"Reaching Out" to U.S. Muslims

[Arianrhod]

How many suspicious individuals have been reported?

NOT ENOUGH

How do you know?

 

[jwoodie]

I should have known that it would be a mistake to extend any recognition to someone on my IGNORE list:

1. Hillary constantly accuses Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, of waging war on Muslims. Since you find her comments "reasonable," I assume you feel the same way.

2. I don't know how many have been reported, but

3. We obviously missed the Fort Hood, Boston, Merced, San Bernardino, etc, terrorists.

4. You apparently agree with my conclusion, but

5. You complain because you didn't think of it first?

6. I am not against outreach per se, but I am suspicious of those who have not come forward voluntarily.

The gist of your post seemed to be that any additional scrutiny of non-US Muslims would constitute a "war" against them and that we should presume that all of them wishing to enter this country pose no threat and should be admitted without further ado. If I am wrong, please specify.

 

[320 Years of History]

EXCUSE ME??!! Hillary Clinton's prescription for preventing more terrorist attacks here at home is that "we" should "reach out" to our Muslim citizens. Why doesn't "we" already include them? Why is it necessary to ask for their help in preventing the murder of their fellow citizens? Aren't they doing this already? If not, why?

I am sick and tired of dividing Americans into various classes of people and then treating some of those classes as mentally or morally inferior groups which must be cajoled into being good citizens. Anyone who has information about a potential terrorist act already has a civic duty to report it. If they don't, is it unreasonable to consider them complicit in that act?

Preface:
Indicative of nothing in particular, I have to ask why it is you ask such complex questions and broach pretty involved topics given your preference for short responses? I think the topics you present are good ones, and I think they challenge thoughtful members of your audience to carefully consider their replies, but they aren't questions/topics that can be comprehensively addressed in a paragraph or two, at least not by folks whose thinking is deeper ("more nuanced" may be a better way phrase) than the padding inside their shoes.

My Reply to your remarks:
I'm not sure to which of Mrs. Clinton's specific comment, or occasion, you are referring to in the post quoted above. The most recent time I know about whereby Mrs. Clinton spoke of "reaching out" to Muslim Americans was in the December 19th Democratic debate. My comments refer to that specific occasion. If I'm mistaken in referring to that instance, say so.

Viewers of the debate or readers of the debate will note that the remark you've mentioned occurred as follows:

MUIR:
[W]hat would you say to the millions of Americans watching tonight who agree with [Mr. Trump's proposed ban on admitting Muslims into the U.S? Are they wrong?

CLINTON:
Well I think a lot of people are understandably reacting out of fear and anxiety about what they're seeing. First what they saw in Paris, now what they have seen in San Bernardino....

So what I would say is, number one, we need to be united against the threats that we face. We need to have everybody in our country focused on watching what happens and reporting it if it's suspicious, reporting what you hear. Making sure that Muslim Americans don't feel left out or marginalized at the very moment when we need their help.

You know, I was a senator from New York after 9/11, and we spent countless hours trying to figure out how to protect the city and the state from perhaps additional attacks. One of the best things that was done, and George W. Bush did this and I give him credit, was to reach out to Muslim Americans and say, we're in this together. You are not our adversary, you are our partner.
​

Jwoodie, you've asked the following questions:

• Doesn't "we" already include [Muslim Americans]?
  • My answer: Yes, it does include them already.
• Why is it necessary to ask for [Muslim Americans'] help in preventing the murder of their fellow citizens? Aren't they doing this already? If not, why?
  
  • My answers:
    • It is necessary because Muslim Americans are no different than many other Americans in that they may not understand something to be so if one doesn't explicitly make a point of telling them so or reminding them of it. Should that be necessary? Probably not. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
      
      Why do I think that? Well, just look at how often folks say something that is not at all offensive and yet they apologize, or make a point of explicitly stating that they had no desire to offend. That's not necessary either, but folks do it because they want to make sure their audience knows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they had no such intentions. It's no different with Mrs. Clinton's remarks and action statement.
    • Presumably. I have no evidence to indicate whether most American Muslims do or don't already share whatever potentially relevant information they come by, that is assuming they come by any at all, with the appropriate authorities.
      
      I'm not sure how helpful in the quest to quell terrorism, or even Islamic Jihadi effected terrorism, Muslim Americans can be. Why? Because the primary thing that stands out to me about Muslim-caused (to say nothing of Islamic Jihadi-caused) terrorism is that it tends to be very heavily reported; therefore, more people seem to be aware of its occurrence. Also, because it is the most "popular" form of terrorism to report and Jihadis tend to "go for" "lavish" acts rather than small ones, thier terrorist acts are seen by many as more sensational than are other terrorist attacks/events, 90% of those committed in the U.S, according to the data in DHS' START database (Centers of Excellence | Homeland Security) and the Centre for Research on Globalization's analysis of it, isn't perpetrated by Muslims, Jihadist or otherwise. (I have not reviewed the data in the START database, but they are available for public consumption.)
    • I am an American, but not a Muslim, so as the beginning of the preceding answer indicates, I have no way to say if they are or are not, so, obviously, I cannot attest to why they are or are not. Hopefully some Muslim Americans have read your post and will give you their answer.
      
      Do you know of any credible evidence indicating whether Muslim Americans do or do not already share with authorities the information they have available and that may help in the fight against Jihadist-caused terrorism?
• Anyone who has information about a potential terrorist act already has a civic duty to report it. If they don't, is it unreasonable to consider them complicit in that act?
  
  • My Answer:
    I cannot answer that from a legal standpoint; I'm not an attorney. There's no question in my mind that a person who knowingly withholds material information can to some extent be considered complicit in the commission of acts such as those you noted. What be the extent? I don't know.
    
    From a rational standpoint, I think it may or may not be unreasonable to consider complicit in it individuals having information about a potential terrorist act. Why the uncertainty? Because the person(s) having the information may not be aware that it pertains to a specific act that anyone actually intends to perform. Accordingly, they may not know they have an obligation to report the information, information that may at best be obliquely connect to an impending attack. Seeing as some people on this forum don't even understand basic English, it seems a lot to ask that we wjp do expect our fellow citizens perceive the national security relevance of a snippet of (random ?) information they may come by.
    
    Of course, if one learns that so and so is surreptitiously building a bomb, one has an obligation to report it. On the other hand, if one observes that one's neighbor has purchased a goodly amount of fertilizer, there's nothing about that militating for one's informing the authorities of it. You have a law degree, so you well know that we American citizens -- Muslim or not -- are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ours is not a system of guilt by association.
    
    Similarly, the U.S government, shortly before 9/11, had information indicating that airplanes might soon to be hijacked. The government, when asked why it did nothing, replied that the threat's lack of specificity was the reason they didn't act. Knowing of an unspecified potential airplane hijacking, could the government have increased the level of scrutiny exercised at airport security checkpoints, perhaps to the extent that obviously and/or potentially deadly weapons (within reason, such as sharp-bladed items like box cutters) not be allowed in the passenger cabin)? Could it have required more rigorous identification requirements for would be airline passengers? Might some other (hopefully) preemptive measures been taken? The answer, of course, is yes.
    
    Now do I think that because the government didn't take any such relatively modest and innocuous actions given it had information indicating an attack-by-plane was in the works? No, I don't. I think the government, in good faith, tried to balance airline passengers' rights and conveniences against the need to provide for safe airline travel. In other words, I give it the benefit of the doubt.
    
    I give the same benefit of the doubt to individuals, Muslim or not, who may not report information they have that may pertain to an impending terrorist attack. The U.S. is not a police state. I don't want it to become one. I don't want America to become akin to pre-9-November-1989 East Germany wherein people were effectively spied on and reported on their family members, neighbors, acquaintances and friends.