Should Muslims be in the military?

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
I don't want this to turn into a Muslim bashing thread, but I have a question that maybe needs to be addressed.

Given these two developments (The Muslim chaplain and the interpreter)and the Muslim American soldier who threw a grenade into our GI's tent and killed (a few?) of them- is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98082,00.html

Airman at Guantanamo Bay Charged With Espionage







Tuesday , September 23, 2003

WASHINGTON — An Air Force airman who had worked at the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (search) has been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy -- charges that could carry the death penalty -- a military spokesman said Tuesday.





Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halabi worked as an Arabic-language translator at the prison camp, spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said.

Al-Halabi knew Yousef Yee (search), the Muslim chaplain at the prison arrested earlier this month, but it was unclear if the two arrests were linked, Shavers said.

The enlisted airman has been charged with nine counts related to espionage, three counts of aiding the enemy, 11 counts of disobeying a lawful order, and nine counts of making a false official statement.

Espionage and aiding the enemy are military charges that can carry the death penalty, said Eugene Fidell (search), a civilian lawyer in Washington and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. The commanding general in charge of al-Halabi's case would have to decide whether military prosecutors could seek the death penalty in his case, Fidell said.

If the death penalty is an option, the 12-member military jury that hears the case would have to vote unanimously to impose it, Fidell said.

Al-Halabi, who was based at Travis Air Force Base in California and assigned to a logistics unit there, is being held at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Shavers said.

Earlier Tuesday, senior military officials told Fox News that a member of the Navy was also in custody, under suspicion of espionage and possible improper communications with the camp's detainees. The Navy member's role at the camp has not been disclosed.

Fox News has learned al-Halabi and the Navy member both were detained roughly two weeks before Yee was arrested. Officials said the two were being surveyed for some time before Yee came to their attention.

About 660 suspected Al Qaeda (search) or Taliban (search) members are imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base. American officials have been interrogating them for information.

Yee, 35, was arrested Sept. 10 in Jacksonville, Fla., after getting off a flight from Guantanamo Bay and is being held at the consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, S.C. A senior law enforcement official said authorities confiscated classified documents Yee was carrying.

Determining what Yee’s intentions were may be difficult, according to one senior official. The official told Fox News he was having a difficult time assessing the meaning of the articles said to be in the chaplain's possession when he was arrested.

Yee was detained in part because he carried classified information without having something called a "courier card" in his possession. Such mistakes are not uncommon, the official said.

Yee also possessed a laptop equipped with a modem, which are strictly forbidden at the base. The official pointed out that nearly every laptop now sold is equipped with a dial-up modem.

A Pentagon official told Fox News that classified information was also found on the laptop of the Air Force member now in custody. But the official said slip-ups such as this — which he described as "sloppy computer security" — are somewhat common.

A military magistrate ruled on Sept. 15 there was enough evidence to hold Yee for up to two months while the military investigates.
 
Yes, so long as they obey the military oath they swore. If they cease to, then they should be subject to appropriate penalties/discipline. Analogous to citizens who shouldn't be punished/persecuted for activities that don't harm anyone (e.g. gun owners).
 
My guess is that not a large percentage of gunowners are rooting for, or aiding and abetting the enemy.

Liberals yes, but not gunowners.;) :evil:

I realize that 3 cases is not a trend, or enough to say that a whole group of people should be viewed with suspicion. If a trend of disloyalty (what % is a trend? I don't know) in the military by any group does develop- should members of that group be singled out for expulsion from the military, or at least put into roles where they could do absolutely no harm?

I realize this is a tricky subject to broach...........
 
I would think the DOD would be trying to bring more Muslims, esp. the ones fluent in Arabic and more obscure languages into the military. We need them. Allegations against one airman and the acts of one loon hardly justify banning all members of one religion from the military.

And yes, there were plenty of mixed heritage Americans who could not be trusted during WWII. Many were caught and punished. Others fled back to the "fatherland." Only the Japanese were forced to bear collective guilt, however. We don't want to go down that road again.
 
Fanatical fundamentalist Muslims? - NO.

Normal Americans who are Muslim but love their country? - Sure.

Religion is a silly thing to fight about.
 
Muslims should definately be allowed in the military. Common sense says the screening for them should be a bit more thorough, and maybe their evaluations also, but the actions of a few should not disclude the many.

Cosmoline is right, we especially need the translators.

I think we at the High Road can discuss this rationally. Probably not the case at some other places, but here we'll be fine.

Regarding the incidents described with the 2 Guantanamo Bay detentions, I hop we are seriously looking for connections here, it seems a big coincidence....
 
Folks, again, a word of caution. If this discussion stays on-topic, concerning the arrests of Muslim servicemen for spying, it's OK. If it drifts off into Muslim-bashing, it's due for euthanasia ASAP. Please remember that the actions of individuals are NOT a reflection on the totality of the religion they belong to - whatever that religion may be. Also, please remember that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty - which has not yet happened, and may not happen, in the two cases we know of.

I serve with Muslim chaplains for whom I have the highest respect, and who are completely loyal to this country and its Constitution. I'm proud to be associated with them. Let's be grateful for the good they do, at the same time that we decry the harm caused by others of lesser goodwill.
 
Anyone that can pass the background check, especially the ones required for a security clearance, should be permitted to serve in the military. Religion isn't the only thing people become fanatical about (just look at the ones in this forum! :) ). About 99% of all US traitors (military, law enforcement and intelligence) are fanatical about one thing, money.
 
Good point, Hkmp5sd. The ideological traitor has become something of an endangered species since the 60's but seems to be making a comeback. Yes, most traitors are beholden to sheer greed. It would be just as unfair to take the actions of rogue cops or the like to smear all law enforcement, or the actions of irresponsible/criminal gun owners to smear all gun owners.
 
<Let's see if my comments shut the thread down>

Part of the problem is the Islamic community in general has not done a good job of separating itself from terrormonger wacko's. I don't for a minute ascribe murderous intent to all muslims. At the same time there appears a reluctance for muslims to draw that distinction. Reasons include cultural reluctance or fear of the wacko's or mistrust of Americans or envy or . . . . .

Let me draw an analogy. Let's say it was members of the First BapPresMethEpis church that sat at the controls of one of the planes. The Christian community in this country would be screaming loud, long, and in 4 part harmony trying to separate the wacko's actions from mainline christians. That being the case it is hard for us Americans to understand why it has not happened in the muslim community.

A lot of the chest thumping we see about muslims in the US would simply disappear if muslims would simply police their own.
 
Certainly; they (presumptively) are loyal Americans and their religion is just as legitimate as any other. However – and I base this on over two decades as a senior naval officer – our government has the obligation to inquire into potential service members’ backgrounds, both for access to classified information and for military security reasons. Therefore, to summarize:

Q1: Should Muslims be able to serve?
A1: Yes.

Q2: However, should their background be subject to particular scrutiny in light of facts including:
(a) the faith of the 11 September terrorists, and so forth;
(b) the likely – still to be proved – treasonous acts of the Chaplin, the interpreter, and soldier in the 101st;
(c) the clear proclivity of large groups within global Islamic society to hate the United States, as demonstrated by cheering crowds on 11 September (and other occasions when the US was attacked) as well as by the lack of a strong denunciation of terrorism by senior Mohammedan clerics?
A2: Yes.

This is not Arab or Muslim bashing; rather, it is a factually-based and realistic summary of germane information.
 
Of course Muslims should be allowed to serve. Regardless of religion, heritage, or color, an American is an American, and they have the same rights and duties as any of us.

...as long as they're male heterosexuals.
 
Pollard.

Hansen.

Ames.

Arnold.

All of them born on American soil. All of them spies for foreign countries. All of them traitorous (insert expletive(s)).

It appears that traitorous behavior is not soley determined by either religion, nationality, etc.
 
Upon reading the topic header my gut reaction was yes. Glad to see that THR is taking thr (with the appropriate disclaimers) and going in the same direction that I was thinking (or am I going in the same direction that THR was thinking :confused: )

Greg
 
I would rather have a loyal homosexual* than a traitorous hetero in the foxhole with me. Rather have a loyal muslim than a traitorous Presbyterian. Give me one factual example of when whole groups of people, rather than individuals, have been traitorous and we'll have some reason continue this discussion.

*If he thinks my buttocks are nicely shaped, he'll be that much more inclined to watch over them.
 
Hrmmmm.

When I was stationed in Germany my buddy and I found it about impossible to get a cab to pick us up outside of the Rhein Main PX/Burger King. We finally found one, and discovered the reason:

- 12 cab drivers had been murdered in the last year.
- All twelve had been murdered by American soldiers.
- All 12 soldiers had been black. We weren't, which was why this cab driver was willing to take the risk.

Raise your hand if you think it's OK to ask the question "is it time to question the wisdom of putting blacks in the military?"

Does anyone see a big difference between that and the discussion we're having here? Think before you post -- run a quick search to see what the crime statistics would look like in the US if you drop all black-related violence out of the discussion.

Most would agree that blanket discrimination against a minority group based on the actions of some members of that group is a bad thing. Why is it that it's OK to block my opportunities to serve because of the actions of a bunch of foreigners who have the same religion on paper? Hint: apparently Hitler was Catholic. Can we bring those numbers into the discussion? How about discrimination against athiests because of the actions of certain godless communists in the last century.

Now, I'm a touch more sensitive on this issue than most here are. We occasionally talk about "lines in the sand." One of mine is the possibility that I'll have to wear a yellow crescent moon arm-band, or have a license that identifies me by my faith. These sorts of discussions aren't far away. (If I'm not allowed to serve in the military, should I be allowed to run for office -- a much more sensitive position? How about being allowed to run my own business, with all of the talk about money laundering and illegal contributions to "charities?" Am I too free for the rest of you to feel safe? Hell, not only do I like guns, but I have military training similar to what McVeigh had, and I contribute more than $250/month to run an online board where pro-gun radicals hang out. Can I be trusted with firearms? Can I be trusted at all?)
 
The traitor Pollard is Jewish. Should Jews be allowed to serve in the US military. Most of other traitors have been Christians or at least of Christian heritage. Should Christians be allowed to serve in the US military?


Starts to look silly when you put it in those terms doesn't it?

However, based on present geopolitical realities, I would endorse a more extensive background investigation for Muslims...identical to the investigations I would conduct on Jews after Pollard's treason.

For that matter, I would run the same background check on Americans of Irish descent to check for links to the IRA or the Irish Protestant paramilitaries.

I don't like folks who used terror tactics. However, I know that Muslims aren't the only ones who do so.

I also don't like folks who have divided loyalties or hidden loyalties. However, once again Muslim Americans are not the only Americans who possess these qualities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top