It appears that this attempt to cow and intimidate Jordan has failed: he gave no details, and he doesn't seem to have retracted his statement either. (Or if he did, this article certainly isn't clear about it.) Now why the ACLU -- and Muslim groups, for that matter -- would consider it offensive for a law enforcement official to say that Al-Qaeda is present in a particular place is beyond me. If they succeed in gaining Jordan's scalp, anti-terror efforts will suffer an immense setback: it will become a punishable offense merely to suggest that jihadist activity is going on, let alone to do anything about it. Be assured: the Muslim groups and ACLU will keep trying.
From AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — In a meeting with local Muslims, Robert Jordan, the top FBI agent in Oregon, refused to elaborate on his recent comments that jihad-trained fighters are living in the state, according to an ACLU representative who attended the gathering. Jordan, the special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon, addressed the ACLU representative, several dozen Muslims and other religious leaders on Tuesday at the Bilal Mosque Association in Beaverton....In an interview with The Associated Press last month, Jordan said: "We have people here in Oregon that have trained in jihadist camps in bad areas. In the bad neighborhoods of the world." He added that the FBI knows "they've trained overseas, taken oaths to kill Americans and engage in jihad," but the challenge is "to prove those things."
Ahmed said those comments stunned him, and he wanted Jordan to speak about the remarks to a gathering at the mosque.
Peg Pfab, pastor of Southminster Presbyterian Church in Beaverton, said the meeting was helpful.
"I think Mr. Jordan and the Bilal community are all trying very hard to move ahead and to use this experience as a learning experience, so that they can be better supportive of each other," Pfab said.
Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon, told The Oregonian that the meeting featured a presentation by the secretary of the mosque who talked about how Jordan's "jihad" comments have appeared in inflammatory Internet chats targeting Muslims and Arab Americans.
Off topic, but not really, and disturbing nonetheless: Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes fame, interviewed a CAIRrorist about a Christian radio station dropping their contract with CAIR.
Attached is the link to the story. Please e-mail Mr. Colmes and politely ask him why he is sucking up to, and siding with people like CAIR.
Also attached is his e-mail address. This is ridiculous and shameful.
Story link: http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=36070&theType=NB
Alan's e-mail: Colmes@foxnews.com
It will be a tremendous coup if such a high ranking official of the FBI is effectively silenced. Sadly, the effect, of course, will trickle down...
The ACLU should be defending Jordan's right to free speech!
Those folks over there have lost it. Along with the rest of the left, they're deluded into thinking "they have met the enemy and he is us."
Oh, how wrong they are.
Messages of support and gratitude to SA Robert Jordan:
Portland@FBI.gov
Jordans comments were poorly constructed -- and could be revealing. I, for one, am a little concerned when a law enforcement officer says they 'know' something -- and that the challenge is to 'prove' it.
If you can't prove it, you don't know it. If you do know it, make the arrests.
I agree with you, Sheetwise. On the other hand, we have to recognize that there are surely a myriad of legal technicalities that have to be addressed in chargeing these people with a punishable criminal offense. The most obvious question is were these people training in Afghanistan or Somalia or elsewhere prior to their organization being declared a terrorist organization?
Let's take for instance the case concerning the Council on American Islamic Relations and its fundraising efforts for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Prior to President Bush's executive order declaring the HLFRD a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) in December 2001, it was perfectly legal for CAIR to funnel all the money it could scrounge to the HLFRD. However, once that EO was issued by President Bush, it became illegal for CAIR or anyone else to financially support that organization. Even though CAIR had been helping raise funds for the HLFRD for years, some say knowing full well the money was reaching a terrorist organization (Hamas), their actions do not constitute a criminal offense because the HLFRD had yet to be declared a SDGT.
This could be parallel to the situation with the jihadists Mr. Jordan is referring to - he knows they were up to no good, but he doesn't have anything in the books to throw at them.
Who are the ACLU? What do they stand for? Do they support militant muslims in America? We do not have an ACLU in Canada. Someone please comment...
Totally disagree with you SheetWise.
Anyway, also think Jordan does a service to all of us with the reminder that, in and amongst the moslim population, the 'moderates' as it were, are a few trained, committed wannabe terrorists, waiting, watching, waiting, waiting...
Yeah American Muslims being trained to wage jihad in other countries...that never happens, right?
"Al-Timimi, the primary lecturer at a Northern Virginia Islamic centre, preached jihad to a small group of followers, provided them paramilitary training and facilitated their travel to Pakistan in the days after September 11 to attend a Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp in preparation to fight the United States in Afghanistan."
ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. The CCLU is the Canadian Civil Liberties Union. Provincially, there is the BCCLU in British Columbia. The original intention of the ACLU was to fight for the rights of the working class and racial minorities. Somewhere they went badly wrong, supporting the worst cases for the worst reasons, such as the American Nazi Party parade through the Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Ill. in, as I recall, the early 1970s. I'm reluctant to cndemn the ACLU outright because they base their work on the traditions of Milton, JS Mill, and even George Orwell, those I would consider proto-Liberal and Classical Liberal and post-Liberal. However, there seems to have been a shift away from Liberalism to a radical philobarbarism on ideological grounds having nothing to do with Liberal thinking. It would bear some research before we decide that the ACLU and its spin-offs are worthless and destructive. I hope that organizations such as the ACLU will come back to their original Liberalism and fight for sivil liberties for all rather than for the lunatic and conflated Red Nazis they seem determined to pimp for now. I think it's a good organization taken over by wrong-minded people. But I do think it would take a bit of looking into before we make any decisions about where we should stand on the position of fighting them outright.
Free speech and civil liberties have to apply to everyone, especially those we hate. Some times, those we hate are me. Some times those we hate are Spencer. Some times those we hate are Socrates. And sometimes those we hate are monsters shouting incitement toward the innocent in the midst of mobs. It could well be that the ACLU has crossed the line in defending the unpopular to promoting the hateful. I think it would make some good sense to find out just where the ACLU stands as an organization over-all before we condemn the whole thing, losing the basic good that civil libertarianism is for the sake of ridding ourselves of those who are merely defending the rights of the unpopular. It's not an easy question, and the answers aren't likely to be easy either. We might in good faith have to live with some of the worst of it to retain some of the better. But I would consider looking into it before going on the war-path against the ACLU just because on the face of it they defend our opponents.
Dear Ummagumma: (I know what that means, by the way; I love that album, especially "Grantchester Meadows" and "Several Species..."):
I hate to tell you this, but coming here and asking about the ACLU is like going to a mosque and asking them to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Although I applaud sonofwalker's rational semi-answer.
The fact is, the ACLU has only one client: The US Constitution. That's why even though they work with a lot of "liberal" causes they work just as hard on "conservative" causeses.
So they have helped the NRA, NAMBLA, the Nazis, the Muslims, and the Jews. And one day, when there a only a few "christians" left in America, and they actually get prosecuted (for the first time in America) the ACLU will help them too.
Leading the fight in Rush Limbaugh's defense, the ACLU is working hard in Palm Beach to ensure that the police never get a chance to look in his medical records, even though he assumed to have gone to many doctors with the same phony malady and asked for "just a few" pills. So he got an Rx for just two pills a day from Dr. A, then another Rx for just two a day from Dr. B, etc. etc. until he was able to consume enough hillbilly herion (Oxycontin) that it made him deaf. The generic term for this felony is "Doctor Shopping" but that only applies when the offender isn't so well connected.
The local leader of the ACLU was asked why they would help such a man as Limbaugh, who has made his fortune whining and lying about the ACLU et al. The response was as a mentioned before: "We only have on client: The US Constitution."
I love that line from Ummagumma, "See the lark hen harken to the barking of the dark fox... on the ground."
Didn't they arrest a bunch of Islamic Terrorist on a Farm up there shooting up the dirt??
This Guy is not far off the Mark after all we know that the lib's Harbor the Islamic Terrorist out of stupidity!!!
Boy will they[Lib's] be upset when they can't have their prades or beer or wine???
mulsum laws takes all the fun out of life!!
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 AMEN
So far on the thread there have been direct or indirect references to Pogo, Rupert Brooke, and William Walker. And the night is young.
Well, revenons a nos moutons -- the ones that haven't had been sacrificed for Eid. The ACLU does indeed seem to have strayed. Instead of supporting free speech, one of its National Coordinators, one Matt Bowles, attempted to co-ordinate the shouting down of Daniel Pipes (google "Daniel Pipes" and "Matt Bowles" and the latter's picture will appear).
In Massachusetts, the ACLU defender of constitutioanl liberties is one Nancy Murrey, who for years has toiled in the vineyards of Palestinianism -- i.e., anti-Israel activity. Her daughter Rebecca offered herself as a human shield to Arafat at the Muqata. Now whatever Yassir Arafat stood for, it had nothing to do with free speech or individual rights. Arafat was a civil libertarian in reverse. Yet Nancy and her daughteer Rebecca have made Arafat their own private -- not Idaho -- but cause celebre.
In Oregon, the ACLU's attempt to bully an FBI supervisor, Mr. Jordan, into eating his words, is puzzling. What exactly is wrong with his observation? If it encourages vigilence -- which the ACLU seems to be confusing with vigilante justice -- that is desirable. Isn't it?
Roger Baldwin back in 1920 founded the ACLU because the toads in the garden were real, not imaginary. Decades of suppressing Wobblies, the use of Pinkerton detectives, the Red Scare, the repeated failure of Holmes and Brandeis to carry the court with them in free-speech cases, all required the ACLU. But in wartime, in World War II, the ACLU did not stand up for enemy agents, and had it done so, no one would have stood for the ACLU. With McCarthy, again, it played an important role.
But like so many other institutions (certain college and university faculties come to mind), the ACLU has gone bad. Something is not right. Matt Bowles and Nancy Murray are not sports, but representative figures. And they are still at the ACLU. The attitudes and efforts of the current leaders (you know what a "leader" is in American life: a leader is someone who "takes a leadership role") of the ACLU are deplorable.
Roger Baldwin had his points, and one likes to think that he would not have been in agreement with those who have taken control of today's ACLU (not your father's ACLU, not by a long shot). When the earth thaws out a bit in Chilmark, he will, no doubt, be turning over in his grave.
Ummagumma
Here's their website:
http://www.aclu.org/
If ummagumma didn`t know about the ACLU,chances are he/she won`t know anything about NAMBLA either.
The ACLU will not make any turn for the better,for they are being funded by the extremist liberal,left wing socialists and communists in America and abroad.
And,kj,just for the record,the ACLU did not defend Rush Limbaugh,they just offered to defend him,as a PR stunt,but Rush hired his own defense lawyers.
ACLU would be the last one that Rush would like to be defended by,probably he would rather go to jail before relying on the ACLU.
For ummagumma,if you want to learn the truth about the ACLU,go to http://www.stoptheaclu.org
One thing is for sure,the ACLU is the most dangerous organization that America is facing right now,probably more so than the infamous CAIR,for the muslim organization is largely dependent upon the ACLU protection.
Ummagumma-
Despite the claims you always hear to the contrary, NGOs such as the ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are still influenced by the ideological biases of their leadership and membership.
To determine the political nature of any such organization, check out their current campaigns and news releases - this will tell you all you need to know about their priorities and agendas. Check it out for yourself - you decide.
As for the ACLU and CAIR:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/83
"Sept. 20, 2003 update: CAIR's Ohio chapter announced today that it has been selected to receive the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio's (ACLU-Ohio) annual Liberty's Flame Award for "contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties.""
http://cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=32696&theType=NB
"The Ohio Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Ohio) has been selected to receive the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio's (ACLU-Ohio) annual Liberty's Flame Award for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties."
ummagumma,if you want to learn the truth about any organization,find out who is sponsoring them,in other words,who are they geting their money from...
If some of their bigest donors are characters such as Michael Moore,George Soros,Robert Redford,Tereza Heinz Kerry,or organizations like NAMBLA,CAIR,The Black Panthers,Gay and Lesbian activists,etc,then you have your answer.
dby-
My point was Jordan could have (should have) said, we 'believe' or we 'have reason to believe' -- not we 'know'.
To 'know' the truth is a position a prosecutor can feign in the courtroom -- but not an enforcement officer.
i thought he was a person of interest and that would enable dialogue of some sort.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based CAIR, said that he has experienced a reticence from the evangelical community to engage in genuine dialogue.
"Muslims are always open to dialogue," Hooper said, "but I sense no desire
for dialogue among certain segments of the evangelical community."
The DEVIL is always 'open to dialogue' too, so he can turn your head clean around on your shoulders!
Muslims are open to dialogue so they can hope to confuse the listener with all the rosy aspects of Islam.
Of course the Muslims want to talk - as long as you don't ask any questions they don't want to answer. Then, either you are an especially evil infidel, especially clever at trying to confuse THEM, or are just too stubborn to accept that there are things only Allah understands.
Most prosylitizing cults are like this.
KJ, your musical tastes are good.