Monday, January 01, 2007

Ban the Veil (and public mask wearing)

Since we can't seem to win the big battles with radical islam (like coming up with a way to legally deport radical islamists), then let's, as a society, focus on some small issues. Small is beautiful ... And let's pick the right small, but by no means minor, issue: Banning the Veil (and, to be consistent, all mask wearing in public). It works on many levels:

1. Security--with all the video cameras and security devices in public places--how can we allow one group to be an exception? Especially in public buildings and on public transport. Especially a subgroup--Islamic Fundamentalists--from which most of our terrorists are drawn. The number of crimes committed by veil wearing women (and sometimes men) who use the veil to hide their identity and evade apprehension is growing. See Atlas Shrugs weblink that lists a sample of these incidents. here

2. It's a popular, common sense issue. Even the average weak-willed westerner who is inclined to anything-goes multicuturalism, may feel obligated to agree with us on this one.

3. The pollsters can survey public opinion and the politicians may jump in. For example: Survey finds Support for veil ban

4. Because of the obvious security concerns, the proponents of banning mask wearing in public cannot so easily be accused of Islamophobia. In fact any accusers may come off as foolish and unconcerned about public security. It can be a sort of cultural "wedge issue" against the influence of radical islam. Even people who haven't thought much about it may say "why are we allowing this?" We will still be allowing (in fact the First Amendment to the Constitution requires us to allow) all kind of religious garb, from black-coated Hasiddic Jews, to Indian saris, to Buddhist robes, and Muslim hijabs--just you can't cover your face. (Note: the veil is called a niqab.)

5. It strikes very effectively at the imposition of Sharia Law on the host country's Muslim population. Don't believe me? Well then take it from Al Queda's Mr. Number 2 Veil-wearing Muslim women are part of our fight: al-Zawahri Several Muslim countries have outlawed the veil in public--like Tunisia and, I think, Turkey--so banning the niqab would be a way to express support for them and for moderate muslims in general.

6. Historically in the USA, mask wearing in public was banned by many states in the early part of the 20th century to curtail the bigoted and threatening activities of the Ku Klux Klan. It is true that some public protestors (for example, at World Trade Organization meetings) have covered their faces (with ski masks or scarfs) here and under this plan, to be consistent, this would no longer be allowed. So a general ban on public mask wearing (which is what I am proposing) will likely (and appropriately) raise freedom of speech issues. Still, the security dangers of allowing public mask wearing may outweigh any objections to the law when challenged in the courts. Or the courts may decide no masks in airports, buses, schools, etc., but it is OK to wear the veil around your neighborhood--the point being we won't find out what the courts will allow if we don't pass the initial legislation.

7. The veil degrades women. Many of these women do not want to wear the veil but can't object for fear of their husband beating them. Listen to Hirsi Ali in her book "The Caged Virgin"
The essence of a woman is reduced to her hymen. Her veil functions as a constant reminder to the outside world of this stifling morality that makes Muslim men the owners of women and obliges them to prevent their mothers, sisters, aunts, sisters-in-law, cousins, nieces, and wives from having sexual contact. And we are not just talking about cohabitation. It is an offense if a woman glances in the direction of a man, brushes past his arm, or shakes his hand. A man's reputation and honor depend entirely on the respectable, obedient behavior of the female members of his family.
This is not something we in the west should go along with. If this isn't a women's liberation issue, what is?

8. A victory here can be a confidence builder to take on greater issues in the undeclared war with radical islam.

So if we can't yet legally deport known radical islamists, perhaps we can at least Ban the Veil.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Win The War “Over There” By Deporting Radical Islamists from “Here”

To me it is obvious that legally deporting Radical Islamists will greatly improve internal security in the US and it is irresponsible in the extreme to continue to allow Radical Islamists freedom of movement in the US. (For my definition of Radical Islam see preceding blog). What is not so obvious is how a policy of deporting radical islamists will further US foreign policy objectives and help us and our allies win the war in Iraq, Afghanastan, and wherever else the global war against radical islam takes us in the future. Writer Diane West of the Washington Times has a number of columns trying to say the same thing. (see for example)

To understand the benefits to our foreign policy, you have to look at it through the eyes of our enemies who openly state that they are at war with the USA and its interests throughout the world. Think Almadenajad of Iran, Nasrallah of Hezbollah, Osama Ben Laden, the leaders of Hamas, and others. The leaders of the radical islamist movement look at the US and the West and think we are weak, that we lack the will to carry on the long war with our enemies--them. By far the greatest confirmation of our defeatist outlook is that we allow potential enemy combatants and enemy sympathizers to reside in the west. We do not perform any kind of thorough check of incoming muslims to see if they are radical islamsist and, when we finally do deport a radical islamist, it is usually after a long legal process that has dragged on for years (like Sami Al Arian). We allow those who advocate instituting Sharia law among the host country Muslim population and in the society in general continued residence in the US.

So, leaving aside all the current legal barriers to deporting radical islamists, let’s imagine we start deporting radical islamists as a matter of public policy. What affect will this have “over there“ ?

1. It will tell our enemies that we finally understand that our county has an enemy and that the enemy is Radical Islam. As in: “we believe you, we won’t patronize you, we will accept you as our enemy.” In fact, because we are so afraid of you and since you are such an awful enemy, we in the multi-culural west will actually have to openly categorize you based on your beliefs, something we never ever do, by creating a class of persons--radical islamist--who are made exceptions to our normal criminal justice system. (Note: The author Lee Harris in his book Civilization and Its Enemies has discussed at length the nature of our radical islamist enemy, and the inability of many in our society to allow for the possibility that we really have an implacable enemy).

2. It will tell those potential migrants in the emigrating countries that your economic prospects of immigrating to the west are severely diminished if you are a radical islamist. And that if you manage to slip by and we find out later you are a radical islamist, you will be deported. If you are a radical islamist “over there“, then no more student visas, no work permits, no tourist visas, nada. And any family reunification you are thinking about will take place back where you came from, not here, as in your family joining you on the way out.

3. It will help US troop moral as they will not experience the phenomenon of fighting radical islam overseas only to come home and see that we allow radical islamist to live in the USA.

4. It may help moderate muslim leaders in the old country gain political advantage over their radical co-religionists.

5. It may help our weak-willed allies in Europe adapt the same policy. Leadership by example.

5. OK. I need more reasons or ideas on how deporting radical islamists from “here” will help us “over there”……….intuitively it sounds great!

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Declaration of War

I saw the movie Obsession last week, and even though I read alot about the radical islamist threat, the movie scared and motivated me more than usual, so here's an idea.

A frequent topic re Radical Islamists is that our legal system is inadequate to deal with the threat. Our criminal justice code and immigration laws and procedures were not designed to handle issues of this magnitude. So, for example, when I discuss with others the implementation of a policy to identify, take into custody, and deport radical islamists, most people usually agree with the concept. Very few of us want individuals who are correctly identified as radical islamists to live in the United States. So how do we legally get from here (currently allowing radical islamists freedom of movement within the country) to there (legally deporting them)?

I think the legal means to that end is a Declaration of War against Radical Islam. OK, OK, I know a Declaration of War is normally directed against a country, not against a movement or a part of a religion. But I think having a document in front of us may help move this forward. The stategy would be:
1. to draft such a resolution
2. to distribute to our congresspersons (as in "see, look at this") or place full-page advertisement in the newspapers, or hand it out at rallies, etc.
3. to have one or two Congresspersons introduce the Declaration, and then watch the interest and sponsors grow.

For all I know, a sample document may have already been written. If anyone can give me the reference, please do so in the comments below. If this document has not yet been written, perhaps there are attorneys out there who can help. As reference, take a look at the Declarations of War by the US Congress for World War I and World War II.

Declaration of War Against Germany--WWI

Declaration of War with Japan

Updated Resolution: 8/17/2006

Joint Resolution Declaring that a State of War exists between Radical Islam and the Government and People of the United States and making provisions to prosecute same.

Whereas the extraterritorial movement known as Radical Islam has planned, advocated, and committed unprovoked acts of War against the people of the United States of America

Whereas, numerous representatives of said Radical Islam have announced that their exists a State of War between radical Islam and the United States,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, that a State of War now exists between Radical Islam and the United States and is hereby formally declared. The President is authorized and directed to employ the military forces of the United States as needed and the resources of the Government to carry on the war against Radical Islam. Further, recognizing the danger posed by individuals who are loyal to Radical Islam who are now or may in the future be residing in the United States and its territories, the President and the Attorney General of the United States are hereby authorized to identify such individuals, take them into preventive custody, and deport them from the United States.

For purposes of this Declaration, Radical Islam is defined as those individuals or organizations who advocate, support, plan or execute jihad attacks against the United States and its foreign allies and interests or those who support the overthrow of the Constitutional government of the United States and in its place the establishment of Sharia law. Further, the distinction is made herein between Radical Islam and Moderate Islam (the later being expressly excepted from the intent of this Declaration.)

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Remember Madrid

On March 11, 2004, the Islamofascists, set off a coordinated bomb attack on commuter trains in Madrid. 200 people were killed--just like that. View PBS Documentary below:

Within days of the Madrid bombings, as the police investigation was pursued, it became apparent from news reports that many of the bombers and their accomplices had been on watch lists in Spain. However, they had not been taken into custody because, presumably, the Spanish police lacked probable cause (or whatever they call it in Spain) to arrest and charge them. You can't arrest someone until there is evidence that they have committed a crime or plan (conspire) to commit a crime. This is because in our democratic societies with its laws and traditions of civil liberties, we do not have preventive detention. With the exception of wartime, we do not take individuals into custody on suspicion alone.

The initial response to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism in the 1990's was to treat it as a law enforcement problem. The example frequently cited was the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 where the government did not want to follow the investigation to the worldwide conspiracy that we now know it was. The Clinton Administration and the European Union's policy of not naming the enemy--it is just "terrorists"--reflect this approach. Call that approach Plan A.

Plan B is the approach of the Bush Administration and its allies since 9-11. Looking at the conspiratorial nature of the attacks and taking the fight to the enemy, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. It is much more assertive in trying to make arrests of suspected terrorists in the US and in trying to prevent the spread of WMDs to terrorist nations or groups. This is a big improvement over Plan A, but there remains a major weakness with this approach.

That weakness was exemplified in the Madird bombings, and in many other attacks. Again, you can't arrest someone until there is evidence that they have committed a crime or plan (conspire) to commit a crime. So what are we to do?

The way I see it we have little choice but to change the rules (our laws) as they pertain to individuals classified as Radical Islamists. The very valid objection to this is: If we change the rules for the Radical Islamists, then who is to say that
the rules won't someday be changed for the rest-of-us by an overly aggressive

There are two answers to this urgent question:

1. We cannot assure that an overly aggressive gov't will not take advantage of the rest-of-us,extending the new rules that will apply to Radical Islamists.

2. Unfortunately we have to change the laws anyway. Our enemy gives us no choice.

As the bombings, shootings, and suicide attacks continue, with the future possibility of poison gas, bio-terrorism and nuclear attacks, we will be forced to change the rules. This is because a majority of people in our democratic society will demand that we do so or they will begin to take the law into their own hands. In other words, instead of sitting here and waiting for a few hundred thousand or million of our fellow citizens to be murdered in ways we haven't imagined, we need to revise our criminal code and (especially) our immigration laws as they relate to Radical Islamists.

It is better to approach Plan C now while we can rationally and legally try to determine its details. Radical Islam is at war with the West, the East, and non-fundamentalist Moslems. Its publicly stated goal is the murder or subjugation and religious conversation of everyone else on the planet. So, unfortunately, we will have to make a legal exception to our democratic procedures where Radical Islamists are concerned. There is no longer any choice.

The Poster Boy for Plan C

Here is the creature that inspired this weblog.

Name: Abu Hamza
Occupation: Radical Cleric
Resident: Now in prison in London, previously free and living in London
supports: UBL, jihad, murder and mayhem vs. the Rest-of-Us.

This individual openly and defiantly preached his hate at the Finsbury Mosque in London for years. But since the UK could not prove that he had broken any specific law, he continued spewing his hateful message for years. Imagine, for several years after 9-11 Abu Hamza, living free in London, spoke out openly in support of the 911 Jihadi attacks and all the government lawyers in the UK could not find a way to arrest or deport him until recently. We will never prevail in the war vs Islamofascism if we allow these kinds of situations to be repeated.