Congressman Peter King( R-NY)chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security has announced a third hearing on Islamic radicalization in America.
The hearing which will focus on the Somali al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab’s ongoing recruitment, radicalization, and training of young Muslim-Americans in the US and will convene July 27th.
The first hearing King conducted focused on the general radicalization of Muslims in the US with the second one concentrating on radicalization of Muslims in American prisons.
Surprisingly, King's hearings are the first real congressional investigations of radical Islam in America.
King has had to buck accusations of bigotry and racism from the usual suspects, including some members of his committee.To his credit, the congressman has not backed down in the least.
"The purpose of this committee is to combat Islamic terrorism because that is the terrorist threat to this country. If we find out that neo-Nazis are allied with a foreign power and they come into this country, we will investigate it," he said.
Everyone with common sense knows muslim radicalization in America is a problem. We really don't need to waste money, time, and energy on a hearing to know what the problem is. We need to get to work on solving it. The best places to begin are: 1.)place an indefinite moratorium on all immigration on all predominately muslim countries especially those in the middle east, 2.)closely monitor the mosques in the US, and 3.)develop all of our own oil and gas reseves while building more refineries.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to points 1 it is much harder to harm us if they can't get into our country. Does it make much sense to allow people into your house who wish to harm you? No it doesn't. With regards to point 2, if it is known that a certain group of people wish to harm you, it makes perfect sense to closely monitor this group in order to try and prevent it. With regards to point 3 developing all of our own oil and gas reserves and building more refineries will mean we will be buying less oil from middle eastern countries and Venezuela. This means less revenue is available to them with which they can use to try and harm us. Also, it has the added benefit of giving us more leverage in negotiations with these countries.
Do these things and we get more benefit for our national security interests and our economic interests than any thing we are currently doing. We don't need any more hearings. It is time for action.
And even if hearings could be in any way productive, Rep King is the WORST person you could choose to hold them. He was practically dancing on the graves of British citizens when defending the IRA bombings. Every time he holds hearings, he's rightly denounced as a hypocrite. Sadly, this more about King's ego than radical Islam.
ReplyDeleteThe last time I checked, radical Islam was an ideology - not a race.
ReplyDeleteHello Poster,
ReplyDeleteA congressional hearing sets the stage for action later. It provides background and testimony to refer to as evidence for what action needs to be taken.
It's an essential step, especially considering who's in the White House and who's running the Department of Justice.
Regards,
Rob
Anonymous 6:14 PM,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you about the IRA, as far as I'm concerned that has nothing to do with an investigation of radical Islam in America. I say we stick to the subject and give credit where it's due.
People are not all of one piece. For instance, I think Al Franken is a buffoon who arguably committed election fraud and whom I disagree with on almost everything. But I can commend him for being one of the few Hollywood celebs who took the time and trouble to go to Iraq and entertain our troops there with a non-political comedy act, and for his stance defending a KBR employee who was drug raped, a story I covered here that almost no one else did.
Regards,
Rob
People may not be all of one piece, but what is the point of holding hearings if the guy running them has such a bad history of supporting (of all things!) the bombing of civilians? The hearings are over before they start and King is a late-night punchline. Is King so important to you that one of the other 434 can't be convinced to run them? I'm generally center-left but hard-right on this particular issue. I'd like to see someone take it on and King is the wrong person. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but if he really cared about the issue, he would put his ego aside and let someone else - anyone else - do it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious you dislike this congressman. Fine.
I don't want to be rude but it's obvious you haven't any idea how DC works.
This item is covered by the House Committee on Homeland Security. He happens to be the Chairman.Not only is it his responsibility, his job to chair the hearings but he could justifiably be accused of dereliction of duty, even cowardice if he tried to pass this job on to anyone else...assuming anyone else even offered to take on the job.
Another point I'll mention in passing, and you needn't answer, but you might want to think about it. You claim to be 'center Left' whatever that means, but 'hard-right' on this particular issue.
Why would you then start out by saying 'even if hearings could be in any way productive' about the first congressional hearings held on this subject?
And the remark about King dancing on the graves of British citizens..I just wonder, did you feel the same way about Teddy Kennedy, who did prety much the same thing where th eIRA was concerned? Or does he get a pass for ideology's sake?
Regards,
Rob
1) Congressional hearings are largely unproductive because they are usually more about the person holding them than the cause. McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Dan Burton, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteI am British, so I don't like Kennedy either. You are far too quick to pigeonhole. I don't have a 'team' or favourite 'players' like the partisans do. It's more honest to call them as you see them, and I despise Kennedy for being the sexist blowhard that he was. I wished that they could have dumped his hearse off a bridge and came back for him the next day. So, yeah, I feel the same way about Kennedy. It's called principle over partisanship. If people stopped looking for an R or D after people's names, they'd be a lot better off.
Oh, sorry. As to your other point (the one you didn't want to be rude about). If King can't step down or pass it on, I'd rather he not bother. It would be selfish of him to taint a good cause by being the face of it. McCarthyism didn't die for lack of Communists. It died once people came to know it's public face.
ReplyDeleteWe could definitely have a conversation about McCarthyism..especially given what the Soviet archives and the Vendona cables have revealed since.
ReplyDeleteAs for principles over partisanship, isn't Rep. King embodying exactly that by choosing to do something very necessary and taking the flak rather than 'not bothering'?
Believe it not, I have no great love for the GOP per se. It's simply that by and large, your average Republican comes much closer to the principles I support than do the vast majority of Democrats. That's been true since the 1970's.
It's too bad that's true, because the ideal would be for the two parties to act as a balance, but it simply is.
Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman, among others, have had much to say about this.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteSadly I think you're right. Unforunately given who runs things in the White Hosue and the government administration the hearings likely have to be held and given Mr. King's position he has to be the one to hold them.
It just seems like having to hold hearings on this is a bit like holding hearings to determine that it is cold in Antartica. We already know it is cold in Antartica like reasonable people already know Islamic radicalism is a problem in America. Its long past time for action on this. I've already suggested potential courses of action to address this problem that will give us greater utility than any thing we are currently doing.
Anonymous,
While it is correc that radical Islam is an ideology a certain group of peope does seem to be the most likely supporters of the ideology. As such, it makes perfect sense for someone to wish to monitor them and to not allow them entrance into a country that many of them wish to harm.
As for the IRA, I must confess that my knowledge of them is very, very limited. I can imagine how you feel. Many people danced on the graves and the memory of the victims of the 911 attacks. It brigns my blood to a boil. I'm sure the sight or thought of people dancing on the graves of British citizens does the same for you. You have my deepest empathy.
If Rep King wornged your country, I'd suggest the following. 1.) Use the ICC to bring criminal charges agaisnt him. 2.) Use entities like the WTO to inflict crippling economic sanctions on America until America's leaders capitulate to the demands of your country and the demands ofinternational community that certainly will follow to extradict him to stand trial.
These hearings or potential hearings are to address the problem of radical Islam in America, not to address the problem of radical Islam in Britian, if Britain has such a problem, which it may not. How Britain wishes to address this or any other issue is up to Britons. How America wishes to address this issue is up to Americans and their elected representatives. It might be best for you to stay out of this and respect America's right to address this issue as it, its leaders, and its people see fit.