DAVID ROSMAN: Banning Sharia law is fearmongering and unconstitutional

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 | 12:01 a.m. CDT; updated 9:32 a.m. CDT, Wednesday, April 6, 2011

It is apparently not enough that our legislators in Washington, D.C., have held hearings on terrorism focusing only on our Muslim brethren. Now Rep. Don Wells, R-Cabool, wants to attack Islam by proposing yet another unnecessary and possibly federally unconstitutional amendment to Missouri’s constitution. And Rep. John Cauthorn, R-Mexico, who represents a portion of eastern Columbia and Boone County, has joined Wells’ team.

Their problem? Sharia law. Really?

This is an example of fear mongering — attacking an issue based on fear and misunderstanding, using propaganda and no facts — at its best.

House Joint Resolution 31, is specifically written to prohibit Missouri courts from using Sharia or international law in their deliberation.

A search of Missouri courts and the State Courts Administrator website shows no incident in which Sharia law has been considered in Missouri courts. The state Supreme Court verified this fact.

I called Wells’ office to seek his reasoning for wanting this action, especially after a similar amendment in Oklahoma has been put on hold by the U.S. District Court. He has not returned these calls. Rep. Cauthorn did tell me he was not familiar with the resolution. So why did he sign as a co-sponsor?

In Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, et al. (Nov. 2010), the Federal Western District Court of Oklahoma was asked if the specific exclusion of Sharia law in a state constitutional amendment might conflict with the U.S. Constitution. What the court must decide is this: If the rule of the majority is in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can the will of the people be wrong?

The short answer, at least for now: Yes, there is a conflict, and the people can be mistaken. In such cases, federal laws take precedence. Even with the 2010 approval by more than 70 percent of voting Oklahoma residents, the amendment to the state constitution appears to violate the letter and intent of the First Amendment's establishment clause, as well as Oklahoma’s own Bill of Rights.

If the U.S. District Court’s decision in Awad v. Ziriax holds, HJR 31 will meet the same fate. Awad is now in the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, receiving opening written briefs.

I have already suggested Reps. Mike McGee and Jay Barnes are grandstanding for votes by supporting proposed Missouri constitutional amendments to permit Christian prayer in public places, though there is no prohibition in law. The government is only prohibited from sanctioning such prayer.

With the addition of Wells’ bill, these proposed amendments, all needing public vote, become more worrisome. They are designed to instill fear, loathing and distrust in those of the Muslim faith.

These proposals are designed as a direct assault on the Constitution, the First Amendment and our founders’ concept that temporal and sectarian laws should remain separate but equal partners. I firmly believe that the men and women supporting these proposed resolutions in Jefferson City remain constitutionally illiterate.

Rep. Cauthorn needs to withdraw his support of HJR 31. The threat is not Sharia law, but attempts to circumvent the United States and Missouri constitutions and the founding principles of our government.

Reps. Kelly, Quill, Still and Webber must argue vehemently the unconstitutionality of HJR 31 and stop it before Missouri is embarrassed in the eyes of the world.

David Rosman is an award-winning editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in communications, ethics, business and politics. You can read more of David’s commentaries at and New York Journal of

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Brandi Eave April 6, 2011 | 8:58 a.m.

Opinion writers like Rosman should come with a declaration of their bias upfront. Clearly, he's appears to be a far-left liberal shill with little objectivity. Didn't he have a duty to tell you about the Muslim Brotherhood plan to destroy America for Islamic supremacy that was in place many, many years before it was discovered in 2004, for fair balance? It laid out their detailed goals to use their numerous network of Islamic organizations here and those of their friends to destroy us from within. The first organziation listed is the Islamic Society of North America.

Muslim Brotherhood plan:

Awad, who sued the state of Oklahoma, is the chapter director of CAIR Oklahoma. CAIR National was started by leaders of an overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Two top leaders of CAIR have stated, in print, they want Islamic law here. So, let's be clear, CAIR is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure here.

Do you see a problem?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 6, 2011 | 9:39 a.m.

Brandi, maybe when the Christian:Muslim ratio in the US is much closer than the current 13:1 proportion, I'll be more concerned about the Shariah law boogeyman.

(Report Comment)
Sherry Cooper April 6, 2011 | 9:50 a.m.

13:1?? lol no, it's more like 100:1. Muslims make up only 1 percent of the population. There are about 6 million of them. Hmm 6 million. What an ironic number. You know the genocide of muslims by crazy fear mongering people like Brandi is just round the corner.

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan April 6, 2011 | 10:07 a.m.

An opinion is not a bias. And if opinion were the same as bias, what does Brandi want? A State license for columnists? Mr. Rosman does not have to say what Brandi wants him to say. This is still the USA and Mr. Rosman can say or omit whatever he pleases. And I am free to do the same. And so is Brandi. And that is the end of it.

(Report Comment)
Brandi Eave April 6, 2011 | 10:27 a.m.

Of course an opinion can be biased.

Let me also mention that a top Muslim leader in Oklahoma, the director of the Islamic school in Tulsa, said in the local newspaper that Muslims want sharia law to settle many of their affairs. A person with virtually the same name was listed in the Muslim Brotherhood phonebook with a Tulsa phone number that was used as evidence in the largest Hamas terror-funding case in U.S. history. And, the majority of mosques in Oklahoma are linked or partner with the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in America.

Take a minute to review a report done last November of all the sharia law cases in the U.S. as of that point in time. In Maryland, for example, a man was awarded custody of the child over the mother per sharia.

19 page pdf file:

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire April 6, 2011 | 11:05 a.m.

Oh my GOD!!!

Send them to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 6, 2011 | 11:36 a.m.

I made it through about 10 of the cases in the referenced PDF file and only saw one case where Shariah was used in a case that was decided in the plaintiff's favor.

(Report Comment)
Khalid Shah April 6, 2011 | 2:04 p.m.

Thank you David for this fine article. Below I am copying an email I have sent to friends in which I also reference your article. This is how it starts. We have seen it in history. We as a nation criticize (rightly) other nations when they start abusing or marginalizing their minorities but it seems many of our own citizens are oblivious to the same tendencies within us. Thank you again for your good stand for the principles of this nation.

My letter is below
Hope everyone is doing well. All is well with and me and we pray that all remains well with you and your families. As Muslims living in USA there is a little growing concern with unwarranted legislative activities. Mr Kings hearings in DC are reminiscent of Sen. McCarthy’s hearings and had the potential of being equally chilling on the position of Muslims in our society. A number of states have also attempted bills aimed at Muslims including, sadly, our state of Missouri. There is a joint resolution proposed banning courts from considering Islamic/Sharia Law in their decisions. As an article in today’s Columbia Missourian points out there hasn’t been a single instance of any court in Missouri ever considering Sharia Law. It seems like a good time to let our representatives meet with us and our friends. ACLU has arranged for April 13 to be a Muslim Day at Jeff. City. Please also help spread word of it to others you know.

This is not just about this resolution but its intent which is to marginalize the USA Muslim minority. If it is not possible for you to join us, please do pray that we have a good trip and are able to work to reverse these ominous trends for Muslims living in America.


For those who like a bit of trivia: There is a bit of irony to this resolution as American Civil Law is generally seen as coming out of English Law and now it has been shown quite strongly the English Law was taken from Islamic/Sharia Law. The Normans, before they conquered England, had conquered Sicily (they did get around!) which was at that time Muslim. From there they brought the books of Sharia Law which seem to have been used to write the initial English Law (given some legal points that are identical to the older Muslim Laws). But the whole idea of having laws to which all, including the Monarch/Ruler, must abide seems to have suggested to the English from this contact with Islamic Law. Today Sharia Law is used as a consideration in England is cases involving Muslims. Laws are about equity and maintaining a civil society and from all counts use of Sharia Law, where appropriate, has been positive in UK.

(Report Comment)
Brandi Eave April 6, 2011 | 2:23 p.m.

There are two others cases where sharia was upheld. A 2003 Texas divorce case where the appeals court ruled for the sharia-based arbitration agreement. And there is one case under appeal now in Florida involving a dispute over a mosque. The lower court judge ruled that sharia would be followed last month. So, it appears that some states believe if you agree to arbitration using sharia that it is enforcable even if you may have more rights without it. The laws being considered by numerous states this year may not allow sharia to prevail in arbitration agreements and in other cases to preserve certain rights.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 6, 2011 | 2:42 p.m.

"Muslims make up only 1 percent of the population. There are about 6 million of them."

One needs to add all the other liberal Americans who seem ready to jump in bed so as to be politically correct and then see what we've got. Trouble, in my view. There was a time when Adolph Hitler and his little Brown Shirted band were perceived as unable to cause any real problems.

When a threat is received, now, especially, the recipient should take it seriously. Only 6M Muslims in USA, but what a drive to get their law recognized with ours? Why?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm April 6, 2011 | 2:49 p.m.


The proper comparison would be between the persecuted minority here (Muslims) and the persecuted minority in Germany (Jews). The other comparison is between the persecutors in Germany (Nazis) and the persecutors here (people like you and Brandi).

(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 6, 2011 | 3:12 p.m.

Well said, Jack. In 2008 the conservative mantra was "vote for us or you'll die". Now it's "you didn't vote for us, so you're gonna die". And I still have my bibles and guns stacked by the front door, so when our Muslim president comes for them, they will be handy. And Grandma died of government intrusion, not an anyurism. Where is my communist utopia they promised? Stir up the uninformed and you will get votes. America was founded on religious freedom for all, not just the ones you want. Brandi says she has 2 cases, one a custody dipute, the other unresolved. Religion should be considered in a custody dispute. A "similar" name in the phone book? Like Abdula and Abdulla? Surely there CAN'T be 2 Muslims with names that similar!! Can you say Fred Phelps? Baptists will be the next ones to go after. Or will it be the Catholics?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 6, 2011 | 3:25 p.m.

Like I said, better count the liberals.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 6, 2011 | 3:32 p.m.

In some cases, courts have ruled that Christian Scientist parents whose child died of a medically curable illness were not guilty of child abuse. As long as courts consider sharia (or any other religious law) in the context of personal matters it is intended to address, then I don't see any problem with courts using it.

This has nothing to do with the imposition of sharia on American secular society.


(Report Comment)
Brandi Eave April 6, 2011 | 4:05 p.m.

Well, if the court ruled in favor of a religious believe that was detrimental to a child's well-being, that was wrong. Courts have also taken these parents to court for the child's sake and I hope they continue to do so. An innocent child has a right to life.

Last September a report came out about Sharia that's worth reviewing titled National Security Experts: Shariah Law Is 'Preeminent Totalitarian Threat of Our Time'

"...These non-violent Islamists, led predominantly by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in America, practice what the analysts termed a “civilization jihad” that seeks to undermine Western civilization and replace it with Shariah.

"The prime practitioners of this stealthy form of jihad are the ostensibly 'non-violent' Muslim Brothers and their front groups and affiliates," the report says. "It must always be kept in mind that such tactics are 'non-violent' not because the Brotherhood eschews violence out of principle, but rather because it has decided that this phase of battlefield preparation is better accomplished through stealthy means. The violence is always implicit in the overall strategy, albeit held in reserve for the final stages of the offensive. It is the combined effect of the violent and pre-violent strains of jihad that constitutes the most serious threat to America and its free people.

According to the report, the Muslim Brotherhood was operating in the United States long before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks alerted Americans generally to Islamist threat to the homeland. "[T]he Muslim Brotherhood has been in this country for decades and is an existential threat to American society and the fundamental liberties ordained and established by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution," says the report. "Its own mission statement asserts that 'the Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions...'

"Ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood intends for America to live under shariah," says the report.

BTW, two of CAIR's top leaders have said, in print, they want Islamic law as the source of the laws here.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 6, 2011 | 4:25 p.m.

Brandi, Christian Scientists believe that Jesus will cure you if you are to be cured, and if not, you take your place beside him in heaven. This is a religious matter, pertaining to that family only, and while it seems wrong to others, there's also a fair precedent for courts in the US to honor religious beliefs even if they conflict with secular law.

Muslims do not constitute a threat to the US or Europe. Sharia is part of general law in many predominantly Muslim countries, presumably because their leaders want it that way, and the people aren't demanding it be changed. Here, and to a large extent in Europe, religion and state are kept separate, and that goes whether one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or anything else.

Stirring up this kind of paranoia helps nothing, and distracts legislatures from far more important problems. US Muslims are generally very happy to be here, and are too busy enjoying our freedom and standard of living to think about destroying it.


(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 6, 2011 | 4:44 p.m.

Thanks Frank. I believe in freedom for everyone, not just the ones you and Brandi want. Sorry if you think that makes me unAmerican. I'm sure with very little effort, one could find reports stating than Muslims are no threat to the US or that Christions (that idiot in Florida burning a Koran, Timothy McVeigh) are trying to destroy America. But I don't think the sky is falling. And I do love my country and support our troops. Liberals can do that you know.

(Report Comment)
David Karr April 6, 2011 | 6:17 p.m.

Er...Brandi: Isn't the Center for Security Policy the group that sponsored essays calling for Bush to be made president for life, and others suggesting that Iraq be emptied of Arabs and repopulated with Americans?

Good grief: why give *their* work credence?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 6, 2011 | 7:35 p.m.

tony black - If I were liberal, I would accuse you of posting what your masters demand you think, as well as implore you to quit reading ThinkProgress, or the liberal equivalent of Fox and add a few comments pertaining to your education, intelligence and command of the English language (check J. Hamms posts to me).

That not being the case, first, I ask you, is our nation in a war on the terrorists that have killed 3000 in our country, and many more thousands around the world? If you believe we are in the ME,only for oil, go ahead and tell me.

Is the CAIR organization only in existence to promote good feelings toward our Muslim population? (Have continually encouraged American Muslims not to cooperate with police in search for suspected terrorists.)

We have had Muslim citizens living among us (us, being all the other Americans) for decades, but, to my knowledge only now, that the radicals of that religion have declared all out war on our country are we, in the freedom that we love, beseeched to include their religion into our law. Even in the diverse society that you envision, does this not ring some sort of a bell?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, we can't "just get along" with everyone.

(Report Comment)
Brandi Eave April 6, 2011 | 8:59 p.m.

Most people are going to go with what is in writing, including all the support court documentation available to review, regarding the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure here and NOT what liberal-denying name callers who partner with them say.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 6, 2011 | 9:26 p.m.

Just for kicks read:

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan Jordan April 6, 2011 | 10:26 p.m.

Brandi is biased.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson April 6, 2011 | 10:30 p.m.

CAIR's main problem is, the "Muslim as persecuted minority" schtick is considerably oversold. Given the fact that a small radicalized group of Muslims pulled off the bloodiest terrorist attack in our nation's history, there has been amazingly little backlash against Muslims as a whole.

The McCarthyism claim, above, is hyperbole that shows little understanding of either the McCarthy or King hearings. The subject of the King hearings, radicalization of Muslims in America, is one that deserves to be discussed, openly and honestly, in the light of day. To put them down as bigoted or xenophobic is to miss the point entirely. Whether CAIR or anyone else will admit it, Muslims have been radicalized and committed acts of terrorism. I think they need a reformation, an internal one. I do not apologize if that sounds culturally chauvinistic of me.

America has not entered into a crusade against Islam, despite what might be expressed on al Jazeera, the fever swamp of Democratic Underground, or on The Rachel Maddow Show. Our country has expended blood, treasure, and considerable sacrifice, to assist millions of Muslims, from Pristina to Phuli Kumri, and from Mogadishu to Mosul.

In most all the parts of the Islamic world in which we have been engaged militarily or diplomatically in recent years, we have honored the religion, custom, and traditions of the Muslim majorities. Sometimes, to the detriment of minority Christians and other sects, unfortunately (see the plights of Iraqi Christians, or the Copts of Egypt, or the Yezedi of Iraq, for example).

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle April 6, 2011 | 11:48 p.m.

So much angst over insignificance... What was I saying about perspective the other day? It takes, on average, a mere 60 days for domestic gun violence to kill 3,000 US citizens. Since 9/11, well over 200,000 US citizens have been murdered by US citizens. Another 400,000 have been killed accidentally, and roughly 30-50 Million more have been sent to hospitals. All internally, all domestically, no Muslims, Sharia, or any other of those perceived threats are invovled in those figures.

I find it highly ironic that many of the people who are so against Sharia are actively trying to implement the Christian equivalent of it here in the US. Truth is, they are mostly just jealous of the brutality of Sharia, as they pine to be able to cut off the hand of a thief, deliver eye-for-eye punishments, or stone a woman to death for adultery.

I don't know a lot of muslims myself, but I'm aware I'm around dozens of them every day. I do NOT feel threatened by this fact. The biggest threat to my well being isn't the Muslim Brotherhood, or Sharia, or the Taliban, or even Bin Laden or Al Queda. The single biggest threat to my (and yours too, BTW) well being is... US automobile drivers.

A conservative's irrational fear of Muslims is likely only eclipsed by tree-hugger's irrational fear of nuclear radiation. Both are stupid compartmentalizations of perception, to the point where people glibly ignore real and significant risks, but have a total freakout-spaz about statistically irrelevant risks. A lot of people apparently fall really hard for false propaganda. It's dumb, but then again a lot of people fervently believe they're gonna win the lottery, too.

(Report Comment)
Frank Livingston April 7, 2011 | 6:06 a.m.

I am a chapter leader with a group called, ACT! for America and folks constantly tell me the reason why we have al-Qaida and terrorists trying to destroy us is because we occupy their land. Mr. Rosman needs to go online and read the excellent work done by David Barton, WallBuilders newsletter winter 2006, A Muslim Sworn Into Congress. Here is a quote from Barton’s newsletter:

“In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Read the work by Frank Gaffney and the nineteen true Americans who put together: Shariah, The Threat to America, An exercise in competitive analysis… …An Exercised in Competitive Analysis…Report of Team B II.

Our military is on the front line fighting the war against Islamic terrorists while America's "back door" is wide open. We absolutely must seal our borders to prevent the continuous flow of Middle Eastern illegal aliens-jihadists into the U.S. We need those that love our military to fight the communications battle here at home because most American’s do not know the dangers of Shariah law and Shariah fianace because our useless media refuse to do their research on the subject.

Get involved, join an ACT! for America chapter near you or start one. Go to our website and look for a chapter near you or start one!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 7, 2011 | 7:47 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"I ask you, is our nation in a war on the terrorists that have killed 3000 in our country"

No. They're completely separate entities. The 9/11 bombers were organized and financed primarily from Saudi citizens. The best way to fight terrorists is covertly, and in fact, after 9/11, Russia and Israel offered us the use of their considerable intelligence organizations in the area to get Bin Laden. We didn't do it that way.

As we are finding out from our long, fruitless wars, trying to fight terrorism with conventional tactics is very difficult and expensive.

Are the Iraqi people glad to be rid of Saddam? Certainly. There are reasons in addition to protecting Middle Eastern oil that we went in. Same with Afghanistan - many of the people we are fighting do not have the general support of their population. But we haven't found Bin Laden, and we haven't achieved any peace in either country, and it's going on 10 years now.

The incidence of Islamist domestic terror is about the same now as it was before 9/11 - pretty much zilch. We cannot conclude, other than to advance an ideology, that the wars have had any effect on domestic terror.


(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 7, 2011 | 8:04 a.m.

So what about the women and children of Darfur that are raped or murdered every day? I guess there is a legitimate reason we don't go in there and kick butt, but can you tell me what it is? As for education and grasp of the langauge, one doesn't have to be a scholar to recognize bull crap. Are there bad Muslims? Sure, but not all are bad. Fred Phelps does not stand for all Baptists, nor do the 9-11 terrorists stand for all Muslims. Have you read the Bible?? It talks of killing non-believers and death to other religions. But thats ok, right? So the Muslims have been trying to take over the US for 200 years. They must not be very good at it. And look, all this writing and no personal attacks. Amazing.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 7, 2011 | 8:26 a.m.

Derrick wrote: "I find it highly ironic that many of the people who are so against Sharia are actively trying to implement the Christian equivalent of it here in the US. Truth is, they are mostly just jealous of the brutality of Sharia, as they pine to be able to cut off the hand of a thief, deliver eye-for-eye punishments, or stone a woman to death for adultery."

I gotta admit...I'm surprised it was you writing something so offensive.

And incorrect.

Only thing I can think of is that you have extrapolated way beyond the limits of the emotional standard curve....kinda like tree-huggers do with their irrational fear of radiation.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 7, 2011 | 9:26 a.m.

Mark F. - "The best way to fight terrorists is covertly" What "covertly"? Before 9/11 FBI was only investigative entity we had. You put it in a nutshell, "after 9/11, Russia and Israel offered us the use of their considerable intelligence organizations". Why on earth should should the US of A have to depend on Russia and Israel for intelligence? Look at: They list 7 major episodes '93 to 2000 (Clinton administration) you refer to them as zilch. These were investigated reactively, by FBI, their resources stretched thinly around the world. Why is it so difficult to embrace the very sensible Bush approach, destroy their "nests", do not allow them the time or places to plot? Oh, yes. There it is, BUSH. He has been looking for radical Muslims, therefore, Muslims must be omitted from any list of killers.

(Report Comment)
Ellie Funke April 7, 2011 | 9:44 a.m.

Brandi is right!
BTW, I do not feel threatened by Muslims, so long as they abide by the same law as any other U.S. citizen. Sharia Law is the program some would like to use to leave us vulnerable. What si the purpose?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 7, 2011 | 9:54 a.m.

t. black - The UN is supposed to stop rape and murder, everyday.

Why are you not coming to the defense of all Baptists because many are trying to stop the activities of Fred Phelps? I think I know, you know "all the Baptists" are not at risk. Ditto, "all the Muslims". It is noted, you did not address any of the questions I inquired about. You are right about one thing, bull crap, Is easy to recognize.

If you expect thanks for being civil, you have them. Thanks

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 7, 2011 | 10:15 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Why is it so difficult to embrace the very sensible Bush approach, destroy their "nests", do not allow them the time or places to plot? Oh, yes. There it is, BUSH."

Bush has nothing to do with it (other than choosing military action), and neither do partisan politics. Terrorism cannot be stopped by conventional military action.

Here is a list of foiled terror attempts (by covert action) since 9/11. Some of them were not Islamist, but many were. Similarly, in your link, only one of the 7 was successful, and on American soil. The rest were either in the Middle East, or foiled by covert action.,2933,3355...

There is no evidence that the Mideast wars are keeping us safe from terror in the US. There is a lot of evidence that our intelligence agencies (including cooperation with foreign intel agencies) are keeping us safe from terror in the US.


(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 7, 2011 | 11:02 a.m.

MarkF posts, "Terrorism cannot be stopped by conventional military action."

Heck, terrorism cannot be stopped.....period.
Especially the suicide variety.

But you can slow it down by disrupting training camps, communications, and a bit of head hunting....all of which need military action.

There are many who believe hunting terrorists on soil other than the US's is a losing proposition. That's like believing cities/countries should stop hunting down murderers and robbers.

As far as there being no evidence Mideast wars are keeping folks safe......I find no evidence of recidivism from dead terrorists.

I do agree that worldwide intelligence agencies have been doing a fine job.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 7, 2011 | 12:25 p.m.

Mark F. - The way I read it, 4 0f 7 incidents were successful on my list. 2 of the 3 unsuccessful were uncovered by foreign police and an alert border agent. Our "covert" actions had little to do with them. This commission, with J. Ashcroft's testimony identified the "wall" between criminal investigation, and intelligence gathering, created by J. Gorelick, Clinton ass't AG. By her admission, went "beyond the law" to make intelligence gathering far more difficult for the FBI. (She went from AG to work at Fannie Mae where she collected at least 23M$ in bonus').

I always inject politics when as in this case is part of the problem or "story". This time is because, I can't imagine one who is so certain of the future of our access to energy in this country is able to rely on only on our ability to catch those having left their nest, (weren't many Irish names on the Fox list, were there?) rather than clean the nest out. I submit that when the dust has settled in the ME and If democratically elected gov't can be achieved, then those gov'ts with their people behind them will stop the terrorist threat. You, however, seem to be in the camp of losing candidate John Kerry, work on the problem, until "terrorism is reduced to a nuisance".

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 7, 2011 | 1:15 p.m.

Michael Williams wrote:

"But you can slow it down by disrupting training camps, communications, and a bit of head hunting....all of which need military action."

Except in both wars (and especially Iraq) we haven't been doing a lot of that. We've been fighting loose bands of partisan guerrilla soldiers that typically don't wear uniforms and avoid direct action when possible (IED's and the like). Sure, I'm all for everything you said, but most of those places aren't where we've been fighting.

"There are many who believe hunting terrorists on soil other than the US's is a losing proposition."

It's not, but we can't hunt them everywhere. The countries where they are have to do the hunting also, and many don't want to, or can't. That makes intelligence and observation all the more important.

frank christian wrote:

"Our "covert" actions had little to do with them."

Not ours, necessarily. I'm talking about covert action in general, as opposed to military. I don't really care who does it as long as it gets done.

"able to rely on only on our ability to catch those having left their nest, (weren't many Irish names on the Fox list, were there?) rather than clean the nest out."

When you "clean the nest out", you typically have a lot of "collateral damage" as it is called. Every time an American ot Israeli soldier or warplane kills non-combatants, you increase the pool of potential terrorists. It's far better to keep track of them as they communicate and travel (and maybe bump a few of them off surgically) than to go in blasting and kill a bunch of innocent people along with whatever terrorists you do get.

This is something that Israel has never seemed to get, and I suspect it's a big reason that their terrorist enemies keep coming back. Revenge is a powerful motivator, and the fewer people there are that feel vengeful, the better.


(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 7, 2011 | 1:40 p.m.

Mark: 'Tis true that "we haven't been doing a lot of that."

Of late. Well, at least what we hear about.....

But, we DID a lot of that. Surely you would agree with that statement regards Afghanistan. And surely you would agree there is still some of that going on in Afghanistan. Surely you agree Afghanistan is no longer the hotbed of terrorist planning.

Iraq is just a waiting game now for them to get their act together. Should have come earlier....such as, lop off the head, leave, and promise to come back if we have to and MAKE them get their act together. Tough love. Forget this "if you break it, you have to fix it" crap.

Yes, terrorists move. And, yes, they have moved. GWB said we'll hunt them down wherever they go, and the countries that support them, also. Prez Obama seems to like the same strategies when he's not talking publicly to his constituency...I'm starting to like the guy in spite of myself....he's becoming somewhat of a realist rather than ivory-tower theorist. In private, that is.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 7, 2011 | 2:22 p.m.

Mark F. - "When you "clean the nest out", you typically have a lot of "collateral damage" as it is called. Every time an American ot Israeli soldier or warplane kills non-combatants, you increase the pool of potential terrorists." You still amaze me. The Israeli mantra, for as long as I can remember, has "you hit us, we will hit you twice as hard". Every time we hear about the "brutal Israelis", it is after a Palestinian, bomber, missile or other attack on Israelis. You would make a good football official, you only see the one that got hit, hitting back.

Moammar Gadhafi saw the collateral damage created by Bush in Iraq and threw in the terrorism towel along with his WMDs. Moammar said, "I am afraid". Would appear, Moammar, now facing Obama, is no longer afraid.

"It's far better to keep track of them as they communicate and travel (and maybe bump a few of them off surgically)" Shouldn't you have added, "then wait until the next band is detected, then wait and wait and....

(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 7, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.

You're right Frank, just carpet bomb the whole area. The Middle East and Africa. Then round up all the Muslims here and put 'em in camps. Problem solved. Who will be next after the Muslims?

I don't have to defend all Baptists. They are not looked at like Muslims. They are not being singled out here. They are in the middle east. Is that our goal as a country, to be like them?

And no, I am quite sure CAIR is not a "feel good" organization. Neither is the Klan nor the Black Panthers. Or the Westboro folks. Or the idiot in Florida. Or the Aryan Brotherhood. Or the Muslim Brotherhood. What's your point? That we have enemies? Say it ain't so.

That's what's great about this country. We are free to have our opinions and think the other guy is an idiot.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams April 7, 2011 | 5:49 p.m.

Tony Black says, "...just carpet bomb the whole area."

Unfortunately, you may be closer to the truth than you know. I suspect the unstated fall-back position of several governments is that religious cities are potential glass the most extreme of circumstances....such as when somebody is about to go down the tubes. It's called, "If I go, you go, too."

That means Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina, and a few others.

Would it be the start of a REAL war? You bet. Worst one yet.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 7, 2011 | 8:26 p.m.

tony black - "the other guy is an idiot." So much for civility. I don't think you are an idiot. Silly? Well....? The only part of your post that can feasibly be discussed is "What's your point?"

My point is(another question), why are you and yours, for reasons unknown, to many, denigrating and vilifying fellow
Americans for their effort to contain an obviously real attempt to erode the protections afforded us in our Constitution? Your concern for Muslim Americans, who quite likely migrated here to avoid the sharia law of the country that they deserted is unwarranted, unless you can provide something other than the horrors, you so eagerly enlist, of a war, as a reason.

Does this not seem odd to you? You so vehemently promote the addition of Islamic law to ours and then you ask,"Is that our goal as a country, to be like them?" Is that food for thought, or what?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 8, 2011 | 4:31 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"The Israeli mantra, for as long as I can remember, has "you hit us, we will hit you twice as hard"

The problem is that they don't just hit back twice as hard - it's more like hundreds of times harder. And every regular Joe Palestinian they kill has relatives and friends, and some of them are motivated by this to strike back. Of course Israel has a right to defend themselves, but they also could be a little more patient and precise about how they do it. More snipers and assassins, and fewer bombs.

Example closer to home. We know that, among the black community in Columbia, there's a small percent of violent gangsters that occasionally shoot at each other, endangering the public. We might make a dent in the problem by randomly searching or detaining any black person encountered by police. However, after a little of this, police would likely have a very justifiable riot on their hands. You can't prejudge, and punish, the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.

This is what Muslim bashing does. To be just, we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and wait until we have a real, tangible reason to suspect they will do something. Bombs can't do this, and detention camps can't do this. Only patient and objective intelligence and police work can.


(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 8, 2011 | 7:56 a.m.

I am defending the US against the whole point of the article. Fearmongering. If you notice, I have not said anything negative about our country, only the ones that want to divide and persecute. I have pointed out that The Westboro chuch is doing harmful things to our country, along with the list of others who mean harm to anyone who doesn't think like them. Brandi points out TWO CASES out of the millions of court cases in this country, and that's a concern? Freedom is a fragile thing and if you take it away for some, then it is weakened for all.

As for civility, you have your right winged blinders on and as usual, miss the point. Silly? What a PC way to say idiot. Only play the part of the film clip that makes the other guy look bad, not the true story.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 8, 2011 | 8:17 a.m.

I don't want Sharia law. Again, I don't think the sky is falling. There are millions of Americans out of work and hungry and our politicians are worried about this? State and federal budgets are broken and this is what we are spending money on? Our education system is being cut to the bone, classes dropped, books not pruchased, our very future, our children are being ignored, and this is what politicians are spending money on? Reread the stats on murders in the US, and this is their concern? The worst issue here is people who don't see anything wrong with that.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 8, 2011 | 8:38 a.m.

Mark - You seem to get further from reason with each post. Palestinians are spending parts of their lives producing home made missiles to fire at Israel, in the hope they might kill or maim some Jews, any Jews. Palestinian gov'ts have been offered very liberal terms to make peace with Jews, but Jews must be "wiped off the face of the earth" for any of the Arab gov'ts to be happy, tho the UN in their wisdom selected the site for the Jewish community. Those people (Jews) are hanging on for dear life, but your (and the liberal left, mostly) concern is that they be more "reasonable" in their retaliation after a bomb etc. kills their children.

The whole situation is far beyond all reason. Your description of the "right and wrong" here is unreasonable as well, in my opinion.

"randomly searching or detaining any black person encountered by police." Were you aware that police cannot randomly search or detain Anyone in this country? I believe it is called "probable cause" and many apprehended criminals have been released because of the lack of it.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 8, 2011 | 9:16 a.m.

Frank, go back and read Mark's post again because you totally missed the point. And your post should begin with some Palestinians, not all. That might help you get the point he's trying to get across.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 8, 2011 | 9:36 a.m.

Tony B. - From your 2nd installment: "Americans out of work and hungry,State and Federal budgets broken,education cut to the bone (a laughable assertion), books not purchased, children being ignored? The murder stats." Reads like one who thinks the sky is falling to me.

Our elected officials, thankfully, can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Using legal means to omit a detrimental addition to the laws of our land is not taking freedom from anyone. Most of us know this. Progressives take the other side because of their agenda.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 8, 2011 | 10:02 a.m.

You can't talk sense to someone who doesn't recognize actual problems from trumped up ones. We might as well ban Martian law now, so when they come they can't rule us. Got my tin foil hat ready. Now let's go scare some elderly folks.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 8, 2011 | 10:25 a.m.

John - I see Marks point clearly. He has, as one, seated high above the fray , would. Thought out how those fighting for their lives and livelihood should react to each attack "to be fair". He omits the fact that All the Palestinians and Arabs hate Jews and would continue to do so, if they never raised another finger to any attack. Is there any doubt that such occurrence would create more attacks or an all out war?

I'm sorry, you can't get Mark's point. In a nut shell, we must all learn to be more tolerant and diverse. Ignore our human nature, in this case, the human need to protect what he/she has. Of course Mark requires this of the Jews, not so much of the Arabs.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.