Loss of Privacy

Want to blow away your competition at work? If you send a text message about it, you’re now a terrorist. That’s what happened to Saad Allami, turning his life upside down.

A casual text message to work colleagues encouraging them to ”blow away” the competition at a trade show allegedly plunged a Muslim man into a terrorism probe.

The Quebec man says he was arrested by provincial police while picking up his seven-year-old son at school. A team of police officers stormed into his home, telling his wife she was married to a terrorist. And his work colleagues were detained for hours at the U.S. border because of their connection to him.

On Jan. 21, 2011, Allami sent a text message to colleagues urging them to “blow away” the competition at a trade show in New York City.

Allami was arrested and detained for four hours while police searched his house and repeatedly told his wife that he was a terrorist.

The Moroccan native is seeking $100,000 from the Quebec provincial police force, one of its sergeants, and the provincial government. The six-figure sum is being sought for unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, loss of income and damage to his reputation.

Allami has been unable to obtain the necessary paperwork in order for him to continue working in his profession, leaving him with no choice but to take the Quebec provincial police force to court in order to restore his reputation and be able to find work again.

“Allami says he sent the text message in French and used the word ”exploser,” a term he claims is commonly used in finance to mean grow or succeed.”

His exact words were:

“Salem, je serai à New York le 25 janvier, on va exploser ACN, si vous avez des contacts référez-les moi”

This literally translates to:

Salem, I will be in New York on January 25h, we will explode ACN, if you have contacts refer them to me.

In all likelihood, Allami’s message was automatically screened by American intelligence agencies who have the ability to monitor cell phone usage within its borders. Allami sent the message to colleagues in New York City, where it was intercepted. It is unlikely that those who intercepted the message understand colloquial Quebecois French and over-reacted. The problem arises when none of his colleagues were arrested in the United States. They were only detained upon their arrival at the border going back to Canada.

In reality, anyone reading this literal translation would know that there is something not quite right with the translation and get someone qualified to help them ascertain what is going on. Instead, everyone decided it must be terrorism because some machine translation can’t be wrong.

There are several questions that remain unanswered. If there was really such a threat, why were his colleagues never arrested when they were in New York City and Allami, a Muslim, was the only one under immediate scrutiny? Why did they not dig deeper or get someone who understands colloquial Quebecois French? Why was Allami’s message intercepted and why was he under suspicion to begin with?

The greater problem to remember here is that Saad Allami was arrested not for the actions he took, but for a message he sent. His speech is what was considered dangerous.

At first glance, H.R. 3166 doesn’t appear to be anything that an American citizen should worry about. After all, the bill states that it only applies in accordance with war. However, careful consideration must be taken when looking at the context of the bill.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

It should be noted that 8 U.S.C. 1481 includes a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization.

How would this affect common, everyday Americans? In more ways than you think when you consider, if we are at war, everything a citizen does is subject to the laws of war. We already face the fact that many in Washington consider paying by cash to be a form of terrorism. Being a Muslim automatically puts you into a suspect category. What happens if a law enforcement official decides you look Muslim and you’re reading whatever they have deemed to be questionable literature? The government could classify anything from Noam Chomsky to the Qur’an to Ayn Rand as subversive. Read it during a time of war, which we seem to always be in, and a citizen is placing themselves in a precarious situation.

The government also considers anyone who stockpiles food to be questionable. The United States government’s definition of stockpiling food is anyone who has more than a seven day supply of food. That would automatically make anyone living in very rural parts of America automatically questionable. It is often a long drive to town to get food stuffs, making the stockpiling of food logical, but it is a first step for the government to start looking into the lives of Americans.

It would be much easier for the government to start questioning those who live in urban areas as to why they have two weeks of food stocked up. It is also easier for the government to potentially start rationing supplies. If citizens are deemed suspects for having too much food, they stop stockpiling it. It’s then easy to control the supply once this happens.

The NDAA states that the United States is within its rights to imprison or assassinate anyone that is not a US citizen without due process of law for merely being suspected of a crime. If the Enemy Expatriation Act were to pass, any American citizen could be stripped of their citizenship if the government deems them to be involved in terrorism and then the NDAA would apply to them. There would be no due process and no appeal.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the US Constitution gives the government the power to do this. Like it or not, this is a real possibility. The government may say that this is aimed at those who come to America and obtain citizenship and, thus, they can use Article I to then strip someone of their citizenship, however, giving the government such broad authority as the Enemy Expatriation Act would should never be allowed. Governments have shown time and again that, given such power, it will be abused. The fact is the Enemy Expatriation Act affects all citizens, natural born or not.

The Enemy Expatriation Act is wholly unnecessary. We already have laws on the books that deal with such issue as to whether or not someone has committed unlawful acts. We do not need a law that automatically strips someone of their rights based merely on the suspicion of a crime. The judicial system is entrusted with taking care of such matters. Circumventing due process is not the road the United States should be traveling on. Before we deny anyone their life and liberty, we owe them due process. If the United States government cannot convict a person without it, then it is their responsibility to investigate and build a better case.

Americans should be outraged that such a bill is even being considered. The Enemy Expatriation Act has now been referred to a committee. Now is the time to notify government representatives and kill the bill before it proceeds any farther.

“We were going to take our grandson, he’s five and visiting from California, to see Santa and we were just sitting around the table having something to drink, talking about what we were planning and that’s when my husband took the picture,” said Grandmother Debbie Cassella.

Cassella said immediately a mall employee instructed them to stop taking pictures or they would be thrown out of the mall.

“I believe she said you can’t take pictures at the mall. I thought she was joking and I said ‘I’m taking a picture of my grandson’, I’d understand if I was taking pictures of the architecture or the products in the stores and she became a little hostile and aggressive,” said Grandfather Don Oberloh.

No. You should be able to take photos of the architecture of the mall as well. This is a ridiculous rule.

“I asked to speak with a mall manager and she flashed a badge at me, and I didn’t see it, and asked ‘is this good enough?’ and I tried explaining things to her and she came back, I apologized and she was more belligerent and I asked again ‘may I speak with the mall manager’ and she said ‘that’s me’ and I said ‘there’s nobody higher than you?’ and she said ‘one person’, ‘may I speak with that person’ and then security came over,” said Oberloh.

Oberloh left the mall after being asked by security, but Cassella stayed behind to wait on her daughter, who had gone into a store.

“I told him I can’t just leave and then he said that he would remove me physically and then he called another security guard and that guy came over and then my daughter showed up and I said we were just here to take my grandson to see Santa and he said you can’t see Santa,” said Cassella.

These people need to apologize to the grandparents. Not only were they apologetic when they didn’t need to be, the mall security grew more belligerent as time went on.

via Remain Anonymous.