Capt Yee (Islamic chaplain at Gitmo) is a suspicious character

[sangh0]

1) He converted to Islam because he was impressed by the practice of fasting during Ramadan

2) He started his Islamic studies in Syria, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism

3) He continued his education in Saudi Arabia, a hotbed of Wahhabism

4) He went on two Suadi-paid Hajj's

5) He received an equivelancy credential from the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, a school with Saudi, Wahhabist and terrorist financing connections

[BurtWorm]

1. 1) So?

2) So?

3) So?

4) So?

5) So?

[Samaka 3ajiba]

4. # 2 is incorrect

Syria may have supported various militant organizations outside of its borders, but it has never been a hotbed for Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists.

[sangh0]

8. What about Hama?

.

[htuttle]

12. Do you see that conflict as primarily religious...

...or political in nature?

I think much like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the I/P conflict is a political one at it's core, but is occasionally wrapped in religious motives for 'sales'(by both sides).

[sangh0]

15. I disagree

In these cases, it is impossible to disentangle the two. It's like nature vs. nurture. The answer is "It's both"

[ShaneGR]

100. Lets see what he does at trial, if true, LOCK HIM UP

POINT IN FACT: He admits to studying at a school in Saudi Arabia that has been PROVEN to be funded by terrorist money. So, the posters comment about the man being 'suspicious' is in fact true.

He WAS carrying around military documentation on individuals being held at Gitmo. He should not have been carrying those. If it is proven that he was planning to carry that information to either Saudi Arabia or some other country outside the United States that is considered espionage.

So, basically what I'm saying is that although I don't agree with holding the prisoners at Gitmo without trial, that doesn't mean I do agree with someone in the United States military providing information on the detainees to foreign sources. A vast majority of those being held at Gitmo are there for a reason, they were Taliban and/or Al-Queda supporters who are deemed a security threat to the United States of America. I think they should be tried, but I don't think it's ok what this guy did, if it turns out to be true.

[Caution]

2. the only one of these that is anything out of the ordinary is

point 5...maybe...

point 1: whoopdie do? i was impressed by the abilities of buddhist monks enough to study up on buddhism

point 2: way to characterize an entire freaking culture!

point 3: ditto

point 4: big deal? religion communities do this kind of thing ALL the time.

point 5: the school may have connections to questionable things but in what way does that make this guy a terrorist?

instead of pointing out some historical stuff how about looking for...oh i don't know...actual EVIDENCE of WRONGDOING???

[sangh0]

10. Yes, #5 is the one that worries me

I did not say Yee is guilty. I meant that there are suspicious coincidences. Not one of those points prove anything. In fact, altogether they prove nothing. However, altogether they give reason to be concerned.

[Caution]

28. i find absolutely nothing suspicious about any of these

traveling to countries is not suspicious, going to a religious school is not suspicious, and your first point is outright absurd. You should take a close look at your own reasoning and determine whether or not you have already made up your mind about this guy based upon your own prejudices. You may not like his religion and he may very well be a member of the sects that you most dislike, but that does not make this man a traitor, it does not make him an enemy of the state and it doesn't make him an evil person.

This guy may very well be a "spy" or a "terrorist" (though if you want to know about terrorism i suggest reading some of what Noam Chomsky has to say on the subject), but NONE of what you have written has any bearing on that whatsoever.

[sangh0]

30. Then you're looking hard enough

Though none of those points prove anything, when you put them together they form what could be called "the profile"

And as far as my not liking the sect Yee belongs to, you might want to look into brushing up on your Wahhabism. It's not a question of like or dislike. Wahhabism preaches that killing infidels is a part of jihad and that the most glorious act a Muslim can perform is to become shaheed

Yee was educated by Wahhabists. Even if he isn't a terrorist, his Wahhabism is a concern.

[Caution]

35. yes...it's called "profiling"

and it's one of the single biggest problems in law enforcement today. It is the reason why we our prisons are populated almost entirely by young black men.

What evidence do you have that this guy follows Wahhabism? you are basing that assumption on the fact that this guy traveled in countries where there are Wahhabists...well guess what...that doesnt make him a follower of the sect. And even if he was that doesn't make him one who follows the tenets of the sect that frighten you. I would say that most Christians don't regularly follow all of the proscriptions laid out in the Bible.

How many follow the Wahhabism sect? And how many of these regularly go out and kill innoncent civilians? The number probably isnt all that different from fundamentalist christians. But I also know a lot of christian fundamentalists who are good and decent people who would never harm someone over religious beliefs.

Your assumptions are based on absolutely nothing.

[sangh0]

40. Profiling is NOT a problem

Racial profiling is a problem. Profiling is not.

What evidence do you have that this guy follows Wahhabism?

He was educated in a madrassah in Saudi Arabia. ALL of the madrassahs in SA are Wahhabi. They don't allow any other kind.

you are basing that assumption on the fact that this guy traveled in countries where there are Wahhabists...well guess what...that doesnt make him a follower of the sect. And even if he was that doesn't make him one who follows the tenets of the sect that frighten you.

He didn't merely travel in those countries. He studied Wahhabism. He studied at schools that were funded and run by people who also funded terrorists. And the tenets include the belief that there's nothing better than dying while killing infidels. It is fiercely anti-American and anti-modernity.

[Caution]

46. and what is the profiling based upon?

Using your list, we'll create a national database of people with the following information used to determine if they should be viewed with suspicion:

1.) religious beliefs
2.) educational background
3.) places traveled to

I don't know about you but that terrifies me. that is true terrorism. When the government tracks what you do and places you under "suspicion" over the above.

[sangh0]

48. A few on the list

1) Wahhabism
2) Financial support from Saudi Arabia
3) Links to known terrorists (check out the Graduate School)
4) places traveled known to have supported terrorists
5) criminal activity (he did have documents)

I don't know about you but that terrifies me. that is true terrorism. When the government tracks what you do and places you under "suspicion" over the above.

Education and travel are a matter of public record. Because there is no privacy attached to those, there is no infringement of your right to privacy if those two items are tracked by the govt. Tracking religious beliefs IS a scary prospect if, AND ONLY IF, it is the only factor being considered. My suspicions are not based SOLELY on Yee's religious beliefs. I'm looking at the entire profile.

[Caution]

53. travel is most definitely NOT a matter of public record

Call up an airline and request the travel records for your favorite celebrity. Does the government track when i travel 1500 miles to florida? the old soviet union used to do that type of thing. Why dont you call up a university and request an individuals educational record? This is most definitely NOT a matter of public record. Additionally the record of education would also contain the reading habits from the library of an individual. You are NOT looking at the entire profile. you are looking at things which are entirely non-consequential in any way shape or form as to whether or not this man is a so-called terrorist. you are looking into his personal beliefs and his travels. Would you have regarded this man under suspicion based upon those sole 5 issues you mentioned had he not been detained? Has detention alone become something which leads us to suspect?

1) Wahhabism - if i were a wahhabist and you were to call me a terrorist based on that I would report you for a hate crime
2) financial support from saudi arabia - i guess clinton and clark should be viewed as potential enemies of the state since they recieved moeny from a forein country which is incidentally considered a US ally
3.) Links to known terrorists - i guess anyone who attended many US universities shoudl now be under suspicion since it is a well known fact that MANY international terrorists were educated in the US
4) places travelled known to have supported terrorists - ouch im from boston, one of the single largest support bases for the IRA
5) criminal activiy - NOW YOU'VE FINALLY HIT ONE THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS

Edit: removing an uncalled for personal attack. I apologize.

[sangh0]

56. Int'l travel is a matter of public record.

And while I can't get those records from the airlines, the govt can, and has been able to get them for many years.

Does the government track when i travel 1500 miles to florida?

I meant international travel. And yes, if the govt wants to, it can find out if you've traveled to Fla.

Why dont you call up a university and request an individuals educational record? This is most definitely NOT a matter of public record

Don't have to. Yee released this information himself. There's been no invasion of Yee's privacy, AFAIK. So it IS a matter of public record. Furthermore, we're not talking about what info private individual can gain access to. We're talking about the info the GOVT can have access to. In criminal investigations, they can get educational info.

you are looking at things which are entirely non-consequential in any way shape or form as to whether or not this man is a so-called terrorist. you are looking into his personal beliefs and his travels.

Not true. I also mentioned the Saudi financing. There is also the matter of his being in illegal possession of documents.

Would you have regarded this man under suspicion based upon those sole 5 issues you mentioned had he not been detained? Has detention alone become something which leads us to suspect?

I don't know what you mean by "regarded this man under suspicion". If you're asking me "Should he be charged, if he didn't have those docs?" then I'd say "No". If you're asking "If you ignore the illegal docs, does he have a suspicious profile?" then I'd say "Yes"

And "No, detention does not lead to suspicion. I don't think Padilla is suspicious"

[Caution]

63. again you are wrong

the government can NOT get these records without probable cause. (well at least until this current administration started fundamentally altering our rights).

You are talking about profiling based upon this information for preventative purposes. if you are talking about using the types of information you mentioned in court, well, that case is going nowhere and this guy is walking out a free man.

You mentioned saudi financing of a relgious trip. how is this suspicious? the vatican does this all the time. or are you accusing the saudi government of state sponsored terrorism and that these types of grants are used to fund terrorism? If so i'd love to hear where you got proof of that.

The only thing suspicious about yee is the documents, and in a court of law that is the only thing that is needed. your "profile" is meaningless at best and if the government were to start building cases against individuals based on this kind of crap i would immediately renounce my citizenship and move becuase the great experiment would then be a total failure.

[sangh0]

70. No I'm not.

the government can NOT get these records without probable cause

They can, and they have. For years now.

You are talking about profiling based upon this information for preventative purposes. if you are talking about using the types of information you mentioned in court, well, that case is going nowhere and this guy is walking out a free man.

I have already said, several times, that this info is not conclusive. However, it is suspicious.

You mentioned saudi financing of a relgious trip. how is this suspicious? the vatican does this all the time.

The Vatican doesn't promote the killing of infidels.

or are you accusing the saudi government of state sponsored terrorism and that these types of grants are used to fund terrorism? If so i'd love to hear where you got proof of that.

Read "Sleeping with the devil" by Robert Baer. And then there's the blacked-out sections of the 9/11 Commissions reports. And then there's the Mahfouz family, etc.

The only thing suspicious about yee is the documents, and in a court of law that is the only thing that is needed. your "profile" is meaningless at best and if the government were to start building cases against individuals based on this kind of crap i would immediately renounce my citizenship and move becuase the great experiment would then be a total failure.

I said nothing about building cases out of this. I said it was suspicious. That's all I said, because that's all I meant.

[Caution]

75. travel records

when it has been done it has been done illegally if done against US citizens, the CIA has done this for foreign nationals. just because it has been done doesnt mean it has been done legally.

again, nothing you have mentioned is suspicious, not even take together. you are truly basing your entire argument on one thing and one thing only, the idea that he may be an adherent of the Wahhabist sect, which you make the assumption means he has a greater possibility of being a terrorist. This is called prejudice, it is making a negative assumption about someone based solely upon a generalization.

the vatican may not promote killing them but they certainly preach that they are going to hell when they die. frankly as a non-catholic i find that EXTREMELY insulting and hateful. it sickens me. additionally, the vatican has on many occasions justified killing infidels. read up on some history, the catholic church is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. does that make all catholics from that era bad? no, in the same way that in today's world there are some religions that have leadership which preach horrible things but that doesnt make all adherents of that religion horrible people

ive read "Sleeping with the Devil" which asserts that there are elements in teh saudi government which have engaged with terrorists. guess what? our government does this on a DAILY basis. No one would dispute that. we just happen to support terrorists who arent actively agsint the US. as for blacked out parts of the 9/11 report, well that may or may not make a stronger case, i however will not make any assumptions over what is in there, nor do i make the assumption that this poor schmuck at gitmo was somehow related to elements of a foreign government.

Your whole argument here is that this guy should be profiled based upon his religious beliefs, that is ALL it boils down to. all of your points are predicated on that one thing.

[sangh0]

78. response

when it has been done it has been done illegally if done against US citizens, the CIA has done this for foreign nationals. just because it has been done doesnt mean it has been done legally.

In addition to being wrong on the direct point, you are failing to recognize that almost all intl travel requires passports and passing through customs, which provides info the govt can access.

again, nothing you have mentioned is suspicious, not even take together. you are truly basing your entire argument on one thing and one thing only, the idea that he may be an adherent of the Wahhabist sect, which you make the assumption means he has a greater possibility of being a terrorist. This is called prejudice, it is making a negative assumption about someone based solely upon a generalization.

Though his being a Wahhabist is a big factor in my suspicions, it is not the ONLY one. The financial support of terrorist nations like SA and Syria, and the support of a school with clear ties to terrorists are also factors.

the vatican may not promote killing them but they certainly preach that they are going to hell when they die. frankly as a non-catholic i find that EXTREMELY insulting and hateful. it sickens me. additionally, the vatican has on many occasions justified killing infidels. read up on some history, the catholic church is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. does that make all catholics from that era bad? no, in the same way that in today's world there are some religions that have leadership which preach horrible things but that doesnt make all adherents of that religion horrible people

You may not like what the Pope preaches, but there's no doubt that he does not preach that we should kill innocent people. And what the Church promoted centuries ago is not relevant.

ive read "Sleeping with the Devil" which asserts that there are elements in teh saudi government which have engaged with terrorists. guess what? our government does this on a DAILY basis. No one would dispute that.

And I don't dispute it either. However, the fact that our govt is engaged with these terrorists does not prove that Yee is not.

we just happen to support terrorists who arent actively agsint the US.

I disagree. IMO, our govt supports terrorists who are actively against us.

however will not make any assumptions over what is in there, nor do i make the assumption that this poor schmuck at gitmo was somehow related to elements of a foreign government.

And I'm not making any assumptions either. I am merely suspicious.

Your whole argument here is that this guy should be profiled based upon his religious beliefs, that is ALL it boils down to. all of your points are predicated on that one thing.

Not true. Several times I've pointed out that his travels and the financial support of terrorists (or those who support terrorists) are also factors. The fact that he was illegally carrying documents is another factor. But I guess pointing that out is another example of my religious prejudice.

[Caution]

86. running out of time here

I have to leave soon but do want to address this.

i'll conceded international travel. I will not conceded that the government shoudl be using this as a basis for profiling. If i choose to travel to saudi arabia, syria, lebanon, china, russia, cube, that is my business and the government has no right to use that against me without any prior evidence of wrongdoing. period. if you would argue against that point than i'll consider the argument closed because we're down to a fundamental ideological difference where I will not budge.

The core of your argument is that a wahabbist who travels to syria and saudi arabia, who is educated in a Muslim college (which has terrorist funding) and who has received a religious stipend from Saudi Arabia is grounds for suspicion of that individual for terrorism.

that's it right there (i'm ignoring point 1, can we safely say that point 1 was a flaw in your argument and set it aside? you have refused to concede on any point but ill assume there is some rational though going on here and that you'll concede this one as a mistake).

Now, I'm an American, I'm an atheist, I was educated at Harvard University, I have travelled to Canada and Mexico both allies of and complicit in the actions of the United States of America. Would it be ok for Syria to assume immediately upon my entry into their country that I am an enemy of the state?

Are your arguments really enough to view this man with suspicion? that is the question. Do you really want your country to take your argument here to heart? Do you really think that by doing so our country will be better? Notice i say better, not safer. Safety is a very relative thing, you have a much better chance of being struck by lightning than of being subject to a terrorist attack. In this country second-hand smoke is orders of magnitude more dangerous than terrorism. Would profiling people based upon your points make the United States a better place? Would it make it a safer place? Do you want your children to grow up in a country that regards people who match your criteria with suspicion? If you do and you succeed, I'm outta here. At the point that that happens and no one speaks out I'll shred my flag, ill throw out my copy of the constitution and I'll move elsewhere because we as a people will have utterly failed.

[sangh0]

91. Yes and no

I didn't say that suspicion on the basis of travel alone is justifiable. I also didn't say that suspicion on the basis of religion alone is justifiable. So you are right to lay down a marker on those. My point is that there are TOO MANY coincidences. While any one of them is far from enough to justify much of anything, at some point, they add up to a justification for suspicion. Reasonable people can disagree as to how much it takes to justify the suspicion.

The core of your argument is that a wahabbist who travels to syria and saudi arabia, who is educated in a Muslim college (which has terrorist funding) and who has received a religious stipend from Saudi Arabia is grounds for suspicion of that individual for terrorism.

You left some things out:

1) Illegal possession of documents concerning high-security military installation and it's inhabitants
2) He was educated in Wahhabist madrassas. If he were a mainstream moderate Muslim, my concerns would be lessened.
3) There's also his associations with people who were also under suspicion, one of whom has been charged.

Now, I'm an American, I'm an atheist, I was educated at Harvard University, I have travelled to Canada and Mexico both allies of and complicit in the actions of the United States of America. Would it be ok for Syria to assume immediately upon my entry into their country that I am an enemy of the state?

Neither Americans, atheists, Harvard or Yale advocate the killing of innocent people. Wahhabist do.

Look at the SPECIFIC qualities of these factors instead of just lumping Wahhabism in with all other forms of religious belief. Part of my concern is due to the specific beliefs of Wahhabists.

your arguments really enough to view this man with suspicion? that is the question. Do you really want your country to take your argument here to heart? Do you really think that by doing so our country will be better? Notice i say better, not safer.

Now THAT is a very good question. I'll have to think about that one. Thanks for asking.

[dougjefferson]

95. On Profiling

He was caught with classified documents. I'd hardly call that 'profiling'. I'd call it 'treason.'

[BurtWorm]

38. I agree that Wahhabism is screwy in general, but I'm an atheist

who thinks a lot of religious ideology is screwy. I agree that Wahhabism is screwier than most ideologies, because it is fundamentalist. But Wahhabism in and of itself is no more or less "suspicious" than any Christian sect. If this guy were a Jehovah's Witness, would that make him suspicious?

[sangh0]

41. Christian sects like JW's, etc

don't preach in favor of the killing of innocents. Those sects don't preach that the US is evil.

[Caution]

50. oh really?

It seems to me that a member of a christian fundamentalist group was recently executed for murdering a doctor at an abortion clinic. And on a daily basis there are christian fundamentalist groups in this country which claim that half the population (the liberal half) of the US is evil.

[sangh0]

51. Yes, really

And you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. You are condemning a whole group (Xtian fundamentalists) because of the actions of a few. But you are ignoring two things:

1) Those Xtian fundamentalist sects don't preach the killing of abortionists. Some Xtian fundies who belong to Pro-life groups do that, but the Xtian fundie churches do not.

2) I am not suspicious of Yee simply because he is a Muslim fundie. There are a number of other factors which make me suspicious, such as his Saudi financing, and the Graduate School he went to, which has clear terrorist ties.

[Caution]

58. no what i was doing was using irony to show you that

pointing to a group of people to characterize an individual is WRONG.

your characterizations are becoming more general as you go as here.

he recieved saudi money in order to make a relgious pilgrimage. the guy wasn't given money to make an arms deal for god's sake.

he went to a school that MAY have terrorist ties. Would you disagree that many if not ALL major american universities have recieved funding from EXTREMELY questionable sources? One of the big knocks on PATRIOT II is the fact that under it one can be convicted of terrorism for donating to a front group solely based upon the fact that one should have known it was a front group! what the hell is that about? it is about making assumptions that an individual is aware of behind the scenes activity. for all you know this dude could have enrolled there because of deeply held beliefs and knew nothing about the so-called terorist ties.

[sangh0]

61. You're grasping at straws

he recieved saudi money in order to make a relgious pilgrimage. the guy wasn't given money to make an arms deal for god's sake.

You should take a look at the people the Saudis pay Hajj for. It's not pretty.

he went to a school that MAY have terrorist ties.

No, it DOES have terrorist ties. I urge you to do some research.

And yes, Yee had some "deeply held beliefs". Most Wahhabists do.

[Caution]

67. I'm grasping at straws?

Do you even know how to formulate a coherent argument? the pope spends ungodly amounts of money to ensure that millions of africans will get AIDS because he refuses to admit that abstinence doesnt work. Does that change the fact that the catholic church also helps millions on a daily basis? What was Yee's hajj about? give me some facts. im not going to suspect someone based on the fact that sometimes some people do bad things with the same types of resources that he had/

Harvard has terrorist ties, so does Yale, so does Princeton, i went to harvard. Am I a terrorist? Arguments which apply a generalization to an individual do not work.

and your final statement is bigotry plain and simple.

[sangh0]

74. There's a huge difference

between what the Pope preaches and what the Wahaabists preach. While the Pope DOES bear some responsibility for the spread of AIDS, his contribution to the plague was not intentional. Wahhabists preach that the intentional killing of infidels is good.

Harvard and Yale are not funded primarily by terrorists. The school this guy went to is funded primarily by terrorists.

[Caution]

76. oh really? not intentional?

He KNOWS that AIDS is spread through sexual contact. He KNOWS that condoms are the only protection available against AIDS other than abstinence. He KNOWS that abstinence will not be practiced. He absolutely refuses to give condoms sanction from the church. He is directly, knowingly, contributing to the deaths of MILLIONS of people. He is is complicit.

Would you like to take a good hard look at the endowment of Harvard and Yale? I'll bet you everything I own that those behind the endowment of these two schools (and i won't even start on the thousands of other schools in this country) can be shown to have been funded by groups that are DIRECTLY responsible for more deaths than those behind that the school in question by a thousand-fold.

I went to Harvard, I know who funded the school, I also know that while Harvard presents a certain bias in its education that I came to my own conclusions. Just because a man is educated in this place does not turn him into a blind killing machine.

[sangh0]

79. Not intentional

He KNOWS that abstinence will not be practiced

That's an assumption I choose not to make.

Would you like to take a good hard look at the endowment of Harvard and Yale? I'll bet you everything I own that those behind the endowment of these two schools (and i won't even start on the thousands of other schools in this country) can be shown to have been funded by groups that are DIRECTLY responsible for more deaths than those behind that the school in question by a thousand-fold.

But they're not terrorists.

I went to Harvard, I know who funded the school, I also know that while Harvard presents a certain bias in its education that I came to my own conclusions. Just because a man is educated in this place does not turn him into a blind killing machine.

There's a difference between Yale and the fundamentalist madrassahs

[Caution]

87. last post

i really have to go so i can't continue this but

if the pope doesnt knwo that abstinence doesnt work then he is a fucking idiot. which assumption do you choose to make? Does he know this? or is he a total fucking idiot? which answer makes him a better choice is leader of the catholic church?

not terrorists? by what definition. terrorists are defined as those who attempt through force to alter the policies of a government. they most assuredly are terrorists.

you really think there is a difference? ask the nicaraguans how they feel about that. ask the colombians. ask the inhabitants of a hudred other countries how they feel about the economic and political policy teaching that goes on at yale or any other american educational institution. globalization is a big topic at these universities these days...ask any citizen of a country in south america how they feel about these great teachings.

[sangha]

98. I'm not sure how to respond to that

except to say that there's a big difference between the Pope stance which, as irrational as it seems, is based on a desire to help people as compared to the intentions of the Islamic terrorists, who would like nothing better than to see us die.

[BurtWorm]

54. Does Wahhabism?

I honestly don't know. I know that Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabist, but then so is the family of Saud, who are tight with the Bushes.

[sangh0]

57. Read more about Wahhabism

IMO, it's important for us to know about these things.

[htuttle]

60. Try reading about it here

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com

Maybe some balance is in order.

[sangh0]

62. Salafis are not Wahhabis

Your link is BS

[BurtWorm]

80. According to the link they are

According to you they aren't.

Whom to believe? You or an Islamic Web site?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

83. Read more

It's not the only Islamic website.

[NicoleM]

3. I can't believe this

JOHN ASHCROFT says he's a traitor. Do you automatically believe everything John Ashcroft says? I don't know if he is or not, but I would not be even a tiny bit surprised to find out that this guy is totally innocent of everything but trying to blow the whistle on Gitmo.

[Samaka 3ajiba]

9. That's my read on it as well

He's a whistle-blower who was either funneling info to human rights organizations and the families of prisoners, or was going to.

[DealsGapRider]

24. Where did you get this magical power?

How long have you had it? I wish I could know everything without having access to any of the information surrounding this case. Life must be very easy for you.

Look, I don't know whether he's guilty or not. But I'm certainly not going to jump to the conclusion that he was engaged in an act of conscience when I don't know the first damned thing about the case.

[sangh0]

26. What magical power?

I wish I could know everything without having access to any of the information surrounding this case.

I wish I could do that also. I can't, which is why I said I *suspect* Yee, and why I didn't say "I KNOW Yee is guilty"

[DealsGapRider]

66. I was talking about Samaka 3ajiba

[sangh0]

71. My bad

Sorry

[dougjefferson]

96. Even If

He was doing that- that's still illegal and dangerous. who know what sort of messages he could have been passing on?

[arcane1]

14. when Ashcroft speaks, break out the grains of salt

as far as I'm concerned, even the fact that this guy is Mulsim is considered to be an allegation, when I hear it from Ashcroft.

Why, because ALL the people they want to 'disappear' will be called Muslims, regardless


they have yet to explain what it is about the info that he had, which could make it a security breach. Was al Qaeda planning to come in, guns blazing, and rescue all these people???

[hlthe2b]

5. well... it sounds to me

like he is PRECISELY the kind of person we need to cultivate if we have any chance of infiltrating groups with terrorist or other nefarious goals. Perhaps if we wouldn't automatically conclude they are the enemy based on the intensely useable skills and background they bring, we might have the kind of people on the ground we need for surveillance and early detection of coming plots.

I, myself, have taught in S. Arabia. Am I suspect? Sheesh. Let's pray we get to hear the entire truth before we convict/lynch him. Given our collective ignorance and bigotry that is only heightened under the ASSSKROFT and BUsh influences, I am not at all convinced this guy is not a patsy.

[sangh0]

11. Were you educated by Wahabbis?

Yee was.

And I'm not convinced of anything either. However, I am suspicious

[Beetwasher]

6. OK. So what the fuck was he doing at Gitmo in the first place then?

What sort of incompetent morons are running the place? Why would they let him anywhere near it to begin with?

[htuttle]

7. As the ghost of Tail Gunner Joe rises from the grave...

...all I can say is that at least it's not Wisconsin's fault this time.

[Aidoneus]

13. every Muslim is a "suspicious character" to patriotic Americans now

Muslimeenhass is the in thing, the last socially acceptable bigotry, replacing "the Jews" as the first and last suspect in the vast conspiracy to fascist idiots.

Syria is actually one of the more secular states. Saudi Arabia funds quite a bit of education and hajj services, apparently they think it's good PR and haven't yet been notified that it's a suspicious conspiracy. He's obviously guilty of being a Muslim, just shoot him now for this suspicious offense and move on to the next boogie man/distraction.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

18. I have a Muslim member in my family

I KNOW that not all Muslims are terrorists. However, I do think you should look into that Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and who funds it, and who else those funders fund.

[Forkboy]

16. Most of my city is suspicious characters

what to do?

[Scaramouche]

17. Here are a few possibilities...

1. He was going to the press with information on the mis-treament on detainees...

2. He is being prosecuted to send a message that talking to the press is espionage...

3. He is the start of a purge in the military...of those who question the mission...

4. He is test on whether he can held as non-combantant in the face of military law...

6. He has information from AL-Quaeda prisoners of a connection to the Bush Regime and 9/11...



:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[sangh0]

19. You left out one possibility

That he is a terrorist.

It's possible

[Scaramouche]

21. Sorry, but he has not been accused yet...

And do you believe that passing on information on the detainees is an act of terroism...

Wouldn't that be more of a Quisling?

Or is it that "with us or against us" blather?

[sangh0]

33. answers

do you believe that passing on information on the detainees is an act of terroism

Not necesarily, but it is a crime.

Wouldn't that be more of a Quisling?

More like a criminal

Or is it that "with us or against us" blather?

No, it's that "Let's look at the specific circumstances surrounding this one specific individual"

Isn't that how we're supposed to do this?

[Scaramouche]

84. Ok let's look at the circumstances.

-He was arrested on Sept. 10 and yet we only hear about it a week later. It has been stated that he was arrested on order from high within the Adminstration. Could it be that it would have disturbed the White House's 2nd anniversary plans for 911? Or did they need the time to mobilize a media strategy to counter the growning criticism being reported from our own military?

-Most of the speculation is based on association: He studied in Syria, he went on a Saudi sponsor Haj (twice), He got his teaching certification from a school "under" suspicion. Guilt by association works in the News but not a court of law.

-There is no information on when he returned to the army released on TV. There seems to be a concerted effort to cover up the fact he was already a Muslim Chaplain before Sept. 11, 2001.

-He has been charged of yet but most Cable stations have him accused of espionage, sedition, and treason. He is being tried in the press before the real story comes out. Who benefits most from FOX New et al leading with this story? Could it be to take attention away from the $87 billion request from Bushco.

-He had schedules of flights in and out of Guantanamo.Not very suprising since he just got off a plane and may need to fly back after his leave was up.

-He is being called Youssef as if he changed his name.His middle name is Josef but his wife called him Youssef. Having people call you by a more familiar name sometimes happens to people who live in other countries.

-He had a hand-drawn map of the camp. I doubt they print them up in Gitmo. It could be his way of getting around or keeping track of how often he visted certain detainees for counseling.

-He had a list of the detainees and interrogators. It could be his way remembering names and proof for going to the press with charges of abuse. Reporters would not accept his say so alone with out any backup leads. All of this could be the basis for researching past abuses by the same miltary interrogators.

-As of yet no reports of contact with any foreign governments or extreme Islamic groups. Nothing has yet been released on Capt. Yee but the there a flood of reports on Senior Airman Al-Halabi's indictment.

In closing, I find it very interesteing that in the last week there has been a steady message that the negative Media reports concerning Iraq are reposnsible for putting our soldiers in harm's way.

Two good sources amongst many:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/national/25YEE.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.cicentre.com/

On edit: Typos

[sangh0]

89. You bring up a good point

-He was arrested on Sept. 10 and yet we only hear about it a week later.I has been stated that he was arrested on order from high within the Adminstration. Could it be that it would have disturbed the White House's 2nd anniversary plans for 911? Or did they need the time to mobilize a media strategy to counter the growning criticism being reported from our own military?

Unlike Padilla, the govt didn't release or publicize this case. It became public knowledge because Yee's wife started investigating why her husband hadn't returned from Gitmo yet. Furthermore, exactly what interest would Bush* have in the public's knowing that there are (or might be) terrorist infilitrators in the military assigned to a high-security facility like Gitmo? It only makes them look bad.

-Most of the speculation is based on association: He studied in Syria, he went on a Saudi sponsor Haj (twice), He got his teaching certification from a school "under" suspicion. Guilt by association works in the News but not a court of law.

And I didn't say he is guilty. I said he is suspicious. And there's more to it than you suggest. The school is not "under suspicion" It IS funded by terrorists. There's also the little matter of his illegal possession of documents, but I guess that's just more of my McCarthyesque nature coming out.

There is no information on when he returned to the army released on TV. There seems to be a concerted effort to cover up the fact he was already a Muslim Chaplain before Sept. 11, 2001.

I don't see that. The NY Times article I read today didn't hide that fact.

-He has been charged of yet but most Cable stations have him accused of espionage, sedition, and treason. He is being tried in the press before the real story comes out. Who benefits most from FOX New et al leading with this story? Could it be to take attention away from the $87 billion request from Bushco.

I don't see attention being drawn away from the $87B. YMMV. I don't see any benefit for Bush*, and AFAIK, Bush* didn't publicize this, unlike the Padilla affair which Ashcroft announced while he was in Russia!

And my opinion is based on my review of the facts. I don't watch cable, so it has no effect on my opinion.

-He had schedules of flights in and out of Guantanamo.Not very suprising since he just got off a plane and may need to fly back after his leave was up.

This does not concern me, either.

He is being called Youssef as if he changed his name.His middle nae is Josef but his wife called him Youssef. Having people call you by a more familiar name sometimes happens to people live in other countries.

I don't care about this either. Undoubtedly the cable whores are going to spin this. I can still do my best to form my own opinions as objectively as I possibly can.

He had a hand-drawn map of the camp. I doubt they print them up in Gitmo. It could be his way of getting around or keeping track how often he visted certain detainees for counseling.

C'mon. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world, and I don't need hand drawn maps to get around. You're grasping at straws here. And it doesn't explain why he brought those drawings home with him.

-He had a list of the detainees and interrogators. It could be his way remembering names and proof for going to the press with charges of abuse. Reporters would not accept his say so alone with out any back leads. All of this could be the basis for researching past abuses by miltary interrogators

He made no efforts to contact the press, and when he gave an earlier interview to the NY Times he made no mention of any complaints concerning mistreatment of detainees. Furthermore, names he wrote on paper are not proof of anything besides the fact that he wrote those names on that piece of paper.

-As of yet no reports of contact with any foreign governments or extreme Islamic groups. Nothing has yet been release on Capt. Yee but the there a flood of reports on Senior Airman Al-Halabi's indictment.

Agreed. I didn't say he was guilty. I said there are grounds for suspicion. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility.

[Scaramouche]

93. I'm not sure you have made your case on Yee's Wahabbism...

Regarding the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, it is under suspicion and was raided for documents but not charge with anything as of yet. Suspicion yes, proof no!
There is no mention that Yee studied that I could find. However he submitted his transcripts there to get certified for his chaplainry as this was the only school recognized by the Military.

Regarding the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, it is under suspicion and was raided for documents but not charge with anything as of yet. Suspicion yes, proof no!
There is no mention that Yee studied that I could find. However he submitted his transcripts there to get certified for his chaplainry as this was the only school recognized by the Military.

Syria, although a radical Arab state, is Islamically pluralist and rejects Wahhabism completely.

Most students without a lot of money love to take trips sponsored by someone else.

If you have evidence to contrary please post links.

Now in all fairness, he could have been a mole. He could have been part of a nefarious plot to free the dangerous detainees because of a reverse Stockholm syndrome. He could have loved Islam more than his country.

However to date, nothing I have read or seen leads me to that conclusion. There is a lot of innuendo and accusations coming from FOX News et al, which make me suspicious that the opposite maybe true.

Lastly, they probably snagged him on the way to some reporters house...

[sangha]

99. Good points

1) You're right about the Graduate School. Yee did not go to that school. So why did it give him any certification?

Also, though the school hasn't been charged (because AFAIK there isn't enough evidence proven that the school itself is involved in any crimes) it IS funded by those who fund terrorism. I'd suggestyou look into the funders and do some googling on their names. The school itself might not be proven to support terrorists, but some of their funders have.

2) WRT Syria

Syria is Islamically pluralist. In fact, the Syrian is atheistic in that it's a Stalinist state. However, at one time Syria was a BIG supporter of terrorists, and did support the Muslim Brotherhood, which adheres to a Wahhabist type philosophy. At least, until they began to be a threat to the Syrian leadership. Then they cracked down (google 'Hama'), and now they no longer allow Wahhabis to practice. I might be mistaken, but I believe Yee went to Syria before it had cracked down on the terrorists.


3) Most students without a lot of money love to take trips sponsored by someone else

Hey, I'm not even Islamic but I'd love an all-expense vacation, too. The question for me is "Why would they do that for HIM?"

But just to be clear, I'm not saying he is guilty of being a terrorist. I couldn't possibly know that. All I'm saying is that there's too many coincidences to ignore the possibility. Though there are some questionable claims being made in the media (I read that the other officer has, amongst the several charges, been charged with "Illegal distribution of baklava") I can't help but wonder about some of them. They don't add up.

Lastly, they probably snagged him on the way to some reporters house...

Possible, but I doubt it. This wasn't his 1st tour at Gitmo. He had given an interview to the NY Times when he had returned from his 1st tour, and before he left for his 2nd tour. In that interview, he gave no indication that he felt there was anything untoward happening at Gitmo.

[dougjefferson]

97. And the Most Likely

Yes, indeed.

[htuttle]

20. Did the right send out a Blast Fax today...

...encouraging people to start a pogram?

This is the second offensive anti-Muslim thread I've seen today insinuating a dangerous infiltration of the military by 'wahhabists'. Both have been from DUers with over a 1000 posts.

What gives?

Is your washroom breeding Bolsheviks?

[Hanuman]

22. Sangh0 is saying only that...

s/he is suspicious and concerned.

I am confused by the rush to fan away the smoke that the Yee arrest has generated as just more of the same from BooshCo.

Sometimes a terrorist REALLY IS A TERRORIST.

I am suspicious too, and I don't make up excuses or jump on any tin foil bandwagons before I have the proof and evidence that tells me what's what.

Sangh0 has voiced a concern and I appreciate it and understand it. So should all of you.

[sangh0]

23. Thank you

I haven't pronounced anyone's guilt, nevermind the overheated rhetoric that I'm accusing ALL Muslims of terrorism. I just don't think it's a good idea to assume that all Muslims are innocent. Someone took down the WTC towers.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Well, what do we know about YOU?

*

[sangh0]

27. What would you like to know?..................nt

.

[Caution]

29. Actually

It is a GREAT idea to assume that all Muslims are innocent. That is in fact the ENTIRE basis for the US justice system. the presumption of innocence.

[sangh0]

31. That presumption applies

in a court room, and only in a court room.

[Caution]

34. oh really?

Well I guess that we should resurrect the old idea of citizen informers. Ashcroft tried to start that thing up. It's been used so effectively in the past. I also guess that the police should start stopping people based upon "suspicion" too? How about the FBI? or the DEA? You are on a seriously slippery slope if you really feel that way. Stop for a minute and think about the consequences of your statement.

[Hanuman]

37. No need to believe that hysteria will spread...

So far, it hasn't-- even after the towers fell, there was some increase in hate crimes against Muslims, but not a radical increase. And now, two years later, the crime rate against Muslims is at par with other ethnicities.

Furthermore, I would posit that America has shown a great deal of tolerance and acceptance of Muslims considering we are essentially at war with the radical faction of their religion.

Think about that.

But suspicion, awareness and concern are important tools for being prepared and conscious of the threats we may still yet face.

I am NOT advocating squealing on any Muslim or brown-skinned person because you have a slight inkling that maybe s/he is up to something possibly not in Maerica's best interest.

I AM talking about looking at the facts very objectively. A Muslim man in direct contact with Al Qaeda detainees has been caught with information he was not supposed to have. This man has knowingly broken military laws. We MUST look at his actions with great care and concern.

To do otherwise is a step down the path to national suicide, because the moment we just start turning blind eyes to (alleged) willful acts of aiding and abetting the enemy, than we have surely lost this war.

And I'm very sorry to say that I DO believe this is a real war.

[Caution]

43. Statistics say one thing

However, from all of the news that I hear there has been a marked increase in overall harassment of arab and muslim americans. There was a story about it on NPR just the other day. And while you may think we have shown a great deal of tolerance, you might want to ask Jose Padilla about that.

I agree that being caught with materials is suspicious. Being muslim is not.

As for being suspicious...bah...every year 400,000 people die as a result of cigarettes, every day thousands die in auto accidents, this war on terrorism is as much a crock of shit as the war on drugs. 3500 people died on september 11th. 16,000 people die each year (worldwide) as a direct result of the physical effects of illegal drugs. Those numbers pale in comparison to what our own government does on a daily basis. I'm a lot more suspicious of what this so-caled war on terrorism is doing to the country than what the terrorists have actually done. If the CIA had done their job, if the FBI had done their job, if Bush had taken the report provided by the clinton administration regarding terrorism seriously 9/11 would never have happened.

We attacked Iraq over a straight up lie, trying to associate the country with terrorism when the real reason we took the country over is because it was in our economic interests to do so. The same holds true of afghanistan. If either one of those was really about terrorism and bringing the perpetrators to justice, special forces operations against spefically targetted individuals would have been enough.

We were told the terrorists wanted to destroy our freedoms. Well they are succeeding. When people on a progressive and liberally minded community advocate profiling of a group due to their own misguided fears then they have won. Hell, Bin Laden's primary stated goal was to remove the American military from Saudi Arabia. Guess what? he succeeded there too...of course we just moved it to a better place for us. A country we have total military and political domination over.

I'm sorry but the only war we are involved in is an ideological war that is entirely internal, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on aids, the war on poverty, they are all simply battlefields being fought between two ideologies, one which says that America should dominate the world and its own people and another that says america should be a part of the world community and care for its own people.

[sangh0]

45. You are smart for being suspicious of our govt.

But why is being suspicious of the govt due to it's associations OK, while being suspicious of Yee is due to his associations is not OK?

I'm sorry but the only war we are involved in is an ideological war that is entirely internal, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on aids, the war on poverty, they are all simply battlefields being fought between two ideologies, one which says that America should dominate the world and its own people and another that says america should be a part of the world community and care for its own people.

The Wahhabists disagree with your formulation. They believe it's the Muslims (which the define as including ONLY the fundamentalist Muslims) against everyone else.

[Caution]

64. and they have every right to that belief

only when they violate the law does it become a matter of interest to me. I dont hate anyone who hatefully proclaims that I am going to hell. (talk about a hate crime!), nor do i expect my government to start viewing them with suspicion of being capable of killing innocents.

[sangh0]

72. And I have a right to my suspicions.

only when they violate the law does it become a matter of interest to me

Really? So you are completely unconcerned that there are thousands of schools preaching hatred of us?

[Caution]

90. im no more concerned about that

than i am when a christian tells me im going to hell over my beliefs. There are a lot of people who hate the United States and therefore me. I'm more concerned about people taking away my rights and freedoms out of misguided fear.

[sangh0]

92. Taking your life

is one way to take away your rights and freedoms.

[Hanuman]

55. Jose Padilla is one man...

And while one man being detained without a trial (at least thus far) is somewhat worrisome, it does not represent a widespread pattern of false imprisonments. I can't even say that Padilla's imprisonment is false, as I don't have the facts regarding his case.

And in the matter of the various round up conducted in California regarding immigrants who had overstayed visas, etc., there may certainly have been some violations and some breaking of laws there-- but all the immigrants involved in those round ups who feel that they were mistreated have been able to get lawyers and get due process. We'll see what comes of these cases.

Again, this is a war, as many Americans myself included see it, and while we all want to do the right thing, we have to be conscious of the fact that there is a real threat out there waiting for a target of opportunity to present itself.

[Caution]

65. one man?

one word for you. Gitmo. None of these men have been charged, noen have been given access to any legal counsel, all have been denied the rights granted to them either under our Constitution or under the Geneva convention.

a real threat? you are using one catastropic event to dictate how you live your life. Was it a terrible thing? yes. But no way do I even consider letting that event be the cause of removal of my freedom. No way does that event prevent me from speaking out against the evil that is being perpetrated by our government as I type this.

Vigilance is the cost of freedom, but i question whether you are being vigilant about the right thing. our government is using terrorism as an excuse to take away our freedoms, to enrich those in power, to disenfranchise those who would threaten their grip on power and to destroy the lives of millions of people around the world. Terrorism indeed.

[Hanuman]

85. Two words for you: Red Herring.

Gitmo exists to hold enemy combatants picked up from the field of battle. Are some of those guys innocent? Maybe so.

Are all of them innocent? NO WAY!!!

I place a modicum of trust in our military to ferret out the guilty from the innocent. Proof of this: 65 have already been sent home.

[Caution]

88. red herring?

if they are enemy combatants they are prisoners of war. this means the geneva conventions apply or our military become guilty of war crimes (under teh Constitution, we are subject to the Geneva Convention, our constitution declares that treaties become the law of the land). if they are terrorists then under our Constitution they should be charged as such and be given access to legal counsel. These are the things our country was founded upon. Just because they may have committed a crime does not give you, the government or anybody else permission to deprive them of their rights. period.

Or should we just shred the Constitution now? What's it gonna be? is the Constitution the foundation of our society or do we ignore it when things get difficult?

[Hanuman]

94. I will grant you that the military--

and BooshCO. are sidestepping the Constitution and the Geneva convention by holding these guys in Cuba.

I'm OK with this for now.

That DOES NOT mean I am OK with ANYTHING that happens in the war. There are reasonable limits for me. But, I'm sorry, I value American lives and property more than the rights of people who are very probably terrorists who tried or will try to kill us.

I know-- it makes me out to be a scum-bag, sleaze-ball terrible person in 98% of the eyes of this board. I don't care.

Trials are not an ideal solution. We can't allow these guys to make contact with lawyers and others during the trial process-- at least not yet. Gitmo is not a perfect situation-- but it's the best we can do right now.

[sangh0]

42. Guess what?

The police already stop people based upon suspicion (note: no need for the quotes) and it's entirely constitutional to do so.

[Caution]

68. wrong again.

they stop people based upon probable cause. there is a HUGE difference. if they stop one solely based upon suspicion then the case is thrown out of court. they are required in court to SHOW probable cause before a trial can proceed regardless of what evidence is found as a result of stopping someone. this is another of our rights which is undermined by the PATRIOT act.

[sangh0]

73. Wrong

There are various levels of suspicion and various amounts of what the police can do based on which level of suspicion an individual falls under. "Suspicion" alone is legal justification for stopping someone and asking certain general questions.

The police need little reason to stop you and ask you for identification and ask about what you are doing and where you are going. It's all legal and it does NOT require probable cause.

[Caution]

77. ill concede that yes there are times that police can act on "suspicion"

though they cannot detain, nor can they search based upon this. However, do you think that the things you describe above amount to something that you would like to see our country allow for detention, search and seizure and profiling of supposed criminals?

[sangh0]

82. My answer

However, do you think that the things you describe above amount to something that you would like to see our country allow for detention, search and seizure and profiling of supposed criminals?

Of course not! I have no idea where you got that idea since I said NOTHING LIKE THAT. I think the things I describe above amount to a justification for suspicion. Nothing more, and nothing less. Let's review:

Detention - No
search and seizure - No
profiling of criminal - No
racial profiling - No
religious profiling - No
terrorist profiling (but not racial or religious profiling) - yes
suspicion - Yes

[Caution]

32. what do you base your suspicions on?

The things presented here are not suspicious things. What is suspicious is that this man was found to be in possession of documents that he should not be in possession of. Other than that, there is nothing. The things pointed out here have absolutely NOTHING to do with this man's innocence or guilt. His actions while in syria or saudi arabia may be something to be concerned about but I have seen nothing about that. the first point is TOTALLY absurd. Our country is based on the presumption of innocence. If I decided to do all of those five things presented here would that make you be suspicious of me? I would hope not because if you answered yes than you are buying into the hysteria that BushCo is feeding this country.

[sangh0]

39. His Wahhabism

He received his religious instruction from schools that preach Wahhabism. His personal history wrt his religious education indicates that he fits the profile of someone who adheres to the Wahhabist beliefs.

His actions while in syria or saudi arabia may be something to be concerned

His actions in Syria and SA involve his embracing of Wahhabist beliefs. That is why I am concerned.

I decided to do all of those five things presented here would that make you be suspicious of me?

Are you carrying documents you're not supposed to have?

Look at the evidence, ALL of the evidence. I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying we should be concerned, and we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he is a terrorist

[Must_B_Free]

36. Sangh0 is suspicious

he/she/it seems to know an awful lot about Yee. maybe Sangh0 also converted to Islam and is in on the secret Gitmot plot and has come here to spread disinformation.

Then again, maybe not.

[sangh0]

44. Yee gave an interview to the NY Times

the last time he was in the US. He had been sent back to the US from Gitmo, he gave the interview to the NY Times, and then later on, he was called back to service in Gitmo. The info I provided from in the initial post is derived from that interview. There is an article in today's NY Times (no link) that repeats this info.

[Bridget Burke]

52. If his background is so frightening

Why was he allowed to serve?

Don't you think military intelligence is dreadfully lax since they decided to employ such a terrifying fellow?

Perhaps you ought to offer your services to the government. There are lots of "suspicious characters" out there.

You left out another damning trait: He's not white.

[sangh0]

59. Two wrongs don't make a right

I dont know why he was allowed to serve, but whatever the reason, Yee's activities is suspicious.

Don't you think military intelligence is dreadfully lax since they decided to employ such a terrifying fellow?

You don't know the half of it. I think a lot of MI is in bed with the terrorists.

You left out another damning trait: He's not white.

Neither is half my family, so go KMA.

[Bridget Burke]

81. Then join.

You'll be a great interrogator.

[Terwilliger]

47. prejudice, sangha, should be beneath you

[sangh0]

49. And intelligence

will escape you.

[Hanuman]

69. Cheap Shot--

Prejudice is a FACT.

You are prejudiced as well Terwilliger, I hope you're honest enough to admit it.

I can't say exactly who you are prejudiced against, because I don't know you well enough, but I'd assume you don't trust republicans for starters.

Republicanism, like radical Wahhabism, is not a racial condition, by the way, it's an ideology. Sangh0 is NOT suspicious of Afghannis or Syrians or Saudi's, per se- but of a radical ideology that has already proven itself to be dangerous.

To be blissfully naiave of a radical ideology that seeks to destroy people and property in America is WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

[Solomon]

101. I studied Marxism and Communism in college but I am not a Marxist or

Communist.

Sheeeeesh. Bigotry must stop. The thing that gets me is the administration wants to set the tone where just reading a certain book is a criminal offense.

You are falling right in with it.

[sangha]

102. This is not bigotry

I don't think Yee is suspicious merely because he's a Muslim. Padilla is a Muslim and I don't believe the charges against him.

I don't think Yee is suspicious merely because he studied Islam in Saudi Arabia and Syria.

I don't think Yee is suspicious merely because he had two hajj's paid for by the Saudis.

I don't think Yee is suspicious merely because his conversion story sounds fishy to me, even though I have heard a lot of conversion stories, though none of them sounds like his.

But if you take all this up, plus his illegal possession of documents concerning a high-security military installation, there's a reasonable basis for suspicion. And please note I said "suspicion", not "conviction". I'm not saying we should lock him up and throw away the key. I'm just saying we shouldn't reflexively deny the possibility that he was up to something bad.