OT: Arnett Now Reporting for Arab TV

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Peter Arnett, fired by NBC earlier this week for giving an interview to state-run Iraqi television, now is reporting for pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Arabiya, the station said Saturday."He (Arnett) is an able reporter who has covered wars before and who knows Iraq well," the Dubai-based station's editor-in-chief Salah Nejm told The Associated Press."I think he is unbiased and has a lot of experience," Nejm said.

When is Arnett going to get his citizenship revoked so he can stay with the ones he loves most?

He is from Afghanistan if I remember right, and didn't we just get his damn state back for them? Ingrate...

Hamza denies report

One of the most insidious threats from radical Islam is the way they have studied our Western cults of victimhood and liberal guilt, identifying our weak points with an unerring instinct for manipulating Western sensibilities.

And our legal system.

Now why can't we do that with all of our radical Muslim clerics?

You know, if these "clerics" had any integrity at all, they'd have volunteered as human shields. Sure you can convince young, impressionable kids to strap on some C4 and hit the plunger, but will you show real leadership by doing it yourself?

Didn't think so.

They just send him a letter??

How about hauling his treasonous crippled ass to the Channel and letting him swim to France where he'll be among his own?

.so you think in about 10 years or so....after aappeals ad nauseum, he might be expelled.?

PC.
( and I'm not talking computers.)
That might be the Achilles heel of the US. "They" know this. Accepting everyone regardless of ideologies to avoid offending someone might be what it takes to bring down the most powerful nation in history without firing a shot. Freakin' scary. Freakin' sad. Wake up people !! I will speak my mind, and if it pisses you off, too damn bad. You also have this same right. Let's let facts rule, not emotions and prejudices.

Getting his British citizenship revoked doesn't mean he'll get deported. The Telegraph reported a few days ago he'd probablyh get to stay thanks to "human rights" legislation.

Arnett, Hamza, Pollard - Dual citizenship = dual loyalty.

I don't like the notion of Americans splitting loyalty with a foreign land.

Having 15,000 that can vote in French elections for Jacques Chirac, then Howard Dean by absentee ballot....or, 6 million so called Americans flying the Mexican flag on their cars - free to vote in Mexican national elections and then write their US Congress Rep to oppose tightening up immigration control and restrictions on US Treasury SSI checks.

I want an end to dual citizenship. If someone is torn between loyalty to Syria and the US, Pakistan and the US, Nigeria and the US, by religion to the Ummah or Israel vs, the US.......they shouldn't be allowed to be US citizens.

His lawyer, Maddrassar Arani, said stripping him of British citizenship would leave him stateless and would therefore be a breach of his human rights.

Wah! Here's a dinar...call someone who cares.

There's gonna be some empty offices in downtown Baghdad in a couple of days...maybe he can move in.

Just leave the forwarding address with the 3rd ID.

#9

I will speak my mind, and if it pisses you off, too damn bad. You also have this same right.

You don't see any irony here?
Hamza may not be a contender for citizen of the year, but he hasn't actually been found guilty of anything other than holding, professing, and supporting unpopular views.
What if all US naturalized citizens could be deported for voicing opinions that ran counter to the government of the day, and all that would be required is for a politician to claim that they acted against the vital interests of the state. No proof of crime, no court, just a politician making that decision?

Unfortunately, he'll stay on in the UK even without citizenship. But if he's found to break the law, it'll be easier to deport him (well, maybe not him as he's so high profile, but others in his situation).

Now the US must do the same for the thousands who hate her while gladly living there happy to use her services, and increasing bringing in more and more family from "back home".

C.

Anybody named Abu anything should be expelled from any western country. God damned idiots.

#13 VfI:

Two words for you:

Sedition.

Conspiracy.

It ceases to be an opinion when it icites others to commit crimes.

#16

Why not try him then? There was a guy jailed only a couple of weeks ago for anti-semitic incitement in the UK.

I like to believe that the legal system protects us from political despots. The way to deal with Hamza should be through the legal system.

#17

As ploome said in #8, it could take years.

Citizenship, for those who gain it by naturalization, is not a right. It's a privilege, revocable for cause.

Hamza has proven he does not deserve the privilege.

In the US they're complaining about "being looked at funny" in the supermarkets. I think they know they're being *very* carefully watched by the citizenry here.

And that many of those citizens are packing heat, and would be acquitted by a jury of their peers for shooting an enemy of the state in the proper circumstances.

It's called acting like a gunslinger and being a cowboy, and Americans still value both of those images. If the Muslims are studying Western society, they must know and understand this, too.

And either behave themselves or leave (for Canada) on their own.

His lawyer, Maddrassar Arani, said stripping him of British citizenship would leave him stateless and would therefore be a breach of his human rights.

so - this parasite loses citizenship from the s***hole of his birth so it's the UK's obligation to provide him citizenship because he washed up there at some point? hopefully the brits (and us) will finally start getting a clue about what these f***ers are up to.

While Abu Hamza loses his British citizenship, Bush and Blair have had their Palestinian citizenship revoked in advance.

Palestinian mufti bans Bush, Blair from "holy land of Palestine"

Bush, Blair banned from Fairyland, Narnia and other imaginary places - and now this.

This does my heart good! I've been campaigning against this guy for TWO WHOLE YEARS. Finally, they're going to get him out of there. THERE IS A GOD!

But I notice up above someone has a link which says Hamza says it's not true. Why am I not surprised. Like the Coalition troops aren't in Baghdad either! PUTZ! Go back to wherever you came from. He's originally from Gaza or somewhere, not Egypt, but Egypt will do till they can get rid of him somewhere else.

Jeez, Hamza was a bouncer in a Soho nightclub? A one-eyed, hideously ugly bouncer with a hook arm. I imagine the sight of him caused quite a few Brits to puke up their pints.

#18

Citizenship, for those who gain it by naturalization, is not a right. It's a privilege, revocable for cause.

If you mean in the US, then yes, but revocable through a judicial process, and that's my point.

His lawyer, Maddrassar Arani, said stripping him of British citizenship would leave him stateless and would therefore be a breach of his human rights.

Problem is, "human rights" applies only to humans. I wasn't aware pond scum had any rights, though I suppose some enviro-looney someplace will assert the opposite.

Excellent!

I had had some idea that when you have recived citizenship, you would be legally in the same situation a native; almost impossible to revoke.

It would be interesting to have some information from legal experts:

1. What are the differences between countries in legal requirements for this procedure.

2. Is this possible also when the person has single citizenship? In effect he would be a stateless person after the revocation of his citizenship.

I sincerily hope that we will see much more of this, for instance in criminal cases.

Also, I cannot see the point of having a person in the country if he is so undesirable that you revoke his citizenship.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act

Man do we ever need one of these - and fast, and it must be made bullet proof so the damn federal judges in the 9th circuit court can't shoot it down, or any other Carter/Clinton Court appointee for that matter.

Need to get a campaign going on this somehow. I have the time and resources, I'm open to suggestions from anyone serious.

Wait a minute - if he has dual citizenship, then how can his mouthpiece claim that revoking his British citizenship will leave him "stateless"?

I'd rather see him locked up in England or extradicted to Yemen than deported to Gaza, where he'll just become a huge headache for Israel. Egypt isn't a good choice, either, because he'd certainly hook up with the Islamic Brotherhood there and cause trouble as well. As much as I despise Mubarak as the brutal dictator he is, it would be worse to have Egypt, the most populous and militarily powerful Arab state, go Islamic.

#27-

We also need to ammend the Constitution so that running over the border and dropping a baby does not infer citizenship upon that baby- that's just one of the many scams Mexicans now run- they are then ellibible for Welfare beni's, the checks are even mailed back to Mexico in some cases.

#26-

We used to boot gangsters out all the time that had dual citizenship, the court appointees simply got to damn liberal and stopped kicking anyone out. It needs to change, obviously.

abu hook gets the hook--a certain synergy in that--but where's the new english henry the deuce?--"won't anyone rid me of this meddlesome priest"[paraphrase]this malevolent doucebag needs a oneway ticket on the paradise express--not deportation but transcendental transportation to the 72 teeny boppers in the garden of allah--call it enforcement of the human right to die for inciting mass murder--the big 86--where are the dirtnap counter- jihadis when we need them?

#29 - A 3rd-Worlder from Mexico, Asia, Africa, or the lands of the Religion of Peace plopping out an instant US citizen is just the start. Chinese, Filipinos, and Nigerians are masters of the follow-up "it takes a village to raise our little American tyke scam".

Meaning that once the newest American baby is ensconced here with "caregivers", now defacto American parents, the benefit train and the right of both parents to work is automatic...meaning there is an urgent need for grandparents, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters to be "reunified" to take care of the "barely made it intop the US during labor contractions" little citizen...then find liberal church sponsors to bring more in. The Filipinos in particular excell at the reunification racket...emptying whole villages out in the Philippines.

Unfortunately, changing this likely means changing the 14th Amendment...which says citizenship is automatic by birth on US soil. There might be a case for disbarring citizenship as in a fruits from a fraudulent or illegal alien womb...but the law is reluctant to penalize the 3rd World...errrr...fully American tyke. As it stands, citizenship is as easy as one or two illegals hooking up and grunting out their permanent visa 9 months later, entree into lifetime benefits by the skill of a Tijuana Taxicab driver getting here in time, or being a gravid Egyptian hoping the tourist visa will get the American birthright settled so the other 6 kids and the husband can exit the Alexandria slum mud-hut for life in Michigan.

OT

Exceptionally well said Charles (opening comments)... Sounding much like the late Michael Kelly. Direct and to the point.

It is meant as a compliment to both Charles and Kelly, that they and many others have placed a high premium on telling the truth. Without any pause.

God Bless MK's wife and family...and CJ too.

About the article:

As far as the loss of the "person's" British citizenship, it should have been done years ago. Let him chat with the grand mufti of eqypt on the finer points of jihad, or whatever. Just go.

sh

#11 Ranbutan

Eliminating dual citizenship will not fix anything. For most of the history of the US - they didn't recognize dual citizenship - but those born in other nations could always reclaim their citizenship and a passport.

Even without dual citizenship - if someone wants to have loyalty to their native country or against the US - you can't force them to change the way they think. If they act of these - then you can revoke their US naturalization, or even revoke and deport them - but the enforcement of this will require more dedication and committment than ever displayed by the US towards immigration and naturalization.

Furthermore, there are as many if not more native born Americans who are disloyal / threats to the nation than naturalized immigrants. Think Carter, Clinton, Ramsey Clark, LaRouche, David Duke, Tom Hayden, and others whose actions are more against the values of America and the American Republic itself than many naturalized citizens. These are just some of the people that want to either remake the US into a Marxist nation or a puppet of the UN.

The Oath of Allegiance is very specific in terms of declaring loyalty to the US and renouncing all others. But, like any other Oath, it is up to the individual to decide to honour it, and people to decide to enforce it. Many attack Clinton because of his violation of his Oath of Office - to Bill - it wasn't an issue of importance - just the Office itself was important.

Dual citizenship isn't a license to be disloyal or practice sedition.

Ranbutan (#11)

If someone is torn between loyalty to Syria and the US, Pakistan and the US, Nigeria and the US, by religion to the Ummah or Israel vs, the US.......they shouldn't be allowed to be US citizens.

Just those countries or are there more on your list?

view from Ireland (#13)

Hamza may not be a contender for citizen of the year, but he hasn't actually been found guilty of anything other than holding, professing, and supporting unpopular views.

Are you ever going to get it? Ever? You consider supporting terrorism as an "unpopular view"!?

Athos (#34)

Very well said.

Immigrants of all sorts make America the land and country that it is.

The trouble with Muslim immigrants is that most of them secretly and some of them openly, are bent on subverting the constitution and replace it with Sharia. If ever Muslims manage to do this, it will be sad day for the whole world. Thus continued immigration of Christian immigrants from Mexico, Phillipines and other places, provides a measure of security to the ever growing Muslim presence, both from immigration and the high birth rate that Muslims specialise in.

Athos,

You raise an interesting point about the homegrown threat. However, if the foreign born characters are a threat, then by all means, we should get rid of them. The less naturalized trouble makers there are in the US/UK/Canda(hahaha, like they care), the more we can concentrate on the Clinton/McVeigh/Unabomber types. I think in this debate, we have overlooked the duality of Israeli-Americans. If such a law were to go into effect, how many of you doubt there would be a huge movement to get rid of those "fucking sons of Zion with no loyalty" as our muslim friends put it so elloquently. This sounds like a witchunt waiting to happen.

Jordan

#35

South Africa. *chuckles*

#36

Are you ever going to get it? Ever? You consider supporting terrorism as an "unpopular view"!?

Yes indeed I do.
In the absense of any actual crime or charge, it's just an unpopular view. What would you call it?

If he's done something illegal then charge him with that crime. If he hasn't then that's a different matter.

In any case the decision should be one of a court, not a politician.

#41

So unapologetically inciting terorism is simply an "unpopular view"? Your fucking right its an unpopular view and any society that wants to survive would consider it a very fucking "unpopular view" and bounce that type of hate mongering son of a bitch on his fucking ear. With your fucking moral compass stuck on neutral, how the fuck to you make any decision on anything in your life??

This piece of shit went a whole bunch further than simply expressing "unpopular views." He even went further than just "supporting terrorism." He actually incited violence and terrorism in his rants. Inciting violence is not protected speech, at least not in this country.

#39 - McGill.

And the downside of America getting rid of Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis, Paks, and Iraqi dual citizens with no loyalty to America, as well as Zionists with no loyalty to America would be .....what???? As well and dual citizen Mexicans or French with 1st loyalty to Mexico City or Paris?

In that melange..dual citizen-dual loyalty Jews should get no more a pass than dual loyalty Muslims or Froggies.

As Stanley Hoffman has related...the State Department periodically has to weed out Jews found to be framing policy under an exclusive "is it good for Israel, or bad for Israel" decision-making criteria. Saying such people have never been in good odor at State. Same with Muslim-Americans ever caught framing decisions in military service, politics, service in the Fed Gov't under a purely "good or bad for the Ummah" matrix.

What America must do is eliminate dual citizenship tolerance...you are an American first..or you are not an American.

Money for US elections must only come from US loyal people...not like the Chinese Commies using proxies to slip millions to the Democratic Party for Clinton's re-election...not like the Saudis "gifting" pet Senators and House Leaders....not even a quid pro quo for their influence being contingent on support of billions in US taxpayer aid to a foreign country.

In fact, besides eliminating the dual citizen tolerance..I am convinced that the US needs to eliminate non-registered foreign agents of influence and make it part of any voter registration that the person swears they are under no higher loyalty outside the US polity.

Ranbutan (#40)

Fuck you. LOL!

#41 - There are responsibilities that come with naturalization - and if you don't live up to those responsibilities - you deserve to lose your naturalization status.

Since the granting of naturalization is a legal process, then there are legal repercussions if the terms / oaths are not lived up to.

Promote sedition, act in a disloyal manner (incite violence / advocate and support terroristic acts) - you lose your naturalized status.

It's time for the rights of the criminal to be less than the rest of the rights of society. It's punishment and deterrance. (These days, it's also survival.)

#44 - Ranbutan -

Dual citizenship is a red herring in terms of the problem that you are addressing.

Again, there are as many if not more disloyal / anti-Americans that are born in the US as immigrated to the US and became naturalized.

Everyone, regardless of nationality has beliefs and values, and their decisions are based, for good or bad, on those values. If you hate America - you will take action against the America you hate - you will do this in whatever manner that you choose to operate in up to and including breaking the law.

As a naturalized American from Canuckistan - I don't hold a stronger loyalty to Ottawa than to the US. In fact, it is because my loyalty felt stronger to the values and purpose of the US that I submitted by request for naturalization 11 months ago. I can debate and disagree in the US, but I feel very strongly that the Oath of Allegiance I took binds me to protect and defend the Constitution of the US - and that I renounce prior allegiances and loyalties. If Canada and US go to war a la South Park - my allegiance is to the US.

I wish that native born Americans could feel the same pride and loyalty to the US that the naturalized immigrants do....but then, many Americans seem to take their nation and it's uniqueness for granted.

Fix the root problem - not the symptom of dual citizenship.

Athos,

How long did it take for your application to go through to completion? I applied in December, did my fingerprinting in January and haven't heard back yet.

Originally from the Northwest Territories (big yuckety yuck!), now living in the best place on earth!

#44-

The State Department has a long tradition of pro-Arabism and anti-Zionism/antisemitism which it inherited from the Brits. For most of the 20th century it was a "No Jews need apply" policy at State, which was dominated by WASP's.

I'm sick and tired of the "Zionists have dual loyalty" canard. I happen to think that what's good for the Jews is good for the U.S. and that the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of the U.S. The events of the last year and a half have borne me out.

Maui Girl - I applied in June of last year, fingerprinted 9/11 of last year, final intertview in Feb of this year, and was in 3/28 ceremony in LA.

This was faster than I expected since I was told to expect 18 mos at least. I was told at interview one of the advantages was I had a clean and smooth background check according to FBI.

Thanks Athos,

Guess I have a few more months to go. I was hoping that because I live in such a less populated area it would be faster. Lots of Canadians living here are applying for American citizenship. I surely hope they take it seriously.

Funny - whenever I heard the American anthem on TV (sports events) it would evoke an inexplicable emotional response. Then they'd play the Canadian anthem and nothing, especially after they changed some of the English words to french.

It's meant to be! And congratulations on becoming a citizen of the US.

Athos (#50)

I was told at interview one of the advantages was I had a clean and smooth background check according to FBI.

How weird that you mention this now. I was thinking about just that earlier today! G-d knows I'm not a danger to society and the FBI checked my background, so how is it possible that all the terrorists managed to slip past that part of the process (the ones living here in the US, I mean)?

#52

they have friends in the State Dept., at Justice and some symps in Congress.

sh

scott hansen (#53)

Even if that's true for some of them, it can't be the case for all of them.

Just wondering how long myself or any of the other millions of non-muslim residents of muslim countries would last if we made comments comparable to Abu Hamza's. These unpopular views would get us a bit more than a polite letter from the Home Secretary requesting we please leave the country, I bet.

I suspect Ranbutan is a Palestinian propagandist trying to create a precedent that Israelis are "second-generation immigrants" and that it is proper to expel them.

Why does Abu Hamza object to being stateless? Doesn't he want to be a citizen of the world?

#42 - View from Ireland

I'd call promoting jihads against Britons and the West in general a hate crime. I don't even know why we bother going through legal contortions for sworn enemies of our country. Someone stick his hook in a live electrical socket and call it an accident.

#52 Zulubaby -

A couple of reasons I think - the background check for entry / visa / even green card prior to 9/11 probably was as thorough as it needed it be - too many people, too hard to check, too few screeners, and the political pressure of screen vs. admit.

I personally think that where you come from has a lot to do with it as well. From friends and relatives who have gone through the process - the ones from Western Europe, Canada, and yes, SA, the more developed nations - in the past have had the hardest times in terms of time frames and screening. Those from more 3rd world nations generally have had an easier time. The rationale I was told - - - those from developed nations are more likely to compete with Americans for the higher paying jobs - so they are vetted harder and numbers controlled more than those who are less skilled.

It also is selective based on politics. Last summer, while shopping in Woodland Hills at lunch, I was asked if I was a registered voter. When I said no, they said I should register. I said I couldn't because I wasn't a citizen. The person told me that didn't matter, no one checked, and that they do it all the time. When I got the name of the group leading the registration drive, I decided to call their bluff, and said, "sure, I'll register - as a republican". The person, looking horrified, said, "oh - no, you can't do that", and walked away from me - looking back at me as if I had 3 heads.....

I think that everyone should be vetted - and they need to get an equal check. In CA, as you well know, our deficit is greater than all 49 other states combined. The amount is equal to the increase in spending Davis pushed through in his first 4 years as Gov - and most of that spending is for services for "illegal" immigrants - school, welfare, medical aid, etc. This is the real impact of immigration amuck.

Athos (#59)

I think you're exactly right, that they're stricter when it comes to those that may compete with Americans for top positions. I have a friend who waited 10 years for her green card! South Africans generally have a hard time with visas, let alone green cards and citizenship. It seems easier now, but I don't know that for sure. One would hope at this point that the INS has realized that terrorists are a far greater threat than those who may be competition for employment! So it goes.

I can't believe you were sent away 'cos you wanted to vote Republican! LOL! Anyway, as far as I know it is not legal to vote if you are not a citizen.

Zulubaby - it's not legal - and if discovered will prevent you from bring naturalized - which is why I didn't do it. I knew from the org that it was a scam to get voters for the Dems, so I called their bluff. (I also filed a complaint with LA Cty Board of Elections - but that disappeared into a black hole.)

Makes you wonder how many people who are illegal just sign up and vote regardless.......where are the controls there?

This is about time - though he had to stretch it to the limit before the UK did anything- lets see...connection to the death of 3 british holiday makers...preaching sedition...encouraging and probably abetting terrorism ini mainland uk - ricin shoe bomber etc ...his own son in jail on terrorism. I see these nut jobs every friday outside the mosque in Fins Pk in their sooo scary keffiyahs hiding their identities. They are readily identifiable in the station though......

Now he is going to the European Court of Human Rights - hmm I wonder if those Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans I hear/ know about from time to time and our FORCED to leave their ANCESTRAL land will be able to follow whatever probable precedent he is going to set? Thanks Hamza.

There are a lot of minicab drivers that look like Hamza. You can see there faces when a bunch of mini dress wearing ladettes walk past. I wish he was still bouncing - id love to meet him when I am on rocket fuel...

aahahahaha- a bouncer in Soho - well he would have to deal with a few drugged out gays.....

[Link: www.al-bab.com...]Busy boy

Read some of this jackass's "unpopular views." They include this gem: "If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow. Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law. If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he's booty. You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And even if they don't do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell them in the market, you just kill them. It's OK."

That's why he encouraged some of his young followers to go to Yemen and kidnap tourists, a number of whom they later killed in a shootout with the Yemeni army.

But here's The Big Question: Does this mean that Hamza can no longer collect his British welfare payments?

That's right. He advocates the overthrow of the kafir British government, but he cashes those checks!

Stateless? Not for a madi, badi, jihadi and leader of Supporters of Shariah (SoS) — the world is his oyster!

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth - not just a portion, but the whole planet." And that God's Law (Shariah) should be enforced in the world "by force of arms." Truth cannot be confined within geographical borders. "The allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his, but on - S.A.A. Maududi "Jihad in Islam" Lahore, 1991

It is a popular misconception that all political beliefs are allowed in a democracy. They aren't. The deal with a democracy is that all parties agree to abide by a certain set of democratic rules and agree to defend the very system that allows them to participate. Hamza wanted to use the freedoms given to him by British democracy to destroy British democracy. He wanted to use the fact that he is allowed to express his point of view to bring about a state of affairs in which his would be the only point of view that could be expressed without punishment. This is subversion of democracy, and democracy does not allow it. It's treason, quite simply. And, in a time of war or danger to the nation, politicians are rightly able to decide what is and isn't treason, rather than fucking around with a civilian judicial system which simply was not designed and is not adequate for the task.

I don't think we should send Hamza back to "where he came from", because that implies that the fact that he was an immigrant was part of the problem. It wasn't. If a white Englishman from twenty generations of Englishmen were to do the same things, his citizenship should be revoked. Deport traitors. Where they go next is their problem. Or we could jail them, but they should be kept separate from other prisoners, so we're not just giving them a captive audience to preach to.