Ayaan Hirsi Ali forced to leave U.S. after feds refuse to provide security?
posted at 2:07 pm on October 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Too awful to be true, but it apparently is.
Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali returned to the Netherlands, Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad reported on Monday…
The former legislator for the Liberal VVD party was allegedly forced to leave the US as American authorities had refused to finance the expenses of her personal security measures.
So far, the Dutch government has paid all those expenses, but after more than a year of residency in the US, the Dutch allegedly said they were no longer willing to continue this arrangement.
Exit question: The U.S. presumably knew the Dutch were about to pull the security rug out from under her. That being so, if they weren’t prepared to guarantee her security themselves, why did they issue her a green card six days ago?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Agreed.
Ahmadinejad got Secret Service protection because he was a head of state attending the United Nations.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a private citizen. The Netherlands may provide security for private citizens, but the United States Government does not.
Maybe Ali does not understand that the United States is not a socialist welfare state like the Netherlands.
As albo suggested:
slp on October 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
KCtheKat on October 1, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Why does the government have to foot the bill. this lady is loaded. she can buy the best protection on earth. Let her pay for it. I am tired of paying for everything. Now the government wants me to pay for everyone’s kids healthcare. Where does it end? ENOUGH
unseen on October 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Sure it does when such protection is needed.
So why did he get it for the things he did outside of going to the United Nations?
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I think she understands. I didn’t see any complaints by her or any other indication that she feels she is owed government protection from the US. One article specifically states that she intends to return once she finds private funding for security.
forest on October 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I see no reason why U. S. taxpayers should pay for Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s defense. I suppose she was living in the District of Columbia or similar jurisdiction where one’s right to self-defense is essentially removed. Perhaps she should arm herself and work elsewhere in the U.S.
Henry Bowman on October 1, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I don’t even need to read through the comments to know that people here have already volunteered to provide security for her.
I’d think thousands of people - people with the required skills - would be more than happy to volunteer their time.
Future generations are going to remember this woman the way we remember Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King today.
Professor Blather on October 1, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Professor, one or two did. You might be better off not reading…
Entelechy on October 1, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Think about it. The headline should read Government says citizens not safe without private security.
LakeRuins on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Exactly and what a shame.
SIJ6141 on October 1, 2007 at 6:59 PM
To echo many others, this is insane. This woman is courageous and well spoken. She is in grave danger being in Europe. She deserves U.S. Citizenship. She could pass that exam with only a week or two to prepare for it and it will mean much more to her than many other people who take it.
Scum like the leader of Iran get protection, yet this courageous woman can’t get it.
The State Department needs a top to bottom shakeup.
Mooseman
Mooseman on October 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM
forest on October 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
This quote implied that she had requested that her personal security be provided by “American authorities.”
Her green card means that she is lawful permanent resident. Green cards do not come with security details for anyone.
slp on October 1, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Esthier:
“I don’t really understand this mentality. When people live in this country and there are known threats made against that person, we protect them. We’d do the same for anyone. If a celebrity is being stalked, we provide security.
Celebrities who think they need security but have no tangible threat get their own body guards, but otherwise we do protect them.”
With the exception of witness protection programs, we don’t provide nearly the kind of round the clock, permanent, protection that Ali would need. You’re also using a very different definition of a “specific” threat than law enforcement does. Just ask some of the women hiding out from abusive husbands in shelters. There aren’t any security details attached to restraining orders; as arule, the police start paying attention after you’ve actually been attacked. Getting personal police protection, regardless of specific threats, is almost impossible unless you’re a high value witness in a high profile case, and even that doesn’t last. Police may provide some form of celebrity security at public events, but that’s about it.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 7:09 PM
My retort is for all of the posters stating this or asking the question of “why should we”.
Because it is in the Constitution:
And something called the Declaration of Independence
And in closing:
Looks like it was their pledge and not some of yours…pity.
right2bright on October 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Correction: Actually, witness protection programs aren’t an exception either. We can’t keep those folks safe or give them body guards either, which is why we help them change identities and get out of Dodge.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Exactly what I was thinking as I read the article.
Seriously though, I have to agree that this isn’t the job of the American tax payer to provide security. I think it is wonderful that she is planning to return after arranging private security. I agree emotionally with people who have commented that it would be better spent tax money than much of what Congress spends.
Excellent comment. And I very much agree. Most Americans are not safe without private security. But then most Americans who understand that fact provide their own security with martial arts/self defense training, firearms training, concealed weapons, firearms in the home, home security alarm system, pepper spray, stun guns, etc. Those are all forms of private security that are employed by millions of American citizens on a daily basis and they are unfortunately reasonable and necessary today. (Understandably she needs an even higher level of security but it is still necessary for every citizen to provide his/her own security - as the saying goes, no matter how hard they try, when seconds count, the police are minutes away).
deepdiver on October 1, 2007 at 7:25 PM
LakeRuins:
“The headline should read Government says citizens not safe without private security.”
D’oh. Hello 2nd amendment.
right2bright:
Let me know how it goes in the Supreme Court! This strikes me as one of those be careful what you ask for moments. You can’t afford to provide 24/7 personal security to all the folks who need it. Ali is one of the higher profile worthies on a very long list — which would include a lot of names that probably wouldn’t exactly engage your sympathies the way Ali does.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Why does the government have to foot the bill…..
unseen on October 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
It’s not that the government should protect an individual, as must as the government isn’t going after the threat the individual faced. If the thugs chase off one person, what’s to keep the thugs from threatening the rest of us? As far as I’m concern, the thugs have won this battle, what’s to keep the thugs from going after the next one on their hit list? The thugs now know their threats have succeeded.
KCtheKat on October 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
We have so many Islamonutz in the United States that her life is in danger without constant protection?
Time to cull the mangy herd.
T J Green on October 1, 2007 at 8:01 PM
The whole “I will fight to the death for Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s right to say what I don’t like as long as my tax dollars don’t have to pay for it” strikes me as petty. Given the billion of dollars poured into the Marshall Plan to stop Communism from infiltrating Western Europe the price of securing the safety of one of the most pivtoal figures attempting to stem the tide of Islam is a mere pittance. Try to think of it as a prudent investment if you like.
aengus on October 1, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Thanks, I was hoping someone besides me know how to apply the Constitution, I was just too pissed off at the wimp d**ks posting about how it’s better to cut and run then to defend the defendeless. The brave get shot in the back too often now a days.
KCtheKat on October 1, 2007 at 8:20 PM
It doesn’t have to and apparently won’t.
This is the anti-Reagan thread, where commenters advance the most charmless and narrow-minded conception of small government ever conceived. It’s one small step for Islam and one giant leap backwards for mankind.
aengus on October 1, 2007 at 8:25 PM
I understand your post. I wasn’t actually talking to the Supreme Court, I was talking to the cut and runners that are posting here. You are right, you can’t protect everyone, but you choose your battles. I think this one is worth choosing. Someone being chased out of our country by threats and terrorists…the foundation of our war in the middle east.
She is an icon for independent thought and speech, and she would be one I would choose to protect, not abandon.
Others would abandon her. I was just reminding them that her protection does come from the Constitution, a pretty good document, but one that is often ignored.
right2bright on October 1, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’m perplexed by the attitude here that it isn’t the role of government to provide security and investigate all threats of violence. That is exactly the primary function of government. To deny this doesnt even make you a concervative in favor of small government, it makes you an anarchist. I fully expect the government to investigate and in extreme cases provide security in the event of actual threats of violence. This is the numero uno, primary, and most important function of government. If they cant do this they may well close down D.C. and go home because they are not doing anything useful to society. It isn’t even like there is just one crazy murderer out there, in this case it is pretty much an admission that the public square is no longer safe for controversial speech.
Someone above already mentioned that many celebrties and politicians have personal security because of percieved or potential threats that may not even exist or even if they simply just want to insulate themselves from paparazzi or the public. This is not the same at all and there is no reason for the public to fund that.
Resolute on October 1, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Thank you!
What an embarrassment. We all should be stepping up to the plate and supporting this courageous woman, but nooohhhhh, it’s time to obsess over taxes!
And I see that the Second Amendment loons are some of the worst offenders.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Surely some private citizen could step up and help her.
I will donate. Maybe hotair could start a fund.
TheSitRep on October 1, 2007 at 9:33 PM
So since Rushdi wrote a book,then had a fatwa on his head,
and the film maker in Denmark had his throat slit,now there pulling Ayaan Hirsi Ali security,I’ll use use the LIBERAL LINE,I guess there’s no threat!
canopfor on October 1, 2007 at 9:36 PM
If the federal government were to supply protection for her, it would be making an official statement. We here would perceive that statement as protecting freedom of speech. What would the Muslim world’s take be? That it is a war against Islam. It would confirm what they have been told by their leaders. How many new recruits do you think they’d get out of that?
(And yes, I believe that’s what it is, but that’s beside the point).
Connie on October 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Seriously,she is a woman speaking out against Islam.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably their number one target.
Maybe someone at BlackWater could be kind enough to pick
up the slack,or could do a freebe,just an idea!
canopfor on October 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I have to disagree with you on this one.
Who cares what the IslamoFascists think? That’s very Ted Kennedy-esque, worrying about inflaming the passions of Muslims.
When people like Ali have the courage to speak up we have to be willing to protect them and give them the freedom to speak freely.
Think what kind of message it send to “moderate Muslims” if we aren’t willing to defend them, when their lives are in danger too.
This is war, and we cannot ever lose sight of that fact.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 9:50 PM
They do.
I agree, but the whole concept of America is that one is free to say what they want here without needing protection.
Defending someone is different than offering round-the-clock bodyguards.
Look, I am with you in spirit on this and if our government covertly watched out for her welfare, I don’t have a problem with that. They may have been doing it anyway. If I was able to help protect her, I would do that.
I’m just trying to consider the bigger picture. We are trying to make it about them, rather than about us. We are trying to convince them that freedom from fear can exist in a democratic society.
I’m not going to argue with you. Who knows? I might change my mind, but these are my thoughts right now.
Connie on October 1, 2007 at 10:31 PM
slp on October 1, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I see no evidence in any of today’s reportage that Hirsi Ali demanded that the US government pay for her security. Even Pipeline doesn’t make that claim in their smear piece on Hirsi Ali.
forest on October 1, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Connie on October 1, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I pretty much agree with you across the board on your post.
deepdiver on October 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I don’t know if I should express the level of anger I feel over this decision. I do think we need to set up a fund to pay for the expenses of defending her from murder. I’ve never raised funds nor do I have extensive contacts on the right who could help me raise money. Let me think about this for two more days. Maybe, there is a way.
thuja on October 1, 2007 at 11:14 PM
right2bright
I, personally, believe that Ali both needs protection and more than deserves it. Aside from funding, the real problem I see is that when you assign that task to the government, what you & I think about who is worthy will end up factoring into the decision-making process for about 10 seconds. I really don’t want a Congressionally mandated bureaucracy (lobbied heavily by both usual & unusual suspects) deciding who is high value and who is not. I’d rather send my money directly to a Hirsi Ali Foundation where, assuming she’s as valuable I believe her to be, others will doubtless ante up as well. She’ll end up getting more of the actual money I send in than she would if it were routed through the Feds — and I’ll have more left to send to other folks of my own choosing.
JM Hanes on October 2, 2007 at 12:21 AM
So my tax dollars are going to fund Silky Pony’s presidential campaign, but not pay to protect someone who actually supports democracy???
Shame on us.
doufree on October 2, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Good idea.
Connie on October 2, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Where do I sign up to join her security detail…? That’s one person I’d defend to the end. Too bad there aren’t more ‘men’ with HER guts and intelligence. I’d like to be the personal bodyguard of Robert Spencer AND Ali. Those two are worth defending. Sorry, MM and MKH… I trust you’ll understand. ;)
“To each according to their danger, from each according to their sense of duty.” -
Karl MarxThe Rugged IndividualRugged Individual on October 2, 2007 at 3:12 AM
aengus on October 1, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM
What they said.
This woman has made herself more an ally of America than most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
To argue tax money and nickle and dime her to death — literally — is an obscenity.
silverfox on October 2, 2007 at 4:48 AM
You and I interpret the constitution differently. You think we should provide for our own security, I think the government is bound by the constitution to do that. Ali would be a good test of the commitment to constitutional application.
Why have a constitution if we are afraid to apply it because we can’t ever “choose” the right person to defend? That is what the elected leaders are for, that is what congressional debate is for. That is how we find out who wants to defend us and who wants others to defeat us. You are afraid to make a decision as to how to apply the law, you would not be a good leader,you would probably make a good beauracrat or a good politition. You can argue a point from both sides, but are afraid to make a decision because it can’t help everyone, and everyone won’t agree.
right2bright on October 2, 2007 at 7:52 AM
Is this the same agency that gave Mohammed Atta a student visa… six months after 9/11 ?
Texas Nick 77 on October 2, 2007 at 7:56 AM
KCtheKat on October 1, 2007 at 8:20 PM
There is nothing in the founding documents to suggest that it is the government’s responsibility to protect an individual. Only that they protect society as a whole. If due to your own actions you increase your risk of harm to yourself you should take responsibility for those actions and DEFEND YOURSELF. That is the reason for the 2nd amendment. We live in a country that makes it not only a right but a duty to see too your own protection. That is what is called FREEDOM.
You can have FREEDOM or SECURITY you can not have both. The government should be in the business of protecting my FREEDOm not my security. I ccan take care of myself.
From this thread it appears that America is no longer the land of the free and the brave but the land of the frightened and the insecure.
unseen on October 2, 2007 at 8:11 AM
right2bright on October 2, 2007 at 7:52 AM
The constitution provides for individual protect by its 2nd amendment. The rest of the document is for society as a whole. Freedom not only means freedom from the government but also the freedom to protect yourself. Personal freedom requires personal responsibility. Buy a gun, learn to shoot, hire a private security firm. I wish people would stop looking for the government for all their problems. What has happened to this country.
We are as a country offically now a bunch of wussies cowering in the basement. The wussification of America continues. I blame feminists and liberals.
unseen on October 2, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Which form of pond scum is it that has caused this gorgeous, courageous, intelligent, well-spoken, conservative, woman to shed a tear? Where is my insane a**-kicking karmic revenge posse when I need them?
Re: Tax-payer dollars being spent on security. Can you say FBI witness protection program? Can you say comparatively a drop in the bucket?
Let he whose heart has not fluttered cast the first stone.
smellthecoffee on October 2, 2007 at 9:33 AM
They also start paying attention when the threat is realized, which is was when the man she worked with was murdered.
Honestly, it’s in the country’s best interest to protect her. The people after her are the people we’re after.
Esthier on October 2, 2007 at 10:38 AM
WE didn’t invite Mr. Terrorist to our shores - why should we pay for his security? Have the UN pony up the dough and if he gets bumped off because the blue helmets were not up to it then its the UN’s problem.
Now paying for OUR security from Mr. Terrorist is another matter. He should have been escorted, under heavy guard, to and from the UN’s front door and that’s it.
CrazyFool on October 2, 2007 at 10:39 AM
What part of providing for the general welfare is lost to you? The government is there to protect us, that is all (and about the only thing it should do). We are not a “posse” with guns strapped to our sides to protect us.
I have a family to work for, I don’t want to go to work, shooting it out as I walk down the street. I am afforded freedom, and that freedom is defended by the Constitution.
Read the constitution, or read my posts. The founders were willing to give their lives to protect all…you are willing to take a life to protect yourself. There is a difference.
So how many guns to you take to the schoolyard when you pick up your kids?
right2bright on October 2, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…you don’t understand that as an individual, a family, a neighborhood, a city, a state, or a country? You think only “society” is protected. How many society’s have you met and had over for dinner?
What a strange way of looking at the constitution…as if it was not created for each individual to live out their lives in peace.
right2bright on October 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM
She has two stikes against her
1. She is not Mexican
2. She is not illegal
She should have taken sanctuary in that church in Chicago and protested the abuse of illegals. That would have given her a year of absolute safety
We do not owe her personal protection. However she is an important figure in the movement to fight islamo fascist oppression. She is a witness to the behaviour threatening all of us.
State Department characters helped leverage the movement that caused our involvment in Kosovo and the susequent muslim dominance of that region; they have no problem getting involved when it something they want.
Obviously she is not their favorite poster child
entagor on October 2, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]