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
[Proposed] DECLARATION OF WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM
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.)
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
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:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
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
government.?
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.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
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
government.?
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.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/123345/1/.html
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)