College Professor Arrested by Feds/Linked to Jihad

<the East Gopher Hole Gazette>

I share your disdain for the media, if you've read any of my other posts.

But photos don't lie, and this link between an accused terrorist and the President is, as you say, generally well known. Among semi-reputable sources such as the Washington Post.

And the WP is more pro-war than even you.

Surely that's not the bovine excrement to which you refer?

PDid: Gosh, you're right, how could we be so blind.

I searched in vain for the picture of John Wayne Gacy and Nancy Reagan on the web.

I know that it exists, I have seen it.

I wanted to PROVE that she supports pedophilic murderers.

Asherman: I'm bailing as fast as I can, good friend!

WTF are YOU talking about, dad?

Where's the BS? The notion that the President of the United States is in league with terrorists to overthrow the Constitution sounds like BS. Bush as the "antichrist" (that was BillW, I think), and someone else whose name is forgotten claimed that Bush was worse than any tyrant since before Ghengis Khan. Those also sound allot like BS to me. Cicero compares Bush with Hitler, and makes it sound as if Hitler was preferable.

That there is a secret cabal within the White House who are planning to initiate a nuclear holocaust so that a few privileged and wealthy survivors can monopolize the world's oil supply is, to me just a little over the top. To the Anti Crowd, nothing that contradicts their smug certainties can be true, and everything they say is supposed to be regarded as gospel. Any rumor, or speculation that agrees with the notion that Bush is evil incarnate is believed without question. Bush isn't going be canceling any elections, or building any death camps for Democrats, or setting up a theocracy ruled by fundamentalist zealots either.

Now, though I'm sure you don't believe it, I am not a fan of the Shrub. His failings are many, and his economic policies are doubtful at best. He's a spoiled rich boy with extremely limited talents. He isn't bright enough to be the evil genius he's accused of being, but he is smart enough to have competent advisors. I fully expect that Bush will serve only one term.

It isn't Bush that I support, but rather whatever is necessary to protect and defend the United States from very real threats. This country has been under attack for a decade, and many American's still don't quite seem to get it. The Saddams, Kims, Bin Ladins and others of their ilk can not hope to face us on the battlefield with regular soldiers bound by the laws of war. They choose instead to fight us with threats, fear, and cowardly attacks. They hide behind the innocent and do not feel themselves bound by any rules whatsoever. This is a new sort of war that is being waged against us, and the techniques employed by our enemies can work. They learned from Vietnam and from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan the power of western sentiment.

Ohhhh, so you're referring to the (perceived) BS from several different threads and various opposing points of view.

I feel better now.

No, I think that he was referring to the (actual) BS.

Well stated, Asherman.

I agree with you almost word for word except,

I think he will have two terms.

First, this is not an endorsement of Bush, one way or the other. Until the Patriot Act, there was a "wall" between various agencies, where one could not talk about their findings with another. Although there had been suspicians of wrongdoing by al Arian in 2000, the various agencies had not come up with a case against him, and he WAS a prominent Muslim. In fact, at the time when he had been suspended from USF, many professors had come to his aid, citing freedom of speech, and the man's right to believe in an unpopular cause. I don't think that Bush had any understanding, at that time, of the part al Arian was playing in that cause.

Remember this was before 9/11, and before Bush became President. Their has been a whole change in the attitude of Americans since that date. Everybody can be a Monday morning quarterback.

As I have said before, my feelings towards Bush at this time is total ambivalence. I think that he is doing some things very right, and others very wrong. I don't think that the picture in question was a tacit agreement with al Arian's politics, nor do I think that it was a reflection of some monstrous cabal between the two men!

That is what I wanted to underline: it is impossible to compare this situation with this of Taliban and bin-Laden. The late Afghani regime deliberately gave refuge to a man that was considered unacceptable even in the Arab world as a prominent terror leader; Mr. Bush permitted some man being under covert surveillance of FBI to appear in the common picture with him. In the first case we can surely point to ideologically motivated bad will, in the second (in the worst case) about a tactical blunder.

Steissd- Agree.

Also, if you all remember, before he became President, the general consensus of opinion, based on his answers to many reporter's questions at the time, that Bush was woefully deficient in the area of foreign policy. He had to learn quickly afterwards.

At the time though, I would bet my last buck that he had little, if any knowledge, of the brouhaha surrounding al Arian. I would suppose, to ingratiate himself with the Arab community, and possibly garner some votes from them, his handlers arranged this picture with a prominent Arab family. Period!

In case anyone is wondering,if he is proven to have committed the acts alledged to him, I would be pleased if he were punished to the fullest extent of the law.

ebrown_p



These words seem to always be the final crux of the matter, when it comes to:

Left versus Right

Liberal versus Conservative

Hawk versus Dove

These words are the neutron bomb of argument and discourse.

"If I use these words....I cannot lose!" So goes the thought.

If these words were taken as gospel, we would be living in a world of anarchy and fear. No elected officials of government and/or, law enforcement would be able to make ANY decisions toward the safety and security of our country. Ever!

Since the founding of this country (1776....whenever), down through generation after generation of United States governments:

Democrat or Republican, (no matter who was at the helm or "keeper of the gate" Hawk or Dove)......when push came to shove, when others were hell bent on destroying us, this country has always (in the end)gone with ......The Ashermans.....The steissds.....and The Like!


That seems (to me) to be why we are still here, and still free to rant and rave about it.

ebrown_p



Let's not get carried away. Wire taps on a suspected terrorist does not make the Bill of Rights irrelevant. What it does is protect the safety of our citizenry. There is in my opinion to many laws in this nation protecting the guilty and too few protecting the innocent. That is why we see criminals with rap sheets as long as your arm walking the streets and free to commit additional crime. Different subject but part of the problem. Are you aware that in a court of law the criminals rights are scrupulously protected while there is very little concern for the victim.

Absolutely agree. Freedom of the fist must be restricted to the border of an area where freedom of somebody's nose starts...

Au,

Yes, wiretaps on a "suspected" terrorist does violate the Bill of Rights if there is no *probable cause".

The word "suspected" is the problem. We may find more room for agreement if you define this word.

The framers of the Constitution wrote the 4th and 5th amendments to protect "suspected" criminals. Those of us who aren't "suspected" don't need this protection.

The Bill of Rights does not "protect the guilty". It is based on the principle "innocent until proven guilty" which protects the rights of *all*.

ebrown_p
Law enforcement in the US is and always has been reactive. This may be fine in times of tranquility and peace. However, in times like these with the threat of terror hanging over our heads it is time that it became proactive. Which would you prefer picking up bodies after the bombing or stopping it from happening?

KYN,

You are mis-stating my argument. I am not advocating anarchy and I am not against enforcement of the law. I am merely saying that we should hold to the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The principles in the Constitution are sufficient to ensure both security and liberty.

The FBI can tap phones, and search and sieze and siezearrests *after* it has shown probable cause of a crime. This should be done under supervision of the courts and in the view of the public. This is they way it has worked until recently and our society has been secure and free because of these principles.

We tear down the principles in the Constitution at our peril.

Do you think that such niceties were practiced during WW2 when going after suspected spies. I doubt it. All these rules and laws to protect the guilty are of recent liberal vintage.

Au,

The question you are asking is fallacious.

As a nation America has always made the decision to choose liberty over security. Terrorism is the current hysteria, but remember we have much bigger problems.

In the year 2000 there where 5.54 murders in the US per 100,000 people. (This is a total of 15,586). However in Saudi Arabia there were only .74 murders per 100,000 (or 178).

We could do many things to lower this murder rate. We could ban hand guns. We could take away Miranda rights. We could increase capital punishment and the use of torture. We could give the police the right to search houses and personal property at will.

These steps are being used effectively in other countries.

As a society we have decided that liberty is more important. The courts have consitantly decided that the rights of the accused (or as you say "suspected") are crucial in a free society. We do not give up our liberty to deal with this threat.

Now to answer your question:

I prefer to live in a free and just society.

I expect and trust the government and the authorities to do there jobs to protect me. I am confident that they can do this without tearing down the Constitution.

And yes, I have always been willing to accept a little more risk for the sake of liberty. This is the price of freedom and Americans have always accepted it bravely.

Au, your last post does not make sense.

The "laws and rules" I am citing are taken directly from the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Probable cause was taken directly from the 4th amendments.

I don't think it is right to call the framers of the Constitution either "recent" or "liberals".

ebrown_p



These are noble words, and again truly impossible to disagree with.

Ah...the nature of argument. The irrefutable sound bites that keep the juices flowing in forums such as these.

ebrown, I am sure that I have mis-stated your argument.

Your articulation and composure are what makes for the potential of seeing things in a different light.

But unfortunately, not really.

The danger in discussions such as this, is for the "sound bites" (mine included) to become simplistiic....at best.

You are willing to accept "a little" risk for the sake of liberty.

Even to the point of (making a point) that you and your loved ones may end up dead.....in the process? A question....forgive me.

There are those who are willing to accept "a little" loss of "freedom" for the sake of security. And protection from those who want no restrictions!

I could list (I won't bore you) with the countless freedoms that we all give up every single day of our lives to insure that the most "liberal" of us are not allowed to run rampant (they would if they could).......and shirk responsibility.

In a perfect world ebrown, there are no bad....dangerous......irrresponsible....evil.....people.

Until then, I will repeat my first post:

From the beginning of this country's founding, to the present:

When the security, safety, and very existance of this country is at stake, every single time, our leaders have come down on the side of....sacrifice in times of peril!

The alternative is anarchy!

In spite of my not being a moderator, I would like to remind to Ebrown_p that personal attacks do not comply with traditions of the site. It is possible to disagree with the general idea or details of some of the other members' response, but it is not considered polite (at least here) to consider them being silly.
In many occasions suspicions regarding certain people appear after the enforcers get some report of their informers. In case of al-Arian it is probable that the Israeli security services might have provided some intelligence information collected in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (this is only my assumption). Such reports cannot be regarded by the court as a proof in most of cases, so no possibility to get any warrant exists. But the only way to check verity of such reports is to perform a surveillance of the allegedly suspicious person, and sometimes this requires checking his/her e-mail exchange, telephone calls, etc. If the person under surveillance appears being a loyal citizen, such a check cannot cause to him/her any harm.
I do not advocate such measures for any alleged illicit activities possible. But when the most serious perpetrations may be anticipated, when this may endanger lives of people domestically and abroad, then such measures, IMHO (I am not a lawyer) are both legally and morally justified. Of course, the list of crimes must exist that will permit usage of finding acquired without due process for further processes, including arrest and indictment. If in course of surveillance after a supposed terrorist it is revealed that the only trespasses of this person are his being a pickpocket and his keeping illicit drugs at home for personal needs, this information should be disregarded by the court of justice.
IMHO, due process may be partially avoided for such crimes as terror-related activities, homicide, espionage, drugs trafficking and sexual abuse of minors (including distribution of the non-virtual child pornography).
I am not calling for editing the U.S. Constitution, I am not an American citizen, and I have no rights to call for this. I just express my opinion.