Desperate for security help, Hirsi Ali begs France for citizenship
posted at 12:22 pm on February 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Hitchens, Sam Harris, and even the world authority on being stalked by jihadist filthbags begged the United States to foot her security bills when the news about her financial crunch first broke in October. She has her green card, which one would think would be enough to qualify her for state-sponsored protection. Not so; if it were, I’d have nothing to write about today. And so it’s come to this: One of the planet’s fiercest critics of Islam is forced to petition the French, of all people, to keep her safe because America won’t. A travesty.
Now the former Dutch lawmaker is asking France to grant her citizenship because, she says, she cannot be assured of her own safety in the Netherlands or the US.
“I would be very honored and grateful if I were to become a French citizen, and the question of my protection could be resolved once and for all,” said Ali, speaking in English in an interview on Sunday with France-2 television…
Ali said that she chose France because she had received support from French intellectuals and sympathy from French political leaders.
French Philosopher Henri Levy has championed Ali’s bid for French citizenship. He has described Ali as a “brave woman” who “has already proved that she is French.”
France’s Human Rights Minister, Rama Yade, stopped short of guaranteeing citizenship for Ali, but said on a France-2 news program that France would lobby for the creation of a European Union-wide fund to cover the security of citizens who live under religiously motivated threats like the fatwa against Ali. The fund has the support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as France’s Socialist Party and about 70 European Parliament members.
French socialists have a better handle on this problem than the U.S. Congress. Exit question: If illegal aliens qualify for emergency medical treatment, why don’t legal aliens qualify for emergency police protection?
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: « Previous 1 2
That fact does indeed remain :)
Although there is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness per se, the lack of honor or principles we are talking about here are those that seek to use 3rd-party force (ie. gubmint) to exert force on others – especially when seeking to take others’ wealth and redistribute it among those that did not earn it.
Those of us with such integrity have a tough battle trying to deny gubmint the ability to be abused by such weak people.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM
In a sense though, it is the weak people who are in fact being abused. The less they are forced to do for themselves the less they are able to do for themselves, making them completely reliant on those in power, which in turn helps them stay in power.
Esthier on February 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Gerard, if you take the ‘government shouldn’t be in the business of helping out individuals’, you get exactly this reasoning!
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Actually, that is the fundamental reason why we have governments – to provide for the security of their citizens and residents.
She has not been inflammatory. She has not “invited” her enemies to attack her. She has not been “asking for it”. She has merely stated what she believes (and many others believe) to be the truth about the threat facing western civilization. If she is abandoned on the grounds that the government is not reponsible for her security, how will she pay for it? If she can’t pay for it, she will be silenced either forcefully by successful attackers or by her own acquiesence. If she is silenced, who will rally the West, who will put politicians feet to the fire. This is how Muslim extremists work – they isolate their targets and rely on the fact that we are weak, greedy, petty and stupid. The islamo-fascists know that we will not come to the aid of their targets either we because we will be too afraid to stand with them or because (if the costs are greater than zero) we will abdicate responsibility. If we are not all prepared to be as vocal as Ali has been and take the risks that she has, we better be prepared to protect those, like her, that are brave enough to be the West’s champions. Otherwise, guess what – we won’t have any champions. We should be happy to pay for her security out of our own self-interest. The alternatives are a lot scarier.
As far as questions like “where’s Obama or McCain”? I’d ask where’s Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or, for that matter, Mitt Romney (who just spent $25-35 million of his own money on a campaigh) or any other of the countless hugely wealthy people in the US or elsewhere? Instead of giving yet more software or computers to libraries (“yawn” – for god sake, show a little imagination), why not pay for Ali’s security at a paltry $2-3 million a year?
How much money is donated by readers of Hotair, the rest of the right wing blogosphere, National Review, other right wing publications, etc., and to charity and to political parties? More than $2-3 million per year, I’m thinking.
The money is there, we just have to be stop waiting for someone else to take responsibility. Aren’t right-wingers, and Americans supposed to “can-do”, enterprising get-the-job-done types?
pussum207 on February 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
You sound like one of the Ron Paul acolytes.
Show me the clause that gives the gov’t the right to stop us from eating poisoned meat!
This argument is beyond credulity.
There is something in that document called the “elastic clause,” which is an indication that the framers felt that Congress was tasked with duties that were not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution’s foregoing articles.
The fact is that the government renders assistance to people whose lives are in imminent danger because of testimony given against criminal enterprises, even if they don’t necessarily deserve such protection, e.g. Sammy Gravano, Henry Hill, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is an illustration of why you are dead-wrong on this issue.
Speaking out against the largest, most prolific criminal enterprise on the planet is something that has earned Ayaan Hirsi Ali a death sentence, just like Taslima Nasreen, and Salman Rushdie, among many, many other heretics. We could follow the lead of dhimmi states like India, and demand that she shut up, or we could do the right thing and provide her with the security she needs.
The idea that we can spend billions of dollars a year on some of the most useless crap imaginable, but that we can’t provide for the maintenance of a reasonable security team to protect someone of Ayaan Hiri Ali’s stature is ludicrous.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Quite right. I particularly like the ‘plantation’ allegory to describe such a mutually cancerous relationship.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM
The absolute moral authority card doesn’t cut it in this case. Time for some slippery slope. I say her life has more value in our battle against Islamists than does that of Jimmy Carter. Hard to maintain a position of moral superiority when we throw away individuals valuable to our cause. Her situation hasn’t developed just because it is against our rules,…it is because our government doesn’t want to help her. Why do you suppose could that be? It certainly isn’t to save money,..we all know that isn’t part of any government decision. They don’t want to set a precedent? Come on. What happens to Russian or Iranian generals we have flipped? They even end up with a briefcase full of cash besides some form of protection. No, there has to be another reason.
a capella on February 11, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Something? What are you talking about? I daresay proponents of a ‘living constitution’ greatly desire such a clause to be divined out of thin air.
The founding fathers explicitly denied such ‘elasticity’ when they crafted both the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yes, your argument is nonsense. Ad absurdum nonsense, to be precise. Our government may only do that which it is specifically authorised to do. Period. There is a potentially infinite set of things that gubmint doesn’t have the right to do, including all the daft attempts I suspect you can conjure up to fallaciously evade actually having to acknowledge the correct role of American government.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The millionaires and the politicians are singing in the same castrati choir, refusing to aid a stunningly beautiful (Hitchens said so too!) and incredibly inspiring source of hope. No one has any courage anymore – everyone’s too afraid to offend and so they scurry behind “Oh, well, it isn’t proper!”
Guess what? Neither is the progressive income tax, or social security, or welfare, or unemployment – but the impropriety hasn’t stopped Congress.
By refusing to help, as Fallaci said of Pope JPII’s embarrassing apologies to the Muslims, they’re just like the Jewish bankers who, in hopes of escaping the ovens, helped him. Hirsi Ali deserves citizenship.
And now, the French will have something of value to rub in our faces. Thanks a lot, Congress.
emailnuevo on February 11, 2008 at 3:22 PM
And for those Rothbardians who are trying to use this bizarre variation on minarchism to attack my argument-which doesn’t even apply in this context, but let’s put that aside for a moment-I’m not one of you!
I’m not some psychotic anarcho-capitalist who goes into paroxysms of rage whenever I’m forced to use the USPS to send a parcel, or believe that all public libraries should be automatically defunded.
I believe in traditional conservatism, which dictates that Americans should stand up for dissidents who speak out against tyranny and defend liberty, especially when it costs nothing more than a few trifling dollars, which would probably be spent on some federally bankrolled outhouse in W. Virginia anyway.
Have any of you deficit hawks ever read the book Sophie Scholl and the White Rose?
You should, because it would be an enlightening experience for most of you.
Those who do not learn from history…
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Maybe you’re right, maybe not (pardon the tautology). Either way, where is our government authorised to stand in judgement of the myriad values of individual lives, apportioning funds in accordance with some mystical formula?
It isn’t. Offer to protect her yourself. Contribute to a fund. Perhaps she can get off her arse and protect herself. Who knows?
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM
How about you pay to protect your own divine Immacolata?
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM
You are falsely altering the principle at work here. We are not talking about common defense or general welfare, we are talking about state-subsidized personal bodyguard.
Let’s go back one step. The US has provided her the opportunity to work on our soil. She feels that she needs more protection then she is provided by being a recognized green card holder. Therefore she is looking to France. There is nothing wrong with that.
As for the other, you are in error. Jimmy Carter is more important for us then Ali. Carter is a citizen and the government is responsibility first and foremost for it’s citizens. You can say it’s a slippery slope if you like, but it’s the fundamental reason for sovereignty.
I will say again, this is the work for foundations, funds, and voluntary manpower. If it is so important for Ali’s person to have her feet on our soil, then the citizenry should raise the money for whatever security she feels necessary to be ‘safe’.
I would also note that it is not her life that is of the most value in the battle, but her words and ideas, no?
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I have a newsflash for you. Just because you interpret The Constitution in a specific minimalist manner doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily the correct interpretation.
I’m sure that Stephen Breyer earnestly believes that foreign precedents have a bearing on U.S. law, but that doesn’t mean he’s correct either.
You still haven’t given me one legitimate reason why this woman doesn’t deserve to be protected like any other high profile target, be it a celebrity who’s been threatened, or someone in the witness protection program, or an inmate in solitary confinement, other than throwing out the canard that it’s prohibited by The Constitution, which has already been refuted.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Great post.
Drum on February 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Non-citizen. Not governments responsibility. Inmates are kept to protect citizens, witness programs are to protect citizens (witness for prosecution to jail dangers to society). Moreover, the protection required is not for her life, but for her to remain in a high profile, highly active manner. Which is to say an advocate. What you are desiring is that the government subsidize advocacy. You are appreciate of that in this case because of the specifics. I suggest you transfer that emotion into a foundation or fund for Ms. Ali with like-minded people.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Again, this argument is patently absurd.
She’s not asking for SSI, disability insurance or unemployment checks, or a chauffeur-driven limo to each of her appearances.
She’s simply asking that the government do what it would do for any other public figure-citizen or noncitizen-whose life is endangered while in this country.
I don’t see what part of this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM
This is a travesty, especially when what she is saying is so important and relevant right now. The threat against her could not be more obvious or earnest, and the fact that our country can’t pay for the protection of a desperately needed critic of Islam and champion of women’s rights and human rights is shocking and sad.
mattyj86 on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Yeah they give them a piece of paper and tell them that should protect them.
EnochCain
They get a peice of paper that is basically a deer tag for abusive ex-spouses. Shoot one, and get out of jail free.
She needs a revolver, a restraining order against jihadis, and advice to not live in a victim disarmament sh*thole like NYC.
If she moves to anywhere in Red State America, and explains here situation to her neighbors, I doubt any jihadi will survive long enough to get within range.
Kristopher on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I would also not be adverse to putting her in the Witness Protection Program as well.
I am a minarchist, not a screaming anarcho-paultard.
Kristopher on February 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM
There are people claiming our government has the responsibility to treat her like a state department official or a former president. If she wants to change her name and go into hiding, there is the witness protection program. . . but that defeats the purpose, and I’m sure it is something she would not want.
I would hate any harm to come to her, but I don’t want harm to come to anyone. If she gets a private security guard, then everyone who claims to be an apostate that gets death threats will automatically have to be given a taxpayer provided security guard. Shouldn’t ALL citizens have the same level of protection from the police?
It just doesn’t make any sense that we should have this class of people who automatically get body guards. We have freedom of speech here. There are lots of people who say things that elicit death threats. If everyone gets a security guard, we don’t need police.
OK 300 million people. Half security guards and half the protected. . . an interesting country we will have become. . . but we won’t need either police or military.
ThackerAgency on February 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I have a newsflash for you. I don’t subscribe to your fashionable interpretive cults. I speak english. Purty durned good. I have this curious belief that when the founding fathers wrote the document, they meant for it to be accessible to all Americans, not just some majesterial elite soothsayers. I believe they intended to communicate a vision of this country through the lense of a constrained government and secured individual liberties. This vision, as penned, is not subject to alteration merely through the passage of time, or the vaguaries of colloquial language.
I have never suggested that she doesn’t deserve protection, I have only disputed the source of that protection.
Refuted? What are you talking about? It is prohibited because it is not explicitly authorised. Did you make it all the way down to Amendment #10? This is not the stuff of complex english comprehension. The constitution is a remarkably clear document.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM
First of all, even if she were to withdraw from society completely the fatwa she has hanging over her head would remain. In other words, her life would still be in imminent danger.
Secondly, inmates are kept in solitary confinement in order to protect other inmates and/or COs, or to protect them from other members of the general population. Whether or not they are citizens is irrelevant to the determination of whether they receive protection.
Political advocacy is part of the First Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. You are allowed to denounce any and all organized religions-or none-in this country. Simply because you are not a citizen doesn’t mean this right is abrogated.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
The 1st Amendment does not grant any rights nor ‘allow’ us to do anything. It forbids our government from preempting our freedom of speech, religion etc. This is not a first amendment issue at all. No amount of fatwas from dirty little islamogoons can violate the 1st amendment.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Yet, this exchange ocurred earlier in the thread. Another poster feels, contrary to your claim it is the govenment’s responsibility to protect all citizens, that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others. Given that argument, if protection for individual citizens is based on some intrinsic value, not citizenship, how does Jimmy Carter qualify? The only one I can imagine is that he represents the office he once held. My point being that if citizenship is the criteria for protection, why aren’t at risk citizens like abused women qualified. I’m not trying to be facetious or overgeneralize to make a point, but feel your reasoning may be flawed in this regard.
a capella on February 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
That changes nothing.
Do not confuse cause and effect. It is most certainly not irrelevant to the cause of the protection.
Once again the language is being used in a manner to justify a desired outcome. The First Amendment is about restricting the power of the government, as you must surely know. You let me know when Congress passes a law that abridges her freedom to do so.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM
ThackerAgency on February 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM
So offering protection to a single, unique individual equates to giving a personal security detail to 280 million+ Americans?
How so?
You’re minimizing the danger she’s exposed herself to simply by taking a courageous stand against politically-inspired murder.
Tell me, how many Theo Van Goghs, Pym Fortuyns, etc., have to be assassinated before you think offering protection to people who are being hunted down by cadres of Islamist fanatics might be a worthwhile endeavor?
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM
You misunderstood my position, and are misusing it accordingly.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Gerard,
The problem is that, next thing you know, it will be the flying imams requesting the same protection and clearly this won’t fly here. So might as well presumptively avoid this problem and not give state funded protection here…
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I just don’t understand this.
The government will spend the taxpayers money on just about anything but they won’t protect this brave woman’s right to life, liberty and her pursuit of happiness?!
Unbelievable.
And it’s rather ironic that she’s going to France – where there is no shortage of Muslims waiting to riot and cause damage to infidels – for her own safety.
monkeywrench on February 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM
No. Government behaving outside its bounds of authority is acting illegitimately whether it is one person or 300 million. It may not violate the 1st amendment for ‘just one person’ either.
Clearly you are passionat eabout this woman. Set up an action network. Rally others to her cause. Raise the funds yourself. Be her hero. Keep your fingers out of my wallet.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Sorry for the repitition then, I must not have read that post. Either way, I would prefer to merely defend my own contention.
Protection for citizens is based on citizenship, not intrinsic value, if by intrinsic you mean according to the measurement of a third party. That is because government is formed by the consent of the governed. Ie individuals liberties given up for the collective needs.
As to the remainder of your statement, I’ll be happy to delve into it as needed, but let me first say that the foundation of law in this land is innocent till proven guilty. We do little without action on an individual level. If you wish the government to do more for the cause of battered women, then the law punishing the crimes that cause the restraining order should be higher. Either wise the government is interjecting itself into the lives of the citizenry without justification. I hope that gets at what you are saying. Again, I’ll be happy to answer the question if I misinterpreted your meaning.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Because it might make Ibrahim Hooper and Nihad Awad f-e-e-e-e-l bad.
eeyore on February 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
How so? If I misinterpeted, I apologize. I thought your answer was entirely accurate in today’s world.
a capella on February 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I agree with you, esp. that her murder will be a victory for jihad.
I also would add that I think our administration is lacking in courage, because to be seen giving this woman official protection would be a huge slap to muslims and would probably cause them to go on yet another rampage.
4shoes on February 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM
As far as I know, only the young daughters of brave muslim men have been murdered by them here in the US. I would think the normal police presence and a security company hired with money she could make from her books and TV appearances would keep her safe here. There are nuts everywhere but I think the US would be the safest place for her. No muslim with al quaeda connections would risk exposing the entire cell by attacking her here. France does not seem like a very safe place, who would protect her? The french military? French Intelligence? Aren’t those oxymorons?
peacenprosperity on February 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
And I’m not implying that the threats against Ali constitute an abridgement of the The 1st Amendment-that’s a complete misinterpretation of what I stated. The fact that you’re demanding the government give her a choice of either entering a compact of silence-against any and all depredations that are committed in the name of Islam in perpetuity-or becoming a martyr demonstrates that you don’t see the big picture here.
I don’t know how to persuade someone who doesn’t recognize the utility of protecting one of the most outspoken critics of radical Islam from being butchered in the street, like her friend Theo Van Gogh. But the concept that this is a battle of ideas, just as much as bodies, seems to be lost on you. No, her ideas won’t vanish if she is murdered, but the notion that allowing her to be assassinated because we are too weak to stand up against the menace presented by pan-Islamic ideology…
The idea that this wouldn’t constitute a momentous victory for our enemies on the pan-Islamic/jihadi side of the ledger is absurd.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I am demanding nothing. The US has already given her a very special gift – the opportunity to live and work in the US. If she wishes for a security detail on our soil, she is more than welcome to petition the people for the funding for one. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand. The state has to go out of the bounds of its dictates to do what is better suited for the private sector.
That is by no means synonymous with “allow her to be assassinated”, especially when by her own choice she is looking to France for an improved situation.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM
wardice on February 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM
If the flying imams’ lives are imperiled, then they will be given police protection for the same reason that there are security details surrounding mosques, churches and synagogues during certain periods.
The idea that the government has no obligation to protect people whose lives are explicitly threatened-multiple times-doesn’t wash.
Yes, the police protect public buildings and elected officials, but they also protect private property and private citizens when the circumstances warrant it.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM
It might also sweeten her as a target, hastening her death. How many jihadis would salivate at the opportunity to kill a woman under the nose of the great satan? What Martyrdom! Hero!
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM
She is only looking to France because The Netherlands-which had a contractual obligation to protect her life-has abandoned her, and because it looks like the dhimmis in our own government have taken the same path. Believe me, if it were up to her she would probably still be living in Leiden. Unfortunately, some very hirsute men wearing kufis, who have a disturbing stabbing/shooting fetish, have made that a practical impossibility.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM
TheBigOldDog, you’re right partially in my opinion. There was a private fund. Unfortunately, you know about this story. I know about this story. Many other readers here at this site know this story but if you try taking a random phone survey of all Americans, perhaps 1 out of 10000 would know who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is.
Zetterson on February 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Ah. Well lets mobilize the draft so that we can go into Sudan.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Gerard,
I don’t disagree with you one bit on the principle at hand.
While I personally might not feel Hirsi Ali requires a tax payer funded security detail, I don’t have a problem with you making the case, and I am not hiding behind the constitution to say the government shouldn’t do it, etc.
I think every situation should be analyzed case by case.
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Pity the fools that have been hiding behind it for 200+ years.
SECOND LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION!
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM
So do you want us to pay for security details in Europe too? That’s where they were killed. Not here.
How much have you donated to her security fund?
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM
And what? Apply a different standard each time? The same standard? The constitutional standard?
We do not have to reason each and every case from first principles precisely because we have a constitution, and derivative laws, that enable us to make more efficient decisions. The principle at play here is that our constitution does not authorise the gubmint to offer a security blanket to each and every ‘threatened’ individual.
The rest of us – we the people – are at total liberty to fund her security voluntarily. That we are not doing so says something. Something rather democratic.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Again, if Michael Moore’s life is genuinely threatened, then he will receive extra security whenever and wherever he makes a public appearance. I’m sure he already does.
Simply because the government provides security to a public figure whose life is under greater threat doesn’t mean we are being treated inequitably.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM
No, I’m using those as examples to illustrate my point.
Namely, that the cavernous maw of appeasement knows no end.
Over here it will be Christopher Hitchens and Steven Emerson and Robert Spencer, and I’m sure you’ll not hesitate to offer the same ridiculous arguments to justify not protecting their lives.
And when your life is threatened by the same jihadis I’m sure that you’ll have some air tight libertarian argument as to why it’s beneath the consideration of the U.S. government.
You really should read Sophie Scholl and the White Rose.
It would be an illuminating experience.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Not that I ever expect to be threatened, as I am too insignificant for their radar, but should it happen, I would keep law enforcement (and probably the FBI) informed of all developments, and my many guns clean and loaded. Our quiet rural community of hunters would also be most supportive in our desire to not see jihadis running rampant in the USA. I doubt any thug would get within 500 yards before having the contents of their skull emptied onto the ground behind them.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM
This is a great idea. That being said I disagree with those of you who say we should not be providing her with security. At the very least we should be collaborating with private foundations and chipping in to those efforts. If other Alis come along we need to offer the same protection.
If people like Ali cannot speak without their lives being in danger then we will not have voices of moderation speaking against the voices of extremism, and the extremists win.
That is a much more reasonable argument than the claptrap we hear about how we can’t use enhanced interrogations like waterboarding because we become like them. While that is utter nonsense, it seems to me that offering protection to people like Ali is both a moral obligation and a wise course to take as part of our overall strategy to defeat Islamofascism..
Lord knows we waste enough money on useless pork, but this is not one of those situations where we should be drawing the line on spending.
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM
You betcha! How about we slash taxes, keep the porky money in our pockets, where we can decide for ourselves if we care enough to voluntarily contribute to a “Guns For Ali’ fund?
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 4:58 PM
The people here seem to think this is some abstract, theoretical conversation.
Far from it
For 17 years after Shia Muslim clerics led the revolt that overthrew Iran’s U.S.-backed monarchy, the formal intelligence services and shadowy militias that help enforce the mullahs’ rule assassinated Iranian dissidents in Europe, Asia and the United States. Various counts by human rights groups and Iranian opposition movements put the known total anywhere from 60 to 100.
In 1996, a German judge investigating some of the killings issued an arrest warrant for Iran’s intelligence minister. Revulsion in Europe over the mob-style hits was hurting Iran diplomatically, said Mansour Farhang, a former Iranian ambassador who teaches politics at Bennington College in Vermont. At home, a vigorous pro-democracy movement, which led to the election of the liberal president, Muhammad Khatami, also forced the enforcement agencies into retreat, Farhang said, and assassinations of nonviolent dissidents appeared to have stopped. (Attacks have continued between Iran’s forces and the violent opposition group called the People’s Mujahideen of Iran.)
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Not beyond what is afforded ordinary citizens unless there is a short term credible threat. I’m not for affording people 7/24 protection for life simply because they think they need it. If we did, we’d be protecting thousands and thousands of people around the clock. Now, if there are attempts on the lives of people critical of Islam in the United States, I might change my mind.
If my life were threatened I’d inform my local police department and get a license to carry. You can be sure I won’t be looking for 7/24 protection for the rest of my life.
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 5:02 PM
We’re at war, dude (?) Do you want the IslamNazis to win?
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Let us know when you get a fatwa issued against you, okay?
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Good grief! How many ways do you need to be told the same thing? Of course it’s real. Well done. We all get it.
Guess what? The constitution is real too, not some abstract document. Either you wish to uphold it as the framework of this nation, or you don’t. Those of us that opt for the former, following 200-odd years of precedent, object to arbitrarily waiving its principles in favour of todays cause celebre.
You won’t lead the charge for her protection yourself because, I am increasingly suspecting, you are a fraud. Put your money where your mouth is and stop hiding behind a fraudulent misrepresentation of our nations principles to force others to satisfy your vanity. Do it. Put $10 in a paypal account and point everyone to it for contributions.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I’d be far more worried about a contract than a fatwa. Now I feel differently if this were Europe where I couldn’t protect myself and the police were inept.
Again, if code pinkos were looking for special police protection for life you’d all be outraged.
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Male, yes. Dude, no. Unless you’re up for fisticuffs ;)
As wonderful as I am sure she is, Ali’s death will not hand victory to the IslamNazis. We defeat these goons every time we say “NO” to their medieval backwards culture. We defeat them every time we do not sell out our principles for some vain cosmetic political gesture. We win simply by being American. Time will tell.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Amen brother. When did we become just like the Left looking to the government to take care of us?
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Every case is always analyzed with a blank slate. Yes we have laws and a constitution, and we use those tools to decide what the conclusion should be.
If you think laws and the constitution can be applied by a robot, then I disagree. The provisions, and their meanings, are constantly reinterpreted. By humans.
Finally, simply because the constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize something doesn’t mean that the government cannot do it. There are a lot of implied rights and principles to consider when making a decision.
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM
It seems to be a rather disturbing trend in the common human psyche. The founders of this nation, and what we could perhaps today refer to as ‘True Americans’ (fallacy aside), I believe are more exceptional people that do not fall prey to this delusion. Hardy independent American souls.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM
…of todays cause celebre.
This line serves to illustrate why you just don’t get it.
We are in an existential battle with a segment of the global population that wants to see us annihilated and/or subjugated to their religious whims.
The fact that you don’t seem to grasp that concept is not my problem.
I don’t want to waste the effort explaining what a “fraud” is, but suffice it to say that in order to be a hypocrite or fraud I would have to buy into your cockamamie argument that there’s something in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting us from offering protection to people whose lives are in imminent danger, which I don’t.
The question is, why haven’t you given anything to her defense fund?
Hmm…?
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM
SECOND LOOK AT THE 10th AMENDMENT
There are many people forging great careers by keeping others enamoured of such mumbo-jumbo.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Last time.
The point is that there is nothing in the constitution authorising such protection.
Simple – I don’t care about her enough. You seem to care. You’re clearly a wonderful person. Cough up some green. Walk the talk.
The fact that she has only ever clamoured for government protection, demanding my money by force, communicates to me that perhaps America isn’t the right home for her.
There are plenty of violated muslim women in this world. They don’t all have book deals and the ears of government leaders.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I doubt you’ll find a lone, turbaned jihadi stalking you in a rural area full of hunters. They don’t do things like that. They also know how to not stand out. Rather a grenade through a car window, a motorcyclist pulling up next to you at a red light, kidnapping a child or wife, sitting behind you in a movie theater, car bomb, etc. I’m amused at how much we downplay their ability to create a workable plan which exploits our vulnerabilities. If they want you, they will have you. A CCW permit is pretty useless against a suicide vest.
a capella on February 11, 2008 at 5:36 PM
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:27 PM
At the risk of repeating myself, I’m not the anarcho-capitalist whose misreading of The Constitution leads me to believe that the government can’t offer protection to public figures whose lives are endangered, now am I?
The fact that you don’t care about her, or anyone else whose life is threatened by the contemporary avatar of Nazism, is evident.
Granted, you’re probably correct in your assessment that you’ll never merit enough publicity to warrant multiple Islamist assassins, but I hope you don’t complain when the government decides that something you write or say offends TROP and you’ll have to put a sock in it.
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 5:39 PM
10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To which I will reply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
What is exactly the ‘general welfare’? Maybe it includes protecting people like Ali so that all of us feel more secure in using our 1st amendment?
Anyways, my point was that simply because a power is not EXPLICIT in the constitution, it doesn’t mean that the federal government doesn’t have it.
The problem is that once you go down the literal path, you get tons of problem, like cases that fall in black holes or cases where the outcome is horrible. So while the words of the Constitution do not change over time, the meaning of the words and principles behind it need to adapt to our reality.
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Quite so. I am not a trained special forces hardass. If they really want me, I’m probably a dead man.
Now what do you think will happen when they start murdering Joe Shmoe (me) and his all-American wife and baby daughter in the name of jihad?
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Whatever. It is totally irrelevant whether one is more threatening than another. If the code pinkos get threatened by IslamoNazis I’d be all in favor of protecting them. Since they are Useful Idiots who work to enable the Islamist’s cause and get joined by all sorts of Islamist groups whenever they turn out for a “peace rally” it’s not going to happen. Anyone who is threatened by our common enemy at a time of war deserves protection.
Kerisit you’re thick. We are saying no to the goons by helping out Hirsi Ali!
As for the constitution which you claim precludes us from giving protection to Ali, here’s the preamble:
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Exactly right.
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Heh. I’m glad I checked this thread again for that nugget. That’s right, Madison did all that work for your feelings. Personally I’m looking forward to the founding of the department of hugs. Though when Hillary gets done with promoting the general welfare by state health care, we’ll all need it.
Danish, you surprise me.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Ask the people that wrote it. Plenty of texts to help you out with that.
My point is that you are wrong. Horrendously wrong. directly-contradicting-the-text wrong.
Shabby handwaving and flabby language do not justify evading the actual meaning of the constitution in favour of what you would prefer it to mean. Voice your objections clearly and suggest an amendment, that’s the correct way to go about things.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Why? We give asylum to people who are not the objects of fatwas by those we are directly at war with. Surely someone like Ali should be a priority in that regard.
This is not about “hugs” it’s about winning a war, and we can’t do that exclusively through military means. We cannot allow those who are on our side be intimidated into silence.
The nose under the camel’s tent arguments strike me as being very silly.
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Because given other credible options, you not only call for the government action, but claim that umbrella should extend to all people struggling against jihad. Perhaps I’ve not read enough of your comments previous to these, but you are exhibiting a view of the USA as a tool for an end, not an end of itself. That’s why I’m surprised.
Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM
What other “credible options”? Private financing? I already said that we could collaborate with private groups and contribute to her protection.
As for the “umbrella”, all people struggling against Jihad are not in the public eye and are not under clear and present danger like Ali is. Nor do they all have green cards.
Ali is an articulate spokesman who speaks like few can about the horrors of radical Islam and as such she is an ally in this war.
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I would argue that being in the US without a security detail is probably safer than being in France or Denmark etc with one. I just don’t believe in making an exception to principle just b/c it is in support of someone standing up to radical Islam. Governments can’t pick and choose these kinds of things in reality, it doesn’t work that way. Provide protection for Hirsi Ali, and suddenly every abortion doctor will want a 24/7 security detail. I just don’t approve of bending the Constitution just because the end-result is something that I approve of. That’s the libtard way of thinking, like with their support of freedom of speech until they don’t like what they hear. I understand where some of you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree.
RW Wacko on February 11, 2008 at 6:26 PM
We are not at war with abortionists or anti-abortionists. We are at war with Islamofascists and that is not “libtard” thinking!
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:38 PM
FYI, people working at abortion clinics are given police protection.
One of the myriad jobs of law enforcement is to protect and serve the general public.
What part of this concept are you Pauliacs failing to comprehend?
Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM
AHA is under clear and present danger. For the U.S. not to provide security is insane.
The Feds have hundreds of private citizens under protection from the mob.
TheSitRep on February 11, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Good point. We also have people in the witness protection program who are mostly a bunch of crooks who got caught but we need them to convict other crooks.
Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Exactly.
This is absurd nitpicking of how to spend taxpayer dollars. We also spend money in the D.O.D. on
propagandaP.R.Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Well since you ask, it seems that Hamilton had a broad view about that:
mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Abortion doctors don’t have 24/7 police protection provided by the friggin’ federal govt. They sometimes get local police escort, to and from their clinic, in response to a specific threat made upon them. They don’t get friggin’ 24×7 security details provided by the feds. Ali was talking about a million $ + security detail, in perpetuity.
I’m not a Paultard, just a regular conservative who voted for Mitt down here in Florida and will vote McCain in the general. I just don’t think the feds should give Ali protection finance by the rest of us. Private funds, personal funds, funds from her employer etc should be used, plus her own personal care. If that doesn’t work, Europe awaits; sorry.
RW Wacko on February 11, 2008 at 7:12 PM
AllahP:
all the netherlands has to do is make her an ambassador to the USA/UN and then the US State Department MUST provide security AND has funds to provide her with security.
I have blogged this before.
No special rules/allocations, no special US status or new citizenship from any nation is required.
In fact, ISRAEL or France or even the VATICAN could make her a special ambassador and she’d qualify.
QUOTE: The United States has the responsibility under international law to protect visiting foreign dignitaries and resident foreign diplomats in this country. There is an equally serious obligation to protect foreign missions in Washington, New York, and other cities in the United States.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/inman/part09.htm
wiki on inman panel reprt:
The Inman Panel’s recommendations received strong support from Congress, and on August 27, 1986, Ronald Reagan signed H.R. 4151, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, which codified the recommendations of the Inman panel. [1] The new Bureau had a clearly defined mandate outlined in legislation and structured along the lines of other Federal law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Diplomatic_Security
REPEAT: The United States has the responsibility under international law to protect visiting foreign dignitaries and resident foreign diplomats in this country.
here’s a link to my original post on this matter:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/10/solution-to-ayaans-security-problem.html
OH HELL… HERE’S THE POST:
Thursday, October 04, 2007
A SOLUTION TO AYAAN’S SECURITY PROBLEM
LGF:
the claim published by Expatica that the United States had “refused” to pay for her security was not correct; as a Dutch citizen, she does not qualify for protection under US law. It’s the Dutch government who has refused to pay for her security.
According to corrected reports,
they’re [ the US Gov't] legally unable to do so for anyone who isn’t a citizen. Which prompts the question: Why didn’t they grant her citizenship instead of permanent residency?
I GOTTA BETTER SOLUTION:
I suggest that the PM of Holland appoint her a special Ambassador to the USA, then the Diplomatic Security Service (DS) Service MUST provide her security – as they did for Ahmadinejad. This might be easier than granting her citizenship – or it could be a bridge until she gets US citizenship.
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE:
In the United States, Diplomatic Security personnel protect the Secretary of State and high-ranking foreign dignitaries and officials visiting the United States,
WILL SOMEONE CALL AYAAN AND THE DUTCH PM AND CONDI RICE AND TELL THEM THIS, PLEASE.
Permalink – Posted by Reliapundi
reliapundit on February 11, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I wasn’t aware there was a foundation setup to fund her security. I remember it was discussed here and numerous people, myself included, asked why there isn’t a PayPal setup for easy donations.
The website still doesn’t have PayPal. I don’t like writing checks and sending a wire costs $$.
I’d like to see W make her a citizen by executive order. The U.S. Marshals protect scum and give them new identities. I’d rather see my tax dollars going to protect her until the threat against her is neutralized, than going to fund things like welfare and NPR.
Mooseman on February 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Umm, the only response to this is “grow a pair”. Gee, if only we can just keep our head down and not catch their eye, maybe they leave up alone…..cringe, cringe. The very embodiment of dhimmitude.
pussum207 on February 11, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Good show! That seems to answer the question.
a capella on February 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Transfer Hillary’s secret service detail to Hirsi Ali. Problem solved.
labrat on February 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
It says a lot when the U.S. can not even protect its citizens who are here legally from those it allows to stay here illegally.
It’s a shame that those in D.C. do not want to uphold the Constitution When DHS/ICE/INS, or whoever is in charge of knowing who is in the U.S. that should not be and Also responsible for seeing that they are deported, get their act together to uphold to Constitution that they take an oath to support and defend.
Only then will green card holders, such as Hirsi Ali, feel safe.
MSGTAS on February 12, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Let me get this strait. She want’s citizenship in France to hide out from radical Islam? Hmmmm.
Ernest on February 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2