What's good for the Nazi works for a jihadi

[cnorman18]

Op-ed in today's Washington Times

What's good for the Nazi works for a jihadi

President Obama was right when he declared after convening the post mortem on the Detroit debacle that "we have to do better." The simple fact is that $42 billion later, Americans do not feel much safer getting on an airplane than they did eight years ago. Despite the post- Sept. 11 upgrades in security, despite the long lines, the inconveniences of removing shoes and belts and coming soon to an airport near you - full body scans - we are not reassured that the next disaster is not lurking just around the corner. People are concerned we aren't doing enough to fight the enemy and we're still not sure we've fully identified the enemy.

The administration and its Republican critics are still arguing whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Ft. Hood massacre constitutes an act of terrorism. That dispute is reflected in a larger debate of whether we are still in a "war against terror" and whether individuals like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be treated as enemy combatants or read their Miranda Rights as common criminals.

But however that debate shakes out, there is an important move, that would cost little but could strike a blow against extremism and make our skies a little safer: The president admitted that the current watch list is inadequate. But America needs to immediately expand its terrorist watch list. Consider this fact: While the United States has a database of 500,000 individuals implicated in criminal activity, only 1,700 of those names are on the terrorist watch list banning entry into the United States. Compare that to the watch list developed by the U.S. Justice Department of suspected Nazi war criminals. Developed in the 1980s, 40,000 individuals were initially listed, but later the list expanded beyond 70,000 when the Office of Special Investigations on Nazi War Crimes (OSI) included the entire roster of the Nazi SS - and all others who belonged to groups that abetted genocide.

Most of those aging genociders are in their 80s or 90s today and the hunt for Nazi war criminals will soon reach its biological solution. But not so Islamist terrorism - only in its genesis - which is the scourge of all humanity at the dawn of the new decade. It is inconceivable that in fighting the existential threat of terrorism, that we can be operating with a list of only 1,700 people to bar from entering the United States. To better protect the flying public and to strike a blow against extremists who today regularly indescriminantly slaughter fellow Muslims, the Department of Homeland Security should take a page from the Nazi watch list and immediately add those who openly support and abet terrorism. In practical terms, it means immediately listing the many thousands of names of all known members and enablers of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Indonesia's Jemmah Islamiyah and other terror groups listed by the State Department and the European Union.

And there are others who never fired a bullet, or strapped themselves to a ticking bomb, who nevertheless deserve to be publicly placed on America's terror watch list. They include Al Jazeera's Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, whose online fatwa insists that Palestinian women have the right to attain martyrdom by blowing themselves up amidst Israelis. There is Omar Bakri Muhammad, who once claimed to be a recruiter for al Qaeda and organized the "Magnificent 19" (Sept. 11 bombers) in London. Jordan's Dr. Ibrahim Zayd Al-Kilani, who said this: "killing a transgressing American soldier" is an obligation and a kind of jihad. There are the followers of Indonesia's notorious Abu Bakar Bashir, Jamaica's Abdullah el-Faisel, and Libyan-born Abu Yaha al- Libi, who defends the "legitimacy" of violent jihad as a "religious obligation." And of course, Yemen's favorite American Anwar al-Awlaki who served as spiritual mentor and validator to Ft. Hood's Maj. Hasan and the Northwest Airlines terrorist.

We have no doubts that a simple e-mail to all U.S. embassies by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would flush out many more terror enablers. To be sure, errors will be made and anyone who stands accused of such activity must be given recourse to clear their names. It may also be true that not everyone who belongs to a terrorist group will become a suicide bomber, but let them suffer the consequences - why should Americans have to take that risk?

By compiling a true terror watch list, the United States and allies will reassure the shaken flying public that no one committed to terrorism against innocent civilians is aboard their flight. Such a policy will also help strengthen the hand of moderates across the Arab and Muslim world struggling against these extremists. And by providing the guardians of our borders with accurate and timely information about all those who promote and deploy terrorism against our nation, we can help co-opt the need to turn to blanket racial and ethnic profiling.

The time to act is now.

Rabbi Marvin Hier is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate dean of the Center.

It's hard to see how anyone of any religion or any political persuasion could disagree with this.

[JoeyKnothead]

Seconded.

I'm for free speech in all its forms, but when such speech incites violence then all bets are off.

Personally, I'm wondering why we haven't contracted with Israel to help us create safer policies regarding air travel.

[cnorman18]

Seconded.

I'm for free speech in all its forms, but when such speech incites violence then all bets are off.

Personally, I'm wondering why we haven't contracted with Israel to help us create safer policies regarding air travel.

Israeli security measures would never be accepted here. They interview - one might even say interrogate - every passenger before he's allowed to get on the plane. Luggage is thoroughly searched, as are the passengers. They also profile like crazy; if you're a Muslim and/or an Arab, you're going to be looked at more closely. They don't apologize for that, and few complain. El Al planes don't blow up, and to that end, Israeli authorities don't give a damn how politically incorrect their methods are. They work.

[East of Eden]

Seconded.

I'm for free speech in all its forms, but when such speech incites violence then all bets are off.

Personally, I'm wondering why we haven't contracted with Israel to help us create safer policies regarding air travel.

+1 Joey. Anybody voicing Jihadist speech can take the train from now on.

Due to political correctness and cowardice, I'm afraid it will take more air tragedies before we copy the effective Israeli model. This is a serious problem. The Jihadists had a plan in the works where they would have blown up 8 airliners over the Atlantic simultaneously.

Obama is treating the terrorists like citizens and citizens at the airport like terrorists.

[cnorman18]

Seconded.

I'm for free speech in all its forms, but when such speech incites violence then all bets are off.

Personally, I'm wondering why we haven't contracted with Israel to help us create safer policies regarding air travel.

+1 Joey. Anybody voicing Jihadist speech can take the train from now on.

Due to political correctness and cowardice, I'm afraid it will take more air tragedies before we copy the effective Israeli model. This is a serious problem. The Jihadists had a plan in the works where they would have blown up 8 airliners over the Atlantic simultaneously.

Obama is treating the terrorists like citizens and citizens at the airport like terrorists.

In all fairness, it isn't just Obama. This nonsense was going on during the GWB Administration as well. The problem isn't confined to one party; even conservatives seem to be afraid to make anyone angry and will deny the need for "profiling", aka "applying common sense."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

Israeli security measures would never be accepted here. They interview - one might even say interrogate - every passenger before he's allowed to get on the plane.

It would take some doing to convince folks that treating them this way is in their best interests. I think too many Americans feel too safe (for all the right reasons) to understand the situation.

Luggage is thoroughly searched, as are the passengers. They also profile like crazy; if you're a Muslim and/or an Arab, you're going to be looked at more closely. They don't apologize for that, and few complain. El Al planes don't blow up, and to that end, Israeli authorities don't give a damn how politically incorrect their methods are. They work.

When are we willing to learn the lessons of one of the most warred upon folks on the planet?

Do what works? How unamerican is that?
---------------------------

From Post 4:

+1 Joey. Anybody voicing Jihadist speech can take the train from now on.

Don't forget the train bombings in Europe awhile back.

Let 'em walk. And pat 'em down in the middle of the street. Pat 'em down when they leave their homes, mosques, shopping, or whatever. Then wait awhile and pat 'em down again. Bullys only react to being bullied.

Due to political correctness and cowardice, I'm afraid it will take more air tragedies before we copy the effective Israeli model. This is a serious problem. The Jihadists had a plan in the works where they would have blown up 8 airliners over the Atlantic simultaneously.

I'm willing to concede it's not out of cowardice, but political correctness for sure. When we see one group is disproportionately bound to break the law we should target members of that group. As cnorman18 says later, it's common sense.

Obama is treating the terrorists like citizens and citizens at the airport like terrorists.

I'd caution against that sort of language, as correct as it is. It's not so much we treat citizens like terrorists, but that we know terrorists often hide in civilian attire.
-------------------------

From Post 5:

In all fairness, it isn't just Obama. This nonsense was going on during the GWB Administration as well. The problem isn't confined to one party; even conservatives seem to be afraid to make anyone angry and will deny the need for "profiling", aka "applying common sense."

Agreed. There's plenty blame to go around.

I say we make a law where any attempt or attack on public transit or public spaces is an act of war. Take the decision about who's a civilian out of folks' hands and treat terrorists like the warriors or soldiers they think they are.

I think some of the problem is our own fault in a way. We rightly declare that folks are innocent until proven guilty. We demand this notion as a fundamental right and fundamental way of thinking. It is a good thing that is now being used against us - where targeting a group is historically seen as oppressive. I just don't know how we can change that without a shift in our core beliefs.

Then, do we want to change our core beliefs under threats from extremists? I don't know, but I know we gotta rethink how we consider folks who belong to a group that so many members declare our deaths are their reward.

[Abraxas]

Honestly, I do disagree. First of all, to compare the Jihadi to the Nazis just isn't a sound comparison to begin with simply because the Nazi threat ceased to be after the war was over. Creating a big list of names to round up criminals was all well and good, but the fundamental difference is it was never intended to be a protective measure. Further, when we have created those kind of protective lists in the past they have consistently failed to do anything beyond irritate and destroy the lives of innocent people, such as under McCarthyism which saw all kinds of people keeping lists of suspected Communists.

Of course, the vast majority of them weren't and even the handful that were were never demonstrated to be an actual threat to safety or security. Instead it just inspired paranoia and hatred and resulted in a lot of lost jobs and a lot of harassment by the Feds. To me, the list method almost never works and even when it does it produces a whole lot of collateral damage.

Yes, the article says that people will have a recourse to get off of it, however, it gives no mechanism to do so. I suspect the reason for that is simply there never is a good mechanism as it more or less would require them to prove their innocence on the grounds their guilt has been asserted. The wheels of government move slowly and often not at all, as we have already seen for the existing no-fly list when it comes to innocent people getting their names taken off it.

If you want to defend yourself from terrorism, the way to do it isn't with lists, it is with good old fashioned police work. I believe it was John Kerry who got in trouble for saying this, but he was correct. Terrorism is a police problem. The most successful counter terrorism operations have almost always been through what amounts to detective work.

Consider the August 10, 2006 bust, which I had the misfortune to be caught in the middle of, where terrorists were testing whether or not they could bring two inert chemicals on the plane that, when combined, produced an explosive. How was this threat detected? It wasn't through a master list of those in it, but through British police discovering and infiltrating the group, that the plot was undone.

That, in my view, is the way to approach terrorism. Not lists of names but through a combination of police work and target hardening.

[cnorman18]

Honestly, I do disagree. First of all, to compare the Jihadi to the Nazis just isn't a sound comparison to begin with simply because the Nazi threat ceased to be after the war was over. Creating a big list of names to round up criminals was all well and good, but the fundamental difference is it was never intended to be a protective measure. Further, when we have created those kind of protective lists in the past they have consistently failed to do anything beyond irritate and destroy the lives of innocent people, such as under McCarthyism which saw all kinds of people keeping lists of suspected Communists.

I concede that those are all excellent points. If this is like most Internet forums, such concessions are uncommon; but when you're right, you're right.

Of course, the vast majority of them weren't and even the handful that were were never demonstrated to be an actual threat to safety or security. Instead it just inspired paranoia and hatred and resulted in a lot of lost jobs and a lot of harassment by the Feds. To me, the list method almost never works and even when it does it produces a whole lot of collateral damage.

I would say that depends on what criteria are used to put one on the list. Openly declaring that the mass murder of innocents is a sacred act seems to me to be sufficient cause. Belonging to an organization that advocates terrorism is another.

No one's talking about listing all Muslims, all Arabs, or anything like it; but if one is promoting or supporting terrorism, one has forfeited the right to fly anywhere.

Yes, the article says that people will have a recourse to get off of it, however, it gives no mechanism to do so. I suspect the reason for that is simply there never is a good mechanism as it more or less would require them to prove their innocence on the grounds their guilt has been asserted. The wheels of government move slowly and often not at all, as we have already seen for the existing no-fly list when it comes to innocent people getting their names taken off it.

Again, that also depends on what criteria get one placed on the list initially. The difficulty of designing a system that is both efficient and fair does not mean that no system at all is acceptable.

If you want to defend yourself from terrorism, the way to do it isn't with lists, it is with good old fashioned police work. I believe it was John Kerry who got in trouble for saying this, but he was correct. Terrorism is a police problem. The most successful counter terrorism operations have almost always been through what amounts to detective work.

Consider the August 10, 2006 bust, which I had the misfortune to be caught in the middle of, where terrorists were testing whether or not they could bring two inert chemicals on the plane that, when combined, produced an explosive. How was this threat detected? It wasn't through a master list of those in it, but through British police discovering and infiltrating the group, that the plot was undone.

How does that conflict with expanding the no-fly list? Don't the police keep lists of "usual suspects" - and files containing their arrest and conviction records, methods of operation, fingerprints, and names of associates? Mug books? Probation and parole officers who keep track of offenders? This proposal IS "good police work."

The comparison to McCarthy et. al. just doesn't hold. A member of Islamic Jihad shouldn't get the same assumption of innocence as a person who once attended a meeting of a supposedly "communist front" organization.

That, in my view, is the way to approach terrorism. Not lists of names but through a combination of police work and target hardening.

I have no objection to either of those; but I don't see how they conflict with making and using a list of people who have demonstrated through their own words and actions that it is reasonable to consider them a threat to security.

Please remember that police work is overwhelmingly concerned with finding and arresting the perpetrators AFTER a crime has been committed. When you're talking about Jumbo Jets filled with innocent civilians, that's not good enough. It's beyond stupid, as well as light-years from unfair, to refuse to recognize that the presence of a member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or The Al-Aqsa Brigade or the Muslim Brotherhood aboard an airplane constitutes a potential - and potentially imminent - threat.

[Abraxas]

Which is fine, but to me by the time you have reached the point you could include them on such a list, you have already reached a point you could issue a warrant for their arrest on conspiracy or aiding. If you have an organization preaching violence, infiltrate it. Send in agents, monitor the leaders, in short, investigate them thoroughly and if you find something, move on it like any other organization planning and advocating criminal activity.

Honestly, to me belonging to such an organization isn't in and of itself enough to give up rights. If you want to be part of a group that spews hatred and violence, free speech and free association protect you. But at the same time, it give solid reason for you to come under investigation and surveillance, and if you do try something funny, you go to prison.

Further, a lot of people leave those groups. They grow up and decide maybe blowing up people who disagree with them isn't the solution. If this is something that is going to follow them for the rest of their lives, those kind of restrictive measures are going to make people feel like there is no way out of a lifestyle they chose when they were young and foolish which only makes them more unstable. If you recognize you screwed up in picking your friends, what mechanism exists for you to put your life back together afterward?

As for whether any system might hypothetically be acceptable. Perhaps. However, two problems emerge in choosing what that system is. One, no conceptual model of which I am aware is capable of distinguishing to the degree it becomes allowable, and two, testing the model via implementation comes with the risk of it working in a fashion that is unacceptable and doing a lot of damage in the meantime.

The difference between "usual suspects" style stuff and this, and why it ties into the anti-communist methods, is because in this case you aren't talking about keeping tabs on convicts. You are proposing keeping tabs on people based on what organizations they belong to or are suspected of belonging to. You mentioned front organizations, or, more accurately, suspected front organizations being targeted. Who is to say the same won't happen here? "Gee, that business has a high number of Muslims who frequent it, one or two of them we think are radicals who advocate violence. Might be a front organization for the Jihadi, better get a list of their patrons..."

I honestly don't see that as a slippery slope, we've seen it happen time and time again when a society gets so wrapped up in security that liberty, especially the liberty of others becomes a tertiary concern at best. If there was a foolproof method of distinguishing, from the outside, who was good and who was evil and who was misguided but harmless, then perhaps a master list of the baddies is appropriate but I have never known such a large net that could be cast so precisely.

Police work now is concerned on after the fact arrests, yes. But in societies concerned with terrorist activities or organized crime, that has not always been the case. If you are short on manpower, take police off patrolling for stupid, petty "vice crime" and put them to work on stuff that actually matters.

Yes, such individuals do constitute a threat now. However, they don't have to. Simply making the cockpit inaccessible from the body of the plane and searching all luggage brought aboard removes them as a threat almost completely. Increase the number of Air Marshals, especially on international flights. Bottom line is these guys are really only a threat now because basic, obvious steps are not being taken.

[cnorman18]

Which is fine, but to me by the time you have reached the point you could include them on such a list, you have already reached a point you could issue a warrant for their arrest on conspiracy or aiding.

If you have an organization preaching violence, infiltrate it. Send in agents, monitor the leaders, in short, investigate them thoroughly and if you find something, move on it like any other organization planning and advocating criminal activity.

Honestly, to me belonging to such an organization isn't in and of itself enough to give up rights. If you want to be part of a group that spews hatred and violence, free speech and free association protect you. But at the same time, it give solid reason for you to come under investigation and surveillance, and if you do try something funny, you go to prison.

Further, a lot of people leave those groups. They grow up and decide maybe blowing up people who disagree with them isn't the solution. If this is something that is going to follow them for the rest of their lives, those kind of restrictive measures are going to make people feel like there is no way out of a lifestyle they chose when they were young and foolish which only makes them more unstable. If you recognize you screwed up in picking your friends, what mechanism exists for you to put your life back together afterward?

As for whether any system might hypothetically be acceptable. Perhaps. However, two problems emerge in choosing what that system is. One, no conceptual model of which I am aware is capable of distinguishing to the degree it becomes allowable, and two, testing the model via implementation comes with the risk of it working in a fashion that is unacceptable and doing a lot of damage in the meantime.

The difference between "usual suspects" style stuff and this, and why it ties into the anti-communist methods, is because in this case you aren't talking about keeping tabs on convicts. You are proposing keeping tabs on people based on what organizations they belong to or are suspected of belonging to. You mentioned front organizations, or, more accurately, suspected front organizations being targeted. Who is to say the same won't happen here? "Gee, that business has a high number of Muslims who frequent it, one or two of them we think are radicals who advocate violence. Might be a front organization for the Jihadi, better get a list of their patrons..."

I honestly don't see that as a slippery slope, we've seen it happen time and time again when a society gets so wrapped up in security that liberty, especially the liberty of others becomes a tertiary concern at best. If there was a foolproof method of distinguishing, from the outside, who was good and who was evil and who was misguided but harmless, then perhaps a master list of the baddies is appropriate but I have never known such a large net that could be cast so precisely.

Police work now is concerned on after the fact arrests, yes. But in societies concerned with terrorist activities or organized crime, that has not always been the case. If you are short on manpower, take police off patrolling for stupid, petty "vice crime" and put them to work on stuff that actually matters.

Yes, such individuals do constitute a threat now. However, they don't have to. Simply making the cockpit inaccessible from the body of the plane and searching all luggage brought aboard removes them as a threat almost completely. Increase the number of Air Marshals, especially on international flights. Bottom line is these guys are really only a threat now because basic, obvious steps are not being taken.

Let's back up a minute here. For starters, we're not talking about arresting anybody or throwing anybody in prison; we're talking about not allowing them to fly on commercial airplanes. I think that's reasonable. You joined a Jihadi organization when you were 17 and now you're a moderate Muslim? Gee, that's too bad. Take a boat, drive, or walk. You pay for mistakes; that's life. Why should the rest of us take the risk?

Flying on commercial airplanes isn't a right, it's a privilege, and while I can't argue with anything you say above, none of it means that it's wrong or inefficient or unfair to keep a list of people who aren't allowed to get on the plane. That doesn't rule out any of the measures you recommend, all of which I applaud; but again, we can be a little less vigilant about "rights" when we're talking about commercial air flights as opposed to prison.