| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
I have been doing a great deal of speaking around the country, and that means I have been doing a lot of flying. Three times recently I have been unable to check in electronically, and have waited an inordinately long time at the check-in counter while the airline employee checking me in talked in low tones on the phone. Why? The first time this happened, the airline official, staring intently at her computer screen, blurted out, "Oh! You're on the No-Fly List!" Then, after a great deal of typing, phone talk and staring at the screen, without further explanation or any answer to my incredulous inquiries, I was cleared to fly. Another time the airline employee got on the phone and talked in a very soft voice for a very long time. Straining forward, I made out "No Fly List" mentioned at least twice among the mumbling.
I don't know anything more about this, but I suspect there is someone named Robert Spencer on the No-Fly List. And this fact seems to have caused me minor delay and inconvenience on several occasions. However, even if it caused me major delay and inconvenience, I would never dream of suing Homeland Security or anyone else. I would rather they be overcautious than unduly careless. I will put up with the inconvenience rather than compromise the DHS's constitutional anti-terror activities and thereby increase the risk of more attacks. But here is yet another attempt to shift focus from jihad terrorism to the resistance to it, and to hamstring that resistance. Courtroom jihad update from AP, with thanks to Anthony:
CHICAGO -- A U.S.-born Muslim who says he was unjustly detained and questioned at customs checkpoints sued the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday over the "degrading process."In the complaint filed in Chicago federal court, Akifur Rahman said customs agents held him for several hours on four occasions since March 2004 while he was re-entering the country from abroad, even though he had proper identification.
Rahman said he's "afraid of what may happen every time I return from a trip outside the United States."
"This lawsuit seems to be the only way to ... insure that this degrading process is not repeated," Rahman read from a statement.
According to his lawsuit, Rahman, of suburban Wheaton, received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in April saying his problems stemmed from an "unfortunate misidentification" in which his name could be a near match of someone on a government watch list.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and "the adoption of adequate policies to ensure the reasonably expeditious re-entry" of U.S. citizens whose names are similar or identical to those on watch lists....
The damages Rahman is seeking are not the problem. The "'adoption of adequate policies to ensure the reasonably expeditious re-entry' of U.S. citizens whose names are similar or identical to those on watch lists" is. This is something that could compromise DHS efforts to track real terrorists.
You'll never guess who is behind this:
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing Rahman are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.
Posted by Robert at June 29, 2005 10:02 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
As Dublin teenagers in the early seventies, we used often connect to flights in the UK to go to Germany for summer jobs. At passport control, each and every time the official saw we were Irish - you don't need a passport travelling between Ireland and UK, any form of ID will do, even, I believe a letter addressed to you, though I don't know if that still applies today -
Special Branch, always lurking in the background were summoned. Similarly, going through customs we were always stopped and our luggage searched, while non-Irish passengers sailed through. Once I left a bag unattended and was told I should 'be more careful, considering where you come from'.
Thousands of Irish travellers would have undergone the same scrutiny every day and I don't remember any lawsuits.
So OK, as Irish we were not UK citizens trying to get back into our own country, but a large percentage of those travellers would have been emigrants who had lived most of their lives in the UK and who could legally vote there.
What kills Muslims is that their superiority isn't acknowledged.
Posted by: Silvester![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 29, 2005 11:02 AM
If you can't check someone on the watchlist, then your border is truely open to any terrorist. Might as well put up a sign that says "Welcome Muslim Terrorist."
Anyone who makes such a suggestion - that you shouldn't check people whose names are similar or identical to those on the watchlist - must be, by definition, an enemy of the State.
Posted by: skidd at June 29, 2005 11:03 AM
The worry here if it where to go to trial is that lawsuits like this could possibly be Won on the noted merits of Mr. Rahman's complaints i.e. --degrading process, detained for up to 4 hours 4 times even though he is with supposively proper papers. This kind of lawsuit also burdens the HSC's budget with respect to lawyers' who have to defend our policies to protect the nation against terrorism.
It is of the utmost concern that the issue of safety has to carry the preponderance of priorities versus Mr. Rahman's degrading inconveniences.
Posted by: Mackie at June 29, 2005 11:12 AM
It would not surprise me if some known muhajedin adopted the alias Robert Spencer as some sort of ploy, either as a Joker harrassing the caped crusader, Bat-Spencer, that fearless agent of the Mossad and all, or maybe trying to get a pass through a security gate; like wanna-be socialite trying to get into a high end New York club by calling himself 'Puff Daddy' or some such thing.
But, there is nothing funny about Jihadist name games, as we all know. Names to do not matter to muhajedin; it is only important that Allah knows who they; their rewards are not of this life. They fight and die only in the service of Allah and intentionally confound their enemies by fighting as faces without names. They know, as Infidels do not, that the umma, the Islamic collective, is what stirs and rumbles in Jihad; personal identities, personalities do not matter; fighters can have the sames names, groups can change their names, fighters can have many names, like the names of Allah. Namelessness becomes a tool, a sword in the Jihad against the Infidels who stand in the way of Islam.
This attack against Homeland Security policy, which struggles with this sinister dimension of the Jihad, is nothing less than treason.
Posted by: JTF at June 29, 2005 11:28 AM
"What kills Muslims is that their superiority isn't acknowledged." --- from Silvester
Yes, this is acute. It drives them crazy. Islam "is to dominate and not to be dominated." Infidel women are there, are should be, for the taking. Infidel property -- what property? It belongs to Allah, and to the people of Allah. Do Infidels try to limit our freedoms, in any way, for any reason? That must not happen. We will stop them, using the very freedoms and rights that they so naively supply us with.
And because we do not wish to change our social arrangements (we do not want "our" women to be burkaed, or chaperoned everywhere, and "honor" killings, I'm afraid, are not about to become fashionable in the West), nor our legal arrangements (the careful attention to individual rights, acquired through the centuries, and by no means obvious or easy to arrive at), or political arrangments (government which owes its legitimacy not to "Allah" but to the expressed will of the people), we need to limit the numbers of those who are perfectly willing, indeed eager, to live among us, to rise in power and influence among us, but who do not share, not for one minute, the agreement that those social and legal and political arrangements and all the understandings of humans, and of the world, and of what is importanht, on which those social and legal and political arrangements are founded, and who are willing, every step of the way, to "remove barriers to Islam" which is to say -- to attempt to thwart our own, so far quite modest and tentative and rather sweetly ineffective methods of defending ourselves -- while we all tiptoe around worrying about how NOT to offend Muslims.
The poster above has made a very good point.
Posted by: Hugh at June 29, 2005 11:37 AM
Degrading, humiliating, abusive--these are becoming mighty tired words, coming from the most sensitive people on the planet.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at June 29, 2005 11:58 AM
Degrading? Embarrassing? Humiliating? Tell that to the families of the victims of 9/11 and to the rest of the citizens and peaceful immigrants to the United States. From these incidents it is easy to infer that most if not all Muslims have a psychopathic obsession with image and a tribal notion of honor and manliness. We've got bad news for you Muhammed, the average Joe in America doesn't give a rat's a$$ about whether you are degraded, embarrassed or humiliated at our border checkpoints or anywhere inside our sovereign territory. Ours is a culture that loves life more than death, and believe it or not, even your own. So until we get a clue from you and the rest of your ummah that you not a threat to the peace and tranquility of our land, get used to the inconvenience and expect to check your ego at the door to this great nation.
As the threats mount and Muslim jihadis manage to bring more violence to our shores, it would not be a big surprise if this road leads to a complete exclusion of Muslims from the United States, period. So I suggest to Abdullah that he count his lucky stars for now that we let him and his brethren in at all. Just one Beslan style attack on American children, or one WMD event, or one wave of suicide bombings in shopping malls, stadiums, theaters, or other public venues, is all that will probably tip the balance.
The United States has not yet mobilized for war. That hasn't happened since 1942. The world will know it when it happens. Let us all pray that it does not, for only then will the Face of Shiva be self-evident to the entire world. Currently the US has about 1.5 million active duty service personnel along with several hundred thousand reservists. Full mobilization in WWII put over 10 MILLION Americans in uniform overnight. The US industrial base was simultaneously transformed to supply materiel to those armed forces.
Let us hope that the jihad can be contained before an all out global confrontation becomes necessary. But if the Islamic world insists on projecting its ideology by jihad conquest against the United States, they will provoke the mobilization of the American people and a rain of steel unprecedented in the history of the world will descend upon the land whose inhabitants dared challenge the sleeping giant.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at June 29, 2005 12:19 PM
The scariest part of your story is that the ACLU is representing him.
We all realize and expect these claims by muslims. So the article causes me to roll my eyes, but it is not surprising.
But the ACLU continuing this effort to side with muslims and advance their cause is getting scary.
EVERYBODY SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE ATTACKS, LAWSUITS AND THE "DEGRADING" CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT ARE FORTHCOMING FROM THE ACLU.
The ACLU is attacking America from within. CAIR has been stereotyped from the ACLU mold. They are double teaming our true civil liberties, and judicial system.
If no one puts the brakes on the ACLU, they will continue to advance the islamic state.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 29, 2005 1:12 PM
The ACLU has gone way beyond the limits of reasonable defense of civil liberties. This lawsuit does nothing to defend basic constitutional principles (how does ensuring 'prompt reentry' into the United States protect any basic freedom?). But the lawsuit have a direct impact on something else not only related to civil rights, but basic moral rights like the right to life: the lawsuit attacks policies that aim to protect American lives.
So, the ACLU is willing to advance this ridiculous cause at the risk of killing Americans by rendering Homeland Security less able to track and identify Islamic mass murderers.
This is not protection of constitutional principles, but a threat to the most basic freedoms and rights of every Amercian citizen.
Posted by: JTF
at June 29, 2005 1:33 PM
Even the governtment admits airport security is still poor. Partly its the quality of of their employees, partly it's their incoherent management policies. Largely, tho', it's the unwillingness of the various government departments to provide a single, coherent watch list: Bush himself must be blamed, in that he is clearly unwilling to see heads roll.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 1:38 PM
Bill of Virginia:
"For that veryn reason, we need someone to propose a constitutional amendament that prohibits Muslims from holding public office in America, or at least from becomming the President of the United States."
Let's aim high: Intern them, strip them of citizenship and deport them. Now it can still be done. It's a massive undertaking, but it can be done. In 10/20 years time it will be much harder.
This is war. Different rules should apply. Round up the traitors from the ACLU, detain them. Whatever it takes. But I guess the Bushies are not up to it...
Posted by: Terminator at June 29, 2005 2:02 PM
Degrading, humiliating? What could be degrading or humiliating that being forced to live as dhimmis under Islam or forced to accept the deprecations and lack of freedom as Muslims?
Posted by: epg at June 29, 2005 2:09 PM
Round up the traitors from the ACLU
I have a (not so) little list -- and not a one of them will be missed -- of right wing traitors who need rounding up before anyone out of the ALCU needs looking to.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 2:23 PM
I believe if things keep going the way they are - we could be faced with anarchy in our life time.
And that will be a scary thing to see.
The ACLU has been shredding documents. That can only mean one thing: they're not as 'clean' as they would like everyone to believe they are
Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2005 7:19 PM
Petition To Congress To Investigate The ACLU Document Shredding
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417061/posts
To: U.S. Congress and the American People There are but a few reasons to shred documents despite the wishes of your records manager. Either you have done something illegal or you have done something that violates the trust of an organization’s membership. According to the New York Times, The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding documents at a frenetic pace despite the wishes of their records keeper. Since the ACLU is funded largely by the tax dollars of United States citizens we demand that the ACLU immediately disclose why they are shredding these records despite the advice of proper counsel.
We also demand that an independent party be assigned to ascertain the contents of these documents to ensure no laws have been broken and that the members of the ACLU have not been defrauded. Since the ACLU frequently files requests to gain access to the records of multiple government agencies, we demand quid pro quo. We demand that the ACLU proves to the American people that they are not engaged in illegal or unethical activities and ceases the shredding of documents until a thorough investigation is complete.
Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2005 7:22 PM
Suits like this are tried (if they ever make it) in Federal Court, where they are summarily dismissed for good reason before they get that far. Federal court is much more conservative than Circuit Court. If this asswhipe or his ACLU lawyers tried to file this in Circuit, he'd be moved to Federal, and yada yada (and I'm not a New yoakah). How much does that cost the American Tax Payers? Hmmmm???
This little muslim-o and his ACLU money grubbing lawyers are merely testing the American system of Justice. There are different courts for different offenses. Bear in mind that the ACLU lawyers are funded with tax payer dollars, at time and expense! Wonder what their rate is. For the average plaintiff lawyer, time and expense is conservatively $200-250 per HOUR. Conservatively speaking.
If the ACLU a/k/a
A=Assholes
C=Collecting
L=Loot
U=Unjustifiably
wants to bring this suit, they'll likely have to take it to the Supreme Court level (after multiple filings, dismissals, re-hearings, etc), which will take years. By the time the ACLU gets it that far, if they ever do, and win, they'd have to face the Appelate courts which are even more brutal.
This little terrorist asshole will be dead in the sands of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and/or hopefully, Iran by the time his ACLU lawyers get it that far.
Here's the question. WHO THE HELL PAYS THE ACLU?
Ponder that one! And, while you're at it? Ponder the time and expense rate for their lawyers.
DC Watson: Here's your assignment: Figure out how much these asswipes are costing the average American Joe and then Raise your holy hell appropriately and report it to the Media.
Best regards to all!
Not trying to piss ya'll off.. just trying to MAKE US THINK
at June 29, 2005 9:19 PM
Waht grabs my attention Robert is not the ACLU or the rants of the posters, but the fact that you are on the No Fly List... not too many Robert Spencers around.
I'm thinking Grover Norquist, the Islamic Institute, the Muslim controlled translation department at the FBI and/or CAIR.
That's how you got on the No Fly List.. you are a trouble maker and you threaten the National Security of our Saudi and Muslim masters.
at June 29, 2005 9:35 PM
SexyKafira1: Bear in mind that the ACLU lawyers are funded with tax payer dollars
For certain civil suits they win. But otherwise, this is FALSE.
What kind of name is SexyKafira1?
Are you one of those neo-pagan secularists who did to Newt Gingrich what Monica did Bill Clinton? Or what lead-him-into-adultery homewrecker slut Karen Chiccehitto Nussle did to House Budget Committe Chairman Jim Nussle?
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 9:39 PM
If you can't check someone on the watchlist, then your border is truely open to any terrorist. Might as well put up a sign that says "Welcome Muslim Terrorist."
Anyone who makes such a suggestion - that you shouldn't check people whose names are similar or identical to those on the watchlist - must be, by definition, an enemy of the State.
Posted by: skidd at June 29, 2005 11:03 AM
Yo, Skidd... if everyone's named mohammed al-fill-in-deh-blanks or fathima-i'm-a-goat-in-aburkah, how the hell are you going to keep them separated? Hmmmmmm?
I think John Wayne would "Move em up and herd em out"... But of course, I'm not John Wayne. And I don't think John Wayne would approve of my language, my profession, or my lifestyle.
Then again... He's sorta dead. Like mohammed. Only John died honorably. Mo died in a flea infested camel pit with 72 virgins and various and sundry virgin boys inflicting really great sex and syphillis and a coupla raisins upon him, and allah knows what else. Maybe some fire and boiled intestines (check the q'ran)
Posted by: SexyKafira1 at June 29, 2005 11:18 PM
SexyKafira1: Bear in mind that the ACLU lawyers are funded with tax payer dollars
For certain civil suits they win. But otherwise, this is FALSE.
What kind of name is SexyKafira1?
Are you one of those neo-pagan secularists who did to Newt Gingrich what Monica did Bill Clinton? Or what lead-him-into-adultery homewrecker slut Karen Chiccehitto Nussle did to House Budget Committe Chairman Jim Nussle?
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 09:39 PM
Loxi: My name signifies the fact that I am a KAFIRA. Kafira means: Non-Islamist/Muslim/Female non-believer, i.e., infidel. I use the preface 'sexy' to antagonize and inflame people like you who are obviously either am insanely jealous female or an ordinary muslim male! I am not an adultress, and do not resemble anyone who has ever been implicated in any sort of white house scandal, especially monica lewinsky :o) I think Newt is ugly and he has a deserving name. I must confess, I do not know anyone by the moniker of Nussle. Might that be you, dear? Regards,
Sexy Kafira
at June 29, 2005 11:33 PM
You did not demur at my suggesting you are a neo-pagan, O Sexy Kafira.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 11:56 PM
Bill in Virginia,
You wrote:
"...we need someone to propose a constitutional amendament that prohibits Muslims from holding public office in America, or at least from becomming the President of the United States."
I respectfully disagree.
Muslims should be encouraged to run for all American offices, up to and including President.
And when they run, they will need to publicly acknowledge that certain Quranic verses and Islamic teachings are in direct conflict with our nation's constitution and laws.
We should savor such opportunities.
Posted by: PRCS at June 30, 2005 12:20 AM
You did not demur at my suggesting you are a neo-pagan, O Sexy Kafira.
Posted by: Loxias at June 29, 2005 11:56 PM
Good, Loxias. Now settle down, chew on your kerrybone awhile, and revisit this site in the morning and rethink your English skills and shrills in the morning. Good doggie :o)
Posted by: SexyKafira1 at June 30, 2005 12:26 AM
Deport him and be done with it.
Posted by: Havoc at June 30, 2005 1:46 AM
Boy, am I glad I dont fly...I dont have to put up with any of this...stuff. I might get blown up by and airplane, but I will never be blown up in one...but for homeland security, I would be willing to put up with delays, mistaken identities, degradation, humiliation and embarrasement, security is more important than a bruised ego...Muslims ego's bruise quite easilly, whine, cry, sue...My 90 year old mother had to remove her shoes prior to boarding a plane...guess she should have hired the ACLU to sue in behalf of shoeless old women everywhere...
at June 30, 2005 10:14 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)