Arrests of personnel from Gitmo, raising spectre of "dual loyalty"?

Does anybody have opinions as to whether the Yee and al-Falazi arrests will raise the spectre of “dual loyalty” for Muslims in US armed forces? Will there be even more outcries of “traitors in our midst” if these two turn out to be convicted of espionage or similar charges?

I’m sure there will be, at least from the noisier members of the chattering class. And probably from some of the more extreme members of Congress.

Whether they’re acted on is a much more important issue.

One of them has now been charged with spying for Syria, and there are more under investigation.

What should be done: Profiling for the military. I’m not saying no muslims in the military, I’m saying let’s check 'em out carefully. Not doing so can be dangerous, which has been proven numerous times already. I’m sure there’s plenty of profiling going on already, even if it’s not the official policy, which is fine by me. Of course the PC crowd will be outraged by this, but frankly, they can screw themselves.

I got stopped all the time at the airport, which is fine by me.

If/when these traitors/spies are found quilty, anything short of death will be unacceptable.

How stupid are these military types ? Admitting people to the military as muslim clerics, after they return from years in Syria ? A 10 year old could have seen the red flags.

That would be like admitting aryan looking types into the US army, who has just returned from a 3 week vacation,visiting Hitler’s mountain retreat in 1942.

If they are found to be guilty, they probably will not be executed. Rest assured, some professional morons will raise enough stink that traitors will not get the proper traitors’ fate.

Oh, God. “Dual loyalty of Muslim Americans” sure sounds like that inane crap being tossed around when JFK was running for Prez: “Those Catholics are first loyal to the Pope.”

Criminy.

Oh, more on the Criminy Front:

I got investigated for a crime (blackmarketing) when I was stationed in Japan. Since it was a false charge AND I wasn’t guilty, all that means is that I got investigated. {And since someone’s sure to ask, here’s the SD on that: I bought a fridge off base and had to drive across the base to get it from Ayase to Tokyo without taking a flatbed truck through small roads on which I wasn’t sure I could actually not ricochet the truck. Some jackass saw me driving past the NEX and decided that I must’ve bought it there and was going to sell it in Tokyo.}

The United States Armed Forces conduct background checks of prospective members.

I’m really getting the sense of your message is that you are saying that.

Background checks. By the way, who’s “them?” Is it just Muslims or is it all prospective members of the Armed Forces?

Thus the background checks. BTW, have you completely forgotten about the Walker scandal?

The investigations are supposed to be conducted according to law and official policy. But, sure, let’s go with your plan of circumventing that. :rolleyes:

No. I, along with other members of the “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States” crowd, will be outraged by that. Just so’s you know: I quoted that little bit from my Oath of Enlistment.

I get my carry-on baggage and my person searched every single time I fly. That’s fine by me, also, as it’s not based on my religion. It’s based on my status as a flight passenger.

So, the judge has no bearing at all in the trial? Sentencing guidelines are just for laughs?

Define “military types.” I’ll respond to that comment after I see your enlightening definition.

There are other Syrians in the Armed Forces. There are also Iraqis, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and–believe it or not–Somalis in the Armed Forces of this country.

I, for one, again as a member of that “support and defend the Constitution” crowd, am mighty pleased that it’s not a 10-year old running the Armed Forces. But thanks for letting us know what gauge you’re using for your enlightened procedures.

No. No, it wouldn’t.

Now that you’ve responded to my posting, I guess I’ll go with your second inclination–yep, I agree that you’re being bigoted. I have served with a number of personnel from other countries & some of them are Muslims (the personnel). I didn’t harbor the thought that they shouldn’t’ve been in our Armed Forces.

And, for the love of whatever deity you hold dear, please learn to use that nifty quote function. Hit the little button in the lower rigbht of the posting you’re quoting that is cleverly disguised with the title “quote.”

Out of idle curiosity and given the large number of personnel in our Armed Forces who are not committing treason, why do you consider the screening process to be lax? Why should someone be subject to the same process twice because of what someone else did?

Please change rigbht in my posting above to read right.

Yeah, I know my post was a bit messy. I do know how to qoute, but I wasn’t sure how to qoute each statement seperately. If I press the quote in the corner, it qoutes your whole post, and doesn’t break it up individually, so that I can respond to each statement. I suppose I need to press qoute for every single statement. I’m going to reply to.

Also, here is a pretty entertaining article I found from oct. 2001.

**Muslims in the U.S. military are as loyal as any, chaplain says **

The chaplain was James Yee, the dude who just got busted.:smiley:

I feel these army muslims due to sympathy and contact with the Gizmo prisoners felt the horrors of the US war on terrorism. Screening them beforehand wont reveal much… during their job they will be subjected to doubts about what they are doing.

Another post, based %100 on fantasy, and Pro Terrorist utterings.

Some of these people have been accused of spying for Syria. Let’s not try to excuse every wrong doing these criminals do. Maybe some of them were abused as children also, and has a rough childhod, lol.

during their job they will be subjected to doubts about what they are doing.

Absolutely, a laughable assertation. If what you say is true, then that is good grounds to ban all muslims from the military.

As another former member of the Armed Forces, I’d like to point out that at least in the Army the FBI conducts a background check. I’m pretty sure they must also do it for other forces. So what do you propose to do differently Daisy Cutter?

I agree with this entirely. And since the vast, vast majority of military personnel who have committed espionage and fully all of military personnel who have used their skills to blow up a federal building have been white males, they should be held to special scrutiny.

That’s what you’re saying, right, Daisy Cutter? That since white males have been the biggest source of trouble they should be especially profiled?

I love how everybody likes to stuff words into others peoples mouths here. :smiley:

Well, let’s see. . . Currently we are at war primarily with muslim extremists, however I have no problem with weeding out white undesirables from the military also. There are a few white muslims also you know, I’m not the one making this into a race issue, though plenty of people like to make things into race issues around here it seems.

If you were reffering to Mcveigh, then his kind, the kind that belongs to extremist groups and is fond of nazi literature; well, they should get the boot from the military just as fast as muslim terrorist sympathizers. They’re both enemies of the USA, I don’t particulary care for one group over the other. They’re both trash.

I don’t know much about McVeigh, but did he commit his crimes while he was in the military ? If he didn’t, I don’t see how anybody could be expected to be psychic, and predict his future actions. This isn’t minority report.

Where is this big white threat to our military, that you speak of ? Sorry, I don’t see any connection. Anyhow, if we’re talking about extremist muslims, then they come in all shapes, and colors, I don’t care what they look like. The pathetic chaplain who got caught was of Chinese descent, I believe.

Daisy:

You just did make it a race issue by your dismissal of manhattan’s factual presentation to you.

I asked you about the Walker scandal. Last I heard, those folks are White.

You say we’re at war with primarily Muslim terrorists. Well, it’s an undeclared war and it doesn’t matter a whit what the religion is of those involved on the “other side.” FTR: the German terrorists who hijacked the Air France flight on behalf of the PLO were not Muslims.

This is delightful:

What’s the point of profiling, then?

FYI: To split someone’s quote into more than one quote, you just need to actually type in {/quote} at the end of the part you’re responding to, then {quote} at the beginning of the next part you’re responding to. Be sure to substitute [ for the { and ] for the } to make it work.

Thanks for the qoute tips. If this post turns out ok, then it was worth it.:slight_smile:
*Originally posted by Monty *

I’m not sure which scandal you mean. John Walker Lindh ? If it is him you mean, then that just reinforces my point.

Yes, it is an “undeclared” war. When was the last time the USA officially declared war anyhow ? I also think it matters a whole lot what religion the enemies have, as they are engaging in a self described religious war. It would be absurd and damaging not to take this fact into account. There’s a saying that goes Know thy enemy, or something like that.:smiley:

Yes, I am aware that different terrorist groups have helped the PLO from time to time. Even a Japanese group in the past. Muslim terrorist groups have ties to other terrorist groups, and they should all be watched closely. Scum tends to stick together, I would believe.

Well, my statement was related to McVeigh. If he commited his crimes after he was in the military, I don’t see how the military could be held accountable for this, or could have done anything about it. I’m talking about stopping these people from doing damage while they are in the military.

He had been honorably discharged – he got a medal for his service in the first Gulf War.

But you’re essentially proposing that it become Minority Report. Gotta check out those Muslims, right? See below.

The most accurate predictor of a person’s status as a spy is being white and male. 93 percent of all Americans convicted of espionage from 1945 to 1990 were white and 92% male. That was more accurate than who they were, their religion or any other factor.

Know why most people spy? Money. Specifically, 52% of the persons convicted from 1945 to 1990 were motivated primarily by money – only 18% were motivated by ideology. The statistics become even more skewed in later years. Of the 61 people convicted between 1980 and 1990, 42 were motivated by money and exactly one was motivated by ideology. Many spies had violated the terms of their existing security clearances or had lifestyle or other outward indications that they were receiving more money than their salaries afforded. Sounds to me like what the military should be profiling for, if anything, is enlisted men with new Harleys and people who drink too much, not persons of a specific (presumed) ideology.

Here you go. Download this moderately big (79 pages, 270 kb) file and learn something before you spout off. It’ll be good for ya.

Still involves prediction, though, doesn’t it?

Do you write your own material? Seriously, you could do stand up with an act like that.

Oh, I see. You’re not making this into a race issue, you’re making it into a religious issue. Hence your bigotry isn’t racial in nature, but religious. Glad we have that cleared up.

Expecting them to be psychic is exactly what you’re doing, and I have a feeling a Minority Report based state would be right down your alley. Let me get this straight, we should carefully profile Muslims to weed them out before they are able to commit crimes while in the military, but we’d have to be psychic to know some white dude had a short fuse and was missing a few marbles before he was let in, correct?

Must be those beady little eyes.

My posting above is in response to Daisy, not manhattan.