UAE Man Mistaken for Terrorist in Ohio Spurs Diplomatic Incident

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Typical liberal left: "Oh look at the mistreatment the Muslim got. No wonder they hate us and want to kill us." Funny how the left point to this (as I am sure he was probably not the only innocent man detain recently), while if the dude would have decided to go visit Muhammad's burial site instead of coming to America, he might have gotten more that a few scratches and an apology.

People who justify bad behavior just because "it could be worse" are pathetic.

We could have jailed the man for weeks and beaten him near death and Bfine would be here bragging about how great the US is just because we did not cut his head off.

"AMERICA!  HELL YEAH!"

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 11:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: People who justify bad behavior just because "it could be worse" are pathetic.

We could have jailed the man for weeks and beaten him near death and Bfine would be here bragging about how great the US is just because we did not cut his head off.

"AMERICA!  HELL YEAH!"

...and people who cower under the securities America provides and then speak out against it are pathetic.

Let me know when there is a rash of Muslims jailed for weeks and beaten nearly half to death and we'll discuss it. As for this one; I see someone detained, it was discovered he was detained due to faulty evidence, he was released and offered a formal apology. We could have simply asked him did he pledge allegiance to the leader of a Terrorist organization and Fredtoast would be in here complaining about how terrible the US is just because we didn't ignore the intel provided.

 

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2016, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope the Middle East is not one country; however, it is one region. Attacks against the UAE have been threatened often and they are in a vulnerable location. To date they have been able to keep things fairly much in check through Sharia Law and "forced disappearances". I wonder if the apologize to someone they wrongly stone.

Point is that making a deal about this is silly; given what goes on in his own region and country. Call it illogical if you wish. 

A region is a big place. We are talking about somebody having something happen to them like this in Japan and then pointing to violence in Chicago as a reasoning to not be concerned even though the person is from Ohio. I get you are saying the whole region has some issues, which it does, but using violence that occurred in a different country to try to paint his home, which is in a different country, as a violent place is illogical. If you have evidence of this sort of thing happening in the UAE then that would've supported your argument.

As for your point, it's not silly. The 4th Amendment says it isn't silly. Whatever happens in their country, or any other country, doesn't matter. We have the 4th Amendment and it applies to all people in our country, visiting, residents, citizens, all of them.

[GMDino]

(07-05-2016, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and people who cower under the securities America provides and then speak out against it are pathetic.

Let me know when there is a rash of Muslims jailed for weeks and beaten nearly half to death and we'll discuss it. As for this one; I see someone detained, it was discovered he was detained due to faulty evidence, he was released and offered a formal apology. We could have simply asked him did he pledge allegiance to the leader of a Terrorist organization and Fredtoast would be in here complaining about how terrible the US is just because we didn't ignore the intel provided.

 

Quote:The latest incident occurred on June 29 when the sister of a woman working as a hotel clerk in the Cleveland suburb of Avon, Ohio, called police to report that a man at the hotel in “full head dress” had pledged allegiance to Islamic State, according to WEWS, a local ABC affiliate. Police arrived and handcuffed businessman Ahmed al-Menhali,

"Evidence".

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 12:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As for your point, it's not silly. The 4th Amendment says it isn't silly. Whatever happens in their country, or any other country, doesn't matter. We have the 4th Amendment and it applies to all people in our country, visiting, residents, citizens, all of them.

It is silly to make a big deal of this situation: Dude was falsely detained, when it was determined that the intel that lead to him being detained was false, he was released, a formal apology was issued, and Trump was blamed. What more could have the liberal left asked for? 

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2016, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is silly to make a big deal of this situation: Dude was falsely detained, when it was determined that the intel that lead to him being detained was false, he was released, a formal apology was issued, and Trump was blamed. What more could have the liberal left asked for? 

I would think that Americans would ask that these sorts of things not happen in the first place, but maybe I'm just asking too much for our Constitution to be followed.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is silly to make a big deal of this situation: Dude was falsely detained, when it was determined that the intel that lead to him being detained was false, he was released, a formal apology was issued, and Trump was blamed. What more could have the liberal left asked for? 

Who was charged with filing a false report?

I am sure that if this happened to some Christian they would be crying fro someone to pay for the "ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY!!".  If they boycott stores just for saying "Happy Holidays", just think of what they would do if a Christian was handcuffed because of his religious beliefs.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would think that Americans would ask that these sorts of things not happen in the first place, but maybe I'm just asking too much for our Constitution to be followed.

Apparently the Constitution is only supposed to protect the rights of Christians.

Some one at a store says "Happy Holidays"......."We must write books about the "War on Christmas" and demand boycotts!!  Christians are under siege in this country!!!"

Someone gets handcuffed........"Meh, shit happens.  What does he expect walking around dressed like that?"

[Millhouse]

Couple things. It at first appears to some kind of 'practical joke' in calling the police saying someone pledged themselves to ISIS just because of what they are wearing & speaking arabic on the phone. Secondly if there was actual evidence from the caller that he did (which he didnt), why wouldnt the local police have called the FBI? And why wouldn't they have called the FBI anyways before making any arrest? Seems to me the local yocal cops made a dumb decision based on a phone call without any actual probable cause they detained themselves.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-05-2016, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently the Constitution is only supposed to protect the rights of Christians.

Some one at a store says "Happy Holidays"......."We must write books about the "War on Christmas" and demand boycotts!!  Christians are under siege in this country!!!"

Someone gets handcuffed........"Meh, shit happens.  What does he expect walking around dressed like that?"

What?
The Constitution protects Americans.
Last I looked, that guy that got detained wasn't an American.
So for you guys to nit pick about BFine's post, then I'm going to nit pick right back.

And so far, the woman that accused him of being a terrorist is looking at possible charges being brought against her.

Now as far as stereotyping? It exists because almost everyone that commits Fedayeen or Shahid are Muslims of Middle Eastern descent. If you can point out about a dozen or so White Christians that have done this sort of thing since the start of the year 2016, then I would gladly stereotype them.

[*michaelsean*]

I wanna know who let this SOB in Ohio in the first place. He certainly didn't come up through Cincy. i'd have seen him.

[BmorePat87]

(07-05-2016, 03:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What?
The Constitution protects Americans.
Last I looked, that guy that got detained wasn't an American.
So for you guys to nit pick about BFine's post, then I'm going to nit pick right back.

The Constitution protects more than just Americans. Legal and Illegal immigrants and visitors have constitutional rights as well.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would think that Americans would ask that these sorts of things not happen in the first place, but maybe I'm just asking too much for our Constitution to be followed.

Of course we all wish we could live in a dream land where folks are not misunderstood and at  times falsely accused;  however, we must live in reality. I really see no big issue here. Dude was accused of pledging support to a Terrorist organization in a hotel. The police acted on the intel provided. once the intel was found to be false they released him, apologized and folks got to blame Trump.

I really don't see this as the same aversion to the Constitution that you do.

What would you have done if you were a LEO and someone told you a man just pledged allegiance to a Terrorist organization?  

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently the Constitution is only supposed to protect the rights of Christians.

Who did the Constitution not protect in this instance? 

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2016, 04:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we all wish we could live in a dream land where folks are not misunderstood and at  times falsely accused;  however, we must live in reality. I really see no big issue here. Dude was accused of pledging support to a Terrorist organization in a hotel. The police acted on the intel provided. once the intel was found to be false they released him, apologized and folks got to blame Trump.

I really don't see this as the same aversion to the Constitution that you do.

What would you have done if you were a LEO and someone told you a man just pledged allegiance to a Terrorist organization?  

Talk to the person it was about, check into the credibility before handcuffing him. Someone making an accusation isn't probable cause for detaining an individual. It is a violation of the Constitution, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 05:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Talk to the person it was about, check into the credibility before handcuffing him. Someone making an accusation isn't probable cause for detaining an individual. It is a violation of the Constitution, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Well, let's just not put you in charge of the hard decisions that safeguard folks. The first thing I would do is remove him from the crowded Hotel. You can just stay in charge of what constitutes probable cause and a possible threat.  

You have no idea if the person was asked to remove himself from the situation for questioning. You just want to wave the "rights violated" flag. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-05-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, let's just not put you in charge of the hard decisions that safeguard folks. The first thing I would do is remove him from the crowded Hotel. You can just stay in charge of what constitutes probable cause and a possible threat.  

You have no idea if the person was asked to remove himself from the situation for questioning. You just want to wave the "rights violated" flag. 

I think they prefer to be called "Apologists."

Yes an innocent was detained. He doesn't have full rights, only partial rights. The US can revoke his VISA at any time for any reason. He's not guaranteed the same rights as a USC. You can't revoke the rights of a USC with out a trial.

Was he profiled? Probably, if he was speaking in Arabic, then the person that overheard "ISIS" heard what they wanted to hear, not what was probably really said. The cops detained him, questioned him then released him with an apology. Should've been the end of the story.

Common Sense should've ruled the day here,
1st, the dude knows that the US is witch hunting for terrorists right now, so how hard is it for him to change out of his traditional garb and put on someone more local? You know the old saying, "when in Rome do as the Roman are doing?"

I was at Niagara Falls this weekend, hundreds of Asian Indians there. Only 1 or 2 stuck out from the rest, why? Because they were the only ones in full burka's. Almost everyone else was wearing Jeans/Pants and smiling. We are humans, we rely heavily on Face to Face communications in social settings and when someone prevents this (intentionally or unintentionally), it can cause friction.

[Benton]

(07-05-2016, 06:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think they prefer to be called "Apologists."

Yes an innocent was detained. He doesn't have full rights, only partial rights. The US can revoke his VISA at any time for any reason. He's not guaranteed the same rights as a USC. You can't revoke the rights of a USC with out a trial.

Was he profiled? Probably, if he was speaking in Arabic, then the person that overheard "ISIS" heard what they wanted to hear, not what was probably really said. The cops detained him, questioned him then released him with an apology. Should've been the end of the story.

Common Sense should've ruled the day here,
1st, the dude knows that the US is witch hunting for terrorists right now, so how hard is it for him to change out of his traditional garb and put on someone more local? You know the old saying, "when in Rome do as the Roman are doing?"

I was at Niagara Falls this weekend, hundreds of Asian Indians there. Only 1 or 2 stuck out from the rest, why? Because they were the only ones in full burka's. Almost everyone else was wearing Jeans/Pants and smiling. We are humans, we rely heavily on Face to Face communications in social settings and when someone prevents this (intentionally or unintentionally), it can cause friction.

He's protected under the 14th regardless of citizenship. A few amendments do extend only to citizens, such as voting.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, let's just not put you in charge of the hard decisions that safeguard folks. The first thing I would do is remove him from the crowded Hotel. You can just stay in charge of what constitutes probable cause and a possible threat.  

You have no idea if the person was asked to remove himself from the situation for questioning. You just want to wave the "rights violated" flag. 

So if what they did was what they should have done, why was there an apology?

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 07:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So if what they did was what they should have done, why was there an apology?

Read this forum. The left is unapologetic; yet easily offended. The man was detained and found to be without cause, an apology never hurt anyone, but questioning him in a crowd might. I have read reports where he refused to get on the ground when originally ordered to do so. 

Brings me to mind of a situation that happened on the mothership. A debate got out of control (IMO) by all parties involved. I issued a public and private apology. Many considered that as me admitting that I was "wrong" on my stance. I was just sorry the back and forth got to the level that it did. Sometimes you just apologize to ease tensions; not always because you were wrong.