Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 89
  1. #46
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I ignored your "actual" position? Hell trek... I quoted you.
    You fail to understand the idea that someone can disagree with the method by which Israel became a nation and yet harbor no hatred or ill-will towards those who live there. The satirical reply of comparing my statement with the political and genocidal views of Iran and Syria equated to labeling myself as antisemitic.

    Any further argument on that subject and I'll PM mods.



    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter
    You clearly cited nothing of the sort. You proved that I refused to fabricate material to support YOUR opinion... nothing more. I said as much in the post.
    When asked to explain your labeling of the direct, historical text of the United States Constitution as my 'opinion' you answered with resounding, deafening silence. As you usually do when presented with damning evidence.


    You seem to be dismissing everything that is offered up to disprove your claims (as usual). Perhaps the following text from the court decision itself will shut you up (not likely...nothing ever has).

    Quote Originally Posted by Court document
    In this litigation, the Government has not provided any reason for excluding Ramadan
    from the United States. As previously noted, in August 2004, DHS publicly stated that the
    Government had revoked Ramadan’s H-1B visa because Ramadan used his “position of prominence . .
    . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), a provision
    added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Patriot Act of 2001.18 (Ramadan Decl. ¶ 14 &
    Exs. G, M.) The Government now abandons the DHS statement, claiming it to be “erroneous.” It fails
    to provide an alternate explanation–or any explanation at all
    Do take note the key words "Government" and "erroneous." You may also wish to change the thread title at this time.

    http://www.aclu.org/images/general/a...e457_25990.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Court document
    Thus, while the
    Government may exclude Ramadan if he poses a legitimate threat to national security, it may not
    invoke “national security” as a protective shroud to justify the exclusion of aliens on the basis of their
    political beliefs. This should pose no dilemma for the Government. If Ramadan is a threat to national
    security, or there is some other facially legitimate and bona fide reason for his exclusion, the
    Government may exclude him. But the Government must provide an explanation. It has not done so.
    Are you also going to dispute that the donations were made prior to the charities being labeled as terrorism supporters? If so, I will try to figure out how to prove you wrong there as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Money quote:

    Quote:
    endorsed or espoused terrorism
    Enjoy reading the court document Scooter. I enjoyed being able to post it here to show everyone how "erroneous" you are.

  2. #47
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You fail to understand the idea that someone can disagree with the method by which Israel became a nation and yet harbor no hatred or ill-will towards those who live there. The satirical reply of comparing my statement with the political and genocidal views of Iran and Syria equated to labeling myself as antisemitic.

    Any further argument on that subject and I'll PM mods.
    PM away. Your history of personal attacks in this thread alone will prolly land you in the TLR pokey long before I get an infraction. Your "CLAIM" was that I called you an antisemite and said you "hate Israel" in this thread. When confronted with the factoid I said nothing of the sort... you jumped to a post from many months ago tp try to prop up your accusations.

    Quotes of both exchanges provided and you still have not offered up one solid piece of evidence to support your claims. You seem to prefer threats and name calling to prop up your vacant claims of what I supposedly said.

    So let's go through the exercise again. Where in this response that you "CLAIM" I state you are an antisemite and "CLAIM" I say you hate Jews do I say either? Quote me.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    This is what passes as "substantial" evidence in Trekwerld. Pointing out the geographic location of the authors. Not refuting their data with "evidence" as he seems to like to suggest other should do... but instead pointing out where they live. And then stereotyping them as holding a grudge against Islam "in general".... nope... no discrimination or hypocrisy to see here... move along...
    You won't find Waldo or any of what you "CLAIM" I say in there Trek.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    When asked to explain your labeling of the direct, historical text of the United States Constitution as my 'opinion' you answered with resounding, deafening silence. As you usually do when presented with damning evidence.
    I refused to fabricate items to support YOUR position. A far cry from your claim that:

    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    Where's the beef? Or anything that even remotely resembles the lie you are trying to support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    You seem to be dismissing everything that is offered up to disprove your claims (as usual).
    You tried to pass off statements from an OPED by Tariq and other sources as statements from the State Department. Had you provided anything relevant to the question at hand or actually from the State Department I'd prolly be less "dismissive".

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Perhaps the following text from the court decision itself will shut you up (not likely...nothing ever has).

    Do take note the key words "Government" and "erroneous." You may also wish to change the thread title at this time.

    http://www.aclu.org/images/general/a...e457_25990.pdf
    Glad to see you finally stopped trying to Quote Tariq and to pass it off as what the State Department said. We're making progress!!

    Ya.. thats a tough call trek. Who to believe. The ACLU Brief PDF on the DHS or the State Department regarding what the State Department found? I'll stick with the state department.

    Oh... and though the ACLU stipulated a tonne in their complaint, I recommend you read the conclusion. The only thing settled was that the government was told to issue a formal decision on his VISA. Not supportive of your initial assertion.

    Again... what the State Department said:

    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    VS. your original assertion. A position you are now trying to change:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    So you tried on no less than 4 different occasions to try to pass off Tariq's OPED and other comments as State department statements and are now trying to pass the DHS as the State department?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Are you also going to dispute that the donations were made prior to the charities being labeled as terrorism supporters? If so, I will try to figure out how to prove you wrong there as well.
    Lets stick to your original point shall we? I'm sure you'd love to change it... not gonna happen. Again... your original assertion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    What the SD said:

    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Enjoy reading the court document Scooter. I enjoyed being able to post it here to show everyone how "erroneous" you are.
    I'd enjoy it a lot more if it had relevance to the accusation you made about the State Department. You know... the point you made that you are trying your best to tap dance away from... ya.. that one..

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #48
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Now you're arguing the 'ACLU brief' is false? It's the OFFICIAL COURT DECISION.

    You know..the one typed by the judge when expressing his ruling on the case?

    1) Your antisemitism allegation was never in this thread and was never implied to be. I have a long memory of your comments towards me.

    2) I gave you every opportunity in the Constitution thread to provide me with any evidence at ALL that supported YOUR position. You gave me nothing. Nothing other than claiming the Constitution I quoted was 'opinion.'

    3) You can choose to believe your own happy little fictional world all you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDscooter
    Ya.. thats a tough call trek. Who to believe. The ACLU Brief PDF on the DHS or the State Department regarding what the State Department found? I'll stick with the state department.

    Oh... and though the ACLU stipulated a tonne in their complaint, I recommend you read the conclusion. The only thing settled was that the government was told to issue a formal decision on his VISA. Not supportive of your initial assertion.
    That was the "Opinion and Order" of the COURT as written by Judge Paul A. Crotty. It was not an ACLU motion, brief or otherwise. This is known as 'evidence.' The JUDGE is the one citing that DHS now states their claim was erroneous.

    Ramadan last donated money to a FRENCH humanitarian organization in July 2002, over a year before the US declared that organization to have any ties to Hamas.

    The US has never proved those allegations.

    The US claims it doesn't matter when he last made a donation.

    If the Red Cross was suddenly determined by the US Gov't to be a terrorist-supporting charity, would it be proper of them to evict every citizen who ever donated to the Red Cross prior to that discovery? How about deny every visa to those who gave to the RC believing it to be a good organization?

    Only in your world.
    Last edited by BlackDragon24; 02-28-2007 at 04:39 PM. Reason: name calling

  4. #49
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    I am closing this thread until I have time to review it for all of the infractions. May be re-opened later after discussion amongst moderators.

    EDIT: Thread re-opened.....please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks
    Last edited by BlackDragon24; 02-28-2007 at 04:40 PM.

  5. #50
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    Now you're arguing the 'ACLU brief' is false? It's the OFFICIAL COURT DECISION.

    You know..the one typed by the judge when expressing his ruling on the case?
    Never said it was false. I recommended you read the conclusion and try to stay on topic. Your claim was that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    You have on several occasions now tried to attribute statements decidedly NOT by the State Department as from that source. This is yet another example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    1) Your antisemitism allegation was never in this thread and was never implied to be. I have a long memory of your comments towards me.
    Really? Your threats in response to me sure seem to suggest otherwise. Now that your claim has been thoroughly debunked and proven void of substance... the issue is now your "memory"... not the statements I made in this thread? Spin... spin... spin...
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=40
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    “In that case, feel free to show me where I say "I hate Israel." You accuse me of antisemitism. How does the label feel when it's applied to you? Stop accusing me of something I am not and perhaps I'll return the favor. Otherwise, continue with the strong majority of your threads dealing with Islam or Muslims and I'll continue with the accusations that you are a intolerant jerk who hates them.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    2) I gave you every opportunity in the Constitution thread to provide me with any evidence at ALL that supported YOUR position. You gave me nothing. Nothing other than claiming the Constitution I quoted was 'opinion.'
    Again.. lets stick to your ORIGINAL assertion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    My comment was a suggestion to you about how to go about making your points a bit stronger, as you consistantly - every time someone asks you for evidence to be presented you tell them to go do their own research.
    You have not provided anything to this point to support this claim. Out of over 6,600 posts you cannot find one valid example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) You can choose to believe your own happy little fictional world all you want.
    I prefer my reality to yours... the people reading the thread content can decide who is living in the purple sky world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    That was the "Opinion and Order" of the COURT as written by Judge Paul A. Crotty. It was not an ACLU motion, brief or otherwise. This is known as 'evidence.' The JUDGE is the one citing that DHS now states their claim was erroneous.

    Ramadan last donated money to a FRENCH humanitarian organization in July 2002, over a year before the US declared that organization to have any ties to Hamas.

    The US has never proved those allegations.

    The US claims it doesn't matter when he last made a donation.

    If the Red Cross was suddenly determined by the US Gov't to be a terrorist-supporting charity, would it be proper of them to evict every citizen who ever donated to the Red Cross prior to that discovery? How about deny every visa to those who gave to the RC believing it to be a good organization?

    Only in your world.
    Again... try to prove your point... to date you have cited everyone but the State department.

    What you claim

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari View Post
    3) There is a large difference between you saying the State department doesn't have to lay out a case against him in public versus your defense of the *fact* that they have found no substantial link to terrorism through him.
    What they say:

    The US State Department stated that, among other things , since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-28-2007 at 05:19 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #51
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    As in everything, especially when it comes to human rights vs. national security, it is all about balance.

    Scooter has provided some pretty damning links as to who this guy really is. He obviously has been or is in bed with groups who support terrorist funding.

    Trek has provided some interesting reading on how the DHS has actually refuted some of their own original findings about Ramdan, saying that basically the evidence was circumstantial at best.

    I usually am one to err on the side of caution, and if this guy seems to pose a legitimate threat then I have no problem the US denying him a VISA.

    What I do have a problem with is the government not disclosing to us what their guidelines are for determining what is or is not a terrorist supporter or threat. Granted I would imagine that some of these guidelines probably have to remain secret for security purposes. You don't want to give the enemy the playbook so to speak.

    I will not condemn the ACLU, however, for seeking out genuine language as to what "supported and espoused" terrorism really means. As I had mentioned in a previous post that seemed to get overlooked, If I go down to my local dealer and purchase some illegal street drugs for my own personal use, then the government not only says I am a lawbreaker but also that I support terrorism. I find this sort of logic severely flawed.

    Moreover, and correct me if I am wrong because I am know way up on my facts here, but I recall seeing several discussions here about the fact that we give certain arab political groups millions of dollars every year in aid. So if that follows as true, and some of these groups have previously "supported or espoused" terrorism, then wouldn't that be somewhat of a paradox?
    Last edited by BlackDragon24; 02-28-2007 at 05:49 PM.

  7. #52
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,704

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    As in everything...I have no problem the US denying him a VISA.
    I'm glad you jumped in. I have a different take on this very convoluted thread.

    Scooter's original position as set by his first post was:
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter
    Huh?? Did a double take there myself.. So apparently according to the ACLU we need to welcome with open arms those who endorse and espoused terrorism.
    followed by an article by the Canton, OH paper saying the ACLU was :
    Quote Originally Posted by CantonRep.com
    ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access
    Saturday, February 24, 2007

    NEW YORK (AP) — A civil rights group asked a judge Friday to find it unconstitutional for the federal government to exclude a prominent Muslim scholar or anyone else from the United States on the grounds that they may have endorsed or espoused terrorism.
    and futher states:
    Quote Originally Posted by CantonRep.com
    The group said the provision violates the First Amendment and has resulted since 2001 in the exclusion from the United States of numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists and writers, barred “not for legitimate security reasons but rather because the government disfavors their politics.”
    The CantonRep never did state any views of the State Department other than:
    Quote Originally Posted by CantonRep.com
    Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for government lawyers, said she had no comment Friday.

    In the case of Ramadan, a 44-year-old native of Switzerland, the ACLU said he was excluded last year for making small donations that totaled $1,336 to the Association de Secours Palestinien, an organization that the U.S. government said he should have known provided funds to Hamas, which the government has designated a foreign terrorist organization.
    Scooter further defended his position with a link to a rightwing site:
    Quote Originally Posted by Counterterrorism.org
    here is what I wrote on October 2 of last year, with links to numerous posts by our Contributing Experts:
    And far from being "humanitarian organizations," as Ramadan We have tracked Ramadan's repeated attempts to enter the U.S. and hide his past; I last wrote on them on August 30, with links to other entries by Doug Farah, Steven Emerson (who wrote of Ramadan's support for attacks against the U.S., Israel, and Russia), Olivier Guitta, Lorenzo Vidino, and Bill West. Then, in his post here on September 29, Doug Farah discussed European intel detailing contacts between Ramadan and numerous terrorists, including Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri (when he was still running Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the 1993 WTC bombing), and others. Other terrorism experts have provided more details of Ramadan's statements or publications in support of terrorism.
    And far from being "humanitarian organizations," as Ramadan claims, the two groups to which he contributed "have appeared in several terrorist investigations since 1995..."

    After I posted that, Olivier Guitta wrote a Weekly Standard article with more information on Ramadan's association with known terrorists.
    CAIR's support of a man with known terrorist connections contradicts any claim that it opposes terrorism.
    February 15, 2007 12:27 AM
    Scooter further stated his a superior position because he used State Department links and provided this quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter
    Again... what the State Department said:

    Quote:
    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    which actually tracks back to http://jcb.blogs.com/jcb_blog/2006/0...a_denied_.html another rightwing blog that stated in full:
    Quote Originally Posted by JCB
    September 27, 2006

    US visa denied to Tariq Ramadan for terrorism financing

    Following our recent press release on “New Information about Tariq Ramadan’s Links to Terrorism” exposing new evidence that Tariq Ramadan had links to many convicted terrorists in Europe, the USG finally denied a visa to the Islamic scholar “for providing material support to a terrorist organization”.
    The US State Department stated that, among other things, since year 2000, Ramadan donated about $765 to French and Swiss organizations, namely the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP), both designated by the US Treasury Department on August 22, 2003 for their financial support to Hamas. The USG stated at the time that these organizations are “part of a web of charities raising funds on behalf of Hamas and using humanitarian purposes as a cover for acts that support Hamas”.
    Despite the fact that these organizations were not designated in Europe, the CBSP and ASP have appeared in several terrorist investigations since 1995, when the prosecution of the 1995 bombings in Paris revealed that Algerian GIA members were raising funds for the CBSP.
    Contrary to what Tariq Ramadan still claims, he was denied entry in the US not for his ideas or views. He is not the “victim” of any “ideological exclusion” but the sole responsible of his own actions in supporting terrorism.


    OK. Let's see what we have here.



    The original CantonRep piece was writing about the filing the ACLU made on February 23rd, 2007.
    CASE: AAR v. CHERTOFF
    > Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement (2/23/2007)
    > Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement (2/23/2007)
    > Second Declaration of Tariq Ramadan (2/23/2007)
    > Declaration of Jonathan Benthall (2/23/2007)
    > Declaration of Jonathan Benthall: Exhibits (2/23/2007)
    > Declaration of Jameel Jaffer (2/23/2007)
    > Declaration of John R. Fitzmier/American Academy of Religion (2/23/2007)
    > Declaration of Cary Nelson/American Association of University Professors (2/23/2007)
    > Second Declaration of Michael Roberts/PEN American Center (2/23/2007)
    > Statement of Undisputed Facts (2/23/2007)




    Aside from the fact there was no way in hell any editor for the CantonRep had time to digest all that material the same day it was filed, it neglected to say the ACLU had a list of items it was seeking judgment on, the last of which was the issue of constitutional law.

    Scooter's Counterterrorism link is to be ignored as this is a court battle and the State Department has not recognized these claims.

    Scooter later quotes the JCB blog as the State Department but in reality the post does not point out the difference between being tied and being on the list. The post does accurately depict the fact that the organizations in question made the list in 2003.

    JCB.blog also does not point out the original denial by the State Department was in fact Ramadan having ties, and that they dropped those charges. Ramadan's counsel thanked State for doing that.

    So, BD, I don't see a great deal of credence with scooter's position. He does not differentiate between bloggers charges and actual charges.

    Trekari on the other hand gives links to the ACLU page that is tracking the case.

    Ramandan was denied entry in 2004 and told he had ties to terror.

    A NY Federal Judge ordered the State Department to give a reason for denial in June of 2006 after they dropped the terror link charges.

    The State Department gave the reason in September that Ramadan was denied due to those contributions.

    The ACLU filed papers in February that retroactive denial is not right, considering his donations were until 2002 and the organizations in question were listed in 2003.

    Simple enough for me, actually. Trekari wins, this is a case that deserves to be heard.

    Scooters bloggers are always welcome to supply State with their evidence.

    Scooter's thread title and original comment are so far off base they show his normal bias.

  8. #53
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    I appreciate you pointing out to the viewers that some of the blogs listed are "right wing". I'm not sure what your qualifiers are for left/right but I'd have to ask how pointing out legit terrorist ties makes a site "right wing". Anyhoo.... In the future... please refer to the ACLU as a far left wing organization. And any reference to Tariq Ramadan should also include some reference to the fact he has had contacts with at least 6 convicted terrorists, terrorist designated entities and has issued statements or publications in support of terrorism. Seeing as you wish to play referee and pretend impartiality... let's pretend all the way shall we?


    Now lets do a bit of work on the chronology. And sources.

    The original link was posted in the CantonRep, but was an AP article.

    I notice that you list Counterterrorism.org (that right wing site)... but somehow the facts they listed get left out in your summation and you instruct people to "ignore" what they state.. because this is a court battle? Thats one hell of a rationale. This forum is not a court and we should not be limited to the complaints of the ACLU in any way, shape or form no matter how much you wish it. The information they list and links they provide are as relevant as anything the ACLU has to offer up. So in the future... how about you let the readers decide what to "ignore"?

    Sure seems as if you are carrying the ACLU's/Trek's water on this matter. Which is fine... but stop trying to do it under the pretense of some impartial observer just collecting all the facts. Mmmmkay?

    Wanna skin it down? Lets see what are we left with. The ACLU and several persons and organizations are trying to get a new visa for Ramadan. A person who's previous visa was revoked in August 2004 by the US government pursuant to a provision of Immigration and Nationality Act amended by the Patriot Act of 2001 that excludes anyone who “has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization.”

    Section 2 of the ACLU's "Statement of Undisputed Facts"

    "II. Professor Ramadan is a consistent and vocal opponent of terrorism and extremism."


    Last edited by AMDScooter; 02-28-2007 at 11:34 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #54
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,704

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I appreciate you pointing out to the viewers that some of the blogs listed are "right wing" sights. I'm not sure what your qualifiers are for left/right sights but I'd have to ask how pointing out legit terrorist ties makes a site "right wing". Anyhoo.... In the future... please refer to the ACLU as a far left wing organization. And any reference to Tariq Ramadan should also include some reference to the fact he has had contacts with at least 6 convicted terrorists, terrorist designated entities and has issued statements or publications in support of terrorism. Seeing as you wish to play referee and pretend impartiality... let's pretend all the way shall we?


    Now lets do a bit of work on the chronology. And sources.

    The original link was posted in the CantonRep, but was an AP article.

    I notice that you list Counterterrorism.org (that right wing site)... but somehow the facts they listed get left out in your summation and you instruct people to "ignore" what they state.. because this is a court battle? Thats one hell of a rationale. This forum is not a court. The information they list and links they provide are relevant. So in the future... how about you let the readers decide what to "ignore"?

    Sure seems as if you are carrying the ACLU's/Trek's water on this matter. Which is fine... but stop trying to do it under the pretense of some impartial observer just collecting all the facts. Mmmmkay?

    Wanna skin it down? Lets see what are we left with. The ACLU and several persons and organizations are trying to get a new visa for Ramadan. A person who's previous visa was revoked in August 2004 by the US government pursuant to a provision of Immigration and Nationality Act amended by the Patriot Act of 2001 that excludes anyone who “has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization.”

    Section 2 of the ACLU's "Statement of Undisputed Facts"

    "II. Professor Ramadan is a consistent and vocal opponent of terrorism and extremism."


    Scooter,

    I'm not pretending to be impartial after deciding on a position. Sorry it wasn't yours. I do wonder if you are pretending with all these rediculous threads around here.

    You have added nothing to rebut my opinion other than to apparently merely have the last word. I hope you feel better now.

    I see you are still trying to use the bloggers charges instead of recognizing the State Department dropped the "associating with terrorist charges". Please give it up before someone believes it. To paraphrase you, I'll take the State Department over your bloggers any day.

    I went over the chronology already, and thanks to the link from Trekari, it was accurate because of court documents. He supplied me with something you couldn't seem to do.

    Yes, I mentioned the first published link you used as CantonRep. That's where it was published and where the editor should have checked the facts. The same holds for AP. Either their original piece was cut or they messed up. You can read all the issues the ACLU brought to the court on top of the constitutional one on 2/23/07. Since you don't rebut my position I guess you agree.

    I mentioned 2 sites you linked to (again, you placed one as the official word of the State Department in a rebut towards Trektari when it fact it was a blogger who was overly proud of the "evidence" they found) and called them either a rightwing blog or rightwing site (or sight if you prefer) because that's what they are. Sorry, do you have a better word for me to use? How about "disturbing half-truth propaganda sites"?

    They are simply not the State Department. You made a big deal of stressing using the State Department with Trek, but you never did. Regardless, save your instructions for how I label something for someone who might be receptive, please.

    Since you still choose not to show the difference between what the State Department is charging compared to what your rightwing sites are charging, I guess you agree with my position. Fine. I still think those sites should supply the State Department with all of their facts so that it can be challenged in court, but I guess they are too afraid of having their positions really challenged or State knows better.

    As to what happened, I see you still try to skirt over the facts. That's OK, I'll repeat it.
    Ramandan was denied entry in 2004 and told he had ties to terror.

    A NY Federal Judge ordered the State Department to give a reason for denial in June of 2006 after they dropped the terror link charges.

    The State Department gave the reason in September that Ramadan was denied due to those contributions.

    The ACLU filed papers in February that retroactive denial is not right, considering his donations were until 2002 and the organizations in question were listed in 2003.

    The State Department has yet to answer in court.

    Your bloggers won't be there and will probably continue to ignore the actual charges made by the State Department, instead harping on what they know that the State Department doesn't know.

    Since you also didn't rebut my point that there are no charges against Ramadan by the State Department for terrorist activities other than making donations to organizations a year before they made the terrorist list (well, except for charges made by you and your rightwing bloggers) I still feel you are off base in your thread title, open to libel, and typically biased. Should I take your silence as agreement that the ACLU is justified in representing Ramadan over retroactive charges?

    But don't worry, you can keep your slant around here, we wouldn't expect less.

    Just don't expect us to believe these weak arguments.

    Glad you like one line out of a single brief put out by the ACLU, btw. Perhaps sometime you can explain the relevance other than abstract window dressing for your use of roll eye smilies.

  10. #55
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post

    Ramandan was denied entry in 2004 and told he had ties to terror.

    A NY Federal Judge ordered the State Department to give a reason for denial in June of 2006 after they dropped the terror link charges.

    The State Department gave the reason in September that Ramadan was denied due to those contributions.

    The ACLU filed papers in February that retroactive denial is not right, considering his donations were until 2002 and the organizations in question were listed in 2003.

    The State Department has yet to answer in court.
    See that?? That's a chronology. No "window dressing", leading, slant or instructions on what to ignore necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Since you still choose not to show the difference between what the State Department is charging compared to what your rightwing sites are charging, I guess you agree with my position. Fine. I still think those sites should supply the State Department with all of their facts so that it can be challenged in court, but I guess they are too afraid of having their positions really challenged or State knows better.
    I would not be so fast to dismiss blogs or "right wing" sites. They have outed far too many left wing lies and conspiracies for you to invalidate their value so dismissively. As for supplying their information to the State department and other agencies of interest, it seems that they already are.


    Terror Finance Expert Exposes New Information about Tariq Ramadan’s Links to Terrorism


    Terror Finance Expert Exposes New Information about Tariq Ramadan’s Links to Terrorism

    Jean-Charles Brisard of the Terror Finance Blog has uncovered new evidence of Tariq Ramadan’s links to terrorist entities. These findings provide the United States government with sufficient evidence to appeal a court order allowing Ramadan to enter the U.S.

    Washington, DC (PRWEB) September 18, 2006 – Jean-Charles Brisard of The Terror Finance Blog (http://terrorfinance.org) has exposed new evidence that Tariq Ramadan has links to terrorist entities and has endorsed terror activities in his writings and statements. Some of Ramadan’s associates have been convicted of direct involvement in terror plots or have made statements directly in support of al Qaeda-affliated groups engaged in attacks on U.S. targets. This information provides the U.S. sufficient evidence to deny Ramadan a U.S. visa.

    Ramadan’s previous visa was revoked in August 2004 by the US government pursuant to a provision of Immigration and Nationality Act amended by the Patriot Act of 2001 that excludes anyone who “has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization.”

    On June 23, 2006, a federal judge gave the U.S. government until September 21 to issue a formal decision on Tariq Ramadan’s pending visa application. The government must either grant a visa or provide a “legitimate and bona fide reason” to exclude him by that date. Media reports indicate that the government will not provide such a reason, and accordingly will permit Ramadan to enter the U.S.

    However, the evidence uncovered by Jean-Charles Brisard represents a “legitimate and bona fide reason” for denying Ramadan a visa. Among Brisard’s findings are the following:

    Tariq Ramadan had contacts with at least 6 convicted terrorists and terrorist designated entities, including:

    1. Ahmed Brahim (sentenced to 10 years in prison in Spain in April 2006 for incitement to terrorism)
    2. Djamel Beghal (sentenced to 10 years in prison in France in March 2005 for his participation to a foiled terrorist attack against the US Embassy in Paris)
    3. Menad Benchellali (sentenced to 10 years in prison in France in June 2006 for his participation to a foiled chemical attack in Paris)
    4. Intelligence documents reflect that Tariq Ramadan coordinated a meeting held in 1991 in Geneva attended by Ayman Al Zawahiri and Omar Abdel Rahman, respectively Al Qaeda leader and planner of the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in 1993, sentenced to life in the United States
    5. An abstract of the (terrorist-designated) Al Taqwa Bank phonebook mentions Ramadan and his brother.

    In addition to the above, Tariq Ramadan issued statements or publications in support of terrorism:

    1. The website of the Islamic Center of Geneva (of which Tariq Ramadan is still an executive director) released a sermon on Iraq in August 2005 calling “to support our brothers in Fallujah and Southern Iraq against this unjust occupation, in reality the terrorists are the US administration, the Sharon government and the Putin government”. This statement was clearly referring to the only insurgency force stationed at the time in Fallujah, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq), in opposition to the “true” terrorists.
    2. Muhammad Hamidullah, co-founder of the Islamic Center of Geneva, wrote that Jihad, whether it be defensive, punitive or preemptive, is allowed by religion, and that Muslim jihad is acted upon a « spirit of sacrifice to impose the voice of Allah »
    3. In his book “Islam in questions” (published in 2002) he refers to suicide bombers as a “sacrifice” that “finds its justification in decades of accumulated suffering and Western passive responsibility”
    4. He also refers in this book to Palestinians fighting “military targets”, including non-combatants, to justify their terrorist acts
    5. In an article published by the Spanish daily “El Pais” in 1996, while condemning the abuses of the Taliban he refers to this regime as “exemplary.”

    Finally, two co-founders of the Islamic Center of Geneva, Said Ramadan (Tariq Ramadan’s father), and Abu al-Hassan Ali al-Nadawi, were founding members of the Muslim World League in 1962, which is a Saudi NGO associated with Al-Qaida operations since 1988, and labelled as a supporter of terrorism by several governments. The U.S. government recently decided to take action against several offices of its subsidiary organization, the IIRO.

    Five years after the September 11 attacks on the United States, a decision allowing Tariq Ramadan to enter this country would obviously negatively impact the war on terror and the very principles upon which the American nation decided to confront terrorists and those who support or endorse them.

    The original article can be found at: http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_ter...ramadan_n.html.

    Brisard is one of six independent experts on terror finance, based in the USA, Britain, France, Israel and Australia, who recently launched a professional blog that examines how terrorist groups worldwide fund their recruitment, training, and operations. The blog's experts have given expert evidence to the US Senate and House of Representatives, and to the European Parliament. The importance of understanding terror financing was proved as recently as mid-August, when British police arrested a group of suspects in a plot to blow up 10 American airliners in mid-air, thanks to analysis of their financial transactions.
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Since you also didn't rebut my point that there are no charges against Ramadan by the State Department for terrorist activities other than making donations to organizations a year before they made the terrorist list (well, except for charges made by you and your rightwing bloggers) I still feel you are off base in your thread title, open to libel, and typically biased. Should I take your silence as agreement that the ACLU is justified in representing Ramadan over retroactive charges?
    I seem to recall sometime back(long thread) that they were not compelled to give a reason and that his "donations" we're just one possible reason, possibly the only one that the could vet publicly. I'll try to locate something more substantial.

    The ACLU is trying several tacts to get this terrorist back into the country. That is just one. They also tried on the grounds keeping him out infringed on the 1st amendment rights of the plaintiffs to hear what he had to say. In short.. they want to get his Visa by any means possible. If retroactive charges works.. they'll use it. The question I'd ask of you is what is their motivation? They are supposedly trying to support "American" civil liberties correct? This guy is not a citizen and the courts have already denied their claim that any citizens rights have been trodden on.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    But don't worry, you can keep your slant around here, we wouldn't expect less.
    I hope you were not under the impression I felt I need your permission. I'll keep mine.. you keep yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Just don't expect us to believe these weak arguments.
    Belief of me is not on my list of expectations for you... rest at ease.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Glad you like one line out of a single brief put out by the ACLU, btw. Perhaps sometime you can explain the relevance other than abstract window dressing for your use of roll eye smilies.
    Far be it from me to expect someone with your obvious slant to spot a lie when the ACLU is the author. But please feel free to lecture others about weak arguments. There is obviously nothing wrong with this statement in your eyes... never has.. never will.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #56
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Found that reference I alluded to earlier:

    **EDIT** Found it:
    Tariq Ramadan Denied US Visa
    Tariq Ramadan Denied US Visa
    By Bill West

    Tariq Ramadan, the controversial Swiss Muslim professor previously denied entry into the United States after he was offered a teaching position at Notre Dame two years ago, has officially been denied another US entry visa according to published media reports today as well as a release on Ramadan’s own Web site. Ramadan’s version seems to exculpate him from any links to supporting terrorism. He says the State Department denial letter claims the visa was not issued because he gave a small amount of money to a charity in France that helped Palestinians and this is evidence the US Government believes he does not support terrorism (and that he does not engage in “double-speak”). The media reports indicate a statement from the State Department noting otherwise; that the visa denial was in fact, "based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."

    It is possible the US Government gave the most "publicly releasable" reason in its denial letter. Especially for visa adjudication purposes under US immigration law, contributing money to a charity determined to be a funding funnel for Hamas could constitute support for terrorism no matter how Ramadan and his supporters might try to spin it. And for visa denial purposes, proof need not be anything close to criminal standards nor even court-use standards...it's all administrative action with virtually no due process rights accorded the foreign-based alien...something that still drives those apologists crazy. And this may be only one item of evidence the Government has against him. If so, it is merely what they chose to publicly release in the official denial document because in these visa adjudication proceedings all it takes is one such basis. Something else that drives the apologists nuts.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #57
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Unlike insignificant housewife bloggers what the ACLU says and writes is held under microscopic scrutiny, Scooter. If they lied there'd be an uproar over it. And who named this Brisard an "expert"? Himself? The company who employs him? Like I've said before, if he could do it then so could the U.S. government and its prosecutors.

    Your arguments fail logically, Scooter.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  13. #58
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    Unlike insignificant housewife bloggers what the ACLU says and writes is held under microscopic scrutiny, Scooter. If they lied there'd be an uproar over it. And who named this Brisard an "expert"? Himself? The company who employs him? Like I've said before, if he could do it then so could the U.S. government and its prosecutors.

    Your arguments fail logically, Scooter.
    You fail at reading..

    The blog's experts have given expert evidence to the US Senate and House of Representatives, and to the European Parliament.
    Yup... just some "insignificant housewife".... I knew you'd skip the relevant content... I thought you might read the portion I boldfaced, guess I expected too much of ya.
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 03-01-2007 at 01:35 AM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #59
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,156

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Since you asked what makes him an expert... here is some of his work as he reported to the US Senate and President of the UN Security Council. His credentials solid enough for you now?

    It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the State Department may well be using some of the information he provided in that last article.

    WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JEAN-CHARLES BRISARD

    TERRORISM FINANCING

    Though it does look as if he stepped on it in this occasion.

    An apology by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié to Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Sheikh Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #60
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    You fail at reading..



    Yup... just some "insignificant housewife".... I knew you'd skip the relevant content... I thought you might read the portion I boldfaced, guess I expected too much of ya.
    And you fail at arguing, still. Did I call Brisard an "insignificant housewife"? No. You should watch out when you throw stones, Scooter, as you're better at knocking out your own windows than anyone else's. And perhaps you can show me when Brisard testified to Congress. I'll give you credit: you're sticking with the association thing for both guilt and praise. Just because some members of this so-called expert panel have advised Congress and the EU parliament, it does not follow that Brisard did, that they actually are experts, or that they are correct.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •