So how would that have kept them off the plane in Pakistan?

8/28/2006 7:39:03 PM

^huh?

Quote :

"The TSA fires the passenger's name back saying he can't fly, and then airport security restricts him from crossing the gate."

8/28/2006 7:49:12 PM

Yah, that's right, you get on Bush. With all your know how and understanding of his programs and ways, or just look silly and throw darts.

8/28/2006 7:52:30 PM

^^The US government has no control over flights between Pakistan and Hong Kong. So, how does your plan keep them from getting on the plane in Pakistan?

^ WTF are talking about?

8/28/2006 7:55:00 PM

^^yeah, it's pretty silly to want the constitution upheld

8/28/2006 11:07:07 PM

hey nutsmacker??


what are you going to do about it??

8/28/2006 11:38:46 PM

From what i can gather off of the department of state's website is that any indiiduals known or suspected to have ties to a foreign military can lose US citizenship if this poses a threat to the US....also i didnt see anything about them being denied a lawyer, and the FBI doesnt have to allow them to have a lawyer. It seems like the FBI knows they were involved somehow, but doesnt have enough to arrest them, so its easier to just keep them in pakistan. Im pretty sure I like the FBI questioning people they have suspiscions on.

Secondly, sarijoul, stop trying to make this an issue of race. Im sure if we were fighting a war in spain, and i went to germany for a few years, during which a family member was discovered to be in a terrorist training camp, i would be asked questions upon return. Your comparison to the IRA was retarded.

8/29/2006 12:13:41 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot, how does this have anything to do with Bush?

8/29/2006 12:14:43 AM

^^
1) I never mentioned the IRA
2) to think that race doesn't play a part in who we deem "suspicious" or "terrorists" is ridiculous. and sure, maybe we would care about spainards if we were at war with spain. but the last time i checked, we weren't at war with a country. we're at war with an idea, which is complete bullshit. i want none of my rights sacrificed for an undeclared, unspecific and dangerous war on an indiscriminant, wholly subjectively-assigned group of people. there is so much room right now for abuse of power because we're at war with an idea that it sickens me.

^:
he's the head of the executive branch of the gov't. he's the boss of the fbi. i don't think it directly has to do with bush on a case by case basis. but if he wanted a systemic change in how the fbi did business, it would happen. thus some blame does fall on bush.


[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ha.]

8/29/2006 12:20:50 AM

We're at war with a specific branch of Islam, which is espoused mostly by the same ethnic group.

How is that some abstract idea like you're talking about?

8/29/2006 12:36:08 AM

man i want to fucking move to a cooler country

8/29/2006 12:38:14 AM

Quote :

"From what i can gather off of the department of state's website is that any indiiduals known or suspected to have ties to a foreign military can lose US citizenship if this poses a threat to the US....also i didnt see anything about them being denied a lawyer, and the FBI doesnt have to allow them to have a lawyer. It seems like the FBI knows they were involved somehow, but doesnt have enough to arrest them, so its easier to just keep them in pakistan. Im pretty sure I like the FBI questioning people they have suspiscions on. "

the kid was born in the United States. He never held any other citizenship. How can he have his citizenship removed? Also, the only way someone can have the courts remove their citizenship is if they gain citizenship through false means.

8/29/2006 12:42:39 AM

on top of gmail:

Quote :

"Quote of the Day - Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.""

8/29/2006 12:50:45 AM

since Bush is ultimately the boss of the country and government, including being the boss of the Democrat senators and representatives since he is the President, he does get credit for anything that the Democrats do right? Trying to make sure I understand you all's illogical logic

8/29/2006 12:51:46 AM

are you that dense?

8/29/2006 12:58:30 AM

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 1:16 AM. Reason : even more simple, for the twistas among us]

8/29/2006 1:08:44 AM

Quote :

"the kid was born in the United States. He never held any other citizenship. How can he have his citizenship removed? Also, the only way someone can have the courts remove their citizenship is if they gain citizenship through false means."

Citizenship is also lost by serving in a foreign military (other than Israel)

And to OEP, that system would be fantastic, but unfortunately A Tanz is right about us not being able to enforce that list everywhere and every flight.

And to your question

Quote :

"what threat is his flying to the united states if he is extensively searched (perhaps even handcuffed and escorted)?"

Let us remember that if the man is a terrorist, all you've done is given him a lift into the US to begin setting up his plans. Second, I'm not really sure most liberals would have been ok with anyone not charged with a crime being handcuffed and escorted on a plane. You don't think we'd have a thread about that if it happened? If you don't, I think you're silly. We'd hear all about how the big bad FBI picked on poor little foreign guys and cuffed them because they were related to a terrorist. Because that's about the extent of your arguments before.

8/29/2006 7:21:06 AM

Quote :

"Citizenship is also lost by serving in a foreign military (other than Israel) "

if and only if becoming a member of foreign military requires you to renounce your citizenship and you are given citizenship of the foreign country.

think of all the american servicemen who would have lost their citizenship by joining the british military during WWII before the US became involved.

Quote :

"Let us remember that if the man is a terrorist, all you've done is given him a lift into the US to begin setting up his plans. Second, I'm not really sure most liberals would have been ok with anyone not charged with a crime being handcuffed and escorted on a plane. You don't think we'd have a thread about that if it happened? If you don't, I think you're silly. We'd hear all about how the big bad FBI picked on poor little foreign guys and cuffed them because they were related to a terrorist. Because that's about the extent of your arguments before."

Since when has this man been a terrorist? and he is not a foreigner. he is a fucking american citizen.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 7:33 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 7:33:06 AM

Meh, change it to "suspected terrorist" and the point still stands. Heck, he even said:

Quote :

"if the man is a terrorist"

8/29/2006 7:37:03 AM

nutsmacker, very good job countering the foreign military argument...I guess I was mistaken

BUT...

You just chose to argue semantics instead of addressing any of the substantive part of the meat of my post. First, I said IF he was a terrorist, which you apparantly overlooked. Second, yes, he's an American citizen, BUT as someone in here has tried to make a point many many many times, he's brown. That's where my "poor little foreigner" statement came from...but if I change it to "poor little guy of ethnic origin" would you then address what fucking matters in the post?

8/29/2006 7:41:58 AM

another article (this time from nytimes), it says pretty much the same thing, but i thought i'd share it:

Quote :

"U.S. Blocks Men’s Return to California From Pakistan By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD Published: August 29, 2006 LOS ANGELES, Aug. 28 — Federal authorities have prevented two relatives of a father and son convicted recently in a terrorism-related case from returning home to California from Pakistan unless they agree to be interviewed by the F.B.I. It is unclear whether the men, Muhammad Ismail, 45, and his son Jaber, 18, have a direct connection to the terrorism case or if they have been caught up in circumstance. The United States attorney’s office in Sacramento declined Monday to answer questions about the Ismails beyond confirming that the men had not been permitted to fly into the United States and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to question them. The United States attorney, McGregor W. Scott, reiterated a comment he had made to The San Francisco Chronicle, which reported Saturday about the Ismails’ troubles. “They’ve been given the opportunity to meet with the F.B.I. over there and answer a few questions, and they’ve declined to do that,” Mr. Scott said through a spokeswoman, Mary Wenger. The Ismails live in Lodi, Calif., a small farming town south of Sacramento, where their relatives Umer Hayat and his son, Hamid, were arrested last summer as part of what federal prosecutors said was an investigation into terrorist links. The Hayats are the only people to have been charged. Hamid Hayat, the nephew of Muhammad Ismail and the cousin of Jaber, was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a training camp in Pakistan. Umer Hayat, in a deal reached with prosecutors after jurors deadlocked on terrorism charges, pleaded guilty in May to lying to the authorities about carrying $28,000 to Pakistan from California. The Ismails discovered they were on the federal government’s no-fly list of people not allowed to enter the United States after they were refused permission to board a connecting flight in Hong Kong on April 21; they had been trying to return to California after several years in Pakistan, said Julia Harumi Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is representing them. In Hong Kong, Ms. Mass said, they were told there was a problem with their passports; other family members traveled on to California, while the Ismails returned to Pakistan. There, a consular officer suggested there had been a mix-up and advised them to book a direct flight to the United States, but at the airport, they were told they were on the no-fly list, she said. Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, was questioned by the F.B.I. at the American Embassy in Islamabad, but his father, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan, declined to participate, Ms. Mass said. Jaber Ismail has refused further interrogation without a lawyer and has declined to take a polygraph test; Ms. Mass said the men were told these conditions had to be met before the authorities would consider letting them back into the United States. She said the men had not been involved in terrorist activities; Jaber Ismail, she said, had gone to Pakistan in part for religious study. “If the government had evidence instead of innuendo,” Ms. Mass said, “then they would be charged with a crime instead of being held hostage in a foreign land.” She said she had filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security, seeking the removal of the Ismails from the no-fly list and an explanation for why they were considered a threat. Hamid Hayat mentioned Jaber Ismail in a marathon F.B.I. interrogation before he was charged, according to transcripts. He said his cousin had attended a camp in the past couple of years, but he was not sure if it was the same one he had attended. Defense lawyers attacked the interrogation as coerced and misleading, saying that the camp Mr. Hayat had referred to involved religious instruction, not terrorism, and that investigators had intimidated the men into making false claims. The government never presented evidence that Mr. Hayat had attended the camp, beyond his own words. Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions, said the Ismails’ situation raised a host of difficult legal issues. “There are a lot of Supreme Court cases on the right to travel,” Mr. Tobias said. “But you have to play them against the Patriot Act and whatever legislation may apply. This does render them stateless in some ways.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/us/29hayat.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

and for this:

Quote :

"Let us remember that if the man is a terrorist, all you've done is given him a lift into the US to begin setting up his plans. Second, I'm not really sure most liberals would have been ok with anyone not charged with a crime being handcuffed and escorted on a plane. You don't think we'd have a thread about that if it happened? If you don't, I think you're silly. We'd hear all about how the big bad FBI picked on poor little foreign guys and cuffed them because they were related to a terrorist. Because that's about the extent of your arguments before."

there is plenty of precedent for detaining someone for questioning if we believe that they are a threat or if they have information about something that is a threat to national security. I don't believe this detention should be open-ended and he should be afforded the rights of an american citizen when he is detained. but i think escorting him to the united states is within the fbi's power (if they detain him and provided him with the requisite rights)

and i would imagine we could keep an eye on him easier in the united states than in pakistan.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 8:26 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 8:14:56 AM

god, some of you people would have freaked out after pearl harbor and during WWII

8/29/2006 8:29:31 AM

and rightly so. our internment of japanese-americans is a stain on our country. but at least in that case we were actually at war with a country.

8/29/2006 8:37:14 AM

oh I know

not saying i agree with it

8/29/2006 8:44:19 AM

this thread is a joke just like all the other "omg blame bush for everything" threads

8/29/2006 9:33:16 AM

this thread is about executive abuse of power. not specifically bush, though he does bear some responsibility since he is in charge of all things executive.

8/29/2006 9:42:37 AM

the topic discussed in this thread does not seem like executive abuse of power just because they ask a terrorist's relatives some questions...some people would rather give people every single benefit of the doubt, without knowing the situation...you guys would rather give some terrorist suspects every benefit of the doubt as long as the evil American government doesnt potentially infringe on their rights

however the thread title sure as hell is about "specifically bush"

still dont know how the double standard goes where anything the FBI does or govt in general does wrong is Bush's fault since he is ultimately in charge, yet anything good the govt does, Bush gets no credit for

yet i make that claim and nutsmackr asks if I am that dense

no fucking wonder the Soap Box is a joke...a retarded thread like this goes 4 pages and half the people still believe its Bush abusing his power

8/29/2006 10:12:35 AM

that's what i'm saying the (substantive part of the) debate has been about executive abuse of power (whether or not that has occured). the blaming bush bit has been brought up mostly by you and other's disagreeing with nuts' first post and nut's first post. whether or not we blame bush or someone below him is fairly irrelevant. maybe it's relevant to the first post, but not to the meat of the discussion.

bush ultimately is responsible for the fbi though because he is their boss. giving bush credit for good (or bad) things that happen in the country is a different matter entirely. the economy can't be directly controlled by bush (good or bad). the environment can't be directly controlled by bush (good or bad). the fbi can be directly controlled by bush if he so chose.



[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 11:36:32 AM

Quote :

"the economy can't be directly controlled by bush (good or bad). the environment can't be directly controlled by bush (good or bad). "

i agree, but a lot of people on here dont

8/29/2006 11:48:51 AM

but bush's policies do have an affect on the economy and the environment

8/29/2006 12:40:47 PM

this is really getting off-topic now.

8/29/2006 12:41:48 PM

of course they have an effect...but it just seems to me too many people put all the blame on him when something happens that they dont like...if something goes wrong, its because he's dumb and he fucked up since he's a moron...if something goes wrong but people think its a conspiracy, its because bush transformed from a moron into a crafty sheister who tricked the entire country...and when something goes right, he had nothing to do with it

^the title of the thread is off topic so what do you expect

8/29/2006 12:43:25 PM

Quote :

"the fbi can be directly controlled by bush if he so chose. "

It is his job to micro-manage every facet of the united states government? Not Congress or the directors of the FBI?

You gotta be kidding me. No one person can be responsible for every aspect of the federal government.

8/29/2006 12:44:00 PM

can we get beyond the thread title and just discuss the events that happened in pakistan/hong kong to the two american citizens on the no-fly list.

^that's why i put "if he so chose"

also, i said earlier that he doesn't control every detail of the fbi, but if he wanted a systemic change in how the fbi operated, it is within his power.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 12:44:45 PM

Quote :

"You gotta be kidding me. No one person can be responsible for every aspect of the federal government. "

except Bush...but only when something bad happens

Remember when we found Saddam in his spiderhole? Bush had nothing to do with that

Remember when pictures got out of POW prisons with American soldiers humiliating prisoners? Totally Bush's idea and fault

8/29/2006 12:45:42 PM

unless you talked to a reasonable person, which you obviously think excludes people who aren't fond of bush.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 12:48 PM. Reason : grammar]

8/29/2006 12:47:36 PM

sarijoul, how can you tell me you can read through a variety of threads and posts in the Soap Box of TWW and not agree that there are tons of people who blame him for everything?

8/29/2006 12:50:09 PM

i think most people's arguments are more nuanced than that (save a few)

8/29/2006 12:52:15 PM

here's a newer article with more information than before (with some bolded new opinions and details of the timeline of the situation):

Quote :

"Two Lodi men stuck in Pakistan Family relation to Hayats keeps pair exiled until they talk to FBI Jeff Hood Lodi Bureau Chief Published Tuesday, Aug 29, 2006 LODI - Two U.S. citizens related to a Lodi man convicted of aiding terrorists are in virtual exile because federal authorities won't let them return from Pakistan until they submit to FBI lie-detector tests. Now, four months after they were barred from flying to the United States, Muhammad Ismail, 45, and Jaber Ismail, 18, have turned to the American Civil Liberties Union's legal clout to help them return to their Lodi home. The ACLU filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Aug. 9 claiming the Ismails are being denied their civil rights. Usama Ismail, whose brother and father are on the government's list of passengers barred from air travel, said Monday that he advised them not to talk to the FBI. Interviews with agents last year led to the arrests of his cousin Hamid Hayat and uncle Umer Hayat on terrorism-related charges. The stranded Ismails - the elder a naturalized citizen and the younger born in the United States - have not been charged with any crime. Usama Ismail, 20, said an FBI agent involved in last year's Lodi terrorism investigation called from Pakistan asking him to persuade his brother to talk. "I said, 'You guys screwed my uncle over, and now you want to screw my brother over?'" Ismail said. "They're treating them like foreigners or something. What's the point of being a citizen?" Experts in constitutional law contacted Monday said the Ismails' predicament is rare if not unprecedented. And they said they don't see that the government has a legal basis to keep the Lodi men from coming home. "There has to be a due-process issue here," said John Sims, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law. "You can't say someone can't fly with the consequence they can't return to their country of citizenship without proving they did something or are likely to do something." Law professor Charles Weisselberg at the University of California, Berkeley, said that if the FBI is concerned the Ismails may pose a threat to air traffic, rather than banning them from travel they could be screened closely before boarding an airplane. "It is normal when somebody arrives at the border to be subjected to questioning and see if they're holding contraband," Weisselberg said. "But to say they wouldn't be allowed in without lie-detector tests is extreme." The ACLU's complaint states the Ismails are being denied their right to travel and enter their home country and demands the government remove them from the no-fly list and let them return home. "It's stunning. It's outrageous that the government is conditioning these folks' right to return to the United States upon giving up their right to remain silent," said Julia Harumi Mass, an attorney for the ACLU in San Francisco. "If the government had any real evidence against them, these people could be charged with a crime instead of being held hostage in a foreign land." Mass said Drew Parenti, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Sacramento office, confirmed that he was behind the request to prevent the Ismails from returning unless they agreed to questioning. Mass said Parenti would not say what gave him that authority. Parenti's office referred questions Monday to FBI spokeswoman Karen Ernst, who declined to comment, because the matter is under investigation. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not return a call Monday. Mass said the Department of Homeland Security told her it was investigating the ACLU's complaint. The Ismails are close relatives as well as neighbors of the Hayats. Hamid Hayat, 23, was convicted April 25 of supporting terrorists by attending a paramilitary training camp in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. His father, originally charged with lying about his firsthand knowledge of terrorist camps, pleaded guilty to a count of lying about the amount of money he was taking to Pakistan in 2003. Umer Hayat, 48, was freed Friday, sentenced to time served. During his interview with FBI agents, Hamid Hayat said several of his Lodi cousins had trained at jihadist training camps in Pakistan, including Jaber Ismail. Usama Ismail, also named in that confession, said those statements are false. The Ismails were flying back to the United States from Pakistan on April 21 when they were turned back from boarding a Korean Air Lines flight in Hong Kong to the United States. They tried flying back again two weeks later but were told at the airport in Islamabad, Pakistan, that they were on the U.S. government's no-fly list, according to the ACLU's complaint. An FBI agent interviewed Jaber Ismail at the U.S. Embassy the next week, then asked him to submit to more questioning. After that, he was asked to submit to a lie-detector test, according to the ACLU complaint. The appointment was canceled. "After several more weeks passed, the FBI agent called Jaber Ismail and told him that he needed to submit to further interrogation in order to 'clear up' the situation before he would be permitted to return to the United States," the complaint states. Usama Ismail said his brother and father have only limited knowledge of the Hayat case, because they don't discuss the matter by phone."

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/NEWS01/608290314/1001

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM. Reason : link]

8/29/2006 12:58:49 PM

^link?

Its funny how the ACLU demands the FBI take them off the no-fly list

Without even having any idea why they are on the no-fly list and whether or not they pose any threat to the United States

Honestly this whole issue boils down to you, me, the ACLU...NONE OF US are privy (sp?) to the intelligence and information that the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have...how the fuck do we know if these guys are completely 100% innocent or if they were headed back to the US to blow up a skyscraper or if they are somewhere in between...we don't...I don't...you don't...the ACLU doesn't...so let the intelligence agencies do their jobs

8/29/2006 1:03:40 PM

i am skeptical of people with unchecked power, so should you be.

8/29/2006 1:07:10 PM

i'm also skeptical of muslims related to convicted terrorists entering the united states after a 4 year hiatus reportedly at jihadist camps in pakistan, so should you be

8/29/2006 1:08:42 PM

sure. but last time i checked there was a little bit about innocent until proven guilty. i don't mind if we keep an on them if we have a legitimate reason. but why not let them into the country if we search them thoroughly before entering a plane to the us?

8/29/2006 1:16:18 PM

why dont they just talk to the feds if they have nothing to hide? it seems to me that if they are innocent they should just talk to the feds and be done with it

8/29/2006 1:31:45 PM

The constitution must be alterd at times to secure the people it was made for, and not those it wasn't

8/29/2006 1:32:00 PM

^^because they are guaranteed the right against self-incrimination if they so choose. the fbi shouldn't be able to limit your rights if you don't cooperate with them. i know that's an idealist way of looking at things, but this is an instance where it seems totally reasonable for the fbi to allow the people come back to america and join their family and just be questioned in the united states in the presence of their legal representation.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ^^]

8/29/2006 1:35:15 PM

imagine this...you are a US citizen like you are right now...you leave the United States in 2002 and head to Pakistan, where you live for 4 years...you decide to come back to the United States and the FBI stops you at the airport and wants to talk to you...do you:

A. answer their questions...i mean come on, in the post-9/11 world you've just spent 4 years in Pakistan, a nation known to harbor terrorists...you should HOPE the FBI wants to make sure you're not up to no good

B. call the ACLU to file a lawsuit, preach how your freedoms are being taken away, blame George Bush for going too fucking far this time

Quote :

"because they are guaranteed the right against self-incrimination if they so choose"

so your idea is to take the people who you suspect maybe refusing questioning for fear of self incrimination...and put them on a plane to the United States? Now they might not be answering questions for fear of incriminating themselves as terrorists...yet we want to put them on a plane to the US...they maybe terrorists, so you want to send them to the US..........

8/29/2006 1:37:35 PM

knowing what the us gov't has done to people with even questionable ties to supposed terrorists, i would want to make sure i wasn't about to get fucked and sent to gitmo. i think having a lawyer is totally reasonable in their case.

in my case, relatives of mine haven't already been convicted of terrorist charges.

Quote :

"so your idea is to take the people who you suspect maybe refusing questioning for fear of self incrimination...and put them on a plane to the United States? Now they might not be answering questions for fear of incriminating themselves as terrorists...yet we want to put them on a plane to the US...they maybe terrorists, so you want to send them to the US.......... "

easier to keep an eye on them where we have jurisdiction than in a foreign country. but honestly, if we don't have anything on them, we can't limit their rights unreasonably. i think preventing them from returning to their homes and families is pretty unreasonable.

8/29/2006 1:40:50 PM

Quote :

"easier to keep an eye on them where we have jurisdiction than in a foreign country"

so in a foreign country where they are not under US jurisdiction...why would they get all their US rights?

just because I'm an American citizen doesn't mean I have all my US constitutional rights if I were in say Pakistan...I would be subject to all the laws of Pakistan

8/29/2006 1:44:50 PM

they were in a us embassy when they talked to the fbi the first time and refused an appointment there later. reading is easy.

8/29/2006 1:47:02 PM