\ Muslims, Homeland Security and Terror

Village Journals

Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

Muslims, Homeland Security and Terror

Muslims sue US over border stop
Five American Muslims detained for more than six hours at the Canadian border have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security.
The five plaintiffs were returning by car from a religious conference in Toronto in December.

The suit accuses the government of violating the group's constitutional freedom of religion and protection against unlawful searches.

US customs has defended its procedures at border check-points.

The plaintiffs want no monetary damages but an end to such detentions.

'Unbelievable'

The suit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union and other groups names the current head of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, as one of four defendants.

The five were part of a group of at least three dozen Muslim men and women who were stopped after returning from the annual "Reviving the Islamic Spirit" conference in Toronto in December 2004.

The plaintiffs said they were forced to hand over credit cards and other belongings and were searched, questioned, photographed and fingerprinted without explanation.

One of the plaintiffs, Sawsaan Tabbaa, said she had been told she was being pulled aside because of a random selection but then she saw other Muslims who had attended the conference.

"I am proud of being American but I couldn't believe my eyes something like this could happen," she said.

Those detained have never been charged with any crime.

Agency defends practices

US Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman Kristie Clemens declined to comment on the specific case as it was in litigation but she said the service's priority was to "prevent terrorists and their weapons from entering" the US.

The identity of people wishing to cross the border must be verified and fingerprinting is one way to do that, she added.

According to the agency, terrorist organisations have been using conferences like the one in Toronto to promote their cause and raise money.

The plaintiffs want an injunction that would bar the government from such detentions in the future and they also want the fingerprints and photographs taken that night to be expunged from government records.

Add Comments

Add

Comments on this journal

The tragedy is that by passing these so-called anti-terrorism legislation and engaging in practices that target racial and religious groups, the N. American governments(including Canada with its Anti-Terrorism Act) have succumbed to the last wishes of a handful of terrorists : the erosion of civil liberties that have taken hundreds of years to advance..

ameen.

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

and the alternative is not in forfeiting our amendments. is this how our great republic operates? take for example, the patriot act. most of it, despite how bad we talk about it, is OK as it simply amends other legislature that was already in place. however, and specifically refer to section 213, the 'sneak and peak' section. the govt. is allowed to gather info on you, from your home, without you ever knowing, possibly ever but mostly for some months. we have in our constitution specific guidelines that must be followed; any measures that the govt. wants to put into effect must be constitutional. alternatives are really not the answer--the constitution is the focal point and must remain. they are our public servants, we are not theirs, so yes i agree with you there. but the public, in a suit or otherwise, are not responsible for proferring those alternatives.

the alternative is not keeping such a policy--thats it. look at post-pearl harbour. we rounded up all of the japanese: citisens, residents or aliens and stuck them away in camps. why? because the japanese americans, some of whom had been here for 2 generations or maybe more, LOOKED like the enemy? we have learnt that this is not a plausible policy reason.

I agree with all that has been said here and by all civil libertarians. But hardly any one gives an alternative. In the absence of an alternative, the current government will continue to unleash more terror than anyone else ever has. I think, all people who have a stake in this matter should join such lawsuits, with some alternatives. I also believe that it is not the job of the public or the defendants to come up with alternatives to such horrifically primitive policies, but I dont see an alternative in the short term otherwise.

and i agree with that evaluation; but i find that, in the end the courts, the place of last resort, must not stand for compromising our life, liberty or right to due process simple because the bushooligans cry terrorism. its happening over and over again, as hassan has outlined, and i must put faith in the judiciary that they wont balk under pressure of an undefined fear. this is not justice. am i that naive? :-o

Effie, I think you hit it on the button. It all comes down to the desire to CYA, as no one wants the embarassment of having stood up for civil rights only to then experience another attack. It doesn't just go for the judiciary, but for all other branches/departments of the government as well. Political ambitions and career advancement are the top priorities for those who have influence. Even at the expense of our civil rights and liberties, it seems.

no judge wants to be the one that stands up for civil rights, and ends up with another 9-11 on her hands b/c of it..its a politically explosive issue..and the judiciary probably feels that any strong stance it takes now, will probably come back to bite its arse if security is compromised..

my theory is that it comes down to power. most ordinary people want money. those that have money, want power. the government, if unchecked, will continue to usurp power. that's why our system of government has its fabled checks and balances - to ensure this does not happen. unhappily, the system is not foolproof. and when the country is attacked, the culture of fear that is produced is a perfect pretext to usurp more power. just look at the government's actions since 9/11 - that's what it's all been:

1. declaring "special registration" for ppl from certain countries, and imposing consequences for those who do not register; 2. "either you're with us or against us"; 3. wave of unprecedented "witchhunt" prosecutions; 4. the Patriot Act; 5. unprecedented prison sentences for those who broke antiquated, misapplied laws (Virginia 11 cases); 6. defense lawyer convicted...etc etc.

this is all about power; none of these things necessarily makes the government any money, but they make perfect sense if we assume that they just don't like Muslims too much and see our religion and way of life as a potential threat to their powerbase. maybe i'm off base, but when you live and breathe this stuff for a living, your perspective tends to change.

it's the whole cost-benefit analysis..tricky stuff to balance and get it right.

yeah...it's shameful what they have done to our Constitution and civil liberties...it must stop.

i agree, sammy. no state should be free to scare another state into compliance and NONE of this terrorist activism should be claimed in the name of islam. however, i do feel that our foreign policy needs a good slap in the bum. as far as protecting the homeland, why do we (govt) feel that taking away our liberties and succumbing to public outcry is the best way to defend ourselves? are we no longer concerned with our bill of rights and the constitution? is the only way to security via sacrificing our bedrock?

However, bad the policies (which they are), I don't think we should validate suicide bombings, etc. in the name of Islam. A foreign/political policy shouldn't make someone overrun the teachings of their own religion (i.e. commit heinous acts of violence) out of hatred. But I think there are better ways of protecting the homeland, which does need to be protected from certain hate mongers (including the current administration).

policies*

it is just that--our silly, asinine policy that ticks people, around the world, off. then we ask why we are hated. 'they hate our freedom'. yeah, interesting. is this what you call freedom, mr bush?

This is so ridiculous and stupid. The best way to stay safe at home is by not pissing off the rest of the world by acting like a bungling idiot everywhere else. Oppression, profiling, discriminating, spreading false propoganda - things we are taught OTHER governments do. Spokespeople can do their little song and dance all they want. They will be held accountable, InshAllah.

Village Journals Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

Muslims, Homeland Security and Terror

Add Comments

Comments on this journal

Village Journals

Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.