It is long past time to end these suicidal policies. From AP:
PHOENIX - The FBI agent who wrote a memo warning that terrorists were training at flight schools before the Sept. 11 attacks said concerns over racial profiling may have prevented officials from acting on his intelligence."If you look at the world prior to 9/11, we were prevented from doing certain things. We were victimized by our own restraints," Ken Williams told The Arizona Republic in his first interview since writing his now-famous memo in July 2001.
Williams' findings were based on investigations of Arizona aviation students tied to al-Qaida. At the time, he recommended the State Department coordinate with the FBI to provide information on flight students from Middle Eastern countries.
His memo was ignored by supervisors until after the attacks, but Williams said it was not a case of incompetence or malfeasance and he never blamed supervisors for the intelligence failure.
Male, muslim, middle eastern, 14-90. That's the only profile we need to know.
Unforunately, tuck, we need to widen the net a bit, to include non-ME types as well. They've been recruiting from other ethnic groups, i.e., Jack Roche, Richard Reid, etc. I think the recent "Jihad Jack" was non-ME too. And wasn't there a Hispanic in the US? Of course they often seem to take on a ME-look - beard, robes, etc. But even that might change. Business suits or casual GAP gear might be their uniform too.
Male, Muslim, 14-90.
Even the 'male' bit might be a bit too restricting. Islam seems to be slowly getting quite equal opportunity when it comes to women committing murder in the name of their sick belief system.
feralee -
Very good points; well taken.
How 'bout we keep it simple then.
"Muslim, 14-90?"
“His memo was ignored by supervisors until after the attacks, but Williams said it was not a case of incompetence or malfeasance and he never blamed supervisors for the intelligence failure.”
Whoa11!! - Hold your horses. With a national crisis such as the 9-11 disaster about to happen and these warnings were ignored until after the fact? It was not a case of incompetence? Supervisor was not taken to task over the intelligence failure? Heads didn’t roll? Concerns over racial profiling? Since when does racial profiling take precedence over national security? What is wrong with criminal profiling taking precedence over racial profiling? Is that so simple you can’t figure that out? Now you want to overhaul the 9-11 commission recommendations? Are you working toward another PC failure? Your way of doing things makes a person depressed - angry - fearful - disgusted. Make no mistake about it - if you continue with your failures and the citizens have to do the job for you - you won’t like it. Below is a suggestion that will go a long ways to solve the problem;
tuckunderbreak says;
“Male, muslim, middle eastern, 14-90. That's the only profile we need to know.”
Hey!!! Now we are getting somewhere. Get started on it and all of will feel better.
all of us will feel better. Whew - I got so excited about the prospect of it I couldn't write very well.
THSIMJ -
Well, I've simplified it - "Muslim, 14-90."
This should take the wind out of the sails of leftists who repeatedly used this failure as a stick to hit the Bush admnistration. After all, it is they who invented political correctness.
Why isn`t "racial"profiling acceptable and implemented???!!!The answer is:
ACLU,left wing,liberal media and left wing liberal politicians.
For all of the above,national security is a non-issue.
Can we do something about it??!!!....yes we can,or at least we can try...go to
www.stoptheaclu.org and sign the petition.
Let`s put the ACLU out of business.
It is a radical communist organization,it acts against our national interest,against our national security,our national culture and traditions.
adela
Excellent!! I have known for a long time the ACLU is doing everything it can to tear down the US Constitution and transfer all the citizens rights to the criminals. If they have their way, the citizens will have no rights left. I will read and study the :stoptheaclu.org site very carefully and add my little voice.
THSIMJ,go for it!
Make a donation if you can afford it ,and if you can`t,then just sign the petition and sign up to participate in the anti-ACLU march organized in your area.
Also,direct as many as you can to this website and encourage everybody you know to fight against the monster called ACLU.
adela
I will defiantly sign the petition and make a donation. It will be a very good cause. A thought crossed my mind - gather up some good information explaining all the damage they are doing that will fit on one page complete with a reference to Stop the ACLU- - print copies and distribute them all over town. Thank you for the info.
Faralee, there's also social losers like Johnny Walker.
Racial Profiling is used by law enforcement because it is effective in finding criminals. That is the bottom line. To ignore facts only weakens law enforcement.
Nossy
Hrmph! Don't count on the cooperation of the Left even for security in the face of invasion during war. In fact they are gleeful that the U.S. could fall victim of this or any other ideology, even if they also do. Leftists would rather be dead than give up their ideologies. It's a pathology of idiots.
We can no longer rely on the original profile of Middle Eastern young male, as now they are using other races and, even old women and children. Sadly the dollar cost of the inconvenience we now must face will go up. Remember that they won't stop until we are ALL dead or subdued.
Set your priorities. First take on Islam. Then, if you have any blood left in your veins, go after the ones who cooked up this mess. But I argue again that we should focus on the immediate problem of Islam. Regardless of our Fifth Column, they are still Americans and citizens of other Western nations, and they are entitled to rights just as we are. The problem is that those who are not entitled to those rights are making claims to more that the rights of natural citizens.
As many of you know by now, I favor and will aid in any way I can, a pamphlet campaign. I won't waste any of my time on the ACLU, regardless of their activities. They do not kill people on the streets. They might aid and abet, but they are not our first line of attack. If you're serious about combatting islam, I'm there with you. Stay focussed.
WHAT? You mean John Asscroft's Justice Department and George Bush's FBI and CIA were being "politically correct"? Please. They were being "inefficient," period. Asscroft told the acting FBI director that he didn't "want to hear about" terrorist attacks.
Stop blaming terrorism on left-wing political correctness. The Marines won't let you in if you are, and will kick you right out if you become, overweight. They won't let you fly planes if you need glasses. Period, end of story. Don't tell me that the ACLU and others are fighting tooth and nail to end such "discriminatory" policies. The government decides what is needed, and the government procedes as planned.
The problems arise when government officials are preoccupied with other priorities, like overturning Oregon's euthanasia law and Cali's medicinal marijuana law. This is why we were so vulnerable on 9-11, even after FBI agents noted that Muslim men were learning to fly but not land or take off.
You can keep coming back every couple of weeks to try to revise history to suit your needs, to blame 9-11 on liberal leftists, but as long as I am here you won't get away with it. Asscroft, Dub, Condi, and Dick were asleep at the wheel and ignored the warnings.
We knew they wanted the WTC since '93. We knew they could use planes as missiles. We knew that air security was pretty-much a faith-based program. We knew that "Bin Laden [was] Determined To Strike In The US" (quote from title of presidential daily briefing, 08-01.)
The airline industry laughed down Gore's report on strenghtening airline security, Bush was fixated on tax cuts and SDI, Asscroft was out to bust the sinners. Political correctness does not rule the day, it does not set important policies (like I mentioned before regarding the Marines.) It's time to place the blame for 9-11 were it belongs, and stop blaming the hippies and the ACLU.
Besides, haven't you gotten your daily fax from the RNC? You were supposed to already start explaining how important it is (for our security, of course!) for us to change the Constitution so Arnold can run for president.
Read that again:
His memo was ignored by supervisors until after the attacks, but Williams said it was not a case of incompetence or malfeasance and he never blamed supervisors for the intelligence failure.
Memos were ignored, but it COULDN'T be a case of incompetance or malfeasance? (How could he know?)
But it was an intelligence failure, so it MUST have been political correctness? Circular reasoning, the right-wing M.O.
Sorry, keithjoy. even 'Anonymous' did not even mention ANY of Bush's people on Meet the Press yesterday.
Instead, he spoke of 10 different opportunities missed by your man Clinton's appointees...
And one only needs do a few minutes of research to learn that Most of the Senior staff in the Intelligence agencies- the ones being forced out now- were Democrats, Liberals and appointees of Democrat presidents.
They were the ones who balked at Jewish Interpreters.
They are the ones who kept leaking info to the press at just the right moment to help Their side of the issue.
Anyone who knows anything about the government, knows it takes time to clear house. There was no chance Bush could get these scum out before 911.
Don't have a nice day.
JJust when I was starting to think KJ was forever gone from our midsts. I guess his posts serve a useful function: the opportunity to set the record straight in his wake.
From FrontPageMag.com, an analysis of Michael Scheur's recent TV appearances vs what he has written in Through Our Enemies' Eyes vs Imperial Hubris. Seems to be a man with some memory lapses.
Leftist Hubris
By Thomas Joscelyn
Weekly Standard | November 22, 2004
On November 14, 60 Minutes aired a segment with Michael Scheuer, who made headlines after resigning from the CIA to pursue his second career as a critic of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (codenamed "Alec") from 1996 to 1999. With the publication this past summer of his "anonymous" book Imperial Hubris, he became a media star, giving countless interviews as "one of the CIA's foremost authorities on Osama bin Laden." Out of government, he appears poised to become a regular pundit. His appearance on 60 Minutes was followed two days later by appearances on Chris Matthews's Hardball on MSNBC and Aaron Brown's NewsNight on CNN.
During his appearance on 60 Minutes (and his follow-up interviews), Scheuer warned that al Qaeda's detonating a weapon of mass destruction on American soil was "pretty close to being inevitable." When asked what type of weapon al Qaeda could detonate, Scheuer responded that it would be "a nuclear weapon of some dimension, whether it's actually a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb, or some kind of radiological device . . . it's probably a near thing."
Such dire predictions call to mind warnings that both Presidents Clinton and Bush have made about the dangers of WMD in the hands of terrorists. Scheuer says also that within the first year of the "Alec" unit's existence, he learned that bin Laden and al Qaeda "were involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In this case, nuclear material, so by the end of 1996, it was clear that this was an organization unlike any other one we had ever seen."
Did bin Laden receive any outside assistance in his effort to acquire a nuclear capability? Scheuer did not say. Nor did 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft or any of the other interviewers ask.
But Scheuer did consider this question two years ago, and his answer was yes, bin Laden did receive outside help--from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Does Scheuer agree with the case for the war in Iraq more than he is letting on?
Scheuer's 2002 book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes offered startling conclusions regarding Saddam Hussein's willingness to assist al Qaeda's effort to obtain nuclear weapons. "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the FSU [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq," wrote Scheuer. In fact, bin Laden's "first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front] leaders, Iraq's intelligence service, and Iraqi CBRN [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] scientists and technicians."
Through Our Enemies' Eyes pointed to evidence indicating a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s. And "there is information," Scheuer wrote, "showing that in the 1993-1994 period bin Laden began work with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a CBRN capability for al Qaeda."
These efforts were far-reaching, according to Scheuer, who cited open-source reporting and other evidence--mostly from the late 1990s--to support the claim that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on multiple projects. Areas of cooperation included everything from assistance in the development of chemical and biological weapons facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan, to the possible training of al Qaeda operatives at Mujahedeen Khalq training camps in Iraq starting in June 1998 (the "MEK" was an anti-Iranian terrorist group sponsored by Saddam), to the possibility that MEK operatives (under Saddam's direction) provided "technical and military training for the Taliban's forces" as well as "running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda."
In Through Our Enemies' Eyes, Scheuer also reported on bin Laden's relationship with the former deputy director of Iraq's intelligence service, Faruq Hijazi. Scheuer approvingly cited evidence of meetings between bin Laden and Hijazi, whom Saddam made responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors," in June 1994 and again in December 1998. During their first meeting in Sudan, Scheuer wrote, Hijazi and bin Laden "developed a good rapport that would 'flourish' in the late 1990s." Hijazi was not a low-level flunky; he was one of Saddam's most trusted intelligence operatives.
A close relationship between Hijazi and bin Laden suggests there is far more to the relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda than the president's critics would have Americans believe. Curiously, it now seems as if Scheuer himself has forgotten the evidence of a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda that he cited just two years ago. Consider the following exchange with Chris Matthews on November 16:
SCHEUER: The only part of that I know about, sir, is that the--I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?
SCHEUER: Nothing.
Nothing? That's not the story Scheuer tells on, for example, pages 124-125, 184, 188-190, and 192 of Through Our Enemies' Eyes.
Commentators such as Matthews use Scheuer's words to undermine justifications for the war in Iraq. Consider Matthews's comments toward the end of his interview, "I hate to think what history is going to say about this war. They're going to say there was [no] WMD, because we know that. They're going to say there was no connection to al Qaeda, because we know that now."
But was there, according to Scheuer, really "no connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda? Or is Matthews simply unaware that Scheuer's newfound skepticism directly contradicts his research on this topic published just two years ago?
In his recent interviews, Scheuer stresses that the possibility of an attack using a nuclear device or another weapon of mass destruction is now greatly heightened. But absent from his talking points is any mention that bin Laden's longstanding pursuit of these weapons was aided by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Of course, if Scheuer openly discussed the evidence of Iraq's collaboration with al Qaeda that he cited in Through Our Enemies' Eyes, many would likely disagree with his characterization of the Iraq war as an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war and a "Christmas present" for bin Laden. They would also probably disagree with Matthews's assertion that there was "no connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Perhaps in the months leading up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration should have cited Through Our Enemies' Eyes as a source for its claim that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda. They might have quoted the passage in which Scheuer, scourge of the Bush administration, wrote, "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN weapons . . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on CBRN weapon acquisition and development."
Could the Gorlik wall be the reason??
no working together to find those who want to hurt us??
not even the FBI work with the FBI??
now the Senate has put these people in crarge of changing our intell don't let this happen!!
Some people in the Congress have some balls!!
WHY GOLICK CAN NOT WIN!!
Gorelick Rejected Attempt to Revise 'Wall' Memo
Scott Wheeler, CNSNews.com
Thursday, April 29, 2004
One of America's most prominent federal prosecutors sought changes to the 1995 "wall" memo authored by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, but most of the concerns expressed by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White over the barriers erected between criminal and counter-intelligence investigations were rejected.
Gorelick's "wall" memo was the subject of an April 26 CNSNews.com report, which quoted four sources as saying the memo erected barriers to intelligence-sharing between the FBI and intelligence agencies, and impeded the investigation of alleged Chinese espionage and illegal campaign donations to then-President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.
According to documents obtained by CNSNews.com, White, who was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, spelled out her concerns shortly after Gorelick wrote the memo establishing the new guidelines for federal investigations.
The reply that followed came from Michael Vatis, deputy director of the Executive Office of National Security, with Gorelick signing off on Vatis' language.
White was concerned that Gorelick's new guidelines for investigations had made it too complicated for the FBI to contact the U.S. attorney's office and launch a probe of suspicious activity. White suggested that only the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Department of Justice needed to approve such an investigation, and not the department's criminal division.
However, the Vatis/Gorelick memo offered a blunt reply.
"I recommend rejecting this change," the June 19, 1995 document stated. "[A] USAO [U.S. attorney's office] should not be notified of a national security investigation -- particularly one that has not yet developed into a criminal case -- without the approval of the AAG [assistant attorney general], Criminal Division."
The Vatis/Gorelick memo also addressed White's reservations over how the new investigative guidelines would impact a probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). White contended that once the Justice Department's Criminal Division had decided that criminal law enforcement concerns existed in a FISA investigation, the appropriate U.S. attorney should be contacted.
Vatis rejected this notion as well.
"Notifying the USAO as soon as law enforcement concerns exist -- but before Crim. thinks that the investigation should 'go criminal' -- is simply too early," the document stated.
The current U.S. attorney general, John Ashcroft, recently de-classified the original Gorelick memo that established the new investigative guidelines. He did so shortly before testifying in front of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, calling the Gorelick memo "the single greatest structural cause for September 11."
The June 19, 1995 memo from Vatis/Gorelick was included in a batch of documents released Wednesday by the Justice Department in response to a request by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.
The senators, in a joint statement, asked the department to "provide key Gorelick documents" in response to the Sept. 11 commission's "failure to hear testimony from a key Clinton administration Justice Department official [Gorelick], preventing the Congress from receiving a full accounting of intelligence and enforcement procedures that led to the tragic attacks."
A separate statement, released by Cornyn's office late Wednesday, charged that the newly released documents "substantially discredit former Deputy Attorney General -- and current 9/11 Commission member -- Jamie Gorelick's claims of limited involvement in the promulgation of 'the wall' separating counterintelligence and law enforcement agencies.
"Specifically, the documents show that she was substantially involved in the development of the information-sharing policy and contradicts statements that the department's policies under the Clinton-Reno administration enhanced, rather than restricted, such vital information sharing," Cornyn stated.
'Special Knowledge'
"These documents show what I've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Cornyn's statement continued.
Gorelick's membership on the 9/11 commission has become controversial considering that she also worked in the Clinton administration's Justice Department. Many Republicans in Congress have called for her to testify before the commission, a request the commission's chairman has rejected.
"This is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Either the Commission wants the whole truth, or it does not," Cornyn stated.
"If it does, she should appear in public testimony so that the families of the victims, the American people and the Congress can have a full and complete picture of what led to the failures of 9/11," Cornyn added.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHANGE INTEL CAN NOT HAPPEN REMEMBER CONGRESS AND SENATE YOU ARE THE EYES AND EARS??
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:38 a.m. EDT
Guards Finger Berger in Sox Docs Heist
After three days worth of denials from his legal team, eyewitnesses to Sandy Berger's top secret document heist have confirmed that the former national security advisor did indeed stash national security secrets in his socks, as well as his pants pockets.
NOW WHAT COULD THESE PAPERS HAVE BEEN??
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:31 a.m. EDT
Archives Officials Stunned by Scope of Berger Theft
Officials at the National Archives were stunned to learn how much top secret material Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had purloined from a super-secure reading room set up for the 9/11 Commission probe - when Berger returned documents last fall that they didn't even know he'd taken.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/20/213006.shtml
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:23 p.m. EDT
Prosecutors: No Dice on Berger Deal
Justice Department prosecutors reportedly have rejected several offers from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's lawyer to resolve the department's eight-month-long investigation into his illegal removal of top secret documents from the 9/11 Commission's reading room.
NOW WHAT IS THIS ABOT COULD IT BE THE CHIPS OR WHAT TO CHINA? AND THE GORLICK MEMO??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/125445.shtml
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Rep. DeLay: Berger Is Just a 'Third-Rate' Burglar
Is it possible to stuff top-secret documents down your pants "accidentally," as Sandy Berger and his apologists are trying to claim with a straight face? House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will have none of it.
Evoking images of Watergate, or perhaps the fast-food Hamburglar, DeLay, R-Texas, described the disgraced former Kerry adviser's light-fingered antics as "just a third-rate burglary."
OR WAS THERE MUCH MORE??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/170315.shtml
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Rep. Foley Longs for Good Old Days of Furniture Thieves
U.S. Rep. Mark Foley today had this to say about the diciest Democrat du jour:
"What in heaven's name was he thinking? What is so important that he would risk both his reputation and prosecution to remove these documents? What's there to hide?" stated Foley, R-Fla.
OR DOES HE MEAN WHIN HO LEE??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their hreat Amen
KJ
don't you just love it??
Rednecks who can't spell or type can take you to task??
SHORT SKIRTS WORTH FIGHTING FOR ON BOTH FRONTS CAUSE WE SEE WHAT THE LIBs IN EUROPE HAVE LET HAPPEN??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Over Here and Over There Amen
PS
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
What happen to our Friend kj??
The Truth hurts don't it??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Destory ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who SUPPORT them Amen
So if the ACLU is so adamant on protecting people from arrest based on a crime they MIGHT commit in the future,then why do they not condemn
Islam for its tenets that Christian and Jews are the enemies of Allah and must be killed to prevent
a future destruction of Islam and Muslims.
Last year 26 illegal Immigrants were rounded up for deportation,19 were Muslim men and CAIR went into their "Crisis" mode with the usual screams of "Racism and Islamophobia".
CAIR has been pretty quiet lately since the truth finally came out on these weasels,seems that they were all Sunni Muslims from Pakistan
and used forged ID to get student Visa's that were based on attending a College,they all overstayed the Visa and the school was found to be a defuncted mail-order scam where they sold certificates to foreigners to get passports or Visa's.
But it didn't end there,the men were all around the same age and arrived at the same time and lived in the same area and were harboured by the local Muslims that attended a central Mosque,in addition to these amazing common grounds, two of these men were taking flying lessons near a Nuclear Power Plant.
CAIR still insists that even if they were here illegally they shouold be treated with respect and have the same rights as citizens,they were innocent because the arrests were based on "profiling" which is unconstitutional.
Only two are still here and have a tax-funded lawyer agueing for Refugee status since they'll be harmed if returned home with all the fake ID
they got in their Country of origin.
You know, I do sometimes wonder if maybe keithjoy isn't deliberately being a foil for us to work against. No one could possibly be that dense otherwise......... could they?
As many of you know by now, I favor and will aid in any way I can, a pamphlet campaign. I won't waste any of my time on the ACLU, regardless of their activities. They do not kill people on the streets. They might aid and abet, but they are not our first line of attack. If you're serious about combatting islam, I'm there with you. Stay focussed.
Posted by: sonofwalker at November 22, 2004 02:28 AM
The ACLU is aiding and abetting the muslim fifth column in the U.S., volunteering its services to the likes of C.A.I.R., and initiating hundreds of trivial lawsuits on behalf of seditious muslims. I watched an ACLU lawyer on CNN last year stand up with a bunch of muslim fanatics and PLEDGE HIS SERVICES to assist them in turning the United States into an Islamic state!!!
He stood beside a hooded muslima witch as she ranted for ten minutes about jihad in America and the inevitable muslim victory. She said that Islam would control the White House within ten years. It was utterly unbelievable!
The ACLU is out to destroy America, there's no doubt about that. As they work to demonize and eventually eradicate Christianity, they champion Islam. They have worked tirelessly to undo every bit of legislation enacted to strengthen our defenses against terrorists, creating unnecessary expenses, burdens, and confusion at airports and borders, not to mention endangering the lives of all American citizens.
They are responsible for outlawing racial/ethnic profiling, tying the hands of airport screeners and exposing all of us to unnecessary risks.
After Islam, the ACLU is America's deadliest enemy.
Since the ACLU defends and promotes America's most lethal enemy, Islam, it must also be reckoned with. Defeating the ACLU won't be an easy task; it is probably one of the wealthiest left-wing, subversive organizations in the country. If I'm not mistaken, C.A.I.R. has the phone number of the ACLU permanently posted on its website.
I thought the U.N.'s carefully disguised plan for a global government was horrifying, but it's nothing compared to the ACLU's agenda.
A story from my past.
Many years ago I used to work for the Met Police in London. I had a colleague there who was a born again christian evangealist.
we were having a discussion on what the 21st century would hold for the human race.
I told him what I thought would happen.
"Dave, I think that in the early part of the 21st century a terrorist attack will be carried out against the west, more than likely the USA.
thosands will die.
The attackers will be moslem.
this will be the start of WW3.
it will be the non moslem world led by the USA against practically every moslem nation."
Dave said
"your just saying that, because you Indians don't like moslems"
Sorry Dave but I was right.
and its not just us is it ?
It's the serbs,russians,chinese,israel everyone with any regard for humanity against the beasts.
I think one of the reasons the memo may not have been believed is that the western mind cannot comprehend the idea of religious warfare, we are to secular.
the americans, having been on the receiving end are now quite clear that the beast cannot be underestimated.They will resort to any means.
The french & germans need to experience some sort of 9/11 type incident before they will wake up, but they will.
Religious Profiling.
Forgot to add my views on this.
racial profiling is not what we need.
Recently British troops in iraq, were the victims of a suicide bomber,I don't remember if any troops died, however the significant fact is that the bomber was white, blond hair blue eyes.
this is not a racial issue, it is a religious one.
If I was to visit the USA, I would probably have problems because.
I have brown skin.
Have visited two mid east countries ($hit holes both)
I could even be denied entry.
A simple physical check (moslems are circumcised, we are not) would resolve the matter, and save alot of time and hassle for US immigration and me.
Please do not regard every brown face as potentially hostile it is not the case. You would be in more danger from a white, blond haired blue eyed moslem than a brown face.
For the record, for what it's worth, I stand for the right of every odious act of free speech to have its time in the marketplace of ideas. If Moslima rant for ten minutes on CNN each and every day for the next year, how glad would we be? Yes, we'd be dancing in the streets liek Palestinians celbrating the death of our friends on 9-11. Let thse Moslem maniacs speak freely. the more we know of them by their own words and deeds the better we'll all be. If the ACLU is at the forefront of providing Moslem killers the platform to preach their hate and incitement to violence, good for them. Let us hear more and more. Let's hear it all. Every filthy word of it. Then we'll know what our position is in relation to Islam.