Hearings on Islamic Radicals

Do you believe that all investigations into political extremism are witch hunts? Because that's what you seem to be saying.

edited 10th Mar '11 4:47:24 PM by silver2195

It's worth investigating, it just has to be done with a little tact.

Hence why as long as these hearings are with experts, talking about ways to combat radical Islam, it's cool. Once they start dragging clerics in to testify if they've ever radicalized someone we've strayed into Mc Carthy territory.

Hmm...I think there's an argument to be made that getting controversial individuals to testify can be revealing of a broader issue, but I see your point.

All of this is a moot point because the hearings will be terrible as long as King is running them.

It's not McCarthyism if they're just harassing Muslims, for the record.

However, if this turns into a revival of the Sedition Act — targeting civil rights organizations or dissidents in general — then its a witch hunt.

Mc Carthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence

yes, yes it is.

What exactly do you mean by "proper regard for evidence"?

I have little faith in this being more than grandstanding.

Despite there being lots of muslims in the US, it's believed very few have become radicalized enough to become terrorists themselves, and not that great a proportion more are willing to support it. It's worthwhile studying what separates those from the rest of the muslim population.

That's not going to be done in front of the media by a Congressional committee, though.

King's support of the IRA does bring up the fact that in general the US government and figures within it have been quite happy to support groups that used terrorist tactics. You can claim terrorism is immoral on its face, OR you can admit that you're fine with it unless they're after you, but hypocrisy disgusts me.

Using the wikipedia definition, if you have another go ahead, we'll compare.

I can't see how it's productive to derail into arguments about definitions. Please don't.

What I'm really asking is if you think wide-ranging Congressional investigations into subversion that examine individuals are ever a good idea.

no.

^^No.

Congress shouldn't have much the power to do wide-ranging investigations at all; if they're investigating something that's not directly relevant to a law. Congress is not the FBI and shouldn't pretend to be it.

Congressional investigations into individuals are also always a bad idea except those where the individual is a member of Congress. Congress is not a court and shouldn't pretend to be one.

Congress passes laws. If they need to gather information relevant to a law, fine. But they shouldn't go messing in the business of the other two branches.

The courts wouldn't allow it to stand. Sedition acts of any kind violate numerous parts of the Constitution. It's why the original Alien and Sedition Acts lasted less than a decade and everyone implicated in it was pardoned and had such charges purged. The last time we had anything similar was in World War One under Wilson and fortunately everybody outside of the power hungry bastard saw right through the scheme and didn't enforce it.

True, but doesn't the FBI lack the power to publicize that Congress has (if only because of C-SPAN)? Of course, that's also part of the problem; Congress has the temptation to grandstand.

I'm not sure that public, media-driven lynchings will be enormously helpful in combating the threat of Islamic radicalism. Even if we assume that they target the right people (not a guarantee), you'd basically be giving a bunch of fanatical ideologues an audience of millions to preach their message to. Not to Godwin, but remember how Hitler turned his trial around after the business in Munich?

I'd also say no to silver's question. I can't see an investigation of ideology ever being valid.

Well I see I'm a little late to the discussion but I'll add some of my feeble thoughts. Most people found this a just an update of Mc Carthyist grandstanding. A Kangaroo Court style congressional hearing. It really, in my opinion further showed just how wildly corrupt the government has become in my opinion...I'm really struggling with all my might not to invoke Godwin's Law but this reaks of 1930s style corrupt showtrial with the exception of the few people at the hearing that honestly tried to emphasize that you can't let a few bad apples ruin/reflect the whole bunch, you think this wouldn't have to be explained so much in this day in age to. Also I have to say I was very deeply moved by Rep. Keith Ellison's testimony, it's just sad that in 2011 we still....no use in complaining about that here, but I guess I just want to vent some of my frustration with this insanity going on.

If McCarthyism rises again...will the army be the ones to stop it?

edited 10th Mar '11 9:12:49 PM by Ultrayellow

Oh, he's just being a Fenian.

^^

They didn't need us to stop Mc Carthy the first time, I don't see why they would need us now.

Yeah, I know Edward R Murrow is gone, but we have Jon Stewart instead.

As I said, King is doing it wrong. He did have the right idea when he wanted focus on CAIR, but they he changed his mind and started dealing with anecdotes instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Criticism

This is beyond ridiculous. OK, so they start a witch hunt against radical muzzies.

They find an American guy. He's a indeed a muzzie, and he's an Islamist, but he isn't part of a terrorist cell. What exactly do they plan to do about him? Set him up for a lesser crime and jail him? Put him in a van and detain him? What's exactly the plan, I'd like to know.

Will they start having Senate hearings about "socialist activities?" or "anarchism?". What will they do when they find a guy that is pretty much a commie (or an anarchist) and a labor organizer, but ain't part of a terrorist cell? Violate his privacy? Get him fired? Jail him? Kill him?

What's the plan? Odds are, they can't do any of the above without causing a scandal. So they'll just collect intel or try to set the guy up for a drug charge, cheating on their tax return or some other federal noncrime.

I mean, having a witch hunt in a democracy ain't particularly useful: You're either willing to suspend basic civil rights to crush those dissenters, or making useless 20k page dossiers about activists you can't do anything about. In short, in a democracy a witch hunt serves only to make an asshole out of yourself and annoy your opposition.

tl;dr version:

A witch hunt in modern-day America:

Fed cop 1: Yep, we got an Islamist! Confirmed!

Fed cop 2: Whatcha'gonna'do? It's not like you can jail him for being one.

Fed cop 1: Then why exactly are we doing this?

Fed cop 2: Well, the government wants to look like they're doing something about them muzzies.

Fed cop 1: Is it any use?

Fed cop 2: Not really. We get to spy on people, though.

Fed cop 1: That's OK, anyway. *resumes spying*.

edited 11th Mar '11 11:10:07 AM by SavageHeathen

Why, that's a mighty slippery slope you have.

This hearing no good, but not even politicians are stupid enough to restart McCarthyism.

edited 11th Mar '11 2:24:18 PM by OurGLORIOUSLeader

I'm not saying they will, I'm saying this is pointless and just for show.

How absurd exactly? If the radical muzzies are already terr'rists, it's a law enforcement problem. If they're not terrorists, what can the government do about them?

What I mean is yup, there are muzzies in the States. Lot of them. I guess some of them are Islamists. What is the government supposed to do when they find an Islamist and he's not part of a terrorist organization? If they can't do nothing at all (and they can't) the whole hearings and investigations thingy is a farce.

edited 11th Mar '11 1:44:14 PM by SavageHeathen