Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 89
  1. #61
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    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.
    I love the "insignificant housewife" moniker. Big ego... poor lil woman could not possibly have a valid opinion to vet eh? And I did show where he testified in my last post.. and testified as an EXPERT.
    "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


  2. #62
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    See that?? That's a chronology. No "window dressing", leading, slant or instructions on what to ignore necessary.
    It's too bad I had to post it twice. You could have saved us all time by agreeing the first time I posted it.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    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.
    It seems? It seems what? There is nothing in what you posted that any of your sites has testified in court on behalf of the State Department. Worse is you ignore the fact that the State Department recanted in September on the charges of ties to terror.

    As to dismissing your bloggers, I merely agreed with you that we should listen to what the State Department was saying. Isn't that the agument that you used against Trek?

    Oh I get it, you now choose to ignore your own position?

    Trek wins again.
    Like Orang said. And I'll add I will look forward to seeing this in the State Department brief. Until then, they are not the State Department.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    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.
    "They" as in the State Department are not "compelled to give a reason"?

    Oh come on Scooter. What country do we live in?

    Actually the State Department WAS compelled by a court order in June to give and gave a reason in September.

    Remember? That was after they dropped the ties charge and stated he donated less than a thousand bucks to organizations that were placed on the terror list a year after the last donation.

    While you are searching for something substantial, try something with the State Department's name on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    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.
    If retroactive charges work?

    Do you realize the consequences of your allowance of charges to be made by our government retroactive of a law?

    Give me a break. Your not a conservative.

    And yes, the retroactive charge issue is exactly what the ACLU is asking the court to decide on.

    Let's hope they take a more realistic look at our constitution in the light of how our Executive Branch should operate within our laws then the view of
    your bloggers or you.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I hope you were not under the impression I felt I need your permission. I'll keep mine.. you keep yours.



    Belief of me is not on my list of expectations for you... rest at ease.



    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.
    lol, I have no idea what you are writing about here but I do hope it made you feel better in the light in which you are depending on discredited sources that never gave testimony on behalf of the State Department in reference to this case.

  3. #63
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    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
    Yeah, Chalabi and Curveball gave testimony to our government too and look where they are, lol.

    Brisard didn't step on it, he stepped in it. I have no idea why you even posted that last link, for all it does is discredit your "expert" who had to publish a public apology for admitting the charges in his book were unproven lies.

    Geez, and you think the State Department will use his testimony?

    I love the part where Brisard wrote in his apology on Nov 2006 after being threatened with a court case to prove his position in his book:
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter's expert
    The Book and the Report contain very serious and highly defamatory allegations about Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Sheikh Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz, alleging support for terrorism through their businesses, families and charities, and directly. As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your families, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false.


    The allegations were based on information which we have now been able to establish has been largely withdrawn or refuted in the intervening years since Forbidden Truth was first published, and to our knowledge has never been verified. We did not anticipate at the time the Book and the Report were written that the information which we relied upon would later be withdrawn or refuted. Notwithstanding research into terrorism financing, we have learnt nothing since the publication of the Book and the Report which suggests there is any evidence supporting the allegations. We therefore now unreservedly withdraw all of the allegations about you both in the Book and the Report and confirm that we will never repeat them.


    We appreciate the very serious damage that has been caused to your reputations by these allegations. We also accept that the allegations caused you and your family very great distress. For all of this we are truly sorry.
    Geez. This makes me feel like this guy has got his finger on the pulse of reality just like Chalabi and Curveball did.

    Not to worry, I'm sure we'll see a better position by the State Department when the time comes.

    Until then, try to stay away from these guilty until proven innocent bloggers,Scooter. They are so, well, Taliban to me.

  4. #64
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I love the "insignificant housewife" moniker. Big ego... poor lil woman could not possibly have a valid opinion to vet eh? And I did show where he testified in my last post.. and testified as an EXPERT.
    Actually, I'm still waiting for a response in that thread where you depended on the housewife blogger for your position.

    But since you chose to answer here, I'll respond.

    No one cares about her opinion, scooter, other than perhaps you and the rest of the bloggers who she repeats like an internet virus.

    Let's put it this way. From the sanctity of her living room she reads other rightwing blogs and repeats them. She has no basis, background, or research to back up her opinions other than she has read the same opinion on yet another rightwing blog site and merely regurgitates it.

    She is internet static pure and simple. And you listen to her and post her opinions as ones that support yours.

    hmm...

  5. #65
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

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

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Yeah, Chalabi and Curveball gave testimony to our government too and look where they are, lol.

    Brisard didn't step on it, he stepped in it. I have no idea why you even posted that last link, for all it does is discredit your "expert" who had to publish a public apology for admitting the charges in his book were unproven lies.

    Geez, and you think the State Department will use his testimony?

    I love the part where Brisard wrote in his apology on Nov 2006 after being threatened with a court case to prove his position in his book:


    Geez. This makes me feel like this guy has got his finger on the pulse of reality just like Chalabi and Curveball did.

    Not to worry, I'm sure we'll see a better position by the State Department when the time comes.

    Until then, try to stay away from these guilty until proven innocent bloggers,Scooter. They are so, well, Taliban to me.
    He made a mistake... and owned up to it. Only in your world does this somehow discredit or completely devalue his expertise. Have anything to refute the evidence he has presented regarding our man of the hour? Guess not... easier to harp on mistakes he has admitted to making and has apologized for than actually providing anything of substance to prove him wrong. And we'll both be waiting to see what move the State Department takes next. Until then.. I'll stick with those who do not support terrorists... and you can stick with the ACLU.
    "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. #66
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    He made a mistake... and owned up to it. Only in your world does this somehow discredit or completely devalue his expertise. Have anything to refute the evidence he has presented regarding our man of the hour? Guess not... easier to harp on mistakes he has admitted to making and has apologized for than actually providing anything of substance to prove him wrong. And we'll both be waiting to see what move the State Department takes next. Until then.. I'll stick with those who do not support terrorists... and you can stick with the ACLU.
    Your source was discredited because he was sued and had to give evidence to support his charges and couldn't.

    Your source has not supplied the State Department with testimony, he merely has been replicated on the right wing sites with his charges against Ramadan.

    The State Department's only charges against Ramadan to back their denial of visa are charges that he gave money to an organization that was not on the terror list at that time.

    I differ in your description of the situation at hand regarding our disagreement:

    You believe the rightwing bloggers, I'll choose to read the court documents.

    You can allow our government to retroactively charge someone, I'll watch the court and hope they rectify this travesty of justice.

    You can allow someone to be guilty in the court of blogs, I'll support the courts.

    You can support those self promoting bullies who don't support our laws, I'll support the courts.

    You can believe that the State Department doesn't have to give a reason, I'm happy the court challenged that in June.

    Now where do you see me sticking with the ACLU here? I believe our freedom is defined by our laws. They are merely an instrument and even though you still have given no proof to support the charges against Ramadan, you mock them for representing someone in our courts by saying Ramadan supports terrorists when the government hasn't established that. Oh yeah the bloggers say he's guilty so that's good enough for you. What's the housewife say?

    I have one for you regarding the retroactive enforcement of our laws that you believe in.

    Sad-ham and Bin-Ladel were placed on our terror list. The US government supported them in the past. To be consistent, do you believe we should retroactively go after every official who enabled these guys and paid them money in the past?

  7. #67
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

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

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    It's too bad I had to post it twice. You could have saved us all time by agreeing the first time I posted it.
    Had you posted it just once in the manner I showed in my reply, indeed we could have saved some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    It seems? It seems what? There is nothing in what you posted that any of your sites has testified in court on behalf of the State Department. Worse is you ignore the fact that the State Department recanted in September on the charges of ties to terror.
    So... if they do not testify on behalf of the State Department... the facts they list do not exist? Interesting if just a lil flawed position. Though they recanted their original charges... this does not mean they have no further evidence. They only have to give one reason to deny his Visa.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    As to dismissing your bloggers, I merely agreed with you that we should listen to what the State Department was saying. Isn't that the agument that you used against Trek?
    No. trek tried unsuccessfully on several occasions to state the position of the State department using among other things as evidence... quotes from an OPED by ... guess who... MR. double talk himself... Ramadan.

    While my link might not have been directly to the state department as you pointed out... at least they were quoting the State Department.

    Your pal trek went as far as to try to dismiss the creditability of the counter terrorism site based solely on their geographic location alone. So you'll have to excuse me if I get a bit defensive when people are too fast to discredit a site. I see you do not have much issue with his usage of sources... oh that's right.. he provided you with a link to the ACLU and you gave him absolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Oh I get it, you now choose to ignore your own position?

    Trek wins again.
    New tact?? Ask question... answer question yourself on my behalf... the claim victory on Trek's behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Like Orang said. And I'll add I will look forward to seeing this in the State Department brief. Until then, they are not the State Department.
    Never claimed they were the SD. And remember.. the SD is only compelled to give ONE reason for visa denial. We'll see if any of these make it in.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    "They" as in the State Department are not "compelled to give a reason"?

    Oh come on Scooter. What country do we live in?

    Actually the State Department WAS compelled by a court order in June to give and gave a reason in September.

    Remember? That was after they dropped the ties charge and stated he donated less than a thousand bucks to organizations that were placed on the terror list a year after the last donation.
    Right, then Ramadan went home and was not an issue again until the ACLU filed this recent suit on his behalf.

    Tariq Ramadan Gives Up – Then Tries Again

    I was surprised to learn today that Tariq Ramadan has abandoned his attempt to teach at the University of Notre Dame. Given that the State Department was openly rooting for him to try again, given that the Department of Homeland Security questions were excluded from his immigration interview in Basel, given that the higher education and related lobbies were pulling for him to be allowed in, it seemed only a matter of time until he would be permitted entry to the United States to take up the university position.

    That he has formally resigned from Notre Dame suggests just how solid the DHS evidence against him is. And this, by the way, does not surprise me. A senior DHS official looked me hard in the eyes a few weeks ago and assured me, "The evidence we have is damning."
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    While you are searching for something substantial, try something with the State Department's name on it.

    If retroactive charges work?

    Do you realize the consequences of your allowance of charges to be made by our government retroactive of a law?
    I mean if there is any merit to the charges. At the time Ramadan's own lawyer was not sure if he made the donations before or after the "charities" were put on the list of terrorist organizations.

    Oxford Scholar Denied Visa Due to Alleged Hamas Links

    Mr. Jaffer said Mr. Ramadan is unsure whether any of his gifts came after America banned financial dealings with the groups. "His intent was to support humanitarian work in the Palestinian territories. He's not ashamed of that," the attorney said. Mr. Jaffer said he believes that the government was unaware of the donations until Mr. Ramadan told a consular official about them in an interview in December 2005.
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Give me a break. Your not a conservative.

    And yes, the retroactive charge issue is exactly what the ACLU is asking the court to decide on.
    The retroactive charge is ONE of many tacts the ACLU is trying. And will probably be rendered moot if the SD responds with other reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Let's hope they take a more realistic look at our constitution in the light of how our Executive Branch should operate within our laws then the view of your bloggers or you.
    Realistic... oh.. you mean your and the ACLU's "realism" where we should fight to let terrorists and terrorist enablers into the country. No thank you... I'll stick to being right.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    lol, I have no idea what you are writing about here but I do hope it made you feel better in the light in which you are depending on discredited sources that never gave testimony on behalf of the State Department in reference to this case.
    Thats funny... you seem to be able to understand me all the way up to the point where I quote the ACLU listing a flat lie in Section 2 of their "Statement of Undisputed Facts".

    "II. Professor Ramadan is a consistent and vocal opponent of terrorism and extremism."
    What... did the text turn to scrimshaw on you? Temporary blindness set in??
    "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


  8. #68
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    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?

    ...

    WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JEAN-CHARLES BRISARD

    TERRORISM FINANCING
    Not quite, but thanks.

    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.
    And it's entirely within the realm of possibility that they aren't. Until they bring charges against him and prove him guilty, he is innocent.

    Yes, yes it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I love the "insignificant housewife" moniker. Big ego... poor lil woman could not possibly have a valid opinion to vet eh?
    Opinions mean jack shit, Scooter, especially when it comes to labeling someone as a "terrorist". As we've argued before, opinion != fact/reality/truth.

    And I did show where he testified in my last post.. and testified as an EXPERT.
    Yes, thanks for that. That's what you originally should have done in citing his validity.
    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.

  9. #69
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Gee, back for more? I was just enjoying Byrddroppings blog about crockpot recipes. I hope you have something substantial for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Had you posted it just once in the manner I showed in my reply, indeed we could have saved some time.
    I did post it the same way. All you did was repost it and knock me now for not doing what I actually did.
    My original:
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter's refinement of otoc's post
    Originally Posted by otoc

    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.





    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    So... if they do not testify on behalf of the State Department... the facts they list do not exist? Interesting if just a lil flawed position. Though they recanted their original charges... this does not mean they have no further evidence. They only have to give one reason to deny his Visa.
    If you mean "they" as in the rightwing bloggers, correct. "They" had admitted nothing in court.

    If you mean "they" for the second one, meaning the State Department, they did recant their first reason for ties to terrorists that you keep saying is current, and gave the latest reason after being forced by our courts in agreement with the ACLU's case. Again, we are in disagreement that laws should apply retroactively. A matter that he court will have to decide on. Be patient. We'll see who the court agrees with in due time. So what is your point here? That the State Department can whip up any ol' excuse and you'll be satisfied? My. We are different in our views. I seem to be a bit more conservative than you.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    No. trek tried unsuccessfully on several occasions to state the position of the State department using among other things as evidence... quotes from an OPED by ... guess who... MR. double talk himself... Ramadan.
    I don't know what thread you were reading, but Trek pulled from and linked to court documents. You still don't get that?

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    While my link might not have been directly to the state department as you pointed out... at least they were quoting the State Department.
    OH, right... They offered no quotes from State that were footnoted. They did offer a lot of sites they were linked to regarding their take on the matter of proof of Ramadan's ties. Too bad the State Department didn't support their position and dropped those charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Your pal trek went as far as to try to dismiss the creditability of the counter terrorism site based solely on their geographic location alone. So you'll have to excuse me if I get a bit defensive when people are too fast to discredit a site. I see you do not have much issue with his usage of sources... oh that's right.. he provided you with a link to the ACLU and you gave him absolution.
    What part of reality do you miss? I clearly stated I thanked Trek for the link to court documents so that I could read what happened. You offered rightwing self promoting bloggers. Clearly that was my only point on the matter. One you still refuse to see for you still haven't supplied anything in spite of your outrage with Trek for using court documents written by the Judge on the case when all you had was discredited bloggers perpetuating the same story.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    New tact?? Ask question... answer question yourself on my behalf... the claim victory on Trek's behalf.
    No, not a new tact. Just a response after asking you numerous times to try to use information from the State Department instead of rightwing bloggers. To refresh your memory, I wrote that in direct response to you criticising Trek for using court documents written by the Judge on the case when all you had was discredited bloggers perpetuating the same story.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Never claimed they were the SD. And remember.. the SD is only compelled to give ONE reason for visa denial. We'll see if any of these make it in.
    No, but you did criticise Trek for actually using court documents while you never used the State Department yourself. Gee, am I repeating myself here?

    You minimise the fact that the State Department dropped serious charges because they had no evidence. Instead they retroactively applied a law. Hmm, you never did respond on that one did you?



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Right, then Ramadan went home and was not an issue again until the ACLU filed this recent suit on his behalf.

    Tariq Ramadan Gives Up – Then Tries Again
    WOW, I love it. Once again you post links that destroy your position.

    This blogger entry is from 2004, scooter. Your source states in 2004 that "A senior DHS official looked me hard in the eyes a few weeks ago and assured me, "The evidence we have is damning."

    A later post in 2006 states "
    Apr. 14, 2006 update: The court case noted in the Mar. 15, 2006 update above is now underway and it is leaving observers puzzled.
    Papers the government presented at a hearing in federal court in New York revealed that, contrary to officials' statements, a clause in the USA Patriot Act that bans any foreigner who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" was not the reason Mr. Ramadan's United States visa was revoked. The government also said it did not intend to bar Mr. Ramadan in the future based on that clause.


    But the government also said that Mr. Ramadan's case had been and remained a national security matter, and that statements he made in recent interviews with American consular officials in Switzerland had raised new "serious questions" about whether he should be allowed to come to the United States."
    So now you can read the State Department has not denied his visa due to the "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" clause.



    Your blogger seems to have lost interest in this case because there is no mention of the February 2007 filings. Perhaps you should too.


    continued on part 2...

  10. #70
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I mean if there is any merit to the charges. At the time Ramadan's own lawyer was not sure if he made the donations before or after the "charities" were put on the list of terrorist organizations.

    Oxford Scholar Denied Visa Due to Alleged Hamas Links
    What? That's hardly an answer to the question regarding retroactive application of our laws. If the charges are true?

    hmm, and your position rides on the fact that Ramadan's lawyers had just heard the new charges of funding and hadn't had time to check the facts in September?
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter's link
    Mr. Ramadan, who is referred to by some as the Muslim Martin Luther, was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world. However, he has been dogged by allegations that his writings and speeches excuse or justify terrorism. Mr. Ramadan has repeatedly expressed opposition to terrorism, but several Islamic extremists jailed for terrorist activities have claimed inspiration from the Muslim scholar. When Mr. Ramadan was awarded the Notre Dame faculty position, the State Department issued him a work visa. However, in July 2004, the visa was revoked after the government said it received new information about Mr. Ramadan. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russell Knocke, said at the time that the scholar was being excluded under a legal provision targeting those who have used a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity."


    Mr. Ramadan said yesterday that the government has now retreated from that claim. "I am glad that the State Department has abandoned its allegation that I endorse terrorism," he said.


    Mr. Cooper declined to identify the groups that received the donations that allegedly led to the visa denial. A statement posted on Mr. Ramadan's Web site did not name them, but described them as "humanitarian organizations" which are legal in Europe but have been banned from fund-raising in America. "The U.S. government apparently believes that the organizations to which I gave small amounts of money have in turn given money to Hamas," he wrote.


    A New York Sun review of sanctions lists issued by the Treasury Department quickly identified the groups as the Paris-based Comité de Bienfaisance et Secours aux Palestiniens, and Association de Secours Palestinien, based in Basel, Switzerland. The organizations were blacklisted by American authorities in August 2003, days after Hamas claimed responsibility for a bomb attack that killed 23 passengers on a Jerusalem bus. A spokesman for the French group was not available yesterday. The Swiss office appears to have closed.


    Mr. Jaffer said Mr. Ramadan is unsure whether any of his gifts came after America banned financial dealings with the groups. "His intent was to support humanitarian work in the Palestinian territories. He's not ashamed of that," the attorney said. Mr. Jaffer said he believes that the government was unaware of the donations until Mr. Ramadan told a consular official about them in an interview in December 2005.
    This was the damning evidence brought on by Ramadan talking to consular officials? He gave a few bucks to organizations? Thanks for the link, scooter.

    Regardless, after having time to review the charges, the answer was 2002. That's why the papers were filed with the court in 2007 to question the State Department's position that retroactive applications of law are unconstitutional.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The retroactive charge is ONE of many tacts the ACLU is trying. And will probably be rendered moot if the SD responds with other reasons.
    I love the world of your probables in debate here. Constitutional law is a tact?

    What if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? What if.. oh never mind.

    The State Department will simply have to offer proof for the retroactive applications of law will be cut down. But so far they haven't.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Realistic... oh.. you mean your and the ACLU's "realism" where we should fight to let terrorists and terrorist enablers into the country. No thank you... I'll stick to being right.
    I'm sorry, where did you possibly get this ridiculous notion? From some rightwing blog?

    Please don't insult my character, patriotism, or intelligence here.

    To date, the only charge the State Department has offered is funding known terrorist organizations a year before they were discovered to be terrorist organizations.

    Think about that.

    While I know you stick to the right, it doesn't make you correct.

    I've been polite and patient with you. I expect the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Thats funny... you seem to be able to understand me all the way up to the point where I quote the ACLU listing a flat lie in Section 2 of their "Statement of Undisputed Facts".
    I'm sorry, you pulled a single line out of a myriad of filed documents and never did offer any proof that it was a lie other than you said so.

    What can I say. The State Department dropped those charges. So how is it a lie? Got proof for your statement that the single line is a lie? I mean other than the myriad of cross linked rightwing sites that I count as one and operate outside of the law enforcement agencies by publishing innuendo to gain clicks as opposed to working with the government to truly stop terrorists.

    And where's the answer to my question to you as to whether we should charge the officials of the US with retroactive endorsement and support of known terrorists (Sad-ham, Bin-Ladel) since you feel retroactive application of law is the correct thing to do?



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    What... did the text turn to scrimshaw on you? Temporary blindness set in??
    WTF, Scooter. Insult time again. Because you can't find words? My my, I'm impressed.

  11. #71
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Gee, back for more? I was just enjoying Byrddroppings blog about crockpot recipes. I hope you have something substantial for me.


    I did post it the same way. All you did was repost it and knock me now for not doing what I actually did.
    My original:


    This bears little resemblance to the original post whose contents filled more real estate than could be fit onto the display of a 20" monitor.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    If you mean "they" as in the rightwing bloggers, correct. "They" had admitted nothing in court.
    I mean.. when formulating an opinion on this fellow you might want to expand your field past who testifies to the State Department. Your call.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    If you mean "they" for the second one, meaning the State Department, they did recant their first reason for ties to terrorists that you keep saying is current, and gave the latest reason after being forced by our courts in agreement with the ACLU's case. Again, we are in disagreement that laws should apply retroactively. A matter that he court will have to decide on. Be patient. We'll see who the court agrees with in due time. So what is your point here? That the State Department can whip up any ol' excuse and you'll be satisfied? My. We are different in our views. I seem to be a bit more conservative than you.
    Interesting point that keeps coming up that I cannot verify. Perhaps you can find a SD link. It's been stated the SD dropped their reason for denying his first application due to terrorist ties. I find no mention from the SD itself. I see a lot of references to Tariq's claims as to the contents of a letter he got from the SD. And his claims he was kept out purely due to "ideological exclusion". But every reference I see from the SD stated he was denied "for providing material support to a terrorist organization". Officials' statements seem to be conflicting here.

    The ACLU document here, page 7:

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

    Simply quotes an LA times article, not the SD. If the letter cleared him.. He should have reapplied at that time as the SD invited him to do.

    If the SD can come up with another valid reason.. then yes indeed I'll be satisfied.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I don't know what thread you were reading, but Trek pulled from and linked to court documents. You still don't get that?
    Go back a lil further.. Trek linked and referenced the OPED by Tariq claiming it was the SD.

    Here:
    As for the State Dept issue, perhaps you missed this:

    And here:

    You also left out this part:


    Well before the ACLU linkage was provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    OH, right... They offered no quotes from State that were footnoted. They did offer a lot of sites they were linked to regarding their take on the matter of proof of Ramadan's ties. Too bad the State Department didn't support their position and dropped those charges.
    I still see not evidence of the dropped charges from the SD. And the SD only needs to cite one example. We'll have to wait and see what they pursue next.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    What part of reality do you miss? I clearly stated I thanked Trek for the link to court documents so that I could read what happened. You offered rightwing self promoting bloggers. Clearly that was my only point on the matter. One you still refuse to see for you still haven't supplied anything in spite of your outrage with Trek for using court documents written by the Judge on the case when all you had was discredited bloggers perpetuating the same story.
    You hammered me for using bloggers as a source... even when they were quoting the SD. Gave a pass to Trek for attempting to use Geographic location as "substantial" proof to refute their findings. And attempting to use Tariq's OPED as quotes from the SD. Just pointing out the Double standard. Your outrage seems to be "selective".

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    No, not a new tact. Just a response after asking you numerous times to try to use information from the State Department instead of rightwing bloggers. To refresh your memory, I wrote that in direct response to you criticising Trek for using court documents written by the Judge on the case when all you had was discredited bloggers perpetuating the same story.
    You asked a question... answered it yourself on my behalf.. then claimed victory for Trek w/o giving opportunity for me to respond. I think I have just cause to point that out.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    No, but you did criticise Trek for actually using court documents while you never used the State Department yourself. Gee, am I repeating myself here?

    You minimise the fact that the State Department dropped serious charges because they had no evidence. Instead they retroactively applied a law. Hmm, you never did respond on that one did you?
    Again.. I do not see where the SD dropped the charges. And we will have to wait and see if they continue to use the retroactively applied a law in their response.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    WOW, I love it. Once again you post links that destroy your position.

    This blogger entry is from 2004, scooter. Your source states in 2004 that "A senior DHS official looked me hard in the eyes a few weeks ago and assured me, "The evidence we have is damning."

    A later post in 2006 states "
    Apr. 14, 2006 update: The court case noted in the Mar. 15, 2006 update above is now underway and it is leaving observers puzzled.
    Papers the government presented at a hearing in federal court in New York revealed that, contrary to officials' statements, a clause in the USA Patriot Act that bans any foreigner who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" was not the reason Mr. Ramadan's United States visa was revoked. The government also said it did not intend to bar Mr. Ramadan in the future based on that clause.


    But the government also said that Mr. Ramadan's case had been and remained a national security matter, and that statements he made in recent interviews with American consular officials in Switzerland had raised new "serious questions" about whether he should be allowed to come to the United States."
    So now you can read the State Department has not denied his visa due to the "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" clause.
    The sources I have directly quoting the SD state he was denied for:

    “for providing material support to a terrorist organization.
    “The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization.”
    I do not see my "case" being destroyed here. What he appears to be being kept out for is hardly a cause for celebration.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Your blogger seems to have lost interest in this case because there is no mention of the February 2007 filings. Perhaps you should too.
    Perhaps because the SD has not reached a decision yet? Who knows. I'll get to part 2 later.
    "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. #72
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    In bed with one of my avatar AMD girls :D
    Age
    39
    Posts
    8,876

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

    Scooter get real,do I have to quote you?
    It says MAY HAVE endorsed or supported terrorism.
    Like another poster said,untill the goverment can prove they actually did so then uhh theres nothing to dispute.
    Get real man,im really starting to question your view on reality especially after seeing this post I mean do you in your mind really beleive that the ACLU is so evil they want terrorists to enter the country?
    LOL you righties are something else,such feeble arguments that woudlnt hold up in a court of law if your life depended on it

  13. #73
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Thanks scooter. This was a pleasant response.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    This bears little resemblance to the original post...
    That doesn't take away I had to post it twice to get your attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    .. when formulating an opinion on this fellow you might want to expand your field past who testifies to the State Department.
    Why? It has gone to the courts. I did review all of your links. I came to the conclusion that while they used single lines from State, they also patted themselves on the back for having evidence, and kept to the false belief that Ramadan was guilty of things he never was charged on.

    I went with Trek's ACLU link to the actual court documents and ruling by the Judge.

    If the bloggers have proof, they should submit it. But as your link showed, one of the interlinked bloggers has had to recant his methods in a similar situation when pressed by a lawsuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Interesting point that keeps coming up that I cannot verify. Perhaps you can find a SD link.
    Scooter, the state department has repeatedly stated they don't comment on visa cases so information from them is limited. We have some interviews by the press as the court opinion shows.

    Both Trektari and I posted links to the NY case where the judges ruling clearly stated that because State had not disclosed charges and had to by September.

    What's there to understand here? Even your link that I highlighted in an earlier post of mine showed the same thing with your blogger source complaining that State never pressed charges of ties to terrorists.

    According to that court document that Trek tried to get you to talk about, the State Department was told to have Homeland Security decide on his visa or give a reason. And they did. The retroactive charge. That's all we have right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The ACLU document here, page 7:
    If the SD can come up with another valid reason.. then yes indeed I'll be satisfied.
    The judge's opinion states many things, some of which you seem to choose to ignore.

    Page 6:
    In January 2004, however, Ramadan accepted a long-term tenured teaching position at University of Notre Dame, prompting the need for an H-1B visa.

    The University of Notre Dame submitted a visa petition on
    Ramadan’s behalf, which was approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on May 5, 2004.

    With the H-1B visa approved, Ramadan and his family made arrangements to move to South Bend, Indiana. On July 28, 2004, however, only one week before Ramadan was scheduled to move (and after all his furniture had already been shipped to Indiana), the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland informed Ramadan by telephone that his visa had been revoked.

    Consular officials did not provide an explanation for the revocation, but told Ramadan that he was welcome to reapply.

    One month later, on August 25, 2004, the Los Angeles Times
    reported on the revocation of Ramadan’s visa:
    Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, said the work visa was revoked because of a section in federal law that applies to aliens who have used a ‘position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.’

    He said the revocation was based on ‘public safety or national
    security interests,’ but would not elaborate.
    DHS’s statement is the only explanation on record for the revocation. As will be explained later, the Government now states, without explanation or elaboration, that this statement was “erroneous.”
    page 10:
    In opposing the instant motion for a preliminary injunction, the Government argues that Ramadan “has never had a visa revoked, a visa application denied, or any other adverse action taken against him” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).

    In fact, the Government claims that Ramadan’s visa application was never denied on any basis at all, because the July 2004 revocation was only a “prudential” revocation, which is not a denial, but rather is a means of cancelling a visa while the Government carries on additional investigation.

    Thereafter, the Government continued to investigate Ramadan’s case from July through December 2004. This investigation was mooted, however, after Ramadan resigned his post at the University of Notre Dame in December 2004, since an H-1B visa is premised upon employment in the United States, and Ramadan no longer had nor sought such employment.

    Thus, the Government contends that it never actually denied Ramadan a visa.

    As to the September 2005 application for a B visa, the Government contends that it has not denied Ramadan a visa, as the application is still under active consideration.
    So no, Ramadan was never denied a visa for ties. But the bloggers seem to know something the government doesn't.

    And as the judge stated (page 33), the government had to give a reason within 90 days of his ruling of June 2006.

    If the Government has a legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding Ramadan, then it may exclude him, but it must do so by acting on the pending visa application, not by studying Ramadan’s application indefinitely, while hoping for more supportive evidence to appear in the future.

    Ramadan’s voluminous books, articles and speeches provide more than an adequate basis for review.

    His frequent visits to the United States, including a visit to the State Department in October 2003, provide ample first-hand insight into Ramadan’s views.

    The record suggests that the Government has more than adequate information at hand to decide this matter. Moreover, the Government has a nondiscretionary obligation to render a decision on every visa application. See 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.106, 41.121. The Government studied this matter from January 2004 through December 2004, and then from September 2005 to date. That is more than adequate time for adjudication of Ramadan’s pending visa application.

    Out of an excess of caution, however, the Court will give the Government another ninety (90) days from the date of this Order to adjudicate Ramadan’s pending application for a B visa.

    If the Government fails to issue a formal decision on Ramadan’s pending application by this date, the Court will consider such other alternatives as are available and appropriate.
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Go back a lil further.. Trek linked and referenced the OPED by Tariq claiming it was the SD.
    I'm not debating every link that Trek gave. The important point is he linked to the court documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Here:

    And here:
    Well before the ACLU linkage was provided.
    Scooter, I'm not going to go over every post that Trek had with you. My position is he linked to court documents that clearly stated what's going on here.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I still see not evidence of the dropped charges from the SD. And the SD only needs to cite one example. We'll have to wait and see what they pursue next.
    All I can hope is you see it now.

    The visa has been denied because of retroactive donations made a year before the organization was placed on the list.

    This is hardly a case where the ACLU is trying to allow a terrorist from gaining entry into this country by what has been submitted to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    You hammered me for using bloggers as a source... even when they were quoting the SD. Gave a pass to Trek for attempting to use Geographic location as "substantial" proof to refute their findings. And attempting to use Tariq's OPED as quotes from the SD. Just pointing out the Double standard. Your outrage seems to be "selective".
    I hammered you because the bloggers were stating old charges that went away, were never supported, and never used court documents.

    Trek gave the link for the actual court case.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    You asked a question... answered it yourself on my behalf.. then claimed victory for Trek w/o giving opportunity for me to respond. I think I have just cause to point that out.
    I made my opinion clear when I entered this thread. You've had plenty of time to defend your position, but still seem to miss some very significant points in your desire to show the ACLU as a supporter of terrorists.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Again.. I do not see where the SD dropped the charges. And we will have to wait and see if they continue to use the retroactively applied a law in their response.
    As far as the ties to terrorists that you linked to, I hope you do now.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The sources I have directly quoting the SD state he was denied for:
    Quote:
    “for providing material support to a terrorist organization.
    “The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization.”

    I do not see my "case" being destroyed here. What he appears to be being kept out for is hardly a cause for celebration.
    Most of your links were much older than the September 2006 ruling that was forced by the court in June and not writing about making those retroactive payments, but "documented" ties that never came to light.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Perhaps because the SD has not reached a decision yet? Who knows. I'll get to part 2 later.
    The State Department reached a decision. It was retroactive donations. The issue has not been decided in court yet.
    I look forward to your additional responses.

  14. #74
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Thanks scooter. This was a pleasant response.
    Gonna cut this a bit short... hope ya don't mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Scooter, the state department has repeatedly stated they don't comment on visa cases so information from them is limited. We have some interviews by the press as the court opinion shows.

    Both Trektari and I posted links to the NY case where the judges ruling clearly stated that because State had not disclosed charges and had to by September.
    But it has been stated several times that the SD backed out of the "terror" charges they made on their original Visa denial back in 2004. The court documents state:

    In fact, the Government claims that Ramadan’s visa application was never denied on any basis at all, because the July 2004 revocation was only a “prudential” revocation, which is not a denial, but rather is a means of cancelling a visa while the Government carries on additional investigation.

    Thereafter, the Government continued to investigate Ramadan’s case from July through December 2004. This investigation was mooted, however, after Ramadan resigned his post at the University of Notre Dame in December 2004, since an H-1B visa is premised upon employment in the United States, and Ramadan no longer had nor sought such employment.
    Why would the SD issue an apology if the visa was not denied on any basis at all but instead still under investigation? Tariq still claims the contents of the letter he got from the SD "cleared" him of terror charges. What terror charges? We both know I'm of the opinion that this guy is a double-talking liar. If the letter "cleared" him as he claims, why not produce it as evidence instead of presenting articles quoting him in a paper as evidence? If you were in his position and had a letter from the SD "clearing" you of terrorist ties.. I'm pretty damn sure you'd bring it to court as evidence. IMHO the "letter" he speaks of says nothing of the sort.... If it exists at all. I hope that clears my point on the 2004 denial and supposed SD withdrawl.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    What's there to understand here? Even your link that I highlighted in an earlier post of mine showed the same thing with your blogger source complaining that State never pressed charges of ties to terrorists.
    Pressed charges? They were merely denying his Visa. Not trying to prosecute him. Or do you mean pursued that line for denying his Visa?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    This is hardly a case where the ACLU is trying to allow a terrorist from gaining entry into this country by what has been submitted to date.
    I disagree. IMHO Tariq has a pretty well documented track record. I hardly think that even you can say with a straight face that this guy does not have some pretty obvious ties with terrorists. While we both know little of that will come to light as "evidence" in a visa denial. This is not a trial for terrorism.. its a visa application. On that note.. what is your opinion of Tariq?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The State Department reached a decision. It was retroactive donations. The issue has not been decided in court yet.
    I look forward to your additional responses.
    Yup.. the waiting game.
    "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. #75
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,840

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Gonna cut this a bit short... hope ya don't mind.
    not at all, I'll do the same.

    I came into this thread because of your post below.

    It seems from what I read in your last response, you now use the court documents from June (though still use soundbites instead of the final opinion), see where your original linked posts were incorrect (you know, the links to terrorists, lol), and now feel it is time to wait to see what is about to happen in the courts.

    I'm satisfied now that you no longer agree with your first post's position:
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter's opening position
    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.

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

    Quote:
    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.

    The American Civil Liberties Union filed the papers attacking the policy in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The group included in its submissions a written declaration in which the scholar, Tariq Ramadan, said he has always “opposed terrorism not only through my words but also through my actions.”

    The ACLU said schools and organizations who want to invite Ramadan and others into the United States are concerned about what is known as the ideological exclusion provision.

    It said an entry in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual says that the provision is directed at those who have voiced “irresponsible expressions of opinion.”

    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 ACLU said some foreign scholars and writers are now reluctant to accept invitations to the United States because they will be subjected to ideological scrutiny and possibly denied entry.

    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.

    Ramadan said in court papers the donation was for humanitarian aid and he would not have given it “if I had thought my money would be used for terrorism or any other illegal purpose.”

    Before his visa was revoked in 2004, Ramadan had spoken at Harvard University, Stanford University and elsewhere. He said he continues to decline numerous invitations to appear in the United States, including a request by The American Academy of Religion to speak next November at its annual meeting.
    Goes without saying that CAIR still supports him..

    CAIR Continues to Support Tariq Ramadan, Excluded From Entry For His Actions

    [Quote:]CAIR Continues to Support Tariq Ramadan, Excluded From Entry For His Actions
    By Andrew Cochran

    Tariq Ramadan, who was denied a visa to enter the U.S. last September, has written an article for "The Chronicle of Higher Education" in which he asserts once again that his denial was due to his criticism of American foreign policy and a general "fear of ideas." The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chose to highlight a link to Ramadan's article on its home page and include more text on another page.

    Clearly CAIR management wanted to support Ramadan's efforts to show that the Administration excluded Ramadan for political reasons with no reference to his own actions. We've already been through Ramadan's own actions which merited his exclusion, but since CAIR and Ramadan choose to continue their propaganda campaign instead of living in reality, here is what I wrote on October 2 of last year, with links to numerous posts by our Contributing Experts:

    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.
    [/quote]

    Trek wins for the fact that you can now see the cse the ACLU brought before the court in February of this year contained far more points than the one point the AP picked up the same day all those documents were filed.

    Trek wins for the fact that your second link showed accusations that were never brought up by State after they said the Homeland security rep was in error in commenting on why Ramadan's visa was revoked. He pointed us to the court documents. You pointed us to bloggers making claims.

    Trek wins for the fact that it took you untold pages to come to this conclusion that is directly in opposition of your original position that the ACLU defends terror supporters, that Ramandan had ties, and that, as proven by the court documents, the only reason State revoked his Visa (causing him to lose a job) was that he made retroactive donations to groups not classified at that time as having ties to terror.

    I can't say it was fun, scooter. It took us all this time to get you to realize that court is where we will find out what the government has on Ramada and not your bloggers like Counterterrorism.org

Posting Permissions

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