“What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists? In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don’t let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
“But what about one’s own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition….. America finds itself at war with radical Islam not just in Afghanistan but in Buffalo, Boston, Boca Raton, and Baltimore. Controlling the border flow, therefore, has paramount importance.”
Daniel Pipes, the man who applauded the exclusion of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) and Tariq Ramadan from the US, outlines his philosophy on border controls.
Fortunately, other US commentators take a different view of the suppression of Muslims’ civil liberties. See “Muslims’ lawsuit upholds liberties for all”, CAIR news brief, 26 April 2005
Or, for favourable coverage of democratic reformer Khaled Abou El Fadl, see “Are Islam and democracy compatible?”, CAIR news brief, 25 April 2005
Khaled Abou El Fadl has, of course, been denounced by Daniel Pipes as a “stealth Islamist” and is presumably exactly the sort of US citizen who deserves to suffer harassment when crossing the US border.