College Professor Arrested by Feds/Linked to Jihad

Steissd, you last post really concerns me.

I am not a terrorist and I am a generally law abiding citizen. Does this mean that I should not be upset if the government taps my phone?

Hogwash! I would furious if I discovered that I am under surveillance without due process.

Tell me the truth. How would you feel if you found your government secretly tapping *your* phone? Would you accept this invasion of privacy just because you aren't doing anything wrong?

The Constitution gives us all the right to have unpopular opinions without fear of government harrassment. When the government is willing to violate the rights of any part of society we are all under threat.

Remember that this argument has been used before to lessen the rights of Americans even before the current terrorism-driven hysteria.

We have grown past the "Alien and Sedition Act", the Japenese Internment and the McCarthy witch hunts. All of these have been shown by history to have been overreactions driven by fear. In the end civil rights have triumphed.

The Patriot Act, and the resultant arrests are just another example. I only hope we come to our senses soon.

The "Patriot Act" was unnecessary for the indictment of Arian: it was bureaucratic infighting and rivalry that delayed it.

Ebrown_p, if nothing is done to me as a result of my being under surveillance, and my private secrets are not made public, I would not object to it. If the security services had some reasons to check me up (for example, for my being an immigrant from formerly hostile USSR), I recognize their rights to do so. But I would never recognize their right to abuse the information in case they do not find anything significant for national security.
Such quiet check is much better than the practice of Stalin's KGB: when they had any suspicions against a citizen, they just arrested him/her and got the necessary information (in most cases imaginatory) by means of torture.

nelsonn- You have got it right.

I have to stop and reminisce about the words of our current president:

"We enforced a clear doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists -- and the Taliban knows what we meant."

I have a question - does that include posing for pictures with terrorists?



From Yahoo! News

Caption reads: Sami Al-Arian, holding daughter Lama, 6, center, with son Abdullah, 19, left, daughter Laila, 18, foreground left, daughter Leena, 14, center, wife Nahla, center right, and son Ali, 9, foreground left, pose for a photo with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in this March 12, 2000 family photo in Plant City, Fla. Others, extreme right, are unidentified. (AP Photo/Al-Arian family, File)

PDiddie, by the time of taking of this picture there were no proofs of al-Arian being a terror sponsor, so Mr. Bush might have been unaware of it. He was not a president of the USA by this time, so he had no access to the FBI files, and he could have no idea of suspicions the law enforcers had regarding al-Arian. On the contrary, Mr. Bush showed that he did not perceive any Arab as a terrorist a priori. What can be wrong with this?
And Taliban regime that hosted bin-Laden had quite a good idea of what was this man's main occupation.

Incorrect.

You need to read Phoenix's link at the beginning of this post, steissd.

As early as 1994 he was under surveillance. His home was raided (article's words, not mine) in 1995.

If Bush or his handlers were unaware of the unsavory reputation of Professor al-Arian, then they simply weren't paying attention.

You'd think Jeb would have known and said something.

Ignorance, while a tried-and-true excuse for this President most of the time, simply doesn't wash here.

There's got to be another reason why this Presidential candidate had his picture taken with the entire family of a suspected terrorist.

I'll be gone for awhile now, Googling.

Well, when you return from Google, I would like to know what do you think about possible reasons of Mr. Bush having taken his picture together with a terror suspect. I do not think that Mr. Bush shared al-Ariani's stance on the ways of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

Maybe he was a big campaign contributor; his son got nicknamed "Big Dude" by Dubya...

Among the most frightening examples of this is the brazen Al-Arian family of Tampa, Fla. Sami Al-Arian is a University of South Florida professor and his son Abdullah, a Duke student, was an intern for Democratic whip, Rep. David Bonior, a Michigan gubernatorial candidate who is very supportive of Arab-American leaders' efforts to block reasonable counterterrorism measures.

Al-Arian is the author of this speech: "We assemble today to pay respects to the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish, from butchery to butchery, and from martyrdom to martyrdom, from Jihad to Jihad."

But according to the July 16 Newsweek, during a campaign speech in Tampa last year, candidate Bush singled his son, Abdullah, out in the crowd, something done for specially selected, pre-screened individuals to which a candidate wants to draw attention. Calling Abdullah "Big Dude" - one of his trademark nicknames reserved for close advisors and White House press, Bush and wife Laura posed for pictures with the Arian family, standing right next to Dr. Al-Arian.

Silicon Investor

There's also this from the Washington Post:

A former university professor indicted this week as a terrorist leader attended a 2001 group meeting in the White House complex with President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, administration officials said yesterday...

Al-Arian was indicted Thursday on charges that he conspired to aid suicide bombings in Israel and the Palestinian territories and has served for years as a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization...

Al-Arian and his family also were photographed with Bush during a March 2000 campaign stop near Al-Arian's suburban Tampa home.

Abduraham Alamoudi, a member of the organization also at the meeting with Rove, said at a White House demonstration in October 2000, "We are all supporters of Hamas," the popular name of the Islamic Resistance Movement, a main sponsor of suicide bombings in Israel...

But before that, Al-Arian posed with Bush and his wife, Laura, at the Florida Strawberry Festival on March 12, 2000, a moment captured in an Al-Arian family photo.

The White House official said officials did not know the circumstances of the photo but said a list of Florida volunteers for Bush's campaign shows that that Al-Arian "wasn't a volunteer."

Washington Post

OK, I do not argue that Mr. Bush has ever met al-Arian. I am trying to understand what might he need this for...

I guess that pretty much proves that President Bush is a supporter of terrorism, and the architect of 9-11. How could we be so blind?

Are you serious??? I cannot believe this.

Well, well, ironic satire from Asherman.

We so rarely see this side of you, sir.

Normally it's all historical fact without evidence or linkage.

What about this topic seems so jolly to you, if I may ask?

It seems to me more than strange. As far as I understand, Palestinians have no influence on the oil-exporting countries, so no rational explanation can be found for this episode. I am afraid that Mr. Bush was misinformed by some of his aides on the political profile of al-Arian.

The government can tap my phone any time they feel like. After listening to several phone calls by my wife talking to her friends they will run not walk to the nearest exit.lol: :loll: :loll:
As for probable cause, does anyone actually believe the government is going to tap their phone for no reason at all?
In my view if there is a suspicion about an individual the government should take whatever action necessary to prove or disprove that suspicion.

Of course, not. Even if surveillance is automatic, it will cause very serious overload of the system. There certainly are needed serious reasons for undertaking such actions.

au and steissd,

Are you saying the Bill of Rights is unecessary or irrelevant?

The Bill of Rights is written to protect citizens against excesses of government. These rights are the bedrock of American society. You should not be so quick to give them up.

Remember there are many examples in history where the government has abused the rights of timid citizens who were cajoled by the fear of the day into accepting it.

The power of Democracy is that people are empowered to live free lives without government harrassment. The freedom from surveillance is a basic part of this that is enshrined in the Constitution.

Don't forget that people standing up for their rights against the government have brought about the best in America. We are a free country with a diverse press. We have been through slavery, Jim Crow laws and witch hunts to emerge as a free diverse society that can offer opportunity, peach and justice to all of its citizens.

We have had two terrorist terrorist attacks in America in the past 10 years. Besides that, we have not had to face terrorism within our borders. Is this because we have too many rights?

I don't think so. We have a largely unified population who are all happy to be part of our Nation. There are voices of dissent and a few fringe elements but there is no significant part of our country that wants to commit acts of violence against the nation.

In contrast, the nations who have the biggest problems with terrorism are the countries that violate the rights of large segments of their population.

People who have a voice, a future and a guarantee they will be treated with justice do not commit acts of terrorism.

I believe strongly in liberty and democracy. Sure, we could eliminate some of the immediate risks (either real of imagined) by adopting a more totalitarian form of government. But, you do not create a safer society by giving the government more power at the expense of the right of the people.

You can surrender your rights if you want to. But don't ask me to give up mine.

Pd,

"Without evidence, or linkage"?

I rarely cite historical examples that aren't widely available, and I assume generally well known. Even the most cursory check will, I'm sure, confirm my statements as to fact.

I don't believe my opinions, on the other hand, require linkages because they are my own, not parroted from some newspaper reporter writing for the East Gopher Hole Gazette. The rational that I used to arrive at my results I think are always clearly stated. If you need clarification, just ask for it.

You ask why I find this topic so "jolly". I don't, but I do monitor what's being said, and occasionally comment when I think I have something of substance to add to the discussion ... or when the BS starts running over the gunwales.

I am very concerned about the erosion of personal civil liberties, but I also wonder whether the Bill of Rights liberties should be given to non-citizens. It is one thing to be a citizen of the country, paying taxes, believing in the guarantees of liberty and freedom, participating as one does. It is another to come in as an immigrant and take those rights, abuse them, as Steissd says, without offering allegiance to the country.

Clarification request:

Where's this BS you speak of?