If someone wants to leave the USA to join some terrorist group in the middle east, by all means let them go! Good bye and good luck!
However, they should NEVER be allowed to re-enter the USA.
However, they should NEVER be allowed to re-enter the USA.
1
This does not need to be difficult. If people are traveling to areas of the world and learning jihadi tactics with an eye to bringing them back to the shores of Western countries, the solution is to pull their passports and render them stateless.
They are acting as traitors to the country that has given them citizenship, either by birth or by adoption; rejecting the values of society by intending to make war on that society. Eliminate the threat by making it as difficult as possible for them to return to their country of origin and wage that war.
If we (the West) know who they are and they're being tracked as they go to these terrorist training camps, then they should not be allowed back.
It's that simple.
They are acting as traitors to the country that has given them citizenship, either by birth or by adoption; rejecting the values of society by intending to make war on that society. Eliminate the threat by making it as difficult as possible for them to return to their country of origin and wage that war.
If we (the West) know who they are and they're being tracked as they go to these terrorist training camps, then they should not be allowed back.
It's that simple.
1
If the concern is the creation of networks in which Western citizens can get involved, then this may be to our advantage. Isn't the lack of on the ground intelligence that led to so many failures? The more people come back from the war zones, the more information can be gathered from them. Knowing this, the terrorist organizations may be less willing to deal with westerners. Its a win-win.
Let them go. We should be encouraging them to go. And once they're out, they can never return. It seems like the easiest possible way to get rid of these people.
All Western countries ought to criminalize fighting outside their own
borders. This legislation needs passing immediately. It's a beginning
at least. How to enforce a law like this will require ingenuity and lots
of good will. But dithering about whether this kind of activity is legal
or not will cost too much.
borders. This legislation needs passing immediately. It's a beginning
at least. How to enforce a law like this will require ingenuity and lots
of good will. But dithering about whether this kind of activity is legal
or not will cost too much.
Training in automatic weapons and munitions is part of the mandatory military service in most countries and hundreds of millions or if not billions are exposed to it. Once, it was in the Western countries too. Preventing a few thousands of adventurers to go to war zones or return seems like a drop in a bucket. The killers from Columbine, Newton or Oslo did not have to travel anywhere to become lethal. In fact, going to these war regions, may be the last thing they do. If they survive, their lust for killing may have been exhausted or ideals shattered. Who is more deadly? The guy playing games 10 hours a day in a Connecticut basement or someone who comes back wounded, traumatized or just tired of war?
2
Looks like Saudi Arabia may have the largest cohort of these migrant warriors, just like they had on 9/11.
Ironic really, that they've massively funded and indefatigably spread the contagion of Wahhabism, featuring strict Sharia Islam, Koran mastery, anti-secular "learning," oppression of women, beheadings, stonings, public torture & executions, for blasphemy, adultery, being gay or otherwise displeasing the vice police (who condemned what, a hundred? young girls a few years ago to burn to perish horribly locked in a burning building rather than have them escape to a public area uncovered), while at the same time the West has massively funded and indefatigably spread occupation, drone killings, western culture and values, perpetual war, exploitation of local resources, and support of oppressive stooge kleptocracies (unlike at home where the kleptocrats control the government stooges).
And now it's all come home to roost so vividly that no one, on any side, can ignore the stark lines in the sand. The US of course will go where hyper capitalism and top-down control by the security state lead.
Ironic really, that they've massively funded and indefatigably spread the contagion of Wahhabism, featuring strict Sharia Islam, Koran mastery, anti-secular "learning," oppression of women, beheadings, stonings, public torture & executions, for blasphemy, adultery, being gay or otherwise displeasing the vice police (who condemned what, a hundred? young girls a few years ago to burn to perish horribly locked in a burning building rather than have them escape to a public area uncovered), while at the same time the West has massively funded and indefatigably spread occupation, drone killings, western culture and values, perpetual war, exploitation of local resources, and support of oppressive stooge kleptocracies (unlike at home where the kleptocrats control the government stooges).
And now it's all come home to roost so vividly that no one, on any side, can ignore the stark lines in the sand. The US of course will go where hyper capitalism and top-down control by the security state lead.
2
The NSA needs to get more involved in keeping track of individuals most likely to leave the country to fight in foreign wars. Many of these indiduals are already known. In other cases groups of people suddenly diappear from their community and are suspected of leaving to fight. Stopping the departure is difficult because the individuals haven't committed a crime. But reentry can be refused and passports canceled, requiring reapplication. Any evidence that they've fought in a foreign war or received training in certain countries would require their arrest. These procedures would not affect anyone's citizenship but would filter out some of the worst possible returning terrorists.
1
If citizens wish to go to war zones, let them, just don't let them come back.
1
Unfortunately or not, the West will try to avoid the radical mass expulsion of muslims from the West until their is no other option. The sheer overwhelming policing required will exhaust the West into submission. Already, France has acknowledged the policing situation is totally beyond their ability to manage. In fact, France has already lost the war to the heathen muslim hordes. Will other countries take heed, chart another course to save themselves? Hopefully, Germany may do so, will the have the burden of liberating France. The balance of power in Europe is at hand..
2
Since it is close to impossible to monitor travel through third countries - how about shutting down the sources that lure young people over there?
I would hope moderate clerics to speak up more forcefully against the problem in their midst. Clerics preaching hate and murder should not be able to teach (in the US).. The websites should be taken down.
I know it is a slippery slope... where to set the boundaries is indeed a problem.
I would hope moderate clerics to speak up more forcefully against the problem in their midst. Clerics preaching hate and murder should not be able to teach (in the US).. The websites should be taken down.
I know it is a slippery slope... where to set the boundaries is indeed a problem.
1
Is was under the impression that there was a law on the books that allows the U.S. to strip American citizenship from any citizen that fights in a foreign army that is fighting against the United States. If this is correct, the passports should be taken and these fighters should be stripped of their American citizenship. Let them enjoy life elsewhere, like Syria!
To stop the flow of war-zone travelers it's crucial to first understand who seeks to go and why. To meet that need, The United States Institute of Peace produced an in depth document: "Why Youth Join al-Qaeda." It not only provides answers to the who and why (that can be generalized to all such groups) it also shows what can be done about it. And most importantly, the vital insights come from interviews/personal histories of over 2000 "foreign fighters."
According to this report, Al-Qaeda seekers have common coming of age characteristics. Yet, they choose the path of violent extremism. Also seekers are not homogenous. Instead they are motivated by distinct psychological, societal, econonomic, and cultural factors. For example, there are revenge seekers looking for an outlet for their frustrations, status seekers looking for recognition, identity seekers looking for a group they can belong to, and thrill seekers looking for adventure. The study goes on to show ways society can be proactive and meet the various needs of these particular youth so they don't turn to extremists groups for need-fulfillment.
Thus, the principal contribution of this study (everyone should read) is how to meet the underlying needs/desires of susceptible youth by providing specific appealing choices to counteract/inoculate against the appeal of al-Qaeda etc,. The overall goal being to reduce the number of seekers; thus hasten the defeat of these extremist organizations.
According to this report, Al-Qaeda seekers have common coming of age characteristics. Yet, they choose the path of violent extremism. Also seekers are not homogenous. Instead they are motivated by distinct psychological, societal, econonomic, and cultural factors. For example, there are revenge seekers looking for an outlet for their frustrations, status seekers looking for recognition, identity seekers looking for a group they can belong to, and thrill seekers looking for adventure. The study goes on to show ways society can be proactive and meet the various needs of these particular youth so they don't turn to extremists groups for need-fulfillment.
Thus, the principal contribution of this study (everyone should read) is how to meet the underlying needs/desires of susceptible youth by providing specific appealing choices to counteract/inoculate against the appeal of al-Qaeda etc,. The overall goal being to reduce the number of seekers; thus hasten the defeat of these extremist organizations.
1
Very right, they should lose their passport, especially if they are not natural born citizens, but were refugees. One of the Tsarnev's of the Boston Marathon Bombing, returned to his home country, and then came back, as a "refugee, fleeing persecution" who could obviously visit without a problem, so why was he a special refugee with the perks refugees get, welfare, foodstamps and a 5 yr. path to citizenship?
Regarding the article, one way to stop the corruption of the youth would be to block the islamist propaganda websites. I have no prob limiting access to terrorist speech coming in from abroad. There is no Right of terrorists to use the Internet, it was created by an American President and fostered by the American military, not for the dissemination of our enemies propaganda. It is a War on Terror, after all.
Regarding the article, one way to stop the corruption of the youth would be to block the islamist propaganda websites. I have no prob limiting access to terrorist speech coming in from abroad. There is no Right of terrorists to use the Internet, it was created by an American President and fostered by the American military, not for the dissemination of our enemies propaganda. It is a War on Terror, after all.
1
If they want to join this murderous rape pillage and plunder for riches rampage in the Middle East it should be a one way trip -- they should be put in the position of either dying or succeeding there. If they return from their adventure Jihadism they should be arrested, tried for treason and then executed by firing squad. Whether when they come back they engage in terrorism here is irrelevant to their original quilt of treason by joining the avowed enemies of the society's that were generous enough to take them or their parents in as immigrants.
2
A US citizen who fights for another nation that has been labeled an enemy should be treated as an enemy of the state. Considering that ISIS was to damage and destroy western nations and kill their citizens, they are an enemy.
Returning ISIS combatants should be treated pretty much as anyone who has committed capital crimes.- They were volunteers and cannot excuse themselves by saying: "I was ordered to do that". By helping or fighting with ISIS, they become responsible for all terrorist acts that the group commits.
Returning ISIS combatants should be treated pretty much as anyone who has committed capital crimes.- They were volunteers and cannot excuse themselves by saying: "I was ordered to do that". By helping or fighting with ISIS, they become responsible for all terrorist acts that the group commits.
4
I think they misunderstand what the word "khalif" means. It is not a particular public office or position of authority. It is a quality of administration of such offices. A person with "khalif" harmonizes diversity, and thus helps to create an "umma", a place of harmonious coexistence of diversity. A community thrives on the exchanges motivated by the different values diverse people place on the same items or services. This, I think, was the merchant Mohammad's vision of utopia.
Not all travelers to the Western countries are go there to get some information about how to organize terrorist attack. Radical Islamists succeed in recruitment because the political system of the majority of countries is faulty to an extreme extend, which makes people angry about their native government.
Of course, they are scared! They are scared because the circumstances are so tensed that it's too difficult to find out whop is guilty and who is not. That's why the secret services will take everyone for inquiry
they should be free to travel....just don't let them back in. nations should adopt laws that take away citizenship for the sake of public safety and the common well-being.
2
Can you mention a single war in ME that US and West was not involved in? Or can you mention one that US was covertly participating and not overtly? Maybe if you stay out, there would be no wars, no foreign fighters, no radicalization, and more easier for people to rise up against their rulers, no longer backed by West. Maybe YOU are the backbone and of Radical Islam aka Wahabism. Maybe it is your petro-dollar trade, and your arms trade that empowers the headquarters of radical Islam - Saudi Arabia - to funnel $$$ to various jihadi outlets. Seriously name just ONE jihadi organization that is fighting for the sole purpose of establishing its sharia, and which is not Wahabi?
10
Are we in a state of war against IS and Al Qaeda? We are regularly engaged in armed combat against both. If so, traveling to them, training with them, providing them with "aid" or "comfort" is treason. If an American civilian is returning from Syria, Yemen, Iraq, or other JIhadi hotspot, can that person not be held on suspicion of treason, investigated and, if evidence exists, tried convicted and sent to some remote confinement for a very long time? (The French have laws against treason too, by the way.) We may not be able to stop them going out, but why can't we grab them coming back in?
5
Responsibility to declare war rests with Congress, not with the executive, under the US constitution. Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor and US installations abroad, Roosevelt asked Congress to declare that a state of war with Japan existed, and Congress did so. After 9/11, the then executive asked for and got an authorization to use force for specific purposes, in specific circumstances. While that executive thereafter perverted that authorization to purport a global war on terror, there has been no declaration of war by Congress. If there is no declared state of war, then how can there be any declared enemy to aid or comfort?
If one somehow manages to clear that hurdle, conviction requires a confession (presumably untainted by torture) or evidence of the same overt act of treason by two or more witnesses.
If one somehow manages to clear that hurdle, conviction requires a confession (presumably untainted by torture) or evidence of the same overt act of treason by two or more witnesses.
2
Let them go but don't let them back in!
5
For the USA, I have a suggestion that can help mitigate the flow somewhat.
Congress should declare war on the organizations proven to be threats against us. With that in place, the expatriates will face the charge of treason with all of it's harsh consequences including death. Although, under the Constitution, tyranny is difficult to prove (two witnesses), it may give pause to some who foolishly go abroad with the intent of returning later.
Congress should declare war on the organizations proven to be threats against us. With that in place, the expatriates will face the charge of treason with all of it's harsh consequences including death. Although, under the Constitution, tyranny is difficult to prove (two witnesses), it may give pause to some who foolishly go abroad with the intent of returning later.
3
Authorities try "to stop their residents from traveling abroad to fight"!
Their desire to fight jihad is dangerous enough. If they can't leave, they would be instructed by IS or Al-Qaeda and its affiliates to wreak havoc at home.
So to prevent youths from getting radicalised is crucial! Parents, schools, local communities will have to bear their share of the burden.
Their desire to fight jihad is dangerous enough. If they can't leave, they would be instructed by IS or Al-Qaeda and its affiliates to wreak havoc at home.
So to prevent youths from getting radicalised is crucial! Parents, schools, local communities will have to bear their share of the burden.
3
Untold billions of dollars of high-tech, invasive surveillance of everyone and everything, yet complete consternation in western governments about how to prevent identified participants in foreign wars and terrorist organizations from re-entering the countries from which they came. But the situation is further complicated by the little technicality that western governments have not officially declared war on anyone, nor has any Middle East country declared war on the West, but the West has been bombing, droning, and shooting with abandon in the Middle East for more than a decade anyway, killing untold numbers of innocents in the process. And the United States Congress can't find the time even to debate our involvement in the fighting.
4
The easy solution to religiously motivated citizens who travel to violent "HotSpots" has been pointed out frequently in this comment section: no right of return. Why bother with all the angst, tracking, and spying on people whose behavior is self evident. There is a caveat however that needs to be addressed: Some of the motivation is similar to the Spanish Civil War in which many fought against the Fascists and instead were on the side of the Democratic struggle. These are not the people we want to turn away.
The other problem with keeping track of the returnees is an outdated notion, I think, that we want to secretly monitor them once they come back. It seems impossible to employ the 12 or 15 agents to conduct hidden surveillance for every suspect. Rather why not just let them know that theyare being watched? Wouldn't this accomplish the intended result to force returnees to abandon any thoughts of committing terrorist acts? They would never be sure that any surveillance had tapered off, or just be intermittent.
The other problem with keeping track of the returnees is an outdated notion, I think, that we want to secretly monitor them once they come back. It seems impossible to employ the 12 or 15 agents to conduct hidden surveillance for every suspect. Rather why not just let them know that theyare being watched? Wouldn't this accomplish the intended result to force returnees to abandon any thoughts of committing terrorist acts? They would never be sure that any surveillance had tapered off, or just be intermittent.
1
One does not want to become a person of interest to the internet of everywhere running the facial recognition software under development now.
2
I don't mean to sound insensitive to the phenomenon of worldwide global terrorism, We all understand how it impacts us emotionally, how it makes us circle the wagons around the things we love, and ultimately how it makes us more adamant about our beliefs and values. Also, if left unchecked, we know it can and will spread. However, from a rational place, how many millions globally will die over the next year from polluted drinking water, poverty, hunger, neglect, and an assortment of treatable diseases. In the grand scheme of things, how many lives will ISIS and Al- Qaeda take? Conversely, how much copy and how many hours of TV news do we allow a relatively small population of nihilists dominate. I can't help but believe that heaping endless attention upon a group of sociopaths doesn't merely feed their sociopathy more. After all, isn't this what they covet-- endless media perseveration.
Building an alliance of strong willed nations to speak out and act out against terror, of course, is essential. Being always vigilant in the world today is imperative, yes. Perhaps instead, we may want to focus our attention on improving the conditions for people globally as the best means for thwarting evil rather than emboldening the evil attention seekers by allowing their deeds to dominate our daily discussion and drive paranoia at all borders.
Building an alliance of strong willed nations to speak out and act out against terror, of course, is essential. Being always vigilant in the world today is imperative, yes. Perhaps instead, we may want to focus our attention on improving the conditions for people globally as the best means for thwarting evil rather than emboldening the evil attention seekers by allowing their deeds to dominate our daily discussion and drive paranoia at all borders.
2
The goal of Islamic extremists is the destruction of the Western civilization. Thus joining their cause would obviously indicate you are an enemy of the U.S. intent on its destruction. We've got to make it that way - if you go, then you can't come back, if you fight for the enemies, you forfeit your citizenship. Why should American taxpayers have to pay the bill of having surveillance on these people for the rest of their lives if they return?
4
If jihadis want to leave and join anti-Western, terrorist factions, I think the answer is simple: let them go at the risk of total loss of citizenship, native-born or otherwise. It makes no sense that these people would go to the epicenters of human brutality, participate in myriad war crimes, come back home mentally damaged and traumatized, and then want to reclaim the comforts of the civilized nations that they abandoned. Who's going to be responsible for their mental health (and the subsequent fallout from it) when they return more destabilized than when they left? The government? Taxpayers? How can you align yourself with a group that practices manual beheadings, and then sit down for coffee in a Paris cafe, or go to the movies in New York? Pure nonsense. We should let them go, but with the complete understanding that when they do, they've reached the point of no return.
3
When there's a will there's a way. And I'm guessing that our porous southern (or northern) border won't prevent anyone from re-entering our country.
2
As per the map the only major country that is clean is India! That is primarily because their people have better things to focus on. IT for instance. We need to create a inclusive society where every citizen can look up to the major focus of their country and align their lives.
The problem is not preventing them from going, its stopping them from coming back. Yet, we have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to come and go as they please essentially for decades either coming over the borders or over staying their visas. Immigration advocates scream 'un-American' and 'racism' if anyone suggests strict enforcement of existing immigration laws. At what point will those chickens come home to roost?
2
With social media, one doesn't need to travel anywhere to become radicalized, hatch a plan, and execute it. The nations that are harboring militants, their leadership, training sites, and weapons caches need to decide for themselves that they want to work with the rest of the world, in peace and until that happens the cycle won't stop. Perhaps, extreme isolation is what is warranted, it just seems that coddling nations that harbor jihadists in any economic way is a form of enabling.
6
Much of this started with western intelligence organizations recruiting these young men and women to do our bidding against governments we did not like. We solicited them for advancing our policies in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan and now Syria. We encouraged them and trained them. The buck started with us.
In order for this monstrosity to stop, we need to first keep at arms length repressive governments like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Pakistan and others. As long as we give active support to these obnoxious governments, and they give money and weapons to these "jihadists", we will continue to pay the price for our own actions.
We are at the forefront of supporting these men and women. Our foreign policies dictate it. We need to disengage. Can we?
In order for this monstrosity to stop, we need to first keep at arms length repressive governments like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Pakistan and others. As long as we give active support to these obnoxious governments, and they give money and weapons to these "jihadists", we will continue to pay the price for our own actions.
We are at the forefront of supporting these men and women. Our foreign policies dictate it. We need to disengage. Can we?
3
Americans who went to Spain during the Civil War there in the 1930s, to fight in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade alongside the Loyalists, risked losing their citizenship for fighting in a foreign force (In this case, one that was deemed to be sympathetic to Communism). You would think that, at the very least, anyone who fought for Islamist extremists such as ISIS should get the very same treatment. So will they?
2
There is an important more general question here.
America should not allow its citizens to serve in the armed forces and military of foreign countries. This certainly should be true if the military are associated with terrorists or rogue states, but a strong case can be made that it should be a general prohibition. To give one example, I don't think it's appropriate for Americans, including dual nationals, to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Citizenship is an honor and a privilege. And it is a two way street. America must serve its citizens, but its citizens must serve and be loyal to America. Obviously, this nation provides many legal means by which citizens may effect change in our country, beginning at the ballot box.
I do not see how a person can serve in a foreign army (of any nation) and maintain the essential loyality to the United States; there is too much of a conflict of interest. This may mean there will need to be restrictions on holding dual citizenship, but I believe this is appropriate.
America should not allow its citizens to serve in the armed forces and military of foreign countries. This certainly should be true if the military are associated with terrorists or rogue states, but a strong case can be made that it should be a general prohibition. To give one example, I don't think it's appropriate for Americans, including dual nationals, to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Citizenship is an honor and a privilege. And it is a two way street. America must serve its citizens, but its citizens must serve and be loyal to America. Obviously, this nation provides many legal means by which citizens may effect change in our country, beginning at the ballot box.
I do not see how a person can serve in a foreign army (of any nation) and maintain the essential loyality to the United States; there is too much of a conflict of interest. This may mean there will need to be restrictions on holding dual citizenship, but I believe this is appropriate.
17
Agreed. Further, dual citizenship is inherently conflicted and allowing it is asking for trouble. The US should provide by law that: a US citizen who becomes a citizen of another country forfeits US citizenship; and a citizen of a foreign country must renounce all non-US citizenship in conjunction with being granted US citizenship.
1
Citizenship is not the only driver, you need to consider cultural and ancestral ties. Many who come here brought along their cultural baggage and promote oftentimes ethically incompatible practices that marginalize their groups. NYTimes reported that some migrants send their girls "home" to have their clitoris chopped off, tribalism trumps citizenship.
So much for that, but what about self-radicalization of born-in-USA whites with only USA citizenship?
So much for that, but what about self-radicalization of born-in-USA whites with only USA citizenship?
In the long run, the only thing that will work to will be for our culture to provide a better narrative which attracts young people than is provided by those whose values are fundamentally different from ours. Youth, especially, seek to ally themselves with a search for meaning, even if they are less likely than older people to define their actions that way. Hippies, Jihadis, Moonies, Nazis, culties, Brigadistas who fought in Spain, you name it and young people will attach themselves to something larger in a search for meaning and place.
The West -- and those non-Western countries which largely share the values of the West -- have lost the upper hand, when it comes to laying out a meaningful, exciting narrative that looks toward the future. Consumer culture, even with the promise of increased accessibility to the latest gadget by an ever-increasing part of the population, is simply not enough.
For the West to succeed, it has to re-energize its narrative of freedom and hope without dependency on material goods or religion.
The West -- and those non-Western countries which largely share the values of the West -- have lost the upper hand, when it comes to laying out a meaningful, exciting narrative that looks toward the future. Consumer culture, even with the promise of increased accessibility to the latest gadget by an ever-increasing part of the population, is simply not enough.
For the West to succeed, it has to re-energize its narrative of freedom and hope without dependency on material goods or religion.
3
This train left the station a long time ago. In reality, cultural differences in many countries will not be resolved in the near future (if ever) and conflicts will continue. With increasing numbers of immigrants how can this not happen? And as more come in, others (Jews in France as an example) will flee (or fight). These latest incidents in France are not turning points, they are just the beginning. And all the "unity" marches will not alter this.
1
Unfortunately the West is in a position that leaves little room to maneuver in regards to vouchsafing the rights of people to both be secure in their freedom of travel and also in ensuring the safety of the greater society. Sadly, many have seen this coming for a long time but these voices have been silenced by overt and biased concepts that are noble in name and idea but often not in practice, chiefly the concepts of diversity, human-rights (chiefly concerning asylum seeking refugees) and tolerance. None of these concepts should be discarded in the name of “safety” but how we understand them needs to change so as to mitigate the very real downside that can undermine these noble ideas, chiefly an active terrorist fifth-column threat. The West has or should have a right to cultural self-perseverance. This means a certain amount of assimilation should be expected by those seeking to find refuge in the West. The terror threat is real and is not monopolized by any one faith or people but rather is found among those whose radicalism has turned against the very Western societies that are offering refuge. Sadly, it will be a hard row to hoe and if not done properly we can expect to see innocent people swept up in fear induced hysteria. The treat is real it will take time and it will take patients but it can be bested without succumbing to the banality of bigotry and xenophobia.
1
While I am not sure what the rule of law is in other countries here you can have dual citizenship. Eliminate it. Pick either US or the other. In addition, United States federal law states you can be stripped of citizenship if you enter the military forces of another country without permission. Do it. Begin proceedings against individuals who we find fighting for other governments or terrorist groups without approval. I would also require individuals who go to the middle east to report every other day to the U.S. embassy. That makes sneaking into Syria or anywhere else a problem if you have to come back and forth all the time. And I would end travel to countries where there is fighting going on. At least any non-business and educational travel.
Will it stop the homegrown ones like the Boston brothers, no but it might help in reducing the number who try and go and come back. And if we can prove you went and you get stripped of your citizenship you are banned from the US for your lifetime.
Will it stop the homegrown ones like the Boston brothers, no but it might help in reducing the number who try and go and come back. And if we can prove you went and you get stripped of your citizenship you are banned from the US for your lifetime.
4
This is another of our follies to look for short term fixes for long term problems.
We wanted to get rid of any country's leadership that did not bow to our demands of subservience.
We have been doing it from the beginning of time and we are not about to change our ingrained behavior. Recently, about 5 years ago we actively promoted people to travel to the Middle East via Turkey and Jordan to enter Syria and Iraq to topple/create mischief to topple Assad and create insecurity in Iraq to lessen Iran’s influence and stop the so called Shia Crescent from forming (King Abdallah of Jordan on Charlie rose); That did not happen and the thousands of people sent to fight the so called rise of Shia Crescent resulted in radicalizing our youth in our own countries. There were a lot of people who opposed such a move and not start another Charlie’s war/army as we did with the creation of Taliban in the late 70’s. Taliban was one mistake but mostly they were in AFPAK theatre; but this time it is different and these people are our citizens and are trained and work as mercenaries in foreign land. They have every right to come back and quite a few are coming back. If we expect them that as soon as they enter our borders they will forget all the radicalization, it is our folly. The proverbial Chicken is coming home to roost.
We wanted to get rid of any country's leadership that did not bow to our demands of subservience.
We have been doing it from the beginning of time and we are not about to change our ingrained behavior. Recently, about 5 years ago we actively promoted people to travel to the Middle East via Turkey and Jordan to enter Syria and Iraq to topple/create mischief to topple Assad and create insecurity in Iraq to lessen Iran’s influence and stop the so called Shia Crescent from forming (King Abdallah of Jordan on Charlie rose); That did not happen and the thousands of people sent to fight the so called rise of Shia Crescent resulted in radicalizing our youth in our own countries. There were a lot of people who opposed such a move and not start another Charlie’s war/army as we did with the creation of Taliban in the late 70’s. Taliban was one mistake but mostly they were in AFPAK theatre; but this time it is different and these people are our citizens and are trained and work as mercenaries in foreign land. They have every right to come back and quite a few are coming back. If we expect them that as soon as they enter our borders they will forget all the radicalization, it is our folly. The proverbial Chicken is coming home to roost.
6
I think a deterrent would be to, upon verifiable evidence that citizens are traveling to participate in these 'jihad' type efforts, their citizenship /pasports ought to be revoked. If they want to go to Iraq, Syria, wherever for training..let them...but then don't let them back into the country.
2
A more radical option (beyond surveillance) would be to follow the model of the Union (as many tend to forget: the winners) during the Civil War with the post-Potato Famine wave of Irish. Require immigrants from islamic countries to show their allegiance by joining an anti-ISIS Legion in exchange for a green card.
The million-dollar question: how do you know someone has been engaged in fighting for ISIS, and how do you stop them from returning?
The consensus of all these NYT comments makes it sound simple: stop them from coming back, revoke their US citizenship. It will take a ton of money--taxpayer money--to look for and track these erstwhile soldiers, and even if you find them, can you imagine the legal fight to revoke their citizenship? More money spent, multiplied by obstacles thrown up in today's politically correct climate. The article suggests the soldiers' own families are the first line of defense, but I doubt many families will be turning in their sons. Letter writers, how about suggesting some realistic solutions, other than "don't let them back, revoke their citizenship." And while we're at it, maybe we can secure, at long last, our wide-open borders. Those open borders are bleeding US public coffers dry, in countless ways.
The consensus of all these NYT comments makes it sound simple: stop them from coming back, revoke their US citizenship. It will take a ton of money--taxpayer money--to look for and track these erstwhile soldiers, and even if you find them, can you imagine the legal fight to revoke their citizenship? More money spent, multiplied by obstacles thrown up in today's politically correct climate. The article suggests the soldiers' own families are the first line of defense, but I doubt many families will be turning in their sons. Letter writers, how about suggesting some realistic solutions, other than "don't let them back, revoke their citizenship." And while we're at it, maybe we can secure, at long last, our wide-open borders. Those open borders are bleeding US public coffers dry, in countless ways.
You make it simpler. We don't need to know if they have been fighting for ISIS. We say if you want to go to certain restricted countries I.e. Syria or Iraq you forfeit your citizenship. It is a one way trip for these individuals desperate enough to go. This will decipher the radicals from the curious traveler. This seems simple enough to you?
1
Do we really want those who want to go on jihad to stay here? Their radicalism won't go away. Let them go, revoke their passports. Put all the bad eggs in one basket far away from our shores.
1
So dedicated are we to freedom of expression that we are willing to give up all our rights including freedom of expression itself. Historically the Colonialism of the West caused all these problems. Now marching hand in hand in solidarity the leaders of the West propose to solve them by taking away the freedoms we supposedly stand for. Obama was symbolically absent out of political correctness, but he will be leading the way in increasing government surveillance and the power of the CIA. It's politically correct as long as no one knows about it.
1
Frankly, I'm not sure if this is politically correct or not.
If somebody wants to leave a Western country to go on a jihad, and it's so hard to prevent, then let them. But don't let them return. That's what immigration controls are for.
If somebody wants to leave a Western country to go on a jihad, and it's so hard to prevent, then let them. But don't let them return. That's what immigration controls are for.
2
Let them go. Just don't let them back in, and don't tell me we can't track people when our survival depends on it.
3
I think the approach is all wrong, it's not preventing citizens from leaving to fight with extremists, it's enforcing the meaning of what it is to be a citizen of the country that they're pledged to. Western nations need to revisit what it means to be a citizen, what pledges of allegiance mean and bring back the idea that fighting for enemy combatants are acts of treason.
If there is evidence that a citizen pledges themselves to ISIS or any other entity then their citizenship should be revoked (if they love ISIS so much send them a one way ticket out of the country). If citizens leave to fight for enemy entities let it be known that they won't be able to return to their home country and that they maybe targeted and killed like any other enemy combatant.
There is this strange expectation that the protections of one's home country's laws extend to those who leave, who commit treason, who pledge their allegiance to foreign powers. Just look at how we don't even say the pledge of allegiance in schools anymore, our pledges are mere throw away notions, while these extremists take their pledges deadly seriously.
If there is evidence that a citizen pledges themselves to ISIS or any other entity then their citizenship should be revoked (if they love ISIS so much send them a one way ticket out of the country). If citizens leave to fight for enemy entities let it be known that they won't be able to return to their home country and that they maybe targeted and killed like any other enemy combatant.
There is this strange expectation that the protections of one's home country's laws extend to those who leave, who commit treason, who pledge their allegiance to foreign powers. Just look at how we don't even say the pledge of allegiance in schools anymore, our pledges are mere throw away notions, while these extremists take their pledges deadly seriously.
12
They should be encouraged to go. It would be good to have all the jihadis concentrated in one region to be dealt with there. Just don't let any of them ever come back.
1
More important than men traveling to fight with Islamist extremists, where the funding for these groups is coming from. Hopefully they are closing that door as well.
The US govt had no problem penning the Patriot Act and erasing the average citizens personal liberties, so why all of this two-stepping around travel to and fro enemy territories? The US needs to tighten immigration law, for the time being. We need to stop considering the people who want to come here more than we consider our own citizens. This is hard-lined and not the usual MO for an educator, but only fools would protect possible terrorists (assumed) liberties more than law-abiding citizens. We may not be able to control the travels within or across the borders of Middle Eastern nations, but the US, France, Germany, England, Australia, (who has already taken action?), et. al can restrict and should. It's anti-terrorist, not anti-Islam, and maybe moderates will start to identify themselves.
As for comments about saving the disenfranchised, I couldn't disagree more. I worked with violent youth for a long time, and visit prisons, etc. There is a time when you can "save" a person, and we have lots of programs/people in place. What I am hearing more is that people are angry that they are poor in a rich nation. Understandable. I work four jobs myself. But the choice to justify anger with murder under the name of some religion is not deserving of my empathy. Education, welfare, these things ARE available here, as is the freedom to worship. Stop wringing hands about what more we can do and expect greater results from what we do do.
As for comments about saving the disenfranchised, I couldn't disagree more. I worked with violent youth for a long time, and visit prisons, etc. There is a time when you can "save" a person, and we have lots of programs/people in place. What I am hearing more is that people are angry that they are poor in a rich nation. Understandable. I work four jobs myself. But the choice to justify anger with murder under the name of some religion is not deserving of my empathy. Education, welfare, these things ARE available here, as is the freedom to worship. Stop wringing hands about what more we can do and expect greater results from what we do do.
1
Refusing to fight against our enemies, that is draft dodging, is an act as despicable as joining our enemies. In the past we elected such people to the higher positions to lead our country without any indignation. So why we are so upset now?
Agreed. Bush2 went AWOL on the last two or more years of his reserve commitment, but Daddy's Supreme Court pals levitated him into the presidency, anyway. Perhaps worse yet, his Neocon henchmen succeeded in conning the voters into giving him a second term despite his obvious unfitness.
1
The problem is NOT preventing them from going but allowing them to return. Let all who want to go, go but don't allow them back. How do you do that? Simple. The passport will be stamped when they leave a country. If say they have a passport stamped in Turkey and return to the U.S. three weeks later, no entry. If they don't have passport, no entry. If they have a passport stamped with Syria, Iran, Iraq etc, no entry. The stupidity is government officials who know they are fighting and allow them back in.
1
If they're struggling, that's their problem. Just have anyone travelling to one of these Jihadi hotspots draft a letter, with a notary, promising not to join ISIS or any other nationally-recognised terrorist group. [Sorry for the bad legalese. I'm not a lawyer]
Was not it just a few years ago that we had the arms for hostages deal? Remember Ollie North? Some years prior there were intensive efforts to destabilize the government of Michael Manley who dared to deal with Cuba and nationalize the Bauxite industry in Jamaica. USAID and other similar agencies were fronts for the destabilization of elected governments. Remember Patrice Lumumba, the elected leader of the Congo? He was murdered with the help of an USA Agency. The French and Germans, Italians and Belgians have been no better. The bloody massacres in Europe was about Islam as much as Slavery and Jim Crow were about Christianity. Denigrate and ignore and oppress any group of people based on their ethnicity and you will not need an electronic device like the internet to radicalize them. The French killers were born in France, schooled there and became disenchanted while living there. There are millions more in Europe, North America, South America and beyond. We just got another view of the famous iceberg's tip.
3
How does one set up the security apparatus to achieve these monumental goals? How does a country determine, at the governmental level, which area is off limits, and which behavior is unacceptable? How does a country keep tabs on every activity of every citizen who leaves to join jihadist forces? To say we should do this different from how to do it. Any ideas?
1
What we should be doing is putting a halt to Muslim immigration here in the US. After all, it is Muslims who follow Islam that have either sworn to kill non-Muslims, that would be over 95% of Americans on their target list, or support those who do. Let us learn a lesson from the Europeans on what not to do. Do not allow Muslims to do what they did and are doing in France and other European countries.
2
Why not revocation of citizenship for traveling to certain radicalized countries or regions? If you want to go; then go. But you don't get to come back. One should not be allowed the protections of a free society while concurrently planning violent attacks on those same freedoms.
2
Not that our administration will ever admit it, but we are actively aiding and abetting the attractiveness of Syria as a terrorist magnet because of our criminal policies of regime change and regional hegemony. Assad is the most secular leader in the Middle East, but he is public enemy no. 1 to the State Department. The CIA has terror groups on its payroll (Ahrar a-Sham). We are responsible for this.
5
Give me liberty or give me death. Many of us in the West have made multiculturism equal to democracy and liberty. Unfortunately, the price for this confusion is a large one.
2
Simple: just tell these soldiers that once they leave, they can never, ever come back.
3
What is missing from the debate on Muslims going to fight for ISIS is what is their motivation for doing so? Why are the young leaving the comfort of the home and traveling to Iraq and Syria? It needs an honest analysis free of biased and romantic thinking. Why did the Muslims from around the world go to Afghanistan in the eighties? was it for the love of Afghanistan or soemthing else? It all needs a brutal analysis.
1
Wrong ideas. Form a world-wide allegiance of armies; go into every place where these terrorist groups are; and clean them out.
1
One assumes, Murray, that these men shall boldly consist of people who aren't you or your sons and daughters, and boldly stride forth unencumbered by your increased taxes or the slightest other bold sacrifice on your part.
2
I will likely be crucified as a Pollyana, but to me the solution is simple: If all nations practiced the Golden Rule, there would be no inspiration for vengeance.
5
Pollyanna or not, you are right about what can defuse and eventually resolve this and many other problems which continue to trouble human society decade after decade, century after century. Perhaps we could set the example by ceasing support of foreign despots and tyrants in the oppression of their peoples in order to gain access on terms favorable to our industrial magnates to resources located in foreign countries. Democratic governments in those countries could still deal with us on terms favorable to the peoples of all countries involved, albeit less lucrative to the magnates.
1
How many American citizens are there currently in the Israeli army?
3
The fact that a recent attack was particularly horrifying and drew the attention of the world does not tell us anything about whether measures to reduce the threat have been generally successful or not. It may be that many attacks were prevented, just not this one, or it may be that the number of attacks being planned is very small, and only a few are prevented.
1
US and EU Restrictions on foreign military service (and dual citizenship) might logically apply to all ME countries.
As the president of France, Francois Holland, announced on national television after the programed Paris routine, which aired on the BBC and is now viral on global media,
"Ceuc qui ont commis ces actes, ces terroristes, ces illumines, ces fanatiques, n’ont rien a voir avec la religion Muslim" (Those who committed these attacks...have nothing to do with Islam").
Until/unless third party investigation is actually undertaken that delivers facts and data (rather than current cognitive and emotional agency messaging and state extra-constitutional policy acceleration), logic dictates a hermeneutics of suspicion, especially as media narrative literacy is fugitive.
As the president of France, Francois Holland, announced on national television after the programed Paris routine, which aired on the BBC and is now viral on global media,
"Ceuc qui ont commis ces actes, ces terroristes, ces illumines, ces fanatiques, n’ont rien a voir avec la religion Muslim" (Those who committed these attacks...have nothing to do with Islam").
Until/unless third party investigation is actually undertaken that delivers facts and data (rather than current cognitive and emotional agency messaging and state extra-constitutional policy acceleration), logic dictates a hermeneutics of suspicion, especially as media narrative literacy is fugitive.
1
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously as though you are suggesting a general return to actual investigative journalism, Matt. How many governments or three month bottom line oriented media company investors are likely to be in favor of that?
1
Have a law that allows the State Department to declare any country "off limits" to any citizen or permanent resident. Anyone who is in such a country (without prior permission) while a declaration is in effect, citizen or not, may not enter or return to the United States without being given a "clean bill of health" by State, Justice, Homeland Security, etc.
1
Countries that harbor terrorists need to be isolated. But the problem is also made much worse by President Obama, who seems either unable or unwilling to control our own borders, so we certainly have terrorists here.
Countries that participate in any way assisting or harboring terrorists need to be isolated by the rest of the civilized world. Our country, France, England and others that are civilized and now have been polluted by the enemy should deal with it accordingly.
Countries that participate in any way assisting or harboring terrorists need to be isolated by the rest of the civilized world. Our country, France, England and others that are civilized and now have been polluted by the enemy should deal with it accordingly.
Hmm. I wonder whether the raining of death from the skies by Western nations in the alleged global war on terrorism, which seems to be generating about 20 "collateral" casualties per alleged terrorist casualty, might be perceived as terrorism by the survivors, family, friends and fellow community members of those collateral casualties. An observer from Mars might also consider that it attenuates the claim to civilization of those who engage in it.
The West cannot credibly isolate countries which assist or harbor terrorists without ceasing to support the despots and tyrants in control of those countries, some of whom the West originally established in power. If we walk the walk of assisting democracy and self-determination in those countries instead of merely talking the talk while supporting the dictators (and reaping the resource extraction profits,) then resolution of the issues which give rise to disaffection, insurgency and terrorism will resolve, likely in less time than the century we have been following foreign policies effectively opposed to the values we claim to support.
The West cannot credibly isolate countries which assist or harbor terrorists without ceasing to support the despots and tyrants in control of those countries, some of whom the West originally established in power. If we walk the walk of assisting democracy and self-determination in those countries instead of merely talking the talk while supporting the dictators (and reaping the resource extraction profits,) then resolution of the issues which give rise to disaffection, insurgency and terrorism will resolve, likely in less time than the century we have been following foreign policies effectively opposed to the values we claim to support.
1
We need an anthem for our policy makers "Let Them Go" - didn't many of these people come here as "refugees" like the Boston Marathon bombing brothers? If you can go back, then go and hand over your US/French/or other country that helped your family when they needed it passport. So long, see ya. Why work so hard to keep these people here?
1
Perhaps some "thinking outside the box" is in order. For example, define terrorist organizations that operate a cross international borders to be pseudo "nation states" and issue formal declarations of war against them. Jihadists holding American citizenship could then be prosecuted and executed for high treason in wartime. Perhaps revocation of citizenship or exile could be added to the potential penalties for committing treason. Clearly, we can not let these people worm their way back into the country to constitue a fifth column committed to domestic terrorism.
1
The fundamental question is why young muslim men/women -- born and raised in wealth prosperous Western cities, including America-- leave everything behind and go to a Middle East combat zone where death is the only certainty. What is the motivation?
11
Yes. My city, MInneapolis, is home to over 30,000 people of Somali descent. Several young people, some American-born, are known to have traveled to Somalia or other areas to join Islamist radicals. This is against the wishes of their parents, who escaped Somalia on purpose. Why? Minneapolis is a city with a healthy economy and low unemployment. There would seem to be plenty of opportunity here for a young person to seize and live a happy and productive life. Why would young Somali-Americans choose to go fight and probably die? How could that be more appealing than a steady job and family here? Unless we find an answer to that question, I don't know what hope we have of stopping this trend.
1
Good question !
I understand that in a number of cases the promise of virtually unlimited wealth or pleasure in an afterlife provides enough motivation.
Similar intangible rewards mechanisms are widely and productively employed by many religions, cults, communists, etc.. Modern product marketing and political campaigning use it too--that muscle car may improve your chances with that cute gal you're after or cutting taxes for the super rich will create plenty of jobs for you.
It works.
I understand that in a number of cases the promise of virtually unlimited wealth or pleasure in an afterlife provides enough motivation.
Similar intangible rewards mechanisms are widely and productively employed by many religions, cults, communists, etc.. Modern product marketing and political campaigning use it too--that muscle car may improve your chances with that cute gal you're after or cutting taxes for the super rich will create plenty of jobs for you.
It works.
3
Another fundamental question is, why the jihad against the West, when they have land and resources to build nice lives for themselves in so many Islamist countries? Iraq was handed to them on a plate. Why go to Paris and live in a ghetto and have anything to do with Christian and obviously atheist cultures in the West? All they are doing is destroying the good things they have, and each other. It doesn't benefit the average person to continue on like this, it seems to be driven by forces seeking to control billions of dollars in resources in the middle east, who want to come out the one winner. If that message could be figured out and told to the west, the young would not go to fight for that. Instead they push identity crises on the young to get them to do their bidding.
1
It's simple. If they go, don't let them back in. If they communicate with these guys, throw them out. Profile them, stop and search them, and conduct covert counter-intelligence in their mosques and schools. And don't take any of them into the government or military.
Western countries should cancel the passports of anyone who is confirmed to be part of ISIS, Al Queda, and other terrorist organizations. Those who travel to countries where these groups operate should have to undergo extra scrutiny to maintain their passport. This policy would have to effects. One is that people considering going to these areas would have second thoughts. The other is that those who are likely to travel to any of the western countries would not be permitted to do so. Thus, the risk of a terrorist attack by them is greatly reduced.
Going to a war zone to provide support for a terrorist organization should be considered renunciation of citizenship.
The borders, including the porous Turkish border, should be monitored, pictures taken, citizen revoked, and passports confiscated upon return.
We wouldn't catch everyone, but many if not most.
Travel to Syria to support ISIS, or Yemen to train as a terrorist, should be a one-way trip.
The side benefit of this approach is to eliminate those who want to join ISIS from being among us.
The borders, including the porous Turkish border, should be monitored, pictures taken, citizen revoked, and passports confiscated upon return.
We wouldn't catch everyone, but many if not most.
Travel to Syria to support ISIS, or Yemen to train as a terrorist, should be a one-way trip.
The side benefit of this approach is to eliminate those who want to join ISIS from being among us.
There is a clearcut way to prevent those who joined the fight in Syria or Iraq from returning to France, the UK or the US. Cancel their passports and refuse them reentry. That this obvious solution is not even mentioned in this article by the author or any current officials interviewed is a major part of the problem.
The policy is backwards. The going to Syria part is not the problem. It's the coming back part that's the problem. Effort should be applied to making that as nearly impossible as you can manage.
1
Simple, don't let them come back. Revoke their citizenship and, if their family supports them, send them there, too.
Israel has a great method of dealing with those who try to harm their country from the inside....the entire family pays for it.
I'm sure some of you won't like this, but, I really don't care.
Israel has a great method of dealing with those who try to harm their country from the inside....the entire family pays for it.
I'm sure some of you won't like this, but, I really don't care.
1
The difficult part seems to be stopping them from going there. However, if they are that radical to go, I do not want them staying in country either. Revoking passports or detention are obvious steps to take upon return. It is clear Islamic radicals/extremists are the problem so it is not like we do not know who these people are.
The question is: why do they at all travel to war zones leaving the comfort air of freedom of the West and joining the cause that contradicts Western values?
5
There is a long tradition of our citizens fighting for other countries even when the US had not declared war. For example, US citizens fought for Britain and France (among other countries) during World War II before the US had declared war against Germany. Similarly, a number of Americans fought against Franco (e.g. Ernest Hemingway). More recently, of course when Americans fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan it was Ok but when they fought with the same groups against other entities it was wrong. Americans still fight for the Israeli army and of course in Syria for ISIS and other radical Islamic groups.
While groups like ISIS are abhorrent and the security issues are worrisome, I wonder if the government has thought these issues through.
While groups like ISIS are abhorrent and the security issues are worrisome, I wonder if the government has thought these issues through.
They were granted permission to fight which is required by federal law. Do so without and you can be stripped of citizenship.
1
Conveniently, like osmosis with semi-permeable membranes, this affords a natural filter.
It seems to me that it's not so bad that the people go abroad, such as the Islamist extremists infiltrate to us there. Obama's immigration policy has allowed to refugees from the East to come to America in the thousands. I doubt that there was no extremist among them...
1
We need to prevent the U.S. Military from going to Muslim countries to fight. That would solve 99% of the problem.
3
This article says that there are 150 Americans who have either gone or tried to go to the jihad in Syria. This is very vague. Whether they have "tried" or actually "gone" makes quite a difference. Are we talking about 125 guys who have been trained in bomb making and automatic weapons, not to mention jihadi indoctrination? Or maybe just 20? And the rest, who only "tried" to go...
Further on, the story says that "several dozen" Americans have "linked up" with jihadi groups in Syria and then returned to the U.S. Several dozen? Like, maybe 72-75 people who have "linked up" with ISIS in Syria, and are back in the U.S.? What does that mean? I hope the looseness of these figures is officially purposeful, and not due to "known unknowns." That would be very discouraging...
Further on, the story says that "several dozen" Americans have "linked up" with jihadi groups in Syria and then returned to the U.S. Several dozen? Like, maybe 72-75 people who have "linked up" with ISIS in Syria, and are back in the U.S.? What does that mean? I hope the looseness of these figures is officially purposeful, and not due to "known unknowns." That would be very discouraging...
1
If you swear an oath of allegiance to another nation-caliphate that is sworn to destroy the U.S., you lose your citizenship. 8 U.S. Code § 1481
You don't get to come back. You made your bed, sleep in it.
Time to start enforcing it.
You don't get to come back. You made your bed, sleep in it.
Time to start enforcing it.
2
I find it hard to believe that with all our technological prowess in the West that we can't interrupt the channels of influence used by ISIS to recruit impressionable youths.
1
Aiding and abetting an enemy of the U.S. is TREASON and should be treated as such. As soon as we know that a person has traveled to Syria or Yemen without adequate explanation of the reasons for being there their U.S. Visa should be rescinded and they should be barred from re-entering the U.S. As long as this policy is clearly communicated to the public in advance it would be both fair and justified as a security measure. Beyond that we simply need to get better at preventing illegal entry to the U.S.
1
So some want to restrict immigration, and some ("Western governments" according to this article's lede) want to restrict emigration. Is it any wonder that those being restricted on both ends are ticked off?
Why try to halt the flow? Bill Maher suggested that governments should allow citizens to go, even buy them a ticket. I agree. Just don't let them return if they survive.
Imagination laws have to be tightened up. Anyone gone to fight with a terrorist group should be banned from reentry or be required to reapply for their citizenship before being admitted back. This may encourage a large number of would-be fighters to back off. Those ardent zealots bent on fighting should never come back. Open borders and globalization works only with civilized nations. This is just the beginning of a lot worse scenarios to come.
13
I make lots of typos in my posts, embarrassing sometimes but whatever. Have to say, I am enjoying this one: "Imagination laws have to be tightened up." Yes, of course! No more daydreaming, no puppets (terrifying things), no free recess! Thanks for a chuckle. Btw, I agree with the post (minus that first idea).
1
While the West continues to meddle in the affairs of numerous foreign countries, you should expect some blowback. Since we've no intention of stopping, what we get is endless war. Good for the military-industrial complex, bad for you and me.
1
A commenter quoted Malcolm X about the chickens coming home to roost. This is certainly true for the western European colonial powers, France, Germany and Great Britain.
The presence of western European occupiers in eastern resource-rich third world regions in the 19th and 20th centuries has left a legacy of exploitation, intolerance and class consciousness which is at the root of current vengeful attitudes and alienation among those who have fled their devastated homelands to return out of desperation to the countries that helped devastate them.
Like the Arabs who live in Israel, these largely islamic immigrants are not made to feel at home in western Europe and are not encouraged to participate in the decision making which might make them feel more a part of their new homes.
As for the radicalization of islam back in the middle East, this is in large part due to the fragmentation (by U.S. led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) of "governments" - monarchies and dictatorships, mostly - which were keeping a loose lid on fractious tribes within geographical borders created, not by them, but by earlier wars which outsiders fought. Religion - and islam in particular - are the only overriding institutions predating colonialism and the only thing these middle Easterners can call their own. With this kind of history, it is no wonder that passions, and violence, are running amok.
So, yes, in that sense, the chickens are certainly coming home to roost.
The presence of western European occupiers in eastern resource-rich third world regions in the 19th and 20th centuries has left a legacy of exploitation, intolerance and class consciousness which is at the root of current vengeful attitudes and alienation among those who have fled their devastated homelands to return out of desperation to the countries that helped devastate them.
Like the Arabs who live in Israel, these largely islamic immigrants are not made to feel at home in western Europe and are not encouraged to participate in the decision making which might make them feel more a part of their new homes.
As for the radicalization of islam back in the middle East, this is in large part due to the fragmentation (by U.S. led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) of "governments" - monarchies and dictatorships, mostly - which were keeping a loose lid on fractious tribes within geographical borders created, not by them, but by earlier wars which outsiders fought. Religion - and islam in particular - are the only overriding institutions predating colonialism and the only thing these middle Easterners can call their own. With this kind of history, it is no wonder that passions, and violence, are running amok.
So, yes, in that sense, the chickens are certainly coming home to roost.
4
I believe you refer to remarks made by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a very well publicized sermon.
1
What is astonishing is that Washington has been sponsoring terrorism against Syria and other Middle East states for several years as part of its regime change policy. It has financed armed insurgents in Syria, Libya and elsewhere that have now mutated into ISIS/ISIL just like the mujahdeen of Afghanistan eventually became a haven for UBL and metastasized into a direct threat to the West. Many of the Westerners heading to join ISIS today were probably encouraged to do so by the actions of the West in supporting its forerunners in Syria.
Yet none of this taken up here. It's as if some people believe this threat just arose out of nowhere while they were minding your own business. However, without acknowledging your complicity in creating the present situation and ending your support for terrorism in the Middle East, how can you rationally hope to contain it? Or perhaps you don't and it is simply a business model that keeps your MIC going?
But like Hillary Clinton said: "You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard." So just how big a threat is Washington to the West?
Yet none of this taken up here. It's as if some people believe this threat just arose out of nowhere while they were minding your own business. However, without acknowledging your complicity in creating the present situation and ending your support for terrorism in the Middle East, how can you rationally hope to contain it? Or perhaps you don't and it is simply a business model that keeps your MIC going?
But like Hillary Clinton said: "You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard." So just how big a threat is Washington to the West?
3
If anyone goes to fight in these wars it should be a one way ticket. As for using the family as a first line of defense, instead of inviting them to participate, the government should make them liable for their children's actions. The Florida parents whose son killed himself in a suicide attack, and who knew he had travelled to Syria, twice, should face deportation or jail. Their failure to report their son is tacit approval. We have Muslims coming into western countries claiming asylum and it seems that their religion is in conflict with our values. This is not a secular religion and It seems second generations are not integrating in the same way that other religious groups in the past have and therefore we need to carefully rethink our policies on immigration as a line of first defense. If we are unable to integrate the people already here, we certainly should not be allowing more people in.
2
Make the airlines check better . They're making enough more with the drop in the price of oil to afford it.
This is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem. Forbidding it makes it more alluring, makes it seem romantic and defiant - forbidden. The problem is the same whether or not people travel to war. I wish that the straight-line US thinking on this issue was rejected by other developed nations. In Europe the issue is much more serious and pressing than it is in the US which has, for Muslims at least, become a police state.
1
What do they seek; these passionate persons, uninspired by their lives here and in other countries? Most likely they seek a combination of meaning and belonging. They have not found that so they seek elsewhere.
If WE truly want to lance the dragon we must do it with a seeking out of these disenfranchised persons and provide to them passionate, noble pathways to achieve the same inner relevance which they seek in the profoundly dysfunctional gangs they find. We must also close down the internet sites which promote this rabid dog terrorism including the magazines, the chat rooms and other sites. If they sponsor terror they are done. Free speech was never intended to incite violence against innocent persons and we should not allow our freedoms to be deceptively sliced up to provide room to breathe for these criminals. Finally, we must actively provide passionate education about the goals of a free society to attract and hold these wayward children and youth to give them the belonging, the inner value they are so desperate to achieve.
And.. we must begin now Worldwide to embrace these lost souls, men and women who would seek to follow in the God awful wake of these events in Paris. It should not be difficult to capture the imaginations of these youth who very much want to belong. That should be our mission, our enduring test, that success in life, work and home is far more attractive, more full of deeper meaning than what these criminals could possibly imagine.
If WE truly want to lance the dragon we must do it with a seeking out of these disenfranchised persons and provide to them passionate, noble pathways to achieve the same inner relevance which they seek in the profoundly dysfunctional gangs they find. We must also close down the internet sites which promote this rabid dog terrorism including the magazines, the chat rooms and other sites. If they sponsor terror they are done. Free speech was never intended to incite violence against innocent persons and we should not allow our freedoms to be deceptively sliced up to provide room to breathe for these criminals. Finally, we must actively provide passionate education about the goals of a free society to attract and hold these wayward children and youth to give them the belonging, the inner value they are so desperate to achieve.
And.. we must begin now Worldwide to embrace these lost souls, men and women who would seek to follow in the God awful wake of these events in Paris. It should not be difficult to capture the imaginations of these youth who very much want to belong. That should be our mission, our enduring test, that success in life, work and home is far more attractive, more full of deeper meaning than what these criminals could possibly imagine.
1
Why is citizenship so holy, so untouchable. You can lose your driver's license for endangering others behind the wheel. Can't your citizenship likewise be at risk -- taken away or put on hold -- if you leave the country to join up with terrorists?
When an Indian Nobel laureate in the past century was asked "What do you think of the brain drain of scientists and engineers from India" The distinguished gentleman replied "What brain drain, it is drained brain". If Citizens are going to leave the West to join terrorists forces let them go for ever and never to be allowed to return after killing people over seas, send them to Guantanamo. Yesterday I heard the UN ambassador speaking at the McConell Center in Louisville, KY criticizing the Assad regime for its brutality against its people and justifying opposing him. Fine. Whats the alternative? Creation and establishment of ISIS and even more brutality and atrocities? The civil war in Syria has created a humanitarian catastrophe. A civil war that was fueled by the West and has now ricocheted back to the West in multiple different ways. How much responsibility should the West take for messing up the middle east by taking sides and supporting the rebellions under the name of humanitarian crisis created by the help of yours truly the West? France, UK and USA were the chief suspects from the West calling for supporting the unknown anti-Assad rebel groups at that time time a year or 2 ago to the dim wits. Now we know who the rebels really are not the knights in shinning armor defending their fellow citizens but human kinds worst nightmare. Thank God because of the intense pressure from Sound thinking Americans (that would exclude some war mongers in the Senate) we are not at war.
1
Obviously the Assad regime was quite correct to claim that Syria needed to develop democratic attitudes and institutions before would be ready to implement democracy. Since that condition was a product of the regime's own practices, many Syrians were skeptical that the regime was serious about its offer to allow such developments rather than initiate a civil war, and chose to cut straight to the civil war.
2
Why not ban travel of US citizens to the war zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria as well a long known terrorist training centers such as Yemen. If a citizen travels there he or she is banned from re-entry to the US. France could impose a like law. It has been illegal for US citizens for decades to travel to Cuba so why would make this any different.
When you breed venomous snakes and don't know how to handle them well, they are very likely at some point to bite you. Also serves as a lesson to the so called paragons of conditional human rights (US, UK, France, Germany, etc.) who are really hypocrites. They shed crocodile tears for human rights when they have ulterior motives such as regime change in Syria, while having no problems with human rights in Saudi Arabia (the mother and fount of all Sunni terrorism). In future these western nations and their war mongering politicians will think hard about setting fires in other parts of the world.
Sorry, but this strikes me as a dumb and pointless exercise
except as a rationale for government to surveil and exercise
ever more control over their citizens - especially as the definition
of who constitutes an "enemy" or is a "terrorist" seems to be rather fluid - with the American government, anyway.
This week's noble freedom fighters tend to become evil terrorists on minimal notice, even absent any obvious change in their ideology or behavior.
I'm not seeing how the "cure" of measures that might prevent people
from traveling to engage in these conflicts is any less harmful than the
supposed disease it claims to be a cure for.
The US government harassed and persecuted Americans who volunteered
to fight in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War and what
good did that accomplish? OK the Islamic State isn't the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade, but this is something that is not nearly broke enough to warrant
the proposed draconian fix.
If people want to go, I say let 'em pick a side and go.
except as a rationale for government to surveil and exercise
ever more control over their citizens - especially as the definition
of who constitutes an "enemy" or is a "terrorist" seems to be rather fluid - with the American government, anyway.
This week's noble freedom fighters tend to become evil terrorists on minimal notice, even absent any obvious change in their ideology or behavior.
I'm not seeing how the "cure" of measures that might prevent people
from traveling to engage in these conflicts is any less harmful than the
supposed disease it claims to be a cure for.
The US government harassed and persecuted Americans who volunteered
to fight in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War and what
good did that accomplish? OK the Islamic State isn't the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade, but this is something that is not nearly broke enough to warrant
the proposed draconian fix.
If people want to go, I say let 'em pick a side and go.
1
I noticed two very troublesome themes on the comments below.
First, the suggestion of a widespread travel ban to conflict zones. This is unacceptable, for which there are legitimate reasons for people to travel to war zones, from volunteers on medical services to those organizing safe routes to take refugees out of the worst-hit areas, and also all sorts of people working as press representatives, bloggers from the ground etc. It would be extremely damaging to criminalize such activities under the pretense of stopping US citizens from joining terror groups. Imagine if no independent news crews were ever legally allowed to travel to a war zone except under "buddy reporter" programs carefully monitored by US/NATO forces - we would lose a lot of information, often the type of information the power that be would rather not have the public knowing about (think Abu Gharib, Vietnam punitive raids, American local allies in Afghanistan beheading infidels etc)
Second, it is a paramount principle that no state can revoke citizenship and leave people stateless. That would be a very bad precedent, one that other countries would gladly follow for other reasons once powerful Western countries say it is okay to leave its citizens stateless. Imagine, just for a moment, if a less than friendly government in Honduras or El Savador decides to declare its citizens that cross the American border as "stateless", preventing their deportation...
First, the suggestion of a widespread travel ban to conflict zones. This is unacceptable, for which there are legitimate reasons for people to travel to war zones, from volunteers on medical services to those organizing safe routes to take refugees out of the worst-hit areas, and also all sorts of people working as press representatives, bloggers from the ground etc. It would be extremely damaging to criminalize such activities under the pretense of stopping US citizens from joining terror groups. Imagine if no independent news crews were ever legally allowed to travel to a war zone except under "buddy reporter" programs carefully monitored by US/NATO forces - we would lose a lot of information, often the type of information the power that be would rather not have the public knowing about (think Abu Gharib, Vietnam punitive raids, American local allies in Afghanistan beheading infidels etc)
Second, it is a paramount principle that no state can revoke citizenship and leave people stateless. That would be a very bad precedent, one that other countries would gladly follow for other reasons once powerful Western countries say it is okay to leave its citizens stateless. Imagine, just for a moment, if a less than friendly government in Honduras or El Savador decides to declare its citizens that cross the American border as "stateless", preventing their deportation...
11
I don't think the vast majority of commentators here are advocating a wide spread travel ban to war zones. What they are advocating is flagging those who travel to war zones with the intent of joining the jihad and prevent their return. We obviously have the intelligence to identify them already. It stands to reason that we need to act on that intel.
The rights and freedoms of those who have legitimate business in the war zones need not be compromised. As to the principle of never revoking citizenship, I think there is a case to be made that crimes of terror against humanity is an act that in and of itself removes the perpetrator of those crimes from inclusion in the global community.
The rights and freedoms of those who have legitimate business in the war zones need not be compromised. As to the principle of never revoking citizenship, I think there is a case to be made that crimes of terror against humanity is an act that in and of itself removes the perpetrator of those crimes from inclusion in the global community.
2
"..it is a paramount principle that no state can revoke citizenship and leave people stateless." Hmmmmm, go tell that to those detained in Guantanamo Bay ,eh. The reality is citizenships are revoked all the time. Re-entry denied as well.
Thanks for adding a voice of reason to this debate. Reading these comments makes me realize that, despite the real stress and frustration that increased security is causing for those of us who must live and work in Istanbul, our situation could be a lot worse were populist voices to have more influence over policymaking in this area. Indeed, I see parallels to the handling of health workers returning from Ebola-stricken areas - despite all the fear and paranoia peddled by some populist politicians, we can be thankful that the executive branch of government resisted the more draconian proposals on the table.
Reasonable controls should be set but the question is, what is reasonable? I have Turkish relatives who travel to Turkey occasionally to visit family members. I have a close friend, who is Muslim and lives in Jordan. We would like to meet near her home and go sightseeing. What happens if I visit her? What happens if others bent on war and destruction visit Jordan and travel to Syria and beyond? Is travel denied to those individuals. We are a much smaller world because of air travel and I think it will be difficult to restrict travel. Where do we stop? But more importantly, how do we stop abuse, both by those who wish to harm us and those who wish to protect us.
We should stringently enforce the rules of citizenship and allow them to forfeit their citizenship through the actions of pledging allegiance to a foreign state or of entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state that is hostile to the US. If this is not enough, we should amend the laws to include participation in terrorist group that is hostile to the US. Go, by all means go, just be aware that you will never, ever be allowed back.
3
I subscribe to the ideas of many of our NYT readers regarding confiscating passports of those leaving our country to embrace ISIS. Muslims across the globe including Imams are not condemning the radicals; does this mean there is tacit approval of radical Islamists?
3
There is no need for an American to go to Syria, Iraq or Yemen unless on business for our government. First we should make it a crime, a felony, to go abroad to join a jihadi army.
We should not allow them back in the country. We must really resume our observation of mosques and make sure radical imams are not allowed to preach in this country.
Also we should consider whether it is wise to take refugees from Syria - look we took Somalis as refugees and we have a situation where many of their children go back to Somalia to join Jihadi groups. We should strip the whole family of their citizenship and send them back to Somalia. That is how we should handle any one who goes to fight Jihad.
We must exercise more caution in refugee admission, and we must keep up surveillance on Islamic communities.
If we fail to do surveillance we will have our own Charlie Hebdo massacre here. Jihadis and their family have no place in the US.
We should not allow them back in the country. We must really resume our observation of mosques and make sure radical imams are not allowed to preach in this country.
Also we should consider whether it is wise to take refugees from Syria - look we took Somalis as refugees and we have a situation where many of their children go back to Somalia to join Jihadi groups. We should strip the whole family of their citizenship and send them back to Somalia. That is how we should handle any one who goes to fight Jihad.
We must exercise more caution in refugee admission, and we must keep up surveillance on Islamic communities.
If we fail to do surveillance we will have our own Charlie Hebdo massacre here. Jihadis and their family have no place in the US.
2
Despite the rhetoric of leaders, pundits, and demonstrators, people are flowing to areas of conflict to oppose the state sponsored terrorism of their nations. They have been radicalized by the West's use of overwhelming technological violence to dominate Muslim countries, and have no democratic means with which to oppose it as citizens, so they choose the same violent options as their governmental representatives, taking up arms against the military industrial complex that now rules their world. There should be no doubt their struggle is as futile as attempting to change their militant state regimes through democratic mechanisms, which is an indication of why they have chosen to take up arms.
Any person leaving the U.S. to train with or fight along side a foreign group whose aim is the destruction of Western society should be banned from ever returning. If that person should return, he or she should be prosecuted as a traitor, and if convicted, executed.
2
I would think that Western countries should allow those who want to fight for ISIS/ISIL, leave their country on the condition they never come back. The last thing one wants is a seething extremist in their own country. This way, at least we can keep track of whom the extremists are.
19
Since these people are still citizens of their countries, arrest them on arrival on charges of conspiracy, murder and aiding and abetting an enemy.
if someone commits a felony in Mexico, and returns to the US, they can be arrested, so why not do the same for people who travel abroad to murder? Except, the CIA does this and they get away with it. We have laws, just enforce them.
if someone commits a felony in Mexico, and returns to the US, they can be arrested, so why not do the same for people who travel abroad to murder? Except, the CIA does this and they get away with it. We have laws, just enforce them.
1
Most of the comments advocate not allowing jihadis from returning to their home countries. A very simple and effective technique, but the first time the US Government tries it, the ACLU, the NYT and numerous other media organizations would enter attack mode. Any way do you really think that Obama would entertain that solution?
Would that mean that back in the day when DeBlasio went to aid the Sandinistas and travelled to Cuba, he would not be the Mayor today? Would John Kerry not be allowed back in after his visit to Viet Nam? Great solution but, sadly enough, it's not going to happen.
Would that mean that back in the day when DeBlasio went to aid the Sandinistas and travelled to Cuba, he would not be the Mayor today? Would John Kerry not be allowed back in after his visit to Viet Nam? Great solution but, sadly enough, it's not going to happen.
2
I wonder how different the world would be now if only George Bush had not issued the order to invade Iraq?
14
Amen to that! I have wondered the same thing. As Pogo stated all those years ago: "We have met the enemy and he is us". We wasted the good will of the whole world after 9/11, and the rest is history. Perhaps the unification of nations against terrorism, as demonstrated in France on Sunday will be another turning point. I hope so.
3
Comments by American officialdom sound eerily similar to those in the War on Drugs. A lot of bureaucratic lingo and superficial measures aimed an suppressing behavior. In the US, the ISIS recruits have been mainly teens and very young adults. In the recent case in Bolingbroke, IL, a teen tried to join ISIS. He'd also convinced his younger siblings to join him.
2
I didn't see it, but your post made it clear. Thank you for pointing out the similarity between the two "wars." I wonder if you think it will go the same as the war on drugs has gone, or does its even more urgent circumstances suggest that a positive outcome might somehow emerge.
Many American volunteers who survived the Spanish Civil War were suspected of communism or fascism after WW II back in the US.
Let them go! Then strip them of citizenship and don't let them back. Once someone goes to Syria to fight for a sworn enemy of the West they should forfeit their citizenship. Don't keep bad people in the country.
3
I would think people would mostly be afraid to report suspicious jihadist-tendencies in friends or family members out of fear it would mean condemning that person to torture in a secret prison somewhere. One more example of how we shot ourselves in the foot with our draconian response to September 11th.
2
Bush & Company obviously failed to comprehend the undisciplined freelance nature of jihadism.
2
@Steve Bolger.
Cheney said it was OK to do so.
And you better play nice because the liklihood of a Republican in the White House is rising.
Cheney said it was OK to do so.
And you better play nice because the liklihood of a Republican in the White House is rising.
Is it agreeable for US citizens to go the Israel to participate in their army? If so, what is different about other countries ?
1
US citizens who fight in the Israeli army generally do not come back to the United States and indiscriminately murder American citizens. That is the difference between them and Muslim jihadis who go to fight for ISIS or al qaeda.
2
For starters, Israel isn't known to host terrorism training camps and export terrorists into Western society. That's a little different.
Americans can serve in the militaries many countries, as long as those countries are not actively involved in acts of war against the United States or her allies.
Americans can serve in the militaries many countries, as long as those countries are not actively involved in acts of war against the United States or her allies.
2
If a US citizen chooses to go and fight for a foreign power or terrorist group, their passport should be cancelled and they be prevented from returning to the US. The safety of many outweighs the rights of several potential terrorist.
I think the problem our government faces are those European passport holders who are citizens of visa waiver countries. Realistically, they can get training in Syria or Yemen, return to Germany, Austria, or The UK and then travel to the US w/out any problems.
I think the problem our government faces are those European passport holders who are citizens of visa waiver countries. Realistically, they can get training in Syria or Yemen, return to Germany, Austria, or The UK and then travel to the US w/out any problems.
38
The ISIS ideology is being taught right here in many so called Mosques and are funded by our allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE. Turkey (a NATO member) with its extremist ideology is no help either. Look at the actions of the Turks for not allowing us to use our/Nato airbase to stop the ISIS fighters from annihilating the Yazidis and the Kurds in Kobani etc.
1
I agree. If the US has evidence that a returning citizen has trained with an opposing foreign power or terrorist group, that person's passport should be canceled.
1
Simple solution: anyone leaving for a Muslim country and verified as assisting ISIS or any radical Islamic cause should have their passport cancelled, making return to their country of origin impossible.
1
Let them go. Let them fight there with their brothers and sisters for no cause. Let them be manipulated and harrased by terrorist leaders in the name of their God. But never allow them back. They are no longer welcome.
5
Would it not be possible to monitor travelers to countries known to be jumping off points into the Islamist underground?
Could we not follow these individuals to their ultimate destinations, thereby learning the locations of terrorist training grounds?
Wouldn't that be useful information that could be used to execute targeted strikes, to which I suspect most Western governments would not object, at this point?
It just seems to me that this problem could be turned into an opportunity. I admit, it would make for bloody lemonade, but lemonade nonetheless.
Could we not follow these individuals to their ultimate destinations, thereby learning the locations of terrorist training grounds?
Wouldn't that be useful information that could be used to execute targeted strikes, to which I suspect most Western governments would not object, at this point?
It just seems to me that this problem could be turned into an opportunity. I admit, it would make for bloody lemonade, but lemonade nonetheless.
1
Assuming that our efforts, including stopping the flow of fighters to help ISIS and bombing ISIS strongholds will be hopefully successful and ISIS will be soon defeated, I wonder what will be Iraq after ISIS is gone. Will we able to restore peace and security in Iraq and Syria? This is the question.
will WE restore peace?…perhaps the iraqis should send troops to NYC to make sure the police are acting properly? the US invaded Iraq, a country that committed no aggression against the US; photos of the US bombing Baghdad, killing tens of thousands of civilians, pictures of US soldiers torturing Iraqi teenage boys on every front page…and now there is violence. How many people in the mideast must the US bomb/torture before they finally get it that violence is not an acceptable way to solve our differences?
Correction:
Will the peace and security be restored in Iraq and Syria? This is the question.
I did not mean WE are going to restore it.
Will the peace and security be restored in Iraq and Syria? This is the question.
I did not mean WE are going to restore it.
Dare I say that Europe would rather keep the jihadists coming home, and keep more Islamic immigrants arriving. Their social safety net needs more people coming to pay taxes. I'll bet it's the same underlying reason why France doesn't want the Jews to emigrate. It's not just an image problem, or a cultural problem. It's a "your tax base is leaving" problem.
Taking up arms against one's country is treason, isn't it?
Nations should get the word out that if you're a citizen you've pledged allegiance to your country and there is a steep price to acting against one's country.
Muslims understand the concept and price of apostasy--renouncing a religion. Acting against the country you've pledged allegiance to is a closely related behavior.
Nations should get the word out that if you're a citizen you've pledged allegiance to your country and there is a steep price to acting against one's country.
Muslims understand the concept and price of apostasy--renouncing a religion. Acting against the country you've pledged allegiance to is a closely related behavior.
5
All persons who travel to participate in terrorism related activities like ISIS or Yemen and the like should not be allowed to return to this country and their U.S. passport should be confiscated. European nations should do the same. All who leave to support or to visit terrorist sites should lose their right of return. Congress should pass laws making it illegal to support terrorism and this will provide the basis for passport confiscation and refusal for return to this country.
73
There already are a host of laws making it a criminal matter to support terrorist organization. Yet as to summarily stripping the citizenship rights of an American is more complex, and it is certainly not clear what manner this government would have to undertake that proposition,
1
And how do we know for certain if that is their reason for travel to these places? We have citizens who travel for many reasons, from business, pleasure, visit families...
Why bother stopping them. One of the biggest problems is separating the good from the bad, this would just make it easier.
8
Provocative article by Schmitt and Schmidt. In the old days we'd just invade Syria and Yemen. I think today we are hampered on the Left by political correctness and on the Right by isolationism. And it doesn't help that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were prolonged with no definitive results.
Many of the comments here opt for simply forbidding these terrorists to return to their home soils. This does not sove the problem and indicates posters' lack of desire for confrontation. The world will still have the terrorists.
However, it's difficult to declare war on "part of a religion", or, "part of a nation" that encourages or conducts these terrorist acts, as opposed to an entire nation state that is driven by an overt war policy. Intelligence capabilities with these groups play a bigger role than they have in the past.
We haven't been here before, and the leaders of the world are going to have to come up with an effective strategy. We can't address this terroist capability in a piecemeal manor. But if their citizens just don't want to go to war, then coming up with a strategy will be that much more difficult.
Many of the comments here opt for simply forbidding these terrorists to return to their home soils. This does not sove the problem and indicates posters' lack of desire for confrontation. The world will still have the terrorists.
However, it's difficult to declare war on "part of a religion", or, "part of a nation" that encourages or conducts these terrorist acts, as opposed to an entire nation state that is driven by an overt war policy. Intelligence capabilities with these groups play a bigger role than they have in the past.
We haven't been here before, and the leaders of the world are going to have to come up with an effective strategy. We can't address this terroist capability in a piecemeal manor. But if their citizens just don't want to go to war, then coming up with a strategy will be that much more difficult.
7
We actually have been here before. This is no different really than Nazi Germany. We decided then that total war was the answer. Is it the answer now ? Something's gotta give.but if we didn't learn anything from the past we are doomed to repeat it.
I wonder what mental state one must be in to believe that political correctness and isolationism are any bar to war with Muslims, and grossly disproportionate government responses to the acts of a few Muslim Criminals, none of whom were actually religious people.
I do know that before the Nuremberg Protocols became passe aggressive war for the resources of another state as well as preventive war were illegal. Though I don't know who would enforce such laws since the International Criminal Court has become irrelevant except in cases of selective use.
Isolationism? We are nowhere close to being isolationist. We invaded Iraq on a series of pretexts that a child shouldn't have believed, and we coddle Saudi Arabia, which is chef among the backers of ISIS without regret or recognition.
In case you haven't notice the Cold War is back, and you can bet our always wrong, but never held to account neocons, will never let go of it again. We have literally become the Empire of Chaos, and you actually think that political correctness and isolationism are our problems! What world are you in?
I do know that before the Nuremberg Protocols became passe aggressive war for the resources of another state as well as preventive war were illegal. Though I don't know who would enforce such laws since the International Criminal Court has become irrelevant except in cases of selective use.
Isolationism? We are nowhere close to being isolationist. We invaded Iraq on a series of pretexts that a child shouldn't have believed, and we coddle Saudi Arabia, which is chef among the backers of ISIS without regret or recognition.
In case you haven't notice the Cold War is back, and you can bet our always wrong, but never held to account neocons, will never let go of it again. We have literally become the Empire of Chaos, and you actually think that political correctness and isolationism are our problems! What world are you in?
1
ISIS massacres suggest a war of annihilation attitude on its part.
If someone chooses to go then no matter what, they are not allowed to return. If someone from the U.S. wants "adventure" then join the army and don't do it on your own. Make it very clear to folks that not coming back is the consequence.
15
want to stop the flow of fighter? simple: stop creating or exacerbating wars.
14
Why can't a blanket policy be instituted that if you go to Syria or Yemen or Iraq you will be closely scrutinized as to intent/activities and you may not be allowed back in if it is determined that your purpose in traveling to those places was to do with terrorism activities? This seems a simple solution: engage in certain behavior and you may not be allowed back in. Of course, it would be more complex, but why allow people bent on terrorism to have carte blanche access to those places that foster terrorism?
9
Any citizen returning from these countries should be detained upon return, evaluated and possibly put on a probation like system.
Tighten immigration not only from these countries directly but at the borders where not all those crossing are necessarily 'dreamers'.
Tighten immigration not only from these countries directly but at the borders where not all those crossing are necessarily 'dreamers'.
5
These people need to identified and corralled before leaving the country to train for jihad. However, here the US efforts to identify them, such a NSA telecommunications surveillance and "profiling," are not politically correct and are opposed by the liberals. Given that impediment, the solution lies in not allowing them to return to their nation of origin, which they have forsaken by becoming jihadists. Better yet take them out with a drone strike. Cheers!
11
This NYC liberal agrees with your thinking, Tennessee, particularly the second to last sentence.
2
This is a distraction from the real issue and that is ending the conflicts where these militants are able to flourish. Its time for the international community, in a scale like never seen before, to go in and end the bloodletting civil war in Syria.
2
"Its time for the international community, in a scale like never seen before, to go in and end the bloodletting civil war in Syria."
Since when interfering in the domestic disputes of other countries a good idea. Let them solve this problem which was caused by his interference in the first place.
Since when interfering in the domestic disputes of other countries a good idea. Let them solve this problem which was caused by his interference in the first place.
Why are Westerners who have gone to ISIS battlegrounds being allowed to return to their originating countries; and why isnt traveling at this point to Turkey, Syria, Yemen or Iraq considered a crime in Western nations with harsh penalties, no matter what reason is given for the travel plans? Any Westerner coming or going to or from these countries should automatically lose their Western citizenship; be thrown in prison is they are caught going; and refused re-entry to their former home countries (as now non-citizens) when they try to return. The list of target "no travel" countries can be increased to the extent Islamic terrorist ground fighting, or a large terrorist presence, starts to occur in new countries. Western countries are going to become a nightmare to live in, if stern measures at their borders are not taken now.
Moreover, anyone who is so lost in political correctness that they do not believe that Islamic areas in European countires need to be the targets of increased military, police, and intelligence service focus, is simply blind. Places like the Islamic slums around Paris have proven to be the incubators of anti-semetic protests, and the flow of Islamic French citizens to join ISIS. As we have now seen, if these particular people manage to leave to join the terrorist groups outside France, they can no longer be trusted when they return. This principle applies to any country with any population group sympathetic to ISIS and Islamic terrorism.
Moreover, anyone who is so lost in political correctness that they do not believe that Islamic areas in European countires need to be the targets of increased military, police, and intelligence service focus, is simply blind. Places like the Islamic slums around Paris have proven to be the incubators of anti-semetic protests, and the flow of Islamic French citizens to join ISIS. As we have now seen, if these particular people manage to leave to join the terrorist groups outside France, they can no longer be trusted when they return. This principle applies to any country with any population group sympathetic to ISIS and Islamic terrorism.
11
Oh what a brilliant plan you have! So all the people who live in France- who came there from former French colonies such as Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon- must never go home to visit their families! The five million Muslims in France who do not support terrorism must be corralled (oh wait, they already are, in the banlieus) so the few thousand potential jihadis can be dealt with. The cop who died on the video everyone saw, who was put down like a dog while he confronted the Kalashnikov armed attackers with a mere pistol, -Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim- and all like him, are to be corralled in France and must never visit the muslim world, right? You are a genius.
Long time back there was a concept called "exit permit". If you like to travel outside the country, you needed an exit permit. Time has come to bring back that system again in a modern form. An internet based system that will issue the exit permit to all travelers of a country. For regular travellers and business travellers, a 10 years permit can be issued after verification. Today it is possible to make this system work with minimal interference in the travel plan. And by using good analytic it will be possible to stop this flow of citizens to Islamist territories. At present governments are not thinking creative way to stop this maniac.
6
Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.
This is entirely unacceptable. It is like treating all citizens as potential criminals, unless otherwise proven. It is something that countries like Cuba or North Korea (and to a lesser degree) China use to prevent people from embarassing their own governments by being vocal about their misdeeds while abroad.
Are you really sure you want federal officials determining who is 'worth enough' to be allowed to leave the country?
Are you really sure you want federal officials determining who is 'worth enough' to be allowed to leave the country?
Go to Syria or Afghanistan as a "tourist" and you lose American citizenship. Problem solved.
15
What about war reporters, aid workers and others? Should they have their citizenship revoked as well?
We have to address the cause of the problem in Western Europe rather than just retroactively and with vengeance in our hearts address the symptoms. Most muslim youths in France, the UK and Germany are just that - youths who want to live, drink, party, fall in and out of love, start families and be able to provide for them. I know that because I grew up with them in Germany. Provide equal opportunities to all citizens, and the flow of jihadists will dwindle and national unity will be strengthened. After all, these countries are aging rapidly and urgently need to make integration of residents with non-white ethnic backgrounds a priority in order to sustain their economies. That also means conquering the fear of change among "natives," many of whom appear not to really know or understand their "immigrant" (many of them actually born and raised in Europe) neighbors.
7
You are missing the point. This isn't about making excuses for the atrocities committed by individuals - far from it. I'm talking about addressing systemic imbalances in order to better society as a whole. Think of it as a form of socio-economic immunization.
Young Muslims in America face daunting challenges. Many are poor, experiencing overt discrimination and suspicion, limited or no jobs openings, higher education beyond their means, living in families barely integrated into American life and religious experiences that may further alienate them. For them, social media messages pulling them into radical groups abroad, represents validation and sometimes, revenge. Dangerously, their overseas experience further dehumanizes them and just one or two returning home can cause many deaths and psychological trauma
1
To blgreenie
Wait just a minute. Lots of Americans face daunting challenges. That is no excuse for participating in or advocating terrorism or palling with and condoning those who do.
Wait just a minute. Lots of Americans face daunting challenges. That is no excuse for participating in or advocating terrorism or palling with and condoning those who do.
24
The US vastly oversells itself as a nice place to move to. Many who immigrate here terribly miss the multi-generational support systems of their home villages. There are not very many traditional villages in the US.
1
So, why come here in the first place?
1
It's simple;
1. Externalize the threat, remove those that present a threat to our country and those who have gone to fight / train don't let them back in the country.
2. Deport clerics that promote (most are foreign born, 80%) a radical message.
3. Block Islamic radical websites, if the Chinese can do it we can do it.
1. Externalize the threat, remove those that present a threat to our country and those who have gone to fight / train don't let them back in the country.
2. Deport clerics that promote (most are foreign born, 80%) a radical message.
3. Block Islamic radical websites, if the Chinese can do it we can do it.
11
As step 1A, I would just add that once externalized, we ought to target the worst of the lot.
Its heart braking and bleeding to read about killings or the beheadings of individuals all over the newspapers, especially when it comes to relating the killings to religion, kidnapping, hostage taking, pirates and tourism evasion.
The West must not only focus on militants who ought to go and fight for Islamic fundamentalist but also prevent its citizens to travel on these dangerous war zones which has left lot of families and governments with bad memories, ghost resurgences and debts.
Prevention is a tool but must be coordinated with government effort to dismantle borders within its own territory. The failure to coordinate the integration of 2nd and 3rd generation of children of immigrant has contributed to the evasion of dogma and culture among these groups.
Application tools, surveillance agencies are trying harder everyday to gather information and prevent the worse from happening, but governments must stand and support with programs within its borders to curve the divergence of bleeding hearts and rejected forces.
The West must not only focus on militants who ought to go and fight for Islamic fundamentalist but also prevent its citizens to travel on these dangerous war zones which has left lot of families and governments with bad memories, ghost resurgences and debts.
Prevention is a tool but must be coordinated with government effort to dismantle borders within its own territory. The failure to coordinate the integration of 2nd and 3rd generation of children of immigrant has contributed to the evasion of dogma and culture among these groups.
Application tools, surveillance agencies are trying harder everyday to gather information and prevent the worse from happening, but governments must stand and support with programs within its borders to curve the divergence of bleeding hearts and rejected forces.
1
Once you know anyone has been out there joining jihad, strip them of citizenship or residence and don't let them back in. Deport their families as well.
15
It is the chicken coming home to roost. When the foreign Islamists were flocking to Syria to fight the Assad regime at the behest of the Saudis, Western governments turned a blind eye. Experts, even Assad, rightly warned that those same fighters would return home and do damage there. Now we are struggling to stop the pipeline that Islamists use to get to the Middle East, when we should have stopped it from being built in the first place.
4
I say let them go. You wouldn't want them around. Just prevent them from ever coming back.
12
A strange contorted article that seems to do nothing but insert vague suspicion into any American who might travel to Arabic countries. The nytimes can do better than this. Terrorism is real but the quote "A first line of defense is family and friends, federal officials say." is something out of Orwell.
7
What is Orwellian about concerned family and friends moving past their "fear of being arrested, prosecuted and public ridicule" to seek help and report that their cherished child, relative or friend is about to be swallowed by the deceitful IS menace?
It's bad enough for young men, but have you read the reports on how female volunteers are treated? Anyone who loves these people would want to prevent them tossing themselves into the furnace. Especially when IS slaughters those who attempt to desert the cause.
It's bad enough for young men, but have you read the reports on how female volunteers are treated? Anyone who loves these people would want to prevent them tossing themselves into the furnace. Especially when IS slaughters those who attempt to desert the cause.
pd, that extra florid language you use gives you away.
Any govt that specifically requests that its citizens report family members for subversion is as dark as it gets,
Any govt that specifically requests that its citizens report family members for subversion is as dark as it gets,
When all you need is three--three!--suicidal killers with automatic weapons available everywhere, it's sort of hard to "control" the situation anywhere, isn't it?
54
I think that anyone who travels abroad to train with terrorists should be barred from reentry and be stripped of their citizenship. that is for the protection of law
abiding citizens.
abiding citizens.
As long as people continue to believe that there is romance and adventure in war, some will go off to join wars wherever they can find them.
8
I couldn't even go on vacation in the British Virgin Islands without getting the third degree from our border security. How can these people travel back and forth from anti-American war zones?!?
116
This question should not be left begging. It deserves a straightforward response from our government.
Easily. Especially so due to the fact that they are war zones... No surprise there.
1
If someone is hell bent on doing something they really want to do then it is going to be pretty difficult to try to stop them. The only plausible thing to do is to insure that they are adequately punished and thus prevented from importing their violence back into this or any other Country. Sounds lie a no-brainer to me.
3
I have read many of the comments which have as a shared theme...let them go but do not let them back. With the current administration in charge of such matters here in the USof A, they have to have the intestinal fortitude to do such a thing without fear that it will harm someone's feelings. You go train and or fight for our enenmy, you stay our enemy and you live and die with our enemy, no longer as a citizen of this great country.
20
When a resident of the US or other western country travels to join a jihadist group, they should not be permitted to return. No airline should sell them a ticket and if they by some means do return they should be placed on a military plane and returned to their friends in Iraq or wherever. They have made their choice; let them go and make them stay there and enjoy the tender mercies of their new friends. No more returning jihadists.
14
Since just one or two returning individuals can cause the deaths of many and huge psychological trauma, we are taking a very calculated risk in attempting to identify those likely to travel abroad. If we miss identifying just a few, those could be the ones to return and harm us. The chance of that occurrence diminishes if we decide to bar those returning. It's a tough approach for young and impressionable people who have made a wrong decision to go abroad. However, lives of innocent Americans may hang in the balance.
2
Ironic that this article appears the same day as an editorial concerning Afghan interpreters being blocked from entering the US after serving with the US military against the Taliban.
10
Providing a nicer life for specific ethnic groups at taxpayer expense has allowed pockets of zealots to thrive and rapidly reproduce in some areas of the U.S., and they are smart enough to demand even more, in the name of "saving our youth". Funding these groups because of political pressure is not the answer. Not only will it never be enough, but it is not possible to tease apart those who want to assimilate into a civilized world from those who wish to spread a dark, violent, male-dominated culture throughout the civilized world.
10
We cannot prevent individuals from reaching war zones, as they'd take indirect flights from other countries. But we can be more successful in identifying who has been to such a war zone and prosecute them immediately upon return.
I realize that it is not always easy to prove that someone had been to Syria, for example (they would not stamp their passport there, would they?), but there are ways to identify at least some of them. When people will know that they are looking at a 10-year sentence upon return, they would either not come back or not go to war zones in the first place. Either way we would be able to significantly reduce the number of terror attacks.
In the old days (1950's), you could lose your citizenship for fighting in the service of another country -- especially an enemy country. Maybe we should bring this practice back, too.
I realize that it is not always easy to prove that someone had been to Syria, for example (they would not stamp their passport there, would they?), but there are ways to identify at least some of them. When people will know that they are looking at a 10-year sentence upon return, they would either not come back or not go to war zones in the first place. Either way we would be able to significantly reduce the number of terror attacks.
In the old days (1950's), you could lose your citizenship for fighting in the service of another country -- especially an enemy country. Maybe we should bring this practice back, too.
9
Depended on the country whose flag you served under. China, Canada, and Great Britain among others had Americans serving.
Let them go, never let them return.Violence only begets more violence, and if they can behead another human being in another's land,while serving their false god allah, than surely they will be brazen enough to do the same once they are back home. I can promise you that their very creator has seen their betrayal, and their lives will end in the dust just like their false prophets did. No one, no prophet, no preacher, no pope, no imam, or any others who think they are holy will ever enter paradise without their beloved, the one their creator made them for. They are murderers, nothing more.
4
Isn't the first line of defense to NOT let these people back into the countries they left? You forfeit your citizenship and rights in one country if you go to join a terrorist organization. Never mind what Turkey can or cannot do about controlling its borders, let France, Germany, Britain, U.S.A., Canada, etc. control the right to re-enter.
You can never go home again.
It seems so obvious.
Am I missing something?
You can never go home again.
It seems so obvious.
Am I missing something?
23
I agree. We can never be certain that some won't slip back into the U.S., but we can make it more difficult. As other posters have pointed out, there used to be laws that revoked the citizenship of anyone who leaves the U.S. to fight for an enemy. We can pressure nations such as Turkey to police their borders more effectively, but, there's more that we can do here at home.
3
Clearly, international intelligence can't keep up with what people do when they are out of the U.S. or other Western countries.
We should ask ourselves why young Muslim men from rich Western countries go to war in the Middle East. Many of them are underprivileged and unemployed. And many think that what our governments did to the people of the Middle East after 9/11 is outright unjust and horrific: the war against Iraq, with so many innocent victims and terror as a consequence, the support of authoritative regimes for all the wrong reasons, the suppression of Palestine by Israel, and so on. Our governments must change how they treat the Muslim world in the Middle East.
7
Ridiculous! These young men are going because they want power to oppress and they believe that they will get that with the jihadists. Let them go and never let them come back.
As to paying protection money, I say no.
We have an obligation to all of our citizens to make the country a place of opportunity.
As to paying protection money, I say no.
We have an obligation to all of our citizens to make the country a place of opportunity.
4
No, we shouldn't, because no possible answer would justify violence against citizens in the name of religion.
1
This is the part that I don't get. If you leave your country to fight in another countries war without permission, you should not be allowed to return. Period. How are we not able to track this? Their citizenship and passport should be revoked. pure and simple. I wouldn't stop them from leaving but I'd make it clear they can't come back.
28
Wrong approach. How can we call ourselves a free and open society when we try to prevent people to travel and exert their free will. We should and must let them go! However, we don't have to let them return. In fact, we must not let them return. That is simply prudence and self-protection.
The reason for letting these people go and join ISIS is simple: By the time they have made that decision, they are already incorrigible time bombs living in our midst. Their thoughts are free, we cannot read them, and we cannot incarcerate or otherwise eliminate these time bombs on suspicion alone, so we have to wait until they document their thoughts with actions.
Once they have joined ISIS, we can kill them, no more questions asked.
A clean, straightforward and permanent solution to a messy problem.
Obviously, this is not the preferred solution. It would be much better to prevent their radicalization in the first place. The only way I see of doing that is for Islam to be come a secular religion, i.e. one that accepts the separation of church and state and one that accepts not only new members in, but also allows its members to leave without fear of death threats as is the case now. THAT fact is what makes Islam as a whole a terrorist ideology.
Every Christian can leave the Church to join another religion, without any fear of repercussion, but everyone who has left would also be welcomed back with open arms.
No Muslim can do that!
THAT'S NO RELIGION, THAT'S TERROR!
The reason for letting these people go and join ISIS is simple: By the time they have made that decision, they are already incorrigible time bombs living in our midst. Their thoughts are free, we cannot read them, and we cannot incarcerate or otherwise eliminate these time bombs on suspicion alone, so we have to wait until they document their thoughts with actions.
Once they have joined ISIS, we can kill them, no more questions asked.
A clean, straightforward and permanent solution to a messy problem.
Obviously, this is not the preferred solution. It would be much better to prevent their radicalization in the first place. The only way I see of doing that is for Islam to be come a secular religion, i.e. one that accepts the separation of church and state and one that accepts not only new members in, but also allows its members to leave without fear of death threats as is the case now. THAT fact is what makes Islam as a whole a terrorist ideology.
Every Christian can leave the Church to join another religion, without any fear of repercussion, but everyone who has left would also be welcomed back with open arms.
No Muslim can do that!
THAT'S NO RELIGION, THAT'S TERROR!
43
Apparently no American can leave America for another religion and come back to America. This is more about greed trampling on religion.
Ironically, this is similar to the drug war the U.S. has been fighting for 50 years or so. We love to do drugs here in America but our gov't spends billions to make the cost of these drugs go through the roof. Has it stopped us from doing or getting them? I think the best policy is a "Don't Tread on Me" policy. With the nsa, we have been treading on everyone
Ironically, this is similar to the drug war the U.S. has been fighting for 50 years or so. We love to do drugs here in America but our gov't spends billions to make the cost of these drugs go through the roof. Has it stopped us from doing or getting them? I think the best policy is a "Don't Tread on Me" policy. With the nsa, we have been treading on everyone
1
I am all for everyone's civil rights. Given the extreme nature of the threat (as occurred in Paris last week) I think that if the government has evidence that US citizens went to fight in the so called jihad, whether in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere, we should be able to keep them out of our country legally. On a practical note, not sure how one could enforce this law.
7
For a US citizen performing military service with IS, or other islamic groups with whom we are at war, is treason under Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. We can certainly capture these people if they return to the US, try them and if guilty then we should sentence them to life in prison without parole. No new law is needed this is already on the books under existing laws.
26
Life? Isn't treason in time of war punishable by execution?
1
When the problem we face is the fact our own gov't acted outside our own Constitution, how can we blame anyone else? Our own gov't creates this environment, the laws, and the wars. We are now fighting a half a trillion dollar war machine. It is time to stop feeding the machine that makes the war that makes the world hate us! All of this for greed and none for the progression of mankind.
1
"time of war"
Did the Congress declared war against Iraq again?
Did the Congress declared war against Iraq again?
Radical Islamic groups have as their goal the destruction of Western civilization. Thus joining their cause would obviously indicate you are an enemy of the U.S. intent on its destruction If you go to fight for them you should lose your citizenship and be denied re-entry into the country. Why should American taxpayers have to pay the bill of having surveillance on these people for the rest of their lives if they return.
99
Western countries are declaring war on terrorism. So, those who embrace this enemy of the state should be arrested as traitors. End of story.
Articles like this show the need for the West to have more stringent immigration policies as well as a get tough policy on those who decide to go join ISIS and similar organizations that seek the death and subjucation of non-Muslims. They consider the enslavement of their opponents as worthy causes. They need to be imprisoned themselves.
28
Who's going to enforce those laws? Disenfranchised and overworked TSA officials at airports who make minimum wage?
Isis is a declared terrorist organization bent on destroying the United States. Any US citizen who fights with ISIS should be tried and jailed if they return to this country. Any non citizen should be deported or not allowed to return to the US.
The same applies to anyone who fights for any terrorist organization of state that has been declared a supporter of terrorists.
It is absurd for us to try to talk another country from letting them get into a terrorist state or organization. Let them go. Just arrest, try and convict them when they return.
You can not participate in an act to overthrow the US government without paying a price even if you are a self proclaimed profit or a leader of any religious organization. Freedom of religion does not extend to criminal acts either direct or recruitment of others who commit the act.
Of course, our current President welcomes back even deserters and trators, at least until others with first hand experience of the act started pointing out the truth. So, where is the military indictment? Ask our Commander in Chief.
The same applies to anyone who fights for any terrorist organization of state that has been declared a supporter of terrorists.
It is absurd for us to try to talk another country from letting them get into a terrorist state or organization. Let them go. Just arrest, try and convict them when they return.
You can not participate in an act to overthrow the US government without paying a price even if you are a self proclaimed profit or a leader of any religious organization. Freedom of religion does not extend to criminal acts either direct or recruitment of others who commit the act.
Of course, our current President welcomes back even deserters and trators, at least until others with first hand experience of the act started pointing out the truth. So, where is the military indictment? Ask our Commander in Chief.
12
Agreed, with the exception of letting them come back and putting them in jail. I see no point in making them a burden of the taxpayer. We need to have fewer people in jail in this country, not more! Especially hardened terrorists who can never again be released. Just calculate the expense of keeping them locked up for life!
After they have left, they are fair game. Let them join ISIS, then hunt them down as the traitors they are. Joining a foreign military always has been a valid reason to revoke US citizenship (just read what your passport says), at the sole discretion of the State Department. No congressional action required. This is NOT a binding requirement, i.e. a dual US-Canadian citizen would not have to lose US citizenship if serving in the allied Canadian forces, it is a discretionary clause that hinges on the INTENTION to relinquish US citizenship. I would say, fighting against US Forces or in the forces of an enemy of the State is a pretty clear expression of that intention.
Thus, really all the State Department needs to do is publish a policy letter that anyone joining ISIS automatically loses US citizenship. Voila, no more coming back to the US and no more hand-wringing if drone droppings fall on their head.
After they have left, they are fair game. Let them join ISIS, then hunt them down as the traitors they are. Joining a foreign military always has been a valid reason to revoke US citizenship (just read what your passport says), at the sole discretion of the State Department. No congressional action required. This is NOT a binding requirement, i.e. a dual US-Canadian citizen would not have to lose US citizenship if serving in the allied Canadian forces, it is a discretionary clause that hinges on the INTENTION to relinquish US citizenship. I would say, fighting against US Forces or in the forces of an enemy of the State is a pretty clear expression of that intention.
Thus, really all the State Department needs to do is publish a policy letter that anyone joining ISIS automatically loses US citizenship. Voila, no more coming back to the US and no more hand-wringing if drone droppings fall on their head.
1
How arrogant can America be? When offending, act aggrieved!
If we paid attention, we might realize that ISIS is NOT "bent on destroying the United States." It's not the target. The goal is to establish the Caliphate of the Levant, a Muslim nation – kind of like Israel, a comparison I know won't set well with many. America's intrusions in the Middle East makes it "cannon fodder" and its allies vulnerable.
The only Westerners attacked at home in the last year are America's coalition partners – England, Canada, Australia and France – and the only hostages beheaded, citizens of those countries.
Grandiose statements like "bent on destroying the United States" are fallacies and serve no purpose. Delusional, maybe, but America is not at all THAT "exceptional."
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts." ~ H.L. MENCKEN
If we paid attention, we might realize that ISIS is NOT "bent on destroying the United States." It's not the target. The goal is to establish the Caliphate of the Levant, a Muslim nation – kind of like Israel, a comparison I know won't set well with many. America's intrusions in the Middle East makes it "cannon fodder" and its allies vulnerable.
The only Westerners attacked at home in the last year are America's coalition partners – England, Canada, Australia and France – and the only hostages beheaded, citizens of those countries.
Grandiose statements like "bent on destroying the United States" are fallacies and serve no purpose. Delusional, maybe, but America is not at all THAT "exceptional."
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts." ~ H.L. MENCKEN
4
We are doing enough to destroy the ideals upon which this county is founded. We not need ISIS to do that. In a country where draft dodgers become president it is hard to condemn the youth who go to fight in other countries such as Israel, Iraq and Syria.
How could any sane person not come to the conclusion that extremist groups will increasingly attract more and more recruits to their cause the longer our military forces (14 years now) wage war in the Muslim world killing innocent civilians indiscriminately (which itself is a war crime).
If the U.S. policy of aggression is not working to remove the threat of terrorism directed at the homeland by extermination perhaps a new strategy using diplomacy is in order.
When has the NY Times ever run a continuing in-depth series of the history of our foreign policy in the Middle East and how our actions may in large part be responsible for the backlash today including 9/11?
If the U.S. policy of aggression is not working to remove the threat of terrorism directed at the homeland by extermination perhaps a new strategy using diplomacy is in order.
When has the NY Times ever run a continuing in-depth series of the history of our foreign policy in the Middle East and how our actions may in large part be responsible for the backlash today including 9/11?
20
"How could any sane person not come to the conclusion that extremist groups will increasingly attract more and more recruits to their cause the longer our military forces (14 years now) wage war in the Muslim world killing innocent civilians indiscriminately (which itself is a war crime). "
Many, if not the overwhelming majority, of these fighters will fight regardless of these reasons. Remember, the was not bombing Syria but these Jihadists went (and still go). They seek advernture, excitment and, of course, to do God's will. These are independent of any Western actions and history of the West in the Middle East.
Many, if not the overwhelming majority, of these fighters will fight regardless of these reasons. Remember, the was not bombing Syria but these Jihadists went (and still go). They seek advernture, excitment and, of course, to do God's will. These are independent of any Western actions and history of the West in the Middle East.
2
Paul;
Spot on; couldn't be expressed better. Folks need to reflect on the U.S/'western' foreign policy before jumping to conclusions about terrorism/violent militancy!!! Stop the wars, invasions, incursions and toppling the regimes in 'east' and reinstating 'blue eyed despots' or 'lap dog' democrats...Maliki, Karzai, el SISI!!!!
Spot on; couldn't be expressed better. Folks need to reflect on the U.S/'western' foreign policy before jumping to conclusions about terrorism/violent militancy!!! Stop the wars, invasions, incursions and toppling the regimes in 'east' and reinstating 'blue eyed despots' or 'lap dog' democrats...Maliki, Karzai, el SISI!!!!
2
The focus on terrorism and ideology combined as radical Islam ignores the other powerful elements of appeal generated by anti-state groups rapidly expanding their range and options for violence. Many of these elements are trans-cultural; their appeal includes the ideal of membership in a small global elite of outsiders, a band of brothers and sisters liberated from moral and social strictures both West and East; an infatuation with highly public and publicized events involving civilian bloodshed and mass killings; a redefinition of the outlaw as the hero, as murderers call themselves martyrs.
This trans-cultural, trans-national appeal requires money: plane tickets, guns, bullets, bombs, web sites, ground transportation, communications are all being paid for by funds through networks and ties, by news reports, still invisible, yet highly efficient and effective. Turkey missed the entry of the girl friend of one of the men involved in Paris and she is now rumored to be in Syria, but who supplied the funds?
A dirty secret of the New Terror is it is funded by the rich. These incidents, all local (New Delhi, Paris, Boston; Bara, (Nigeria) with 5 miles of bodies), are not grass roots insurgencies. They are part of a network that is well funded and able to move people and weapons seemingly at will.
These groups have no noble cause. Leaders and supporters are disaffected and dangerous. Add money, it's a volatile mix.
This trans-cultural, trans-national appeal requires money: plane tickets, guns, bullets, bombs, web sites, ground transportation, communications are all being paid for by funds through networks and ties, by news reports, still invisible, yet highly efficient and effective. Turkey missed the entry of the girl friend of one of the men involved in Paris and she is now rumored to be in Syria, but who supplied the funds?
A dirty secret of the New Terror is it is funded by the rich. These incidents, all local (New Delhi, Paris, Boston; Bara, (Nigeria) with 5 miles of bodies), are not grass roots insurgencies. They are part of a network that is well funded and able to move people and weapons seemingly at will.
These groups have no noble cause. Leaders and supporters are disaffected and dangerous. Add money, it's a volatile mix.
14
"Turkey missed the entry of the girl friend of one of the men involved in Paris "
There have also been many, many Turkish citizens joining the fight with the Turkish state doing practically nothing to stop them (albeith Edrogan has been inceccesantly attacking the West for "racism").
There have also been many, many Turkish citizens joining the fight with the Turkish state doing practically nothing to stop them (albeith Edrogan has been inceccesantly attacking the West for "racism").
3
Facial recognition software identified the girl friend as she passed the cameras at the entry portal of the airport in Istanbul.
1
I think Recip Erdogan wants to turn back the clock on Kemal Ataturk's secularization of Turkey.
1
ISIS is the most serious threat there is to our domestic security.
There has been much pathetic comment from political commentators on the absence of senior Administration officials from the Paris March including Scarborough from MSNBC stating the administration is weak on terrorism.
He ignores the fact that the USA is leading the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq and it is this fight and stopping the flow of radicals to and from Europe where we need to link arms and take concerted action .
People like Chancellor Merkel linked arms for optic reasons but has done nothing to help the fight in Syria and Iraq and she has failed as Europe,s de facto leader to stop the dangerous mobility of radicals
Sadly certain parts of our media in particular Fox News and loud mouth Scarborough are only too anxious to beat up on our President willfully and not give any thought to the more important issue of defeating ISIS
There has been much pathetic comment from political commentators on the absence of senior Administration officials from the Paris March including Scarborough from MSNBC stating the administration is weak on terrorism.
He ignores the fact that the USA is leading the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq and it is this fight and stopping the flow of radicals to and from Europe where we need to link arms and take concerted action .
People like Chancellor Merkel linked arms for optic reasons but has done nothing to help the fight in Syria and Iraq and she has failed as Europe,s de facto leader to stop the dangerous mobility of radicals
Sadly certain parts of our media in particular Fox News and loud mouth Scarborough are only too anxious to beat up on our President willfully and not give any thought to the more important issue of defeating ISIS
8
ISIS is hardly the only movement on this planet that claims a divine rationale to place itself above the secular laws of negotiated social contracts.
"ISIS is the most serious threat there is to our domestic security."
If that is really the case, ISIS could be completely eliminated in about 30 minutes with a nuclear first strike, assuming that our muslim loving president had the nerve to give the launch order.
If that is really the case, ISIS could be completely eliminated in about 30 minutes with a nuclear first strike, assuming that our muslim loving president had the nerve to give the launch order.
Hyperventilating about the threat of ISIS to the US is the result of sensationalist propaganda masquerading as news. There are plenty of bigger threats to US security which require our attention and are not getting it -- climate change and global warming, the failure to educate our children, the destruction of our manufacturing base through free trade agreements that only benefit multinationals, the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Yes, the bloodthirsty deeds of ISIS are horrible, as are the deaths of the 17 people killed in the Paris terror attacks. But we are strong enough to survive them. We do not have to respond as stupidly as we did to 9/11 -- embarking on vastly destructive, expensive, and losing wars. In Africa, which has been torn apart by far more bloody but largely unreported wars, we ask countries to rehabilitate their child soldiers -- not strip of their citizenship and leave them to wander the world seeking freelance military employment. We can do the same and more.
I am amazed at the ease the terrorist woman who fled France made it into Syria. Something is badly wrong with international travel concerning passports and visas. If a known terrorists can make it back to Syria with such ease think about how easy it is for John Doe can make it to Syria to fight with ISIS. If they go then revoke passport and do not let them return into this country. It should be easy to determine who these people are and put them on a watch list. Countries in the West need to quit moaning about this problem and take serious action.
34
But US citizens still have a hard time traveling to Cuba.
3
Countries in the West need to quit moaning about this problem and take "serious action"
The problem is, if they do, they will be accused of "racism" (i.e., the Western "disease").
The problem is, if they do, they will be accused of "racism" (i.e., the Western "disease").
1
I suppose you are ignoring the physical geographic realities of Europe. Travelling to Syrian-Turkish border from France is an overland journey taking a shorter distance than driving from Portland to Miami. Syria is even more closer to Austria or Italy, and a relatively easy one-day trip from Greece.
There are barely any aircraft going to Syria. The way Western people travel to the Syrian border is simple: take a flight to Turkey (a country which has normal relations with everybody) and then use buses or cars to reach the border area, then just walk over.
If US, with its enormous resources, cannot possibly entirely seal its Southern (let alone Northern) border from a determined crosser from Mexico, it is much more unrealistic to expect Turkey to be able to prevent people leaving the country to Syria.
There are barely any aircraft going to Syria. The way Western people travel to the Syrian border is simple: take a flight to Turkey (a country which has normal relations with everybody) and then use buses or cars to reach the border area, then just walk over.
If US, with its enormous resources, cannot possibly entirely seal its Southern (let alone Northern) border from a determined crosser from Mexico, it is much more unrealistic to expect Turkey to be able to prevent people leaving the country to Syria.
While I applaud any solutions that either try to eliminate the travel to the war zones in the first place, one has to assume this will be inneffective in the long run. What perhaps needs to be considered is that going to fight for an enemy of the state is tantamount to renouncing one's citizenship. So why not revoke all the passports of these militants and keep them from ever coming back into the country? It won't solve the problem of having more and more fighters in the contested areas, but it sure would clamp down on domestic terrorism by returning Jihadis. Do not let them come back. If they really want to go to one or other of these hellholes, let them. But on a one-way basis.
117
This makes eminent sense. Considering we are now officially at war with ISIS there should be serious consideration of preventing foreign travel to key countries including Turkey.
Unless the entire west joins forces instead of locked arms in a march to get serious about travel bans, the flow of potential terrorists will continue. I serious advocate travel bans instead of "monitoring" which is simply too risky. Since we can't be seeing everything all the time, let's cut down on the reasons for having to do so.
Unless the entire west joins forces instead of locked arms in a march to get serious about travel bans, the flow of potential terrorists will continue. I serious advocate travel bans instead of "monitoring" which is simply too risky. Since we can't be seeing everything all the time, let's cut down on the reasons for having to do so.
1
M, you are assuming there would be simple incontrovertible proof in every single instance of someone joining terrorists in another country? Just not feasible in the real world.
This naturally would require the government to track all people that have gone to the war zones to determine if in fact they went to train as terrorists. This seems like an impossible task. Why not just impose travel bans like we have had for US travel to Cuba regardless of reason or intent unless you have special permission from the US government. If you return from one of these war zones without having prior authorization you are arrested pending an investigation. Those that violated the travel restriction but were not there for jihadist purposes would face punishment such as a fine and those determined to be a terrorist threat would be stripped of their US citizenship as traitors. Our no travel ban to Cuba seems to have worked reasonably well.
15
It's also vital that the West prevent the flow of its citizens to fight in the Israeli Occupation Forces, which killed over 2000 people and wounded ten times that many, just last summer, in a terrorist attack on Gaza Palestinians living in Gaza. Just to be clear: I'm not attacking Judaism as such here, just the radical Jews who wage religious and/or ethno-nationalist war on non-Jews. Je ne suis pas Bibi.
27
One need not defend the Israeli occupation to understand that Western citizens who join Israel's military are not known to return as domestic terrorists. It is the false equivalency that exposes the antisemitism of your comment.
4
Most racists don't believe they are racists. There is always an excuse.
1
Politics aside, how many of those who had fought for the Israeli army have come back and committed terror attacks against their home countries? To the best of my knowledge the number stands at 0.
3
'west' has created a mess from Afghanistan to Iraq and from Libya To Yemen. Palestine, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Egypt have all become living hell due 'western' duplicity and hypocrisy. 'west' has trampled the eastern civilizations in the guise of finishing off Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Shabab, Turag and lately Daesh. Who financed and trained these groups is not a mystery at all....all conscientious folks know about it. These dreadful/hate monger groups are still surviving rather thriving while millions of innocent civilians have been killed. Paris massacre is quite tragic but it's a consequence of 'western' endless hunger of natural resource management in the middle east and north/west Africa. ...be it Libyan sweet crude/ gold or Mali's precious metals. You can't fool the folks all the time!!!!!
10
Yes we are dependent on these countries for resources however we pay for them through trade to deals. The problem is that these resources are in extremely corrupt and backward countries with leaders that don't give a damn about their citizens. Their anger should be directed towards their own governments not the West.
Well, this looks similar to what Malcolm X called "the chickens coming home to roost." After more than a century of Western foreign policy that cut up and terrorized the Middle East and Central Asia for power and oil exploitation without regard to the needs of the people who lived there, what can we expect? This isn't simply about Muslim anger over Israel or Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever conflict is in the papers at the moment. And, although, I think Islam has a lot to answer for when it comes to its retrograde ideas, particularly with regard to women (but in this it is certainly not alone among world religions), that isn't the cause of this explosion in anger either. The powerful nations of the world are reaping what we they sown (to mix metaphors). I don't see a way out, not when positions are so tightly held and the fact that the average Westerner can't even see what's wrong with so much of the world living in poverty and lacking in self determination. No border security or expensive surveillance can help us now.
13
Why do we Westerners allow people back in our countries if they train with terror cells abroad? Why not simply turn them away? Invalidate their passports while they're there. Turn them away at the airport. Snub them at the Consulate, and let them be country-less. (Track their whereabouts after that, of course)
.
Some will come back illegally, to be sure. But they highlights the cruel irony of it all. These people hate their own country so much that they become terrorists - and we nod them through at the border - while millions of the world's poor want to come here so badly that they will risk their own lives to do it - and we put up blockades.
.
Some will come back illegally, to be sure. But they highlights the cruel irony of it all. These people hate their own country so much that they become terrorists - and we nod them through at the border - while millions of the world's poor want to come here so badly that they will risk their own lives to do it - and we put up blockades.
59
Its part of the West's self-hatred, fed by the strong (and disgusting) belief in multi-culturalism and fear of being labeled "racist".
2
What to do about defectors? These individuals should have their travel documents (passports, visas, etc.,) rescinded, their citizenships revoked, and should be denied entry to their countries of origin if the potential for terrorist activity can be proven. There should also be a travel ban to areas where terrorist cells are in control and active war wages. Perhaps a ban on websites and other portals that recruit these individuals of easily persuadable mind is in order, too.
10
You can't control Twitter. You can't stop legal citizens who have done nothing--yet--from entering or exiting the country. What you suggest has been tried. See: Stasi.
1
They are not against Islam they are against Islamisation of thier society and Culture .
3
The West may be struggling to halt the flow of its citizens but its
export of weapons continues unabated. Raytheon and Lockheed
Martin export death often with the direct complicity of the US
Government. Are the social media exchanges of those companies'
senior management monitored by the government, too? A reduction
in the number of bases and drone strikes abroad as well as a
substantial diminution of weapons sales seem to be just as sensible
as thwarting the travel of Western countries' citizens to the Middle East.
export of weapons continues unabated. Raytheon and Lockheed
Martin export death often with the direct complicity of the US
Government. Are the social media exchanges of those companies'
senior management monitored by the government, too? A reduction
in the number of bases and drone strikes abroad as well as a
substantial diminution of weapons sales seem to be just as sensible
as thwarting the travel of Western countries' citizens to the Middle East.
7
"For more than a decade, Western governments have struggled to stem the flow of their citizens traveling to fight in war zones in Muslim countries, increasing surveillance of those who have expressed an interest in joining extremists, creating computer programs to track suspicious travel patterns and taking other measures."
Fascinating. The U.S. has no problem creating a "security theater" jobs program through the TSA, but is "struggling" after 10 years to address the real threat.
Fascinating. The U.S. has no problem creating a "security theater" jobs program through the TSA, but is "struggling" after 10 years to address the real threat.
12
How bout this: if you go, you can't come back.
Fight for the enemies, forfeit your citizenship.
Sort of traitor-lite.
Fight for the enemies, forfeit your citizenship.
Sort of traitor-lite.
151
I am in agreement with your comment. Why do we bother even debating this issue in the first place. When an American citizen goes to another country to specifically join a group whose objective is to destroy any aspect of liberty, democracy and freedom and to insert instead a for of Sharia Law with religion being the basis for governing, he has forfeited his citizenship IMO.
If he is not a citizen and leaves, WHY whould we allow him/her to return for any reason even if they claim they have "seen the horror" of their choice and want to be a "good American citizen". How could we possibly trust them again?
If he is not a citizen and leaves, WHY whould we allow him/her to return for any reason even if they claim they have "seen the horror" of their choice and want to be a "good American citizen". How could we possibly trust them again?
18
Look at your passport. It contains a clear statement of long established law: you can lose your US citizenship if you join a foreign military. You don't even have to fight, just join.
6
Some terrorists only have one citizenship. How is it ethical to leave another country to deal with our criminals if they wish to return here?
Western policy makers seem to be floundering around constantly and indeed have actively and tacitly supported the flow of islamic jihadists in the past. In the case of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the US actively trained, funded and armed such jihadists with Stinger missiles no less! More recently, France, UK and the US were busily supporting such mercenary jihadists in Syria against Assad's government. Turkey of course, would appear to be an active supporter of ISIL as well as the other jihadist groups in Syria - and they are part of the western NATO alliance! Amazing.
Of the various western government policies and responses over the years, it would appear that Russian policies and actions against islamic fundamentalism has been the most rational and consistent. But that cant be because we have sanctions against them.
Some clear thinking somewhere would seem be in order!
Of the various western government policies and responses over the years, it would appear that Russian policies and actions against islamic fundamentalism has been the most rational and consistent. But that cant be because we have sanctions against them.
Some clear thinking somewhere would seem be in order!
8
My friend's Canadian father earned US citizenship in WWII by serving in the US armed forces. If one can earn it, another can lose it.
If we know who these people are, where they are going and what they are doing, can we not revoke citizenship (and residency) from those who serve in foreign militaries?
If we know who these people are, where they are going and what they are doing, can we not revoke citizenship (and residency) from those who serve in foreign militaries?
58
We can certainly start with securing our own borders and refusing reentry to those who plot to kill our citizens.
5
I'm sure that if someone went to Germany during WWII and served in the military, fighting Allied soldiers, they would not be allowed to return to the US without punishment (imprisonment, at least). Same here!
To shed some light on the Western-born/raised Muslims who turn against the West, objective information can be found at the Pew Research Study of 2013
(http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-.... It reveals some interesting and disturbing facts. Besides noting that a majority of the world's Muslims embrace Sharia and subjugation of women, it states that, "In the U.S., about eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) say that suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified." Conversely, that means that 19% of U.S. Muslims do support suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians. Given the number of Muslims in the U.S., that's a lot of people, and what might that number be in France, Germany, or the rest of Europe. Thus the threat for more horrific attacks is quite real, and one hopes that aggressive steps are being take to prevent these.
(http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-.... It reveals some interesting and disturbing facts. Besides noting that a majority of the world's Muslims embrace Sharia and subjugation of women, it states that, "In the U.S., about eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) say that suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified." Conversely, that means that 19% of U.S. Muslims do support suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians. Given the number of Muslims in the U.S., that's a lot of people, and what might that number be in France, Germany, or the rest of Europe. Thus the threat for more horrific attacks is quite real, and one hopes that aggressive steps are being take to prevent these.
18
So lets use your math -
1.5 Billion Muslims in the world - according to your survey potentially 19% believe in suicide bombings so you have 285,000,000 to contend with worldwide. In France alone, with 10 million Muslims that would be 1,900,000. Lets say 1% of that number are prone to action - that means 19,000 people 24/7 - you are tracking.
Plus those from elsewhere!..... at the same 1% threshold - that is 2,850,000.
Obviously, the 1% is completely arbitrary and will grow as you drone more, kill more, maim more, invade more, harass more, and use the word Mohammad in some negative satirical way. Doesn't seem productive given the size of the population and belief systems.
Why not just impose Martial Law everywhere on the planet?
1.5 Billion Muslims in the world - according to your survey potentially 19% believe in suicide bombings so you have 285,000,000 to contend with worldwide. In France alone, with 10 million Muslims that would be 1,900,000. Lets say 1% of that number are prone to action - that means 19,000 people 24/7 - you are tracking.
Plus those from elsewhere!..... at the same 1% threshold - that is 2,850,000.
Obviously, the 1% is completely arbitrary and will grow as you drone more, kill more, maim more, invade more, harass more, and use the word Mohammad in some negative satirical way. Doesn't seem productive given the size of the population and belief systems.
Why not just impose Martial Law everywhere on the planet?
Shann, I hear your concerns about the frightening aspects of islam in western society. As for the subjugation of women, western religions and societies do their share: Witness the myriad and unceasing attempts in the U.S. to deny women control of their own bodies. As for Sharia law, the U.S. has for the great majority of its existence denied individual freedoms and attempted to dictate morality (slavery, Prohibition, banning of same-sex marriages, etc.).
As for the poll's figures on the violent intent of domestic muslims, it is only your assumption - but not the poll's conclusion - that 19% of muslims in the U.S. support violence: Just because they did not register an opinion against violence does not mean that they are for it. If I were a peace-loving domestic muslim but encountered systematic oppression from the government as a result of backlash from islamophobia, I would have to consider resisting in the same fashion that 2nd Amendment-loving non-muslim citizens (like many in the NRA) make such a big deal about.
It is also a mistake to assume that the threat of terrorism in the U.S. is solely the product of islamic jihad. There are as many down-home non-muslim whack jobs in this country who support violent overthrow of the government as there are militant muslims - probably more.
As for the poll's figures on the violent intent of domestic muslims, it is only your assumption - but not the poll's conclusion - that 19% of muslims in the U.S. support violence: Just because they did not register an opinion against violence does not mean that they are for it. If I were a peace-loving domestic muslim but encountered systematic oppression from the government as a result of backlash from islamophobia, I would have to consider resisting in the same fashion that 2nd Amendment-loving non-muslim citizens (like many in the NRA) make such a big deal about.
It is also a mistake to assume that the threat of terrorism in the U.S. is solely the product of islamic jihad. There are as many down-home non-muslim whack jobs in this country who support violent overthrow of the government as there are militant muslims - probably more.
How to restrict travel to countries inundated with extremists is the difficulty. A person can land in Turkey and still get to Syria, likewise Yemen and a whole host of countries infected with training camps. It seems to me that the solution is not to restrict travel. The solution is better monitoring of who is returning. If a citizen took a circuitous route to return, it warrants questions and possible detention, which would have to be enacted with legislation, but war is war. If people know that upon going to countries to train and fight, they are likely to be scrutinized and even detained, at least they are less likely to return. But to be fair, it really should be across the board. I just don't believe any American citizen should be joining with the legitimate or illegitimate army of any country other than his or her own. Ultimately, if that law were enacted - to criminalize military conduct abroad if not under a U.S. flag - it would greatly reduce the numbers of people in search of a fight.
67
"if that law were enacted - to criminalize military conduct abroad if not under a U.S. flag - it would greatly reduce the numbers of people in search of a fight."
How can you be so sure? I think we can only say, reasonably, that the they would have a reason to - not that it would happen. If you believe you are going to fight for God what possible repurcussion can secular law have?
How can you be so sure? I think we can only say, reasonably, that the they would have a reason to - not that it would happen. If you believe you are going to fight for God what possible repurcussion can secular law have?
This sounds nice but how do you deal with so-called military professionals (mercenaries, mercs, et al) who go to "advise" other nations, some of these under corporate and/or government guises?
We're concerned about 3000 people from the west, according to the graphic, realistically even if we cut that to 300, it only takes 1 people to make it back with the intent of causing harm to do serious damage. Do you honestly think relatively slow moving government organizations will be able to detect that person in either direction of travel? If so, at what cost to the freedoms and resources of the half billion or so other people in the west?
Surrendering freedom for the illusion of safety is not an option in my humble opinion...
We're concerned about 3000 people from the west, according to the graphic, realistically even if we cut that to 300, it only takes 1 people to make it back with the intent of causing harm to do serious damage. Do you honestly think relatively slow moving government organizations will be able to detect that person in either direction of travel? If so, at what cost to the freedoms and resources of the half billion or so other people in the west?
Surrendering freedom for the illusion of safety is not an option in my humble opinion...
1
And what about a citizen who had nothing to do with any conflict who takes a "circuitous route" from Turkey? Do we not have the right to combine open-jaw tickets, low cost carriers, overland transport, frequent flyer miles, and whatever other means we want to use to get home? Until we have better intelligence than what the Immigration Advisory Program can fish out from aimless lines of questioning that an evil-doer could easily prepare for, all we're doing with our current passenger-name-record based profiling at European transfer hubs is insulting and alienating thousands of innocent expats returning from Istanbul alone, 99.999% of whom have fully legitimate reasons to be in a NATO ally and one of the world's largest emerging markets. How about CBP starts using actual intelligence to identify these possible Muslim converts that we're being told are so dangerous instead of blanket profiling that insults the same expat community that is working to repair the strained relationship between the US and Turkey.
3
It is an irresistable draw: rape, murder,slave trading and blowing things up. As one UK teenager asked me: do you have to be Muslim to join?
11
This is a bit like trying to stop the wind.
Make water flow up hill.
Defying the law of gravity.
Why not let them go - and make them stay there?
Make water flow up hill.
Defying the law of gravity.
Why not let them go - and make them stay there?
86
Simple solution, revoke thier citizenships, we have the same problem in Canada. That would take courage to do do, but would separate the true fanatics from the curious.
57
I hope this doesn't include Turkey. They may be a Muslim country but they don't have much involvement with ISIS, no more than France or Australia, for instance...
If anyone wants to go to Syria, don't arrest him, give them a free one-way 1st class ticket with hallel meals, send them off, and don't let them back in.
This accomplishes two things
1) It gets rid of him and he is no longer a threat at home.
2) As ISIS gets more foreigners, it will be viewed as an outside force and alienate the locals. According to some reports, this is already happening. This is the only long term way to defeat ISIS.
This accomplishes two things
1) It gets rid of him and he is no longer a threat at home.
2) As ISIS gets more foreigners, it will be viewed as an outside force and alienate the locals. According to some reports, this is already happening. This is the only long term way to defeat ISIS.
15
Even more important than stopping the outflow to these war zones, shouldn't the real emphasis be on preventing unauthorized war zones travelers from ever returning? The USA has oceans of separation and a no-fly list, but for Europe's proximity to these zones and refugees from these zones, this is a real problem -- especially given the open travel rules in the Euro zone.
33
Change our foreign policy. That will fix the problem. Take the wind out of the sails of desperation and extremism caused by it. Be fair to other countries who hold resources we depend on.
16
And jobs. Don't forget jobs and dignity. When generations of men are left behind economically, they take to violence. Simple. It has happened over and over throughout history. We liked it when it brought us the French Revolution. Not so much when it's global jihad. If the future looked better in the Michigan ghettos, Nigerian slums, Birmingham housing estates, the Paris banlieues, then we probably wouldn't have to worry about such anger and nihilism from these men. Yes, ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions and this is a Hydra of a problem isn't simple by any means, but we can't keep ignoring the fact they few are taking everything and the many are ignored. People need work. They need purpose. They need community. If they don't have it, they go nuts, which, I believe, is what is happening.
7
This is a very sexist comment, as if young men (a category which I still fit by the way) had some sort of preference or privilege to get jobs and purpose over young women, who could also tag along "happy young men". It is pretty distasteful the way you framed your reasoning.
The only way the radical Islam war against the West can be won is by the concerted efforts of moderate Muslims.
Until/unless this happens, this war will be costly and endless.
Since so far they, with the exception of Egyptian el-Sisi, have refused make a serious effort.
This choice, if they are to "assimilate" with their Western hosts, should be made to them, loud and clear!
Until/unless this happens, this war will be costly and endless.
Since so far they, with the exception of Egyptian el-Sisi, have refused make a serious effort.
This choice, if they are to "assimilate" with their Western hosts, should be made to them, loud and clear!
45
Moderate imams will never have more than a modest effect in war-torn and impoverished regions like Syria, Iraq, and Yemen no matter how eloquent they may be. Until changes are made that can give a promising future to the young people of these lands, terrorism will grow. And until changes are made to uplift the economic well-being of sidelined segments of western societies, there will be an endless supply of recruits.
2
"R," why are moderate muslims responsible for islamic extremism? We do not saddle moderate Christians with the responsibility of controlling extremist offshoots of Christianity. I do not recall any hue and cry from the people about how moderate Christians should have controlled the Branch Davidians at Waco or the Rev. Jim Jones' commune tragedy. Such exclusionary and blaming attitudes are endemic of the kind of bigotry that leads to extremism in the first place.
And since when is the Western world "host" to emigrating muslims? In the U.S., at least, we comprise a melting pot of immigrants from cultures and races all over the world. Aside from native Americans (who would in hindsight probably decline the title), who among us would qualify as "host" to immigrants? The only host to this phenomenon would be the principles upon which western society and culture were founded (and which, the last time I checked, included being open to new ideas and the possibility of change).
The fact is, in this shrinking world that presses eastern culture against western, we are all responsible for one another as human beings. We should all take credit for the successes (there are many!) as well as blame for the failures.
And since when is the Western world "host" to emigrating muslims? In the U.S., at least, we comprise a melting pot of immigrants from cultures and races all over the world. Aside from native Americans (who would in hindsight probably decline the title), who among us would qualify as "host" to immigrants? The only host to this phenomenon would be the principles upon which western society and culture were founded (and which, the last time I checked, included being open to new ideas and the possibility of change).
The fact is, in this shrinking world that presses eastern culture against western, we are all responsible for one another as human beings. We should all take credit for the successes (there are many!) as well as blame for the failures.
Moderate Muslims pray with and observe the radicals.
The least they can do is to report them!
The least they can do is to report them!
1
I doubt anyone will be able to curtail such travel, maybe slow some down, but if they want to get there, they will.
In my opinion, the best way to resolve this in some cases is to eliminate the reasons people want to go. Provide opportunities, acceptance, understanding, counseling (if needed) and HOPE which should make many reconsider conflict as an option. We won't be able to reach the zealots and those who have transcended the point of no return.
Being part of the fight for one side or another, good versus evil if you will, is very important to certain individuals. This has always been so.
In my opinion, the best way to resolve this in some cases is to eliminate the reasons people want to go. Provide opportunities, acceptance, understanding, counseling (if needed) and HOPE which should make many reconsider conflict as an option. We won't be able to reach the zealots and those who have transcended the point of no return.
Being part of the fight for one side or another, good versus evil if you will, is very important to certain individuals. This has always been so.
43
It must have occurred to someone that young people's motivation may also include the thrill of war, sex with captured women as opposed to the sexual restrictions they have at their muslim home in the West.
We, much of the West and a considerable a considerable portion of Islam ARE AT WAR with al Quaeda and ISIS. There is a relatively simple solution of what to do with subversive, "travelers" who want to serve our enemies. Let them join their ISIS, al Queda, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab friends! Not much need to track, imprison or "reducate" them if we blow them up "over there" in their training camps, quarters and battle zones.
4
You assume that people go to fight just with/for our "enemies". Keep in mind that it is still difficult to define who is a friend and who is not in some regions. Those alliances can easily flip as well.
We have provisions, often used, which put restrictions on travel to certain countries considered dangerous. We also have advisories for lesser conditions. I suppose that we could prohibit US citizens from traveling to counties in which we are engaged militarily. Moreover, we could withdraw the passports of those who do not observe these restrictions. Withdrawing the passports of those who have gone to join groups who practice violence should be an options.
46
I think it is about ideals and ideology, culture and believes.
This country won't achieve the balance between believes and loyalty anytime soon because it has long ago lost its moral highground. These days, more people believe in ideals and ideology than in blind patrotism. How many of you still believe in your heart and mind "right or wrong, my country"?