-
Judging ‘Drones’ From Afar
March 25, 2013 | 29 comments
-
A Question Not Asked
October 23, 2012 | 12 comments
-
LOST Trade Routes
March 5, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Walking Too Softly
May 5, 2011 | 41 comments
-
Radicalization Lessons
March 30, 2011 | 28 comments
Another Perspective
Citizenship as Sword
When terrorists by their words and deeds renounce their U.S. citizenship.
Recent news reports indicate that the second issue of Inspire, a web-based English-language al Qaeda magazine, was just published. The publication — which features articles containing suggestions on how to commit violent acts of jihad most effectively, from truck bombs to nerve gas — also contains an article written by Samir Khan, an American citizen currently residing in Yemen, who is also believed to be the magazine’s creator. Khan writes that he now “could no longer reside in America as a compliant citizen. & I am proud to be a traitor to America.”
Khan has released this latest issue of Inspire against the backdrop of an interesting debate taking place on whether it is permitted or advisable for the United States to assassinate an American citizen overseas who has joined a foreign terrorist organization like al Qaeda. The latest round of discussion on this point has been sparked by legal developments in the case of al Qaeda cleric/operative Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen believed to be living in Yemen, who has been tied to the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day bomber. Although the Obama administration has authorized the assassination of al-Awlaki, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed a lawsuit on behalf of al-Awlaki’s father, alleging the illegality of so-called “targeted killings” of American citizens.
This latest round of debate, however, has been consumed by the question of what can and cannot legally be done to a U.S. citizen who joins the ranks of a terrorist organization — built in is the assumption that such an individual retains American citizenship. We are past due for a reassessment of whether that should be the case.
Title 8 of the United States Code already establishes that a U.S. citizen, whether born here or naturalized, can lose his citizenship by voluntarily undertaking certain actions with the intent of relinquishing citizenship, including (among others) entering the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S., or committing treason against the U.S. The law specifies that the State Department must prove that the individual committed one or more of these proscribed actions with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. The Department can presume that they were done voluntarily — a presumption the person in question is free to try to rebut. If the Department determines that citizenship was renounced, that person can request Departmental review, or appeal the decision in court.
In May of this year, Senators Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown introduced the “Terrorist Expatriation Act,” which would add providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization, engaging in (or materially supporting) hostilities against the United States, or engaging in (or materially supporting) hostilities against U.S. allies to the list of offenses that could cost someone their American citizenship under the laws that already exist.
To be sure, jihadist terrorists generally could care less whether they are citizens of any specific country — after all, their unifying goal is global Islamic rule under a Caliphate implementing shariah law, an arrangement rendering the nation-state system irrelevant. But revoking American citizenship from terrorist operatives is tactically smart in that it deprives American terrorists of the use of their American passport for international travel, and under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 also removes ambiguity about trying such individuals before military commissions rather than civilian courts, where they would otherwise receive the constitutional protections given to common criminals in our criminal justice system.
Skeptics might note that to the extent that the “intent” standard still applies under legislation like the Terrorist Expatriation Act, the State Department would still have to show that an individual intended to give up his American citizenship when he acted in support of a terrorist organization. For cases in the category of terrorist training manual publisher and “proud traitor” Samir Khan, this is arguably not an insurmountable obstacle. As for situations where the individual does not spell it out in words, but lets a car-bomb or nerve-gas attack do the talking, there is a case to be made that such actions are tantamount to intentionally relinquishing citizenship. While specific intent to give up citizenship may be harder to prove in some circumstances than others, that is no reason to deny the government the opportunity to make that case.
Reasonable people can disagree on some of the particulars of the Terrorist Expatriation Act — for example, some might argue that criminal prosecution of those providing “material support” to terrorist organizations (a framework upheld by the Supreme Court just this past summer) is sufficient penalty for such activity, without adding loss of American citizenship. Importantly, Cato’s Ilya Shapiro has previously noted that courts would likely insist on a very high bar for revocation of citizenship being triggered by the provision of “material support.”
Nonetheless, in an age where American citizens are answering the call to jihad in increasing numbers, the Senators and their House counterparts — whatever the merits or drawbacks of their specific legislation — deserve credit for at least putting the question of revoking U.S. citizenship on the table when it comes to fighting terrorists. Citizenship is a shield, meant to protect society from abuses by the state. But when those dedicated to the destruction of that society use citizenship as one of their most potent weapons, it is time for a serious discussion of whether the rest of us are required to accept that proposition.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ben Lerner
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/25/citizenship-as-sword
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah D | 10.25.10 @ 6:30AM
"when those dedicated to the destruction of that society use citizenship as one of their most potent weapons, it is time for a serious discussion of whether the rest of us are required to accept that proposition." I'd like to know if this could be applied to a different kind of terrorism...that of George Soros who uses his citizenship to undermine the country in many ways just as destructive as any terrorist. That should be looked into next.
James Pawlak | 10.25.10 @ 8:47AM
I still do not understand why Major Hasan was not charged with Treason. The same question comes to mind as to the above camel-filth, "Hanoi-Jane" Fonda and "Bomber Bill" Ayres. Warrants should be issued now. Note that there is no "Statute Of Limitations" for that crime.
Louis Jenkins| 10.25.10 @ 8:49AM
Bugger it all! Go ahead and off the guy and get it over with. To much quibbling over whether or not he is a citizen.
Ned| 10.25.10 @ 11:28AM
Totally agree - blowing them out of their boots as expeditiously as possible will certainly discourage traitorous behavior. But it seems to make sense to go the route of revoking evil-doers citizenship as a first step. Not sure exactly how you go about notifying these scumbags that they are now officially on Uncle Sam's hit list - don't really care - but administrative suspension of their rights and passports shouldn't be that difficult, and places the onus on the bad guys to justify their actions to get their rights restored... in person, of course.
sinanju| 10.25.10 @ 9:38AM
Actually, while it's a good idea to go ahead and explore the possibilities of this, it's an even better idea to simply dust off the crime of high treason and actually start prosecuting and sentencing (in absentia or otherwise) people for the aforementioned--from outright domestic terrorists to radical chic movie stars, professors and lefty lawyers who indulge in outright acts of treason. Everyone from Major Hasan and Bradley J. Manning to Mikey Moore, Sean Penn and Lynne Stewart who have egregiously flouted the law.
Can't you just imagine the chilling effect?
Texas Mom 2012| 10.25.10 @ 12:17PM
Don't leave Jimmy Carter off your list. And possibly Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria as well since it was an attempt to undermine the Bush administration policies.
Al Adab| 10.25.10 @ 1:02PM
Once we had a law against private citizens engaging in foreign policy activities. Once we had a law against Treason (as defined in the Constitution no less) Once we had a Justice Department that enforced the law rather than encouraged a political agenda. Once we had a Federal Government which stood between foreign nations and the rights of our States rather than helped other nation sue our states..
Ahh, the good old days.
Turnditch| 10.25.10 @ 9:48AM
Sounds good to me; these cowardly islamo-fascist murderers were never really Americans anyway.
hunter| 10.25.10 @ 10:49AM
Simply round up all the so called and guilty within reason bastards. Deny all phone calls, access to anyone. Then announce that they have been executed by firing squad for high treason. Then have them already loaded in the fastest jet we have to be delivered to the first country to cry boo hoo. Let them deal with them. Once a skunk always a skunk.
Sheila| 10.25.10 @ 11:06AM
Our citizenship process, just like our elections, is wholly corrupted and nothing more than a joke to those determined to use our own institutions to effect our downfall. No one is charged with treason anymore, because most of those committing it are those "enrichers" our society is so determined to promote (Chinese "citizens" committing espionage, anyone? Free poor Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard?). To state that dual citizenship equals dual loyalty is hatred (or anti-semitism at the least!). To warn of taqqiya by Muslims is Islamophobia. Under the current system, if a Muslim hijacking a plane to commit a terrorist act gave birth in U.S. airspace, the kid would be "entitled" to U.S. citizenship. Oh hail, thou tolerant ones. Posterity needn't forget you were ever my countrymen; I long ago disavowed your ilk.
sasob| 10.25.10 @ 12:14PM
I have just one wee question: if someone's citizenship is removed, how can he then be considered a traitor? For an act to be considered treason doesn't it have to be committed by a citizen or subject of the country under consideration?
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.25.10 @ 12:31PM
Hi Folks. Old Texican back with one of my Sunday thoughts.
Three years ago, if someone I had come to trust, had prophesied where we are TODAY, (October 24, 2010), and like a modern day Cassandra had told me what was going on, both here at home, and abroad…
I would have been seriously concerned about his mental health. I mean that. Let’s look around us. With 15% “structural unemployment” with no end in sight, a federal government that has taken over more than a THIRD of our key economic engines while destroying the legitimate investors, and pushing hard for more, with free market practices and protections merely a mirage in our rear-view mirrors; I would have considered his ravings pure FICTION.
I may have considered his ravings either a psychotic break, or at the very least…a recital of a nightmare.
Please recall, that three years ago today, we were bopping along with around 0% to 1% “structural unemployment”. (Somewhere around 4.5% unemployment is considered ‘voluntary unemployment’…people moving interstate…changing jobs…changing careers…and of course the tiny percentage of totally unemployable illiterates .
Honestly now, who among you could have imagined this mess, three years ago today? I have always considered myself pretty well informed, and I am friends with some pretty informed people. Yes, Fannie May and Freddy Mack tickled around in the back of my mind with some discomfort. Our Democrat Congress was papering over the dangers pretty well though. (Read lying through their teeth).
How could I have taken him seriously though, especially when he told me about the emergence of the Tea Parties and their hoped-for impact on domestic affairs and elections this November.
Fiction…I would have thought….pure fiction.
___________________
Then, he turned his ravings into the international arena, and my hands became damp.
>Iran on the way to deliverable nuclear weapons.
>Tiny Israel backed into a corner, facing another holocaust, both by the Muslims…and allowed by America itself.
>A small town reporter drawing Muhammad…in the USA …for crying out loud…and forced into witness protection….disappeared…to save her from being beheaded.
>Unknown numbers of Jihadists wandering across our borders with “real” US passports, but with fictitious people carrying them.
>The countries in western Europe totally ‘cowed’ by their Muslim immigrants.
>The Chinese and N Korea selling (stolen US) ballistic missile technology to the crazies in Iran.
> The President who sold the Chinese the technology for some campaign contributions, wandering around America stumping for the communist politicians today.
>Russia, crouching on the sidelines hoping the middle east goes up in a nuclear firestorm, leaving Russia the “sole source” of fuel for western Europe. (Why use missiles and tanks?)
Ladies and gentlemen, I would not have believed him. I simply would not have.
I would have finally decided that his ravings were simply fiction.
Well, so then I utilized “fiction” to describe one of three courses history will take during the next six months. I want to thank the owners and contributors to American Spectator for lining up the dots. My fiction has simply connected those dots into the near future…in perhaps a lunatic fashion? I sincerely hope each of you will read my ravings in order not to be caught flat-footed.
God bless each of you. www.texassaidno.com Texas said no to Sharia-Law.
Intelligent Design| 10.25.10 @ 2:23PM
A follower of Islam, a true Muslim, is by definition subversive to our Constitution. Islam is not a religion, it's a political ideology. Islam embodies evil, violence, intolerance, hatred, brutality, ignorance, 7th century sharia law, lack of religious freedom, and denial of the rights of man. It is completely at odds with our Constitution. To pretend otherwise is foolish and dangerous to the preservation of our free republic. How can a person who is faithful to Islam also support our Constitution? It's impossible.
PattyMor| 10.25.10 @ 3:11PM
Yes, whether anyone joins a formal foreign army or the Islam jihad, they are all committing treason. But, my question is: why are we still letting Muslim people immigrate to our country? Anyone who truly follows Islam, can not support our constitution and the freedoms it bestows.
Nechama| 10.25.10 @ 6:04PM
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan perpetrated the worst terrorist attack on the US since 9/11 – killing 13, injuring 38 at Fort Hood, several witnesses managed to capture some of the crime on videos on their cell phones. Amazingly, military brass ordered them to erase the videos, thereby guilty of obstructing justice. Why would they do this? How can they get away with this? More importantly, how high up did these orders come from? President Obama? Attorney General Eric Holder? This needs to be investigated.
A VET WHO KNOWS THE REAL DEAL| 10.25.10 @ 7:23PM
The article's writer, Mr. Ben Lerner, states (above), that, "Reasonable people can disagree...for example, some might argue that criminal prosecution of those providing "material support" to terrorist organizations (a framework upheld by the Supreme Court just this past summer) is sufficient penalty for such activity, without adding loss of American citizenship."
Sufficient punishment?
Which REASONable people? (implies one has reason capabilities to bring to bear on the issue)
Uh, even the whacked-out Assembly General in France has moved to remove citizenship from naturalized citizens: On a broad range of common, everyday criminal activities far beneath the scale of treason, espionage, or terrorism.
Hoorah!
What? Do the French politicians for once demonstrate more sense than our national (I can't say it; it hurts too much), our national, er, well, you know, um, those people working in Washington, D.C. in authority, the ones living off our dime?
[Cannot, by definition, call them leaders.]
This is no joke. On this issue various European Union states are forming laws that revoke citizenship --- for things as simple as assaulting a police officer during a demonstration (like what occurs presently in France over the national retirement age).
[And it is amazing to note that most of these EU states would openly tell you that these new laws would impact primarily 'citizens' who've migrated from the...Middle East. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. A coincidence: All those people from the Middle East.]
Bravo France! I think we can do the same for those plotting terrorism in our midst or who flee like the cowards to the 'havens' of the UAE, Yemen, or 'allies' like Saudi Arabia.
Best ally the USofA has ever had: Saudi Arabia. Yessiree.
Treason:
1. If still on our shores, quick apprehension, quick trial, capital punishment.
2. If abroad, stripped of US citizenship, hunted like vermin, death by fire(power).
Any facility (aka mosques) preaching/plotting Treason in the US or one of its territories:
1. Burned to the ground.
2. Imam(s) incarcerated, questioned, and (see above).
Until we do the above, this will worsen. Guaranteed.
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 3:16AM
"Vet Who Knows The Real Deal," I'm assuming that, as a vet, you've raised your right hand at least once in your lifetime, and sworn unto God that you'd "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Were you paying attention to any of that, or is the Constitution simply a document that you can conveniently forget whenever it suits you?
I'm not aware of any provision in the Constitution that can simply strip a citizen of his citizenship on a whim. I'm also not aware of any provision in the Constitution whereby a citizen (or citizens) deemed "Treasonous" can be "razed to the ground" without due process (a trial) under the law. Perhaps you could enlighten me, because the kind of things I'm hearing from you seem very indicative of a police state, whereby the government can make up any rules it sees fit. Besides, "treason" can be loosely defined as any speech that criticizes the government. Is that what you'd like?
WE ARE NOT FRANCE (Thank God). Our Constitution forbids our government for making retroactive laws, passed after-the-fact.
So tell me, VET, what Constitution did you swear to uphold and defend? Because it certainly doesn't sound like ours.
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 3:38AM
I'd also like to add that Tokyo Rose (who was indeed a traitor, and a U.S. Citizen), following WWII, was tried, convicted and executed under due-process. I have no problem with that. Much like I have no problem whatsoever with the trial of the Rosenbergs. (I supposed we'll all have to live with the fact that the Justice System loosened the prerequisites for Treason before Jane Fonda and John Kerry came along).
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 2:34AM
I always tend to lean on the side of the United States Constitution. Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen. As much as I despise everything for which he stands, as a citizen, he's entitled to all of the rights afforded by our Constitution. That includes due process (etc, etc), under the law. Targeting him for assassination is a violation of our founding principles (again, he's a citizen).
The thing that I fail to understand is that our current administration seems to think that KSM, a foreigner that was picked up from Pakistan, residing off-shore in Guantanamo, having never set foot on U.S. soil, with no claim to citizenship, has a right to a trial by jury while Anwar al-Awlaki, apparently, doesn't.
The whole things seems upside down, if you ask me. If an American citizen can be targeted for assassination, without Constitutional protection, what rights do any of us have?
A VET WHO KNOWS THE REAL DEAL| 10.26.10 @ 3:36AM
GavinTuscon, you and many others (you stand in great company) don't get it. The reason Anwar Al Awlaki is a US citizen is 1) our great benevolence as a nation, but, more importantly 2) his family's ulterior/vile motives.
Become a US citizen and then their son stands on equal ground as you. You are no better than he is. In fact, he becomes 'better' than you are.
He will use that citizenship to undermine all that you are, all that his 'host' nation is.
Do you ever ask why these people really left their homelands?
Do you ever ask why this wave upon wave now of people from the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia, and former Soviet Republics who happen to be predominantly Muslim, why are they settling here in the USA, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and now even South America?
Scandinavia is overrun with those from the Muslim world. Why? (Um, they like the Viking culture?)
This is what they are preaching in the mosques throughout the Arab world: Get your foot in the door in the West. Go! Establish yourselves. So when it comes time to enact Sharia there, you will be able to do so as lawyers, businessmen, teachers, professors, even policemen AND as citizens of those lands.
This is their global plan and they are executing it flawlessly. (just take a stroll through the streets and suburbs of Brussells, Antwerp, Marseille, Strasbourg, Copenhagen, Glasgow, even Gotenburg, Sweden....)
This isn't some poorly organized, poorly funded group of pseudo Castro brothers with Marxist teachings & Che T-shirts hoping to infiltrate your local university with Latin-style Communism.
This is world jihad. And your town's Main Street is the destination.
Americans who commit treason and use terrorism to do it have NO rights. None. Stripping them of citizenship is but a tiny, first (truly meek) punishment.
GavInTuscon, to answer your last line: You and 233+ million other Americans aren't engaged in treason plots & terrorism schooling. You aren't inciting young, vulnerable 17-22 year-old minds with hate for ALL infidels, a hate with justifies destruction of all things non Muslim.
(They want and already have US citizenship so they can -- as US lawyers -- have Sharia law trump your precious US Constitution. See countless stories from the UK in the last 6 years if you doubt this.)
So, GavinTuscon, your Constitutional protections are fully in tact. You aren't commiting treason.
This is not about free speech or the peaceable exchange of ideas. This is jihad on your doorstep.
Please visit Molenbeek & Anderlecht, parts of Brussels before you again reply here. Examine what they were like as parts of that capital city just 25-30 years ago with what they are today.
Ask yourself just what these "new" Belgian citizens from Tunesia, Morocco, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Yemen, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia are doing as they rip apart all apects of Belgian society. Your eyes will tell you the story.
I think you'll understand. (just watch your step while there)
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 4:15AM
Vet, just to be clear, I don't doubt the intentions of "radical" Muslims. On a daily basis, they repeatedly state their intended goals, to rule by the sword and impose Sharia upon western civilization (I get that).
However, unlike Belgium, the majority of the American people aren't so mired in political correctness that they're in denial. Even the average liberal, if truth serum were administered, would admit to this. In the end, even they are forced to spout out the truth every once in a while.
Be that as it may, and getting back to the topic, U.S. Citizens have rights, as does the aforementioned scumbag (he's a citizen). I have no problem watching this guy swing from a rope, as long as jurisprudence is maintained.
Truth be told, you and I might agree on many things based on our feelings of right and wrong, left and right, etc., but I'm sticking to the high-ground (the Constitution).
As much as I'd like to see this guy whacked on the battlefield, I'm sticking to the rule of law. If he just happens to get whacked as a result of collateral damage, no harm, no foul. If you're your on the battlefield during war, you're asking for it. I just think that he as a target is a bit of a problem.
TCYR| 10.26.10 @ 5:25AM
I think you are both saying the same thing in two different ways. The example which comes to my mind would be the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted". Once a person has been nominated to the list, it would not be a historical first for agents to be given a "shoot to kill" order. I think the same applies here. As long as their is paperwork somewhere which documents why and how Awlaki is considered a traitor then all is done. Effectively he's already been tried "in abstencia" and found guilty. So be it, and good riddance once the world police catch up to him.
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 4:44AM
On a side note, there's a big difference between Belgium (and Europe, for that matter) and the United States. It seems that one of us has a constitutional right to bear arms, and at least 80 million citizens of the United States do just that.
I don't believe anything more needs to be explained on that point. Just ask Japan. Even they didn't have the stones to "invade" the United States during WWII for a reason, and this is the same country that attacked Pearl Harbor.
A VET WHO KNOWS THE REAL DEAL| 10.26.10 @ 3:55PM
GavinTuscon,
Yes, as TCYR noted, you and I agree probably to the 92% mark.
I am using that European capital city (remember, it is far more than the centrepiece city of Belgium) If anywere in the Eurozone ought to be a model of the Europe and EU of the future, oughtn't it to be Brussels? There are well over 65,000 of Europe's supposedly best and brightest assembled there as residents during their EU government tenures.
And you'd think this posh set of Eurocrats would use all the pressure in the world with local authoritities, law enforcement, local police, etc. to ensure safe and harmonious neighborhoods, don't you think?
(I use it as an example because I know this city rather well. I cannot say the same about the following cities although I have been to all of them. But any list of cities north of Rome, Cordoba, and Lisbon will do in Europe today)
Leeds, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Hamburg (70% immigrants in the last 30 years), Berlin, Vienna, Basel, Munich, Zurich....
As the joke goes in Germany, "If you want to go to Turkey's fourth largest city, you go to Dortmund in the Ruhr Valley. If you want to go to the second largest Turkish city, you go to Berlin."
They are there first ONLY because geographically it was easier to achieve.
I have stood on the cliffs of Morocco where you can see across to Spain. (It's like looking across the English Channel) I have met some of the men who serve as the "Coyotes" (just some, its a thriving business) who will, if conditions are right, inflatable raft 20-30 'passengers' over -- NIGHTLY. (with no real long-term consequences if caught) The boat trip: approx. 40 minutes. That's it.
Even easier but longer: Foot, bus, car, lorry up from Turkey going the land route. Open borders or easily pourous borders throughout all of Western Europe. Child's play.
The only reason Seattle or Portland don't now look much more like Brussels or Rotterdam is geographical proximity.
This has nothing to do with our Constitution being a stronger founding nation document or our precious Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with 2d Amendment rights either. (As an example: If that Arizona Rancher who was murdered earlier this year had been the first to pull his trigger and his marksmanship was spit on....Would he be mired in a legal battle -- for months and for hundereds of thousands of dollars -- to prove his innocence and right to self defense? Yep. He'd need the best defense lawyers in Arizona to prove him innocent.)
How many Americans demonstrated for the Ground Zero Mosque in NYC? MANY! (That's how many fellow citizens you have that are delusional. Led by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and a cast of Big Apple city luminaries or city "thugs" depending on your perspective.)
And they will overshout you and at least always get 50-50 results in these early years. Remember, acording to the Washington Post's Parade Magazine (Sunday 18 October 2010) feature on Iraqis in Lincoln, Nebraska 5,000 - 7,000 Iraqis alone now populate this Nebraska city of 250,000. Gav, read that article to read how the local YMCA caved in to "their needs." And these are mostly Iraqis who ought to be very grateful to Americans because they fled the troubled Iraq pre and post Saddam Hussein's demise.
Weren't millions of voters utterly delusional two years ago when casting a ballot for our current president? (Granted his opponent did NOT inspire much)
You are asking a lot of your fellow countrymen, those who sit around and watch American Idol, people who make Desperate Housewives and Sex in the City blockbuster TV series....
Fortitude? Eyes Wide Open?
Do you get what I am saying?
For many it is easier to prepare that TV dinner, sit on the soafa and "veg," yes, veg their lives away 6-7 days a week. Not think too hard about anything. Not reflect. Just keep clicking the remote....
Meanwhile there is a mosque in construction in a neighborhood near you. Or the blueprints are finished and it is just a few months before groundbreaking.
How many mosques in Tuscon already? Phoenix? (And how many of them in Arizona were there just 30-short years ago? I have no idea, but probably zero, right?)
Try approaching your 'new' Muslim neighbor (okay, he's two neighborhoods away from you, but still your 'neighbor' and now a US citizen since the year 2005) and telling him that you just aren't all that keen on his 5-story mosque outside your son's high school which is next to the city library and your neighborhood's only real historic building (the image you see on the town's web site, the town's "claim to fame" in history). Try telling him that. You can't when he's a citizen just like you (nevermind that your family is one of the first to 'found' Tuscon generations ago) and he's been given advisor status on the city board of governors for three advisory groups, 1) Greater Tuscon Cultural Affairs, 2) Immigrant Issues, 3) Muslim Culture Awareness
Gosh, Gav, you're questioning the goals, aspirations, motivations, and sincerity of one of Tuscon's leading citizens!
Who wins, Gav? You or Mohammed from Tunesia?
And you will be a homophobe when you ask just exactly how this 22.8 million dollar structure will be funded. (expect near fatwa-status, Gav, if you personally learn in your inquiries & discussions that the funding is indeed coming from overseas in Saudi Arabia, something to do with Wahhabism....)
[No, he's not constucting something that is there so kids can relate to Aladin and the Magic Lamp or those 1001 Arabian Nights]
As to why the Japanese did not yet get to our lower 48 shores during WWII, well, it was not for lack of it being in their grand scheme. The Pacific is a big place. And there were a lot more logistically easier (and very attractive) targets to acquire prior to getting to these shores.
And they were 'acquiring' them rapidly and with alarming ease....
Make no mistake, they would have been carving us up with the Nazis in the 1946-1952 time period if it were for a much "greater generation" (we cannot hold a candle to them) who rose to the occasion, toiled, sweated, and freely suffered to roll back all their Pacific advances.
GavInTucson| 10.26.10 @ 10:28PM
All excellent points and I agree with you. This guy over here in Tucson has his eyes wide open. You and I simply disagree one very small (but significant) issue, regarding his citizenship. And that's perfectly okay, of course.
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:42AM
three drunk friends made a bet whoever can make their wives scream the longest during sex win 1000.next day when they met.
first guy:I made love to my wife 2.5hours and she screaming for 1.5hours;
second guy:I licked my wife for 2hours and she was screaming whole time and even 1/2hour after I was done;
third guy:that’s nothing,I made love to my wife 10mins and I came twice,wipe my dick on the curtain and my wife still screming at me up to now!