Muslim FBI agent refuses to tape terror suspects

[Betty]

rock jock,
That's where you and I differ. I don't have the "collective responsibility" mindset. I believe in individual responsibility. I didn't approve of the Japanese internment - I wasn't even alive then! I can, however, with a clean and guiltless mind, say that what happened was absolutely terrible, and shouldn't happen again.

I don't know why Muslims as a collective whole don't rally up in severe condemnation against 9/11. I don't think they have to. Why do you demand it? Because of collective responsibility?

What we want is two things: (1) the Muslim-American community to "**** or get off the pot", so to speak concerning Muslim terrorists. Either strongly condemn their actions, work with LE to root out those that infest the U.S. (and which therefore represent a threat to other Muslims in oversees, or have the cahunas to stand up and proudly declare that they support the terrorists and wish destruction on every infidel in America, and (2) for our govt. to stop allowing PC intimidation from carrying out their duties.

What we want? That doesn't include me. According to you, people who have had nothing to do with the terrorists, and only similar in that they are Muslim as the terrorists, must now go out of their way to appease everybody else?

No thanks. That's like saying the next time a Vietnamese American commits a crime, I've got to report to the police station, help them find the person, make a public statement of condemnation, and maybe wave a flag around.

Watch your language, sir. Cursing, even when asteriked, is not the High Road.

 

[Tamara]

The concept of "Collective Responsibility" is what leads to situations like: "The trenchcoat mafia kids shot up a school with guns, so rock_jock and Tamara have to turn their guns in."

 

[Betty]

Edit: To clairify, I'm not saying that silence is never implicit agreement (for it absolutely can be), merely that just because you don't hear massive public condemnation of every action by terrorists from the "Muslim-American community" doesn't mean that you can condemn them as a group as being pro-terrorist.

cordex,
I wasn't directing my "silence is not acceptance" post to you, if that was why you were clarifying. You were very clear on your stand on the issue. I just don't understand why some folks here insist that silence is acceptance.

 

[TallPine]

I have to say that I am having a really bad week - thrust into a fierce legal battle through no fault of my own (our dream home suddenly becomes a waking nightmare).

So right now I have absolutely no patience with rogues and scoundrels of any type, color, flavor, etc.

Perhaps my first post on this thread was a little too strongly worded about Muslims "deserving" retribution.

 

[Baron Holbach]

The problem is not so much individual Muslims going awry but more of how do we deal with an ideology such as ISLAM, especially in the way the religion (i.e., ideology) is taking root in America? ISLAM, as an ideology, is incompatible with rationalist, individualist, capitalist, Western traditions. When you have immigrant Muslims coming to the U.S., becoming citizens, and taking an oath to the Constitution of the United States, note carefully how easily it is for them to break that oath and recommit themselves to the Koran. Given the longstanding fued between Islam and the Judaic-Christian tradition, is it any wonder that Muslims are unable to reconcile themselves and maintain loyalty to the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Russ]

Much of the debate since 9/11 is that Islam is at war with the West. Now, that being the case, I would think that prominent Muslim groups would come out and condemn terrorism. I never said Muslims needed to apologize for what happened.

As far as detention camps go, many of you are walking around with blinders on. While most Americans do not condone or like what happened to the Japanese during WWII now (with 20/20 hindsight). However, the majority of citizens in the US supported this action at the time. Again in hindsight, what was done to the Japanese during WWII was wrong. Will we learn from history? I doubt it.

Fifty years ago was really not that long ago. Perhaps for you in your 20's and 30's it is. If you think that the same type of thing can't happen to persons of Middle Eastern decent in this day and age, I think you are blissfully ignorant of history. If there is a rash of suicide bombings and other terrorist activities in the U.S., I can almost guarantee that detention camps or deportation for certain individuals will be discussed in a serious way again.

No where did I advocate this postion in my previous post. Just stating the obvious based on recent history.

 

[Quartus]

Please try to take off the emotional PC blinders for a moment and just look at the situation logically.

I have a batch of "samples" that I want to test. I poke each one with the same stimulus. 14 samples react in a very similar manner, a manner that is consistent with their nature and very predictable. It does not matter whether they "should" or not. They do. Time and time again. The experiment is boring in its repeatability. But one sample does NOT react as expected. From this is is correct to draw a conclusion:

There is something different about this sample.

To refuse that conclusion because it conjurs up images of concentration camps (or 'internment' camps, if you prefer) is irrational.

From that correct conclusion, some may jump to the erroneous conclusion that concentration camps or mass deportation is the logical response.

That's also irrational.


It's also irrational to assume that general traits (which DO exist, PC or no PC) are necessarily predictive of individual behaviour. People on BOTH sides of this debate are making that error.

 

[Viking6]

The internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, probably seemed rational at the time. The internment camps were not concentration camps. Concentration Camps existed to work people to death or out-right kill them for the "crime" of being a Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, "mental defective", ad truly nauseum. The internment camps were bad enough without the hyperbole.

 

[nualle]

Baron Holbach: I think you are getting at the underlying root of the difficulty. However, the conflict of interest you describe is not unique to Muslims.

As a federal employee, the agent in question agreed to further the interests of the U.S. gov't. by his efforts. That put him in no difficulty relative to his prior loyalty to his religious beliefs, until his gov't. superiors gave him certain orders. At that point, he immediately made clear that his prior loyalty takes precedence for him. (I don't know where in the Constitution the federal gov't is empowered to record any conversation, so I see no conflict with his oath, as a fed. employee, to uphold and defend it.)

Some of those vilifying him for this choice have already self-identified on THR as committed Christians. My question for those is (given Matthew 6:19-7:2): Why? Anyone with divided loyalties like that takes the risk of a conflict of interest arising. Would one religious person really advocate that another religious person should choose nationality over belief? Or is it that someone is applying a double standard?

 

[Phyphor]

Maybe those people vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans could demonstrate their conviction by boycotting message boards hosted on servers owned by one.

BWAHAHAHA!

There ya go, Tamara.

(I wonder just how Derek IS dealing with these sort of threads? )

 

[rock jock]

The concept of "Collective Responsibility" is what leads to situations like: "The trenchcoat mafia kids shot up a school with guns, so rock_jock and Tamara have to turn their guns in."

If rock jock and Tamara had contributed to an atmosphere that overtly encouraged or facilitated these kids, then that might very well be true. How you ask? By supplying them with funds that we knew they would use to buy guns for the explicit purpose of comitting murder, by listening to them talk of getting revenge and nodding in agreement, or simply hearing by hearing of vague plans to attack their school and then saying nothing to them or the authorities.

BTW, interesting example you bring up, ala Columbine. I distinctly remember after the event the NRA, GOA, and virtually every other gun group went out of their way to condemn what happened and to assure the public that the vast, overwhelming majority of gun-owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens. They didn't talk about how we should try to understand the killers; they didn't make excuses for them. Interesting contrast with the Muslim-American community after 9/11.

 

[Johnny Guest]

Recording conversation--So what?

The federal law on recording conversations is the fairly universal "one party consent" deal. As long as one of the participants is aware of the conversation, it is okay. PLANTING a recorder or transmitter without this knowledge is a no-no. I understand certain limited jurisdictions have laws against recordings unless ALL PRESENT are aware, but . . . The existence of a properly issued court order for electronic evesdropping is, of course, another matter.

As far as a federal agent - - or ANY criminal investigator - - being given orders to perform a duty which is not patently illegal, there is a very easy out: Resignation. The moment any person feels he/she cannot perform sworn duties, he/she is obligated to make known the problem, RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Not after failing to follow the proper orders. If the matter cannot be worked out with the ordering authority, then it is time for the agent to either request reassignment, or to resign. THAT is the honorable thing to do--NOT to continue violating the oath, and certainly not to keep accepting the paycheck under false pretenses.

This matter has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or religion. It has to do with doing one's duty.

Johnny

 

[Shalako]

I tend to try to like everybody until they individually demonstrate they are not worthy of my esteem. But my gut feeling is that the Muslim people, to varying degrees, want to ultimately eclipse the Western way of life. That stirs my most basic instincts of survival. I wish someone, preferably a Muslim, would assuage my fears.

 

[DeltaElite]

Fire him, he is a traitor hiding behind his religion.

 

[EJ]

EXACTLY

DeltaElite

Fire him, he is a traitor hiding behind his religion.

Regardless of the religion--

 

[DeltaElite]

Always regardless of religion, I don't care if you worship a tree stump. Stumpatarians.
If you can't do the job, then you get fired.

I am a Frisbeeterian, I believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and won't come down, just like a frisbee.

 

[Don Gwinn]

So, RockJock, all the Muslims who "didn't contribute to an atmosphere" that led to 9/11 are exempt from your Daily Public Denunciation requirement? Do you have a list of which Muslims are not required to participate in the DPD, or do they need to apply for an exception in person?

 

[rock jock]

Don, the Muslim-American community as a whole isn't required to do anything. I just think that as a demonstration of goodwill, it would behoove them to issue a more vociferous condemnation of the al Queda terrorists than "We should try to understand their motivation." Certainly it would go far in improving their public image. It seems obvious to me that that is not a high priority. It can't be that they want to avoid the limelight, because they take every opportunity they can to criticize the U.S. policy in the Middle East. So, let's see, the Muslim-American community helps fund terrorist activities in other countries through "charitable" donations, they continually criticize the U.S. role in the Middle East, they stonewall LE efforts to root out domestic terrorist cells, and with pitifully few exceptions they refuse to strongly condemn the 9/11 attacks. BUT, you say, we shouldn't form any conclusions about the Muslim-American community as a whole. We are told by our President that the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslim-Americans love the U.S. and hate what the terrorists did and continue to do, and yet, the vast, overwhelming majority of statements and actions coming from their community are in direct contrast to this declaration. Yeah, I hear the President say it, and a few isolated pockets of Muslim-American groups, but for the most part it is NOT the message that Muslim-American community is putting forth.

Finally, you had better watch the double standard you are setting here. If the Muslim-American community does not deserve criticism, then neither do the anti crowd that are so frequently lambasted on this board. After all, only a very small number of them actually contribute financially to the VCP or march in the gun-control protests, or volunteer their time. The rest only nod their heads in approval when they hear what they know to be lies. The rest simply give their tactic agreement to the VCP/anti agenda. On that basis, there should not be any further reference by you or others that support your opinion in this thread to the "blissninnie/soccer-mom/liberal" crowd because that would be stereotyping and we wouldn't want that.