Jihadwatching Jihad Jane
Robert Spencer posts at jihadwatch that the "Jihad Jane arrest raises fears of 'homegrown terrorists,' but no one really wants to do anything about it":
The one thing that can and should be done would be to call American Muslim groups to account, and demand that they institute in mosques and Islamic schools comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism. But officials will never do this. They would prefer to pretend that the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism do not exist. And so we will see many more Jihad Janes.
How about doing something about the particular mosque that Jihad Jane comes from? Surely, questioning some of those members would lead to charges of sedition against the imams.
I should also point out that if someone like Jihad Jane had one day gotten a job as airport security, no one would have looked at her twice. And she certainly wouldn't have been photographed and the image placed on someone's blog suggesting it was like the fox guarding the henhouse.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 2:42 AM
Surely, questioning some of those members would lead to charges of sedition against the imams.
I have often wondered why more imams aren't charged with sedition. Speaking of overthrowing the government is a capital offense. Why can Muslims get away with it?
-Julie
JulieW at March 11, 2010 7:25 AM
"Speaking of overthrowing the government is a capital offense."
In the "America" part of the planet I live on there's a little thing called the First Amendment. Is this not so on your planet?
--
phunctor
phunctor at March 11, 2010 7:53 AM
Your sarcasm only serves to make you look more foolish, phunctor. Sedition is defined as overt conduct, including speech and organization, promoting the overthrow of the established order. "In the America part of the planet you live on," I can assure you that sedition is not protected speech. The penalty for seditious conspiracy is 20 years and may include fines.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 8:46 AM
And she certainly wouldn't have been photographed and the image placed on someone's blog suggesting it was like the fox guarding the henhouse.
If she would have been wearing the headscarf she would have.
kishke at March 11, 2010 9:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/11/jihadwatching_j.html#comment-1701093">comment from kishkeIndeed, kishke.
And, how many converts to Christianity or Judaism do you hear of who want to move to a foreign country and go murder somebody who insulted Jesus or Moses?
Amy Alkon at March 11, 2010 10:13 AM
kishke: If she would have been wearing the headscarf she would have.
I doubt it. A while blonde female security guard wearing a headscarf wouldn't have gotten a second look. Non-Muslim women do wear head scarves.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 10:30 AM
Again Patrick with the relativism. Non muslim women were scarfs around the neck, muslim women wear the scarf around the head and neck. Non muslim women only wear the scarf around the head to cover baldness from chemo as an example.
Richard Cook at March 11, 2010 10:48 AM
"I should also point out that if someone like Jihad Jane had one day gotten a job as airport security, no one would have looked at her twice. "
Probably not. Not all bad people will advertise themselves as such. That doesn't mean we should ignore the ones that do.
Cousin Dave at March 11, 2010 11:43 AM
Cousin Dave: Probably not. Not all bad people will advertise themselves as such. That doesn't mean we should ignore the ones that do.
Advertising yourself as a Muslim woman is not advertising yourself as "bad people." She was not advertising herself as a bad person, except in the minds of those who think wearing a traditional headscarf is better litmus test than the background check that the airport had undoubtedly performed before hiring her.
It's just too stupid for words. "She's wearing a headscarf. That means she's a Muslim. That means she's evil and plans to assist hijackers blowing up plains. I don't give a rat's ass that her background check said she was fine. The headscarf proves it."
If someone wants to tell me that the woman is dangerous, fine. I'll listen to the arguments, but they should be good ones. She's working airport security, meaning she's undoubtedly had a background check and passed it.
"She's wearing a SCARF!"
Oooooo...how impressive. They surely trumped the whatever protocol the airport has for security checks with that astute observation.
I was hoping for something more along the lines of her imams teaching jihad (if she is indeed Muslim), some evidence convicting her of crimes, particularly those involving violence. You know, some justifiable reason to be afraid of her. Not because of what people think a headscarf means.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 12:49 PM
I was hoping for something more along the lines of her imams teaching jihad (if she is indeed Muslim),
It would be great if the TSA checked for stuff like that. I doubt they do.
kishke at March 11, 2010 1:13 PM
kishke: It would be great if the TSA checked for stuff like that. I doubt they do.
I wouldn't be overly surprised if they did, in light of the events of 9/11.
I guess it depends on how seriously they take it. When I had a Top Secret clearance, they did a thorough background check and were interviewing people from my past.
But at least you're asking legitimate questions. Maybe we should look into how background checks are conducted. Or at least get some kind of assurance that security checks include such things. I just object to the colossal stupidity of insisting the woman is a security risk because of a headscarf. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" still means something.
A headscarf does not prove anything except for the fact that she's wearing a headscarf.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 1:52 PM
The air must be pretty thin up on your high horse there patrick, the lack of oxygen has caused you to confuse two different blog posts on two different topics about two seperate women
lujlp at March 11, 2010 2:13 PM
I just object to the colossal stupidity of insisting the woman is a security risk because of a headscarf.
Do I really have to repeat everything from the previous post? No one said she's a security risk. What was said is that she's more likely than others to be a security risk, and therefore should be subject to scrutiny. It's profiling, which you support, remember?
kishke at March 11, 2010 2:40 PM
No, child, I am comparing the two, which I have been doing since my first post on this blog entry. And most people aren't having any trouble this out. Do try to keep up.
Bullshit. "We're not saying, you're a security risk. We're just saying you're more likely to be a security risk."
I'm sure most people would find that placating.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 2:59 PM
Patrick: I doubt the Smith Act would be upheld today - it hasn't come up in decades, probably because the Feds are pretty sure it wouldn't.
But more importantly, I take the First Amendment objection to "make Mosques preach tolerance" to be "that's the State telling a Church what it has to say".
Mandating that a religious organization preach certain things is a much better approximation of an "Establishment of Religion" than most things decried under the Establishment clause.
Sigivald at March 11, 2010 3:14 PM
Sigivald: I doubt the Smith Act would be upheld today - it hasn't come up in decades, probably because the Feds are pretty sure it wouldn't.
Laura Berg was investigated for sedition in 2005. The charges were dropped in 2006, since Berg only accused elected officials of "criminal negligence," and not advocating an overthrow of the established order.
True, in Berg's case, the charge was unwarranted and rightly dropped. However, it does show that charges of sedition are very much alive and well, thanks. Sedition is also punished under the UCMJ.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 3:21 PM
I'm sure most people would find that placating.
I'm not in the least concerned for their feelings. If there's a possible security risk it has to be investigated.
kishke at March 11, 2010 3:42 PM
kishke, I'm trying to point out that it's ridiculous to make a distinction between being a "security risk" and being "more likely to be a security." Do you not see the logical disconnect in saying, "You're more likely to be a risk"?
We're all security risks, understanding that "risk" defines the degree of probability that something might happen, not whether or not something will happen. You choose to see what exists on a spectrum in terms of black and white.
You're a security risk. I'm a security risk. It falls to those who would place in sensitive positions to determine how great that risk is.
You seem to think you've said something so much more PC by insisting, "I didn't say she was a security risk. I said she's more likely to be a security risk."
Quite the contrary, you've stumbled into a self-contradictory logical absurdity.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 3:55 PM
Patrick writes (replying to me): "I was hoping for something more along the lines of her imams teaching jihad (if she is indeed Muslim), some evidence convicting her of crimes, particularly those involving violence. You know, some justifiable reason to be afraid of her. Not because of what people think a headscarf means."
OK, I admit it: I posted what I did to provoke a reaction. And Patrick raises a valid question, to which I have two responses. The first one: Consider this thought experiment. It's 1943. You go to the train station for a business trip -- and the train conductor is wearing a brown shirt with swastikas on the sleeves. What would you think of that person? OK, odds are, he's probably not a Nazi saboteur. But at the very least, he's a rabble-rouser looking to provoke people and stir up trouble.
I claim that, at this time, wearing an identifiably Muslim head covering while working in an airport security position constitutes the same thing. At the very, very least, the lady Amy photographed is completely, utterly, clueless. To be less charitable, she's probably engaging in an expression of domination: "We Muslims are everywhere; your government cannot protect you from us. And I just wanted to remind you of that." The other possibility is that she's doing it under threat of harm from her family. But if that's the case, it's like the guy in Amy's advice column this week -- the answer is not to try to live with it, but to get far, far away.
My second response is thus: "is better litmus test than the background check that the airport had undoubtedly performed before hiring her." Are you sure about that? This is, after all, the TSA we're talking about.
Cousin Dave at March 11, 2010 4:50 PM
Fine, I'll say it this way. She's not necessarily a terrorist or even a sympathizer, but she's much more likely to be one than your average citizen. This is because she belongs to a group that includes large numbers of people who endorse suicide bombings. That's what the headscarf indicates. And that's why she and others like her need to be carefully scrutinized before being given sensitive jobs.
And if you think TSA checks things like her imam's preachings, you are naive.
kishke at March 11, 2010 4:54 PM
Okay, kishke, I have no more argument with you. I would only point out that I didn't say that I believe that TSA checks out things like her imam's teachings. I was only saying that I wouldn't be overly surprised if they did. Yes, I would be surprised and relieved, just not excessively surprised, in light of the events of 9/11.
Thank you for a very thoughtful, interesting (and civil) reply. After considering the analogy, I have one problem with it. Wearing a brown shirt and swastikas clearly defines someone as a Nazi/Nazi sympathizer and Nazis are inextricably linked to violence and bigotry. It defines Naziism.
Muslims, by contrast, are not so linked. Yes, you can infer that the woman is Muslim. But you cannot infer based on that that she intends harm.
Patrick at March 11, 2010 9:43 PM
No, but its the safe way to bet.
brian at March 12, 2010 6:04 AM
Patrick, I wasn't going to be the guy in the cafeteria who starts the food fight and then leaves. Seriously, I'll admit there is a question of degree here. I was going to throw in a bit about comparison to wearing white robes, but that's also a bad analogy since there was no "moderate Klan" (not for very long anyway). Question: would you think differently if she had been wearing a full-up hijab?
Cousin Dave at March 12, 2010 8:03 AM
There's a Muslim community around here, and I see Muslim women all the time. I pretty much ignore a full-up hijabs. By all appearances, they mean no harm.
I'm not a good person to ask. I probably see more hijabs than most. I'm not bothered by the sight of a Muslim woman in full hijab, no.
I'd see that bet, and raise you.
Patrick at March 12, 2010 9:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/11/jihadwatching_j.html#comment-1701341">comment from PatrickDo you mean hijab, niqab, or burka?
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2010 9:29 AM
As I understand hijab, as Cousin Dave is using the term, he's not using the "head scarf" definition but the "traditional Muslim dress" definition.
I see traditional Muslim dress around the Muslim community and about town, but I can see the face, rather like the Muslim security guard you photographed. However the rest of their clothing is more traditional, not the "Muslim from the neck up" look. I'm guessing that's what Cousin Dave meant with "full-up hijab." So the answer to your question is "hijab."
A niqab is the headdress the covers the entire face, but the eyes and possibly parts of the forehead.
Burqa is the whole outer garment. I don't know what the Muslim women call their outer robe like garments, looks like shapeless flowy blouses with floor length skirts.
Patrick at March 12, 2010 12:47 PM
I have a family member who helped lead NCS Pearson when they had the government contract to reorganize and hire all new airport security staff ... and the government at the time was not as concerned with terrorists as they should have been. Instructions were: "Get the job done." Almost as if the fact they could show U.S. citizens and politicians alike they were reorganizing would be enough. They did not address the real issues and they did hire exactly as Amy (I think) put it before: people who had worked formerly and primarily at fast food joints and the like. Besides NCS wasn't looking at it from the standpoint of actually making people safer, they were looking to make money, which they did. Very stupid and costly mistake in the end; had the chance to make it better and didn't. I'm not saying though that another company would have done better with the contract, these problems lie within our government (refusal to see the truth about the spread of Islam through whatever means necessary).
Jess at March 12, 2010 1:59 PM
In the "America" part of the planet I live on there's a little thing called the First Amendment. Is this not so on your planet?
----------------
Why yes, yes there is.
But that said, it has never been legal to advocate the overthrow of the lawful government. Criticize it yes, campaign for a new candidate certainly, shout your hate from the rooftops, why not?
But direct advocation of the overthrow of the United States government is not legal.
If you wish to take pride in the freedoms we have phuncter, at least bother to learn a little about them first, then you can justify your pride instead of exposing your gross ignorance.
-----------------
The problem with your assertion patrick, is that everyone trying to blow up our planes these days...happens to be part of the group that puts their women in those headscarves, or the women themselves.
And those headscarves in question are identifiable with that particular group.
Name another group of people who dresses in such a manner.
She may intend no harm herself. But what of her husband, brothers, father? Islam demands total submission of the female to the male, if they give the order they speak with the authority backed by her god. What do you think she'll do?
And lets say they don't intend harm either.
Is she going to give special scrutiny to muslims, you know, the ones who blow up the planes...or is she going to be in denial, and prefer to believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy and muslims are the scapegoats?
Denial is a powerful thing, and group identity is one of the strengths of the muslim community, I'd lay 1000-1 odds that she'd give a cursory glance to another identifiable muslim, and be utterly random otherwise, which of course, sort of defeats the purpose of it all.
Its not just her intent you see, its her own biases at work that create a hazard for people on a plane.
-------------------------
I have to agree with sigivald, it would be unconstitutional to mandate what a church must preach. But calling it a religion does not give license for sedition either.
-------------------------
The thing is, I can't respect the intelligence of anyone who converts to Islam, least of all a woman. A man I could see, after all it is an absolutely male dominated religion & society, and that would have its appeal. But why the hell would a woman convert to it???
If she wants to be a slave that badly she could just go join some BDSM club.
Robert at March 13, 2010 12:29 AM
About to board flight to LA watching a Muslim dude praying to Allah. Soooo, how long would it take me to walk to LA from NY? Just askin!
process at August 24, 2011 12:31 PM
Leave a comment