and others similar to it, are found throughout the Patriot Act and other provisions of federal law. They protect Americans foreign unvetted terrorists from muslim countries from being subjected to surveillance based on nothing except their religious beliefs and uncertain allegiance so clearly demonstrated trough mass murder in England, France, Belgium, Eastern europe and Scandinavian countries.
NO NEED TO PROVE ONE MORE TIME THAT EVERYTHING THAT OBAMA UTTERS HAS ULTIMATELY PROVEN TO BE A LIE. EVERYTHING!
These Obamanation traitors obviously believe that the governors of all our country's states and mayors of our major cities are ignorant total idiots.
Although many might be, I don't buy blanket stupid statements.
How is this vetting taking place?
Details, please.
Governors may be too stupid to care.
Mayors may be too stupid to care.
The American people?
THEY FREAKING CARE!!
Definitely something wrong with Andrew. This story has been debunked over and over and he still comes out with it. Wow!
That's not possible. A consulate, perhaps. Embassies only exist in the Capital of a country.
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.