A Challenge For Ms. Malkin
Dean
Michelle Malkin, who I think is missing a crucial point again, had a stirring piece on her blog yesterday about yet another possible terrorist sneaking across the border from Mexico, using a South African passport.
I might well agree with her that we should be doing more to protect our borders. Then again, I have to note that, by her own reckoning, the suspected terrorist was caught, which hardly makes this incident compelling evidence that our law-enforcement authorities are failing to catch terrorists coming up out of Mexico. Indeed, the suspect seems to have, in the esteemed Ms. Malkin's words, "traipsed across our southern border" right into the hands of the authorities, despite the fact that she had a South African passport. The last I looked, South Africa's not exactly a Middle Eastern nation.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a photograph of Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed, although I'd love it if someone could find us a picture of her. However, thanks to Ms. Malkin, I did find this photo of Aafia Siddiqui, and I note that, without her head scarf, she doesn't look much different from Polish, Spanish, Armenian, Indian, or Israeli women I've run across. I've got relatives who look a lot like that woman, and I'm as lilly-white as they come.
I also note the rather obvious fact that the lady in question is, uhm, female. And I find myself remembering that not long ago, before we stopped Saddam from paying Palestinian terrorists, and the wall began to go up, the Israelis were finding that Palestinian terrorists were starting to use women once they figured out that the Israelis concentrated mostly on scrutinizing men.
So I must point out that here we have a case of a woman who could easily pass for a citizen of many European, Asian, or southern African nations, using a non-Arab passport, who seems to be a terrorist.
This hardly makes for gripping support for calls by so many on the right that "our enemies are not Norwegian-looking grandmothers," especially because I can think of at least one Norwegian-looking grandmother still alive and well in the United States with a terrorist past she to this day expresses no regrets over. Although there is no evidence that that good old Bernadine still has any interest in terrorism, does anyone really suppose no one could find women like her who'd be interested in helping groups that hate America? I'll bet some of these people would jump at the chance if it presented itself. I'll bet some of these people would too.
I also note that there is evidence to this day that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols had ties to Middle Eastern terrorists. I further note that Al Qaeda is recruiting non-Arabs and people with U.S. citizenship to do its dirty work. I further note that we know that the Irish Republican Army has ties to middle Eastern terrorist groups.
Now I look at the nine most-wanted Al Qaeda-linked terrorists and what do I see? Adam Yahiye Gadahn, who looks like could pass for a gumpy white kid from suburban Chicago or Pittsburgh.
I also see Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani and Fazul Abudullah Mohammed, who look like hundreds of cats I've met in the city of Detroit. Hell, isn't one of them on the starting lineup for the Pistons? (Joke.)
I see Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, who looks like he could be from Bombay, Sri Lanka, or Portugal--or Seattle.
Finally, we have a chick who could probably pass for Israeli, Spanish, Italian, or Polish. In fact, she's got a passing resemblance to my black-haired, dark-skinned, 100% Irish grandmother, the late Gloria Jean Carnahan.
Now our latest terrorist, a female, appears to have been caught trying to enter the country with a South African passport, a country that's no closer to the Middle East than Germany.
Back when the World Trade Center was first bombed in the 1990s, one of the terrorists was an Arab with fair skin, red hair, and freckles. (I spent about an hour trying to find his photo on the Internet and failed, but am I the only person in America who remembers this guy? 500 points to anyone who can find me his photo.) Just such an Arab runs a convenience store not far from my house.
So let's add all this up: terrorists can be white, black, or brown, and maybe even mixed-race looking like filipinos. They may be carrying passports from any country, and they may in fact be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Yet somehow, we've gone three years without a terrorist attack on home soil, and when a chick with a South African passport who could pass for a half-dozen racial groups sneaks into the U.S., the Feds nab her.
Can you folks on the Right who are absolutely convinced that we must target Arab-looking males with Arab passports, and that terrorists are casually "traipsing across the border," explain to me what exactly your reasoning is again? Because it seems to me that not only are our law-enforcement authorities doing a good job, but that profiling people based on sex or perceived nationality is a fool's game. It further seems to me that our only serious tool is rigorous intelligence networks, spooks on the ground ferretting out the terror networks, and to be looking at everyone who comes through our airports, not just the men with light brown skin and big noses.
With all due respect, while Ms. Malkin makes many good points and is a good writer, I would suggest that she often undercuts her own arguments.









One would think you had a dear friend in the blogging business who used the same gimmick.
All seriousness aside, having caught a bad guy is not exactly the proof we're looking for that the system doesn't work.
Isn't a well-informed, vigilant, but no fearful citizenry an even more serious tool? Can we have professional security personnel at every potential target or access point?
Also, perhaps we shouldn't conflate something being necessary with something being sufficient.
Terrorists, or terrorism suspects with US citizenship, would be turned over to military tribunals for appropriate questioning, judgement and sentencing and imprisonment or death, depending on the severity of the sentence.
The tribunals would be closed to all news media and no interference would be allowed.
Punishments permissible could and would include stripping of United States citizenship even for those born here, and permanent expulsion from this country.
Those terrorists or suspected terrorists caught attemtping to enter our country would be transported to secret offshore locations for appropriate handling.
There would be no lawyers, no news media, no appeals processes. They would simply disappear into the night and fog, as the Germans once termed it; "Nacht und Nebel". Their relatives, governments, UN, whatever, would be given no information about their fate. Because this would be OUR terrorism.
If living, these captured aliens would be subjected expertly to whatever means necessary to learn about their terrorist connections.
These means could include sodium pentathol cocktails, physical abuse or whatever else it would take to break their will. No sexual perversions or other sad amusements. Not this time. This would be the real thing. Handled by professionals who could get get a man or a woman to divulge any secret and utterly break their spirit.
Those considered neutralized by this process would later be releaed, especially those so traumatized by what our military specialists would have done to them, that they would serve as living, frightening examples to their brethren of what happens to those who make themselves enemies of the United States.
US citizens so identified in the anti-terrorist net would immediately to sent to trial at one of the domestic US military tribunals described above.
Due care would be taken to assure that no person would be harmed who did not give reason to deserve it.
————
Either something like what I have described above, or just sit their and wallow in the misery of furtively looking over your 300 million shoulders for where the next major terrorist action will occur in this country, at great cost to American life and property.
And don't smirk about what I have written here. As this war with worldwide terrorism continues and perhaps even expands, the American people will realize that hitherto unimaginable measures are necessary to defeat the terrorists and terrorism in general. It will come to pass.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The flaw in your argument against racial profiling is that not only do you have to look to find examples of noted terrorists who don't look Arabic, but the only one you found DOES look Arabic. That aside, you don't have to look hard to find terrorists who DO look Arabic, since they are the vast majority.
and that terrorists are casually "traipsing across the border" on an apparent revolving door basis, explain to me again what exactly your reasoning is?
This is answered simply by reading the article Malkin cited. The woman was detained at the airport by an alert agent because she didn't have an entry stamp into the US. What's that mean? That chances are she DID traipse across the border or get smuggled in.
The US/Canadian border has Customs &Immigration at major crossings. There are hundreds of roads without them. There are thousands of miles of woodland—not to mention unguarded coastlines on the Great Lakes—that provide entry for those who would use them.
Take a look at smuggling routes for illegal immigration. Nearly all of it is for economic reasons: a poor person in North America is better off than a poor person in China. That's why so much illegal Chinese immigration these days is routed through Canada and Mexico.
So, in my opinion, tightening up security on international airlines—while a very good thing—is hardly adequate.
Note, too, that one of the people Dean focuses on, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, is an American! When he travels, he re-enters the US in the US Citizen line. He carries an American passport. He doesn't have to show ID in many instances where a non-American would. He is, for most security screening purposes, invisible.
And what about his hypothetical friend "Tony"? You know Tony. He's the guy whose father got roughed up by the IRS in audits and ended up losing his business. Or whose uncle went to jail for armed robbery and the Feds "piled on" with an illegal weapons charge. Tony has a major hard-on toward the US.
Tony is "mongrel-American", his forebears come from so many countries he can't count them. He looks like most Americans, i.e., not particularly anything other than Caucasian.
What screening is going to find Tony? He's not going to show up on any police database because relatives of criminals aren't on them. Feds aren't going to link him to any economic crimes that may have been committed by his father.
But he's not adverse to taking down the federal office building down the street. He'd help on principle; money would only make it sweeter.
Terrorists aren't walking around with the word "terrorist" tattooed on their foreheads. We can identify them only after they take some action that gives them away. That can be after an event like 9/11, or something as small as a fishy transfer of money or an intercepted phone call. We can't read people's minds. We don't have laws that readily pre-empt "planning".
Our vulnerabilities are a direct result of our democracy. If we ditch the democracy bit, we can do a lot more. But if we intend to stay a democracy, that means we accept a certain amount of risk.
If we were to institute a police state—which as Mr. Harris paints it would be even tighter than the Nazi regime—we'd end up with a country that wouldn't be worth defending.
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people.
They will continue random searches of 80 year old women, little kids, former Vice Presidents, airline pilots with proper identification,
secret service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85 year old congressmen with metal hips and Medal Of Honor
winning former Governors. Let's pause a moment and take the following test.
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics athletes were kidnapped &massacred by:
(a) Olga Corbett
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzenegger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80 year old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 190s, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A Pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked in Athens and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by
(a) Captain Kidd
(b) Charles Lindburgh
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy &the Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite left over from the train job
d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
8. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
(c) The WWF to promote its next villain: Mustapha the Merciless
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, 4 airliners were hijacked &destroyed &thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck &Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the Unites States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. 1n 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
If I must choose between a tightly-organized police state, on one hand, and the almost continuous threat of Americans being murdered and our major American cities being destroyed by Arab muslim fanatics and possibly by non-Arab muslim appearing collaborators that they enlist in their campaign, I will choose the police state.
If the very idea of that eventitude appalls you, then start political agitation for the total racial and ethnic profiling in order to make certain none of these kinds of people are admitted to this country for any purpose, and for the expulsion of all such people who are already here and whose loyalties cannot be proven.
Then, almost certainly, there will be less need of a police state to protect lives, property and public order in this society.
Otherwise, get ready for the age of 21st century concentration camps, where, by the way, there will be good and equal employment opportunities for a lot of Americans, regardless of race and religion. But not creed. Because until radical islam is defused, we can never again that that for granted.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"The" plan isn't lock up everyone who looks different. It is just to allow that to be _one_ piece of a puzzle and not have a cow over percentages.
If you want security on a plane, you'd strip search 100% of the passengers. That's nuts. A perfectly random (computer generated) list of people to search would be a deterrent - anyone planning to do anything has to increase the number of bodies they're willing to spend _and_ plan for one or two to be intercepted.
But - if you add profiling (_NOT_ racial), then it gets tougher. The expense goes up (one way ticket avoidance), the practicing goes up (they need to be able to _act_ calm), the paperwork goes up (not paying cash)....
No where in there is the assurance that round-trip calm people who pay with a long-established credit card are _safe_. Just that they are safe_r_ since there's a longer list of things to make sure they do right.
The whole field of insurance is exactly this problem. Compare insurance on a $40,000 red sports card for a 25 year old single male and that for a 50 year old married female buying a $40,000 truck.
This doesn't mean you ignore the norwegian grandmother.
As a follow-up to my earlier post, let me link to a somewhat paranoid site Tombstone Tumbleweeds, where in the writer talks about "groups of Middle Eastern males" being caught trying to cross the US/Mexico border.
INS isn't supporting his claims, but they're interesting none the less.
Mr. Harris, no, I most certainly don't want to live in a police state. I see no need whatsoever of becoming through our own actions what our enemies want us to become. The only difference between what you're suggesting and what UBL wants is which direction we turn at prayer time.
I do not think we shall defeat the dangers we now face without taking measures that almost certainly would offend your political or social sensibilities.
Be that as it may. We must defeat them by whatever means can achieve it. Or they will destroy this country. That is exactly what uncontrolled or semi-controlled terrorism implies in an age when dozens of countries now either have nuclear weaponry, or possess the hidden scientific and production resources to assemble these weapons and smuggle them into this country for purposes of destroying an entire American city.
And yes, I think it will come to that. Because nothing short of the certain knowledge that the United States will retaliate by destroying Mecca — the centerplace of their religious system — with thermonuclear weaponry, will detour the Arab islamacists from destroying a large American city the very moment such a deed falls within their capabilities. But the United States is ruled by a system too weak to take set in place such a ruthless and certain response. And the Arabs know it.
So one way or another, your civil liberties are likely to be severely limited one day. The longer this half-hearted war against terrorism sputters on, the more certain of that I become.
So what offends your sensibilities more? Concentration camps for potential enemies, closed borders, mass expulsions on an ethnic basis? Or the massive and permanent destruction of entire cities and the burning of scores of millions of humans?
Or if you think you have some better answer to a seriously realistic threat against us and the world, I'm all ears.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
And while Madmikey's quiz is cute, I note once again that all the points I made are being ignored. The biggest one being that when you concentrate on one group you leave a security hole for that group to exploit.
We have gone three years without a major attack on U.S. soil. The last attack, unfortunately, cost us about a trillion dollars when all was said and told, a big chunk of our GDP and millions of jobs. That being the case, we cannot risk another one. Nevertheless the most effective use of our resources is to look for the big threats, and concentrate on the largest areas of vulnerability. Which is not "Arab males," but rather, large buildings, airlines, water treatment facilities, power plants, and so on.
And of course, internationally, weapons of mass destruction.
I'll take a risk of terrorism over an assured police state every time.
As Dean--and I--keep pointing out, profiling as is being suggested here is dangerous. It narrows our vision. It leads to complacency when assessing threats. We start looking for danger to come from only one directions and lo, it bites us from one we thought "safe".
I think there are lots of things that can be done before we devolve into a police state. We, as individuals, can be more attentive--but with the caveat that we are also using our brains, not just our limbic systems.
We can insist that those entrusted with our safety do their jobs and get their heads out of their bureaucratic routines. We can insist that agencies give up the turf wars and get serious about inter-agency cooperation. To do so, we can write our congress-critters and tell them that our votes for them depend upon their approach to the problem, no matter party affiliation. We can do that forcefully, without coming across as Gengis Khan's step-child.
But I think the first thing we have to do is take a realistic look at what the problem is and what solutions are available.
Profiling young male "Muslim-looking" people might catch the guys who did the last number on the US. Will it catch the next ones? Why do you think that the terrorists are stupid and can't change the way they do things? Why do you think there's an old saying "Generals fight the last war?"
I'd agree that by this point, three years after 9/11, al Qaeda has had time to go door to door and recruit every little old Caucasian lady in America. But recruiting people who aren't already committed to your cause does take time and effort. Isn't it useful to ask whether, in 2002, getting over our squeamishness about racial profiling might have helped us break up al Qaeda's communication and supply networks more effectively than we did? To be absolutely clear, I don't mean racial profiling in the purest sense of just yanking the swarthiest 20% of men out of every Amtrak ticket line. A lot of the people who are wanted or have been captured have visa or passport anomalies in addition to being from predominantly Muslim countries, after all. This isn't just the Driving While Black problem in Arab form.
"Government sources tell FederalNewsRadio.com that capturing this woman could be comparable to the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. It was revealed in court Tuesday that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times."
She's on a watch list and yet manages to enter some 250 times?!? They're asleep at the wheel.
Dean, we're not under the threat of attack from Norwegians....you did read the post, right?
As much as it 'pains' me to say it, we're gonna have to PROFILE to stop these psychos.
Will we get 100% of them? I hope so, but there is the possibility of missing some.
Wake up, people. Dean has it right: if we let the government profile Arabs, we will leave a security hole the size 90% of the world's population. And if they can profile Arabs, why not other groups? What if we start profiling teenage boys wearing Goth makeup, the way people wanted to do after Columbine? I mean, it wouldn't be very hard to make a case that social outcasts are more likely to commit extreme violence in schools than knuckle-dragging jocks, would it? So let's lock down our schools, too. After all, we can't have our kids furtively looking over their shoulders, wondering whence the next attack will come. Of course, once we've done that, it will be easy to make sure that the "terrorist organization" NEA isn't encouraging teachers to fill their students' heads with subversive blah blah blah terrorist-sympathizing blah blah blah anti-American blah blah blah.
Harris, you are truly a despicable human being, and nothing about your views represents what this country is about. If you're so worried about the terrorist threat here, why don't you move somewhere else? No one will miss you, I promise.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.