FBI Data Shows Terrorism in US, Serious Threat, But Not from Muslim Immigrants

As President Trump and supporters continue the push to levy an arbitrary travel ban from a smattering of predominantly Muslim countries, a debate rages in the United States about the validity — and effectiveness — of preventing terrorism by strangling immigration.

Now, simple data can put that debate to rest.

“Since January 2015, the FBI has also arrested more anti-immigrant American citizens plotting violent attacks on Muslims within the U.S. than it has refugees, or former refugees, from any banned country,” writes Nora Ellingsen for Lawfare.

Ellingsen would know, too, after having worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Counterterrorism Division for five years, she left for Harvard Law School — but has tracked statistics closely for Lawfare since. And Ellingsen remains cagey to unreported information — she knows what is likely taking place behind the scenes, even when it either isn’t or hasn’t been disclosed to the public.

In a recent article titled, “It’s Not Foreigners Who are Plotting Here: What the Data Really Show,” Ellingsen explains,

“The Program on Extremism at George Washington University has routinely published statistics indicating that the ‘vast majority’ of individuals charged in the U.S. with offenses related to ISIL are U.S. citizens. When considering all terrorism offenses, that claim holds up—80 of the 97 suspects arrested in the past two years, or more than 82 percent, are American citizens.

“Most of those, notably, are not naturalized citizens. Of the U.S. citizens, only six were naturalized. In other words, more than 76 percent of individuals arrested by the FBI over the past two years for terrorism-related offenses were U.S. citizens as a result of having been born in the United States.”

Americans present a far greater threat to Americans than immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, or Somalia — the named countries in Trump’s disputatious ban.

But even naturalized U.S. citizens haven’t committed or plotted to commit acts of terrorism on American soil. According to the aforementioned statistics, two of six naturalized citizens emigrated from Bosnia, which didn’t make the list — nor did Israel, staunch U.S. government policy driver, and original home of the third naturalized citizen, who had been convicted on charges of terrorism previously.

READ MORE:  Shocking Emails Expose George Bush and Tony Blair Plotting Iraq War a YEAR Before the Invasion

“Nihad Rosic and Mediha Medy Salkicevic,” Ellingsen continues, “emigrated to the U.S. from Bosnia, a country not on Trump’s list. While in the United States, the government alleges that Rosic and Salkicevic raised and sent money to individuals fighting with ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Both men contributed money from their personal savings, while other members of the conspiracy sent supplies including tactical gear. At one point, Rosic attempted to leave the country to join ISIL as a fighter overseas. Neither subject plotted an attack in the United States.

“Another naturalized citizen, Rasmieh Yousef Odeh came to the United States from Israel—a country that’s really not on Trump’s list. Odeh’s case is unique; she was charged with immigration violations for failing to disclose a previous terrorism conviction in Israel. Now 68 years old, Odeh was convicted in Israel for her role in the 1969 bombings of a supermarket and the British Consulate in Jerusalem, which were carried out on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP.) In the past two years, Odeh is the only convicted terrorist to slip through the cracks and immigrate to the United States. However, the indictment makes no charges that she was engaged in any sort of terrorist activity while living in the Chicago area.”

Here’s where the statistics get really interesting. While the remaining three naturalized citizens did, indeed, emigrate from nations Trump takes issue with, but not for anything pertaining to his ostensible terrorism concerns.

Two men — one from Iraq, the other, Syria — “were not charged with material support to terrorism, but with making false statements to law enforcement,” and “nothing in the public court documents suggests that either subject engaged in attack plotting in the United States.”

Exactly one naturalized citizen from the travel blacklist engaged in activity related to terrorism, as Ellingsen explains,

“Of the six naturalized citizens on our list, there is exactly one from a newly banned country who was charged with material support to terrorism. Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud emigrated to the U.S. from Somalia. In April 2014, Mohamud traveled from Ohio to Istanbul and onward to Syria, where he received weapons and explosives training. In June 2014, Mohamud returned to the U.S., where he told an acquaintance that he wanted to attack a military facility or a prison, killing U.S. military members.”

So, if perpetually-paranoid Americans aren’t threatened by immigrants from the apparently Sinful Seven countries, who should they fear?

Techdirt turned to an article from Slate, which explains the ‘real terrorists’ truly are closer to home than nervous, law-abiding Americans might think.

“Our politicians say they’ll stop these killers. They talk about building walls and vetting refugees. If we were serious, we would do it. We would seal our borders against North Carolina,” Slate’s William Saletan implored.

“North Carolina? It sounds absurd. When we think about immigration and terrorism, we think of Syria. But that’s not where our casualties are coming from. On Friday, a gunman killed three people and wounded nine more at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. The suspect is white American Robert Lewis Dear. When police apprehended Dear, he uttered one telltale phrase: ‘no more baby parts.’ People who have known or met Dear say he wasn’t a regular churchgoer. But they also report that he believed devoutly in the Bible and that he claimed to have read it ‘cover to cover.’ In an online forum, Dear apparently spoke of Jesus and the ‘end times.’ He painted or posted crosses on at least three of his homes.

“Dear moved to Colorado last year from North Carolina, where he had been living. For two decades, the Tar Heel State has been a hotbed of religious extremism, fueled by clerics who preach holy war. The result is a stream of interstate terrorism.”

Saletan, of course, speaks tongue-in-cheek, yet keenly encapsulates — through a list of domestic terror attacks carried out by North and South Carolinians — how immigration restrictions of any variety serve only to placate xenophobes.

After all, Saudi Arabia didn’t make the list; Israel didn’t make the list; Afghanistan didn’t make the list.

Terrorism doesn’t practice one religion, or have a single nationality. It doesn’t have a specific appearance, gender, motivation, cause, or mindset.

You can’t fight terrorism by ignoring facts — and the fact is, we have our own terrorists. No matter how constrictive the restrictions on our borders get — even if Trump shut down immigration, entirely — the United States creates terrorists at home and abroad at an alarming rate.

A closed border won’t change that. Indeed, the only way to lessen the chances a terrorist will attack on U.S. soil is for the U.S. to rein in belligerent, imperialist foreign policy, bring the military home, and use its bloated budget to begin patching the physical and emotional holes in this country.

Banning legal immigrants only deepens those wounds.

Activist leftist court rules against Trump travel ban, ignores actual law

(INTELLIHUB) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the United States will remain wide open to incoming refugees after rejecting a move by the Trump administration to reinstate the controversial travel ban.

In an unsurprising move considering the courts open leftist leanings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court’s stay of President Trump’s travel ban targeting seven countries would remain in place.

For his part, Trump immediately Tweeted his plan to take this issue to the Supreme Court due to his belief that our national security is directly at stake.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

We now find ourselves in a country where judges are now directly ruling against the actual law in favor of how they “feel” about certain political issues. Make no mistake, this travel ban is 100% legal under U.S. law.

Most observers believed from the start that this extreme left appeals court would rule against Trump, especially when you consider the fact that one of the three judges on the panel has been publicly supported by leftist organizations in the past.

“Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who is on the three-judge panel that will rule on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at stopping terrorists from traveling to the United States, won the ACLU of Southern California’s LGBT Award in 2009, according to the Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont,” reported CNSNews.

Additionally, the ruling by the appeals court appears to have been helped along by tech giants Facebook, Google, and Microsoft who filed court papers in favor of ruling against the ban.

“The panel’s ruling in favor of immigrants is a victory not only for Washington and Minnesota — the states that sued — but for Facebook Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which said in court papers that the measure would hinder their global businesses,” reported Bloomberg.

The establishment media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and now the courts are all working directly against both White House and Trump’s public war on globalism.

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Image: Phil Roeder/Flickr

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

Twice in 1 Day, White House Caught in Lies About Terrorists Attacking Americans

The United States is already engaged in combat operations (within the last year) in at least seven countries; Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. And the latest rhetoric coming from the Trump administration seems to want to add Iran to the list.

Earlier this week, President Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn said Wednesday he was  “officially putting Iran on notice”. On Thursday, when asked to clarify Flynn’s comments, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer pointed the finger of blame toward Iran.

Spicer said, “I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take.” He then reiterated Flynn’s warning by adding, “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions. But clearly wanted Iran to make sure they understood that they are on notice. This is not going unresponded to,” Spicer emphatically stated. The only problem with Spicer’s comments is that they’re reportedly patently false!

Iran did not attack a U.S. Naval vessel. On the contrary, it was a Houthi rebel group (only aligned with Iran) which attacked a Saudi naval vessel, not an American one. The war rhetoric is reminiscent for some of the time when the U.S. proclaimed the Vietnamese had attacked a U.S. vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. The fake news story issued by the U.S. government led to a nearly 10-year war in Vietnam against the North Vietnamese.

READ MORE:  5 Stories Americans Missed While Media Obsessed Over the Inauguration 

Not content with allowing Spicer to get away with proclaiming a lie, CBS News’ Major Garrett corrected Spicer by telling him it was a Saudi vessel, a clarification which Spicer acknowledged without any self-correction on his part. Spicer simply said, “Sorry, thank you, yes a Saudi vessel. Yes, that’s right.”

Spicer’s gaffe happened on the same day Trump’s adviser Kellyanne Conway put forth the notion the media was somehow biased towards the Trump administration. “I bet there was very little coverage that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after it was discovered two Iraqi’s came here, were radicalized, and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre,” she told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The only problem with her claims is that just like Spicer’s fake story, they did not happen. Not only did the Obama administration not put the refugee program on hold, but no massacre took place in Bowling Green.

However, what did take place was an FBI entrapment scheme to get a few former Iraqi insurgents to involve themselves in a weapons-running operation to Iraq. Conway backtracked on her comments through Twitter, having later tweeted she meant to refer to them as the “Bowling Green terrorists.” But even that admission of misspeaking is inaccurate as well. In fact, no one was hurt in the FBI’s sting operation.

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano recently opined on the FBI’s so-called “thwarted terror plots.” According to the judge, the FBI has engaged in 17 plots to identify loners, whom the FBI identified as potential terrorists. Napolitano said the FBI, “befriended them, cajoled them, and persuaded them” to engage in a terror plot to commit illegal activity. Napolitano declared, “none of this keeps us safe. All of this makes us less free as any one of us can be entrapped, and we are fools if we praise the government for exposing a plot of its own creation and saving us from a danger that never existed.”

READ MORE:  Congress Approves Measure for Crusade Against “Fake News” -- Using DoD Funding

Judge Napolitano then asked, “Are we really safe in a false sense of security?” “When no one is harmed and the government controls the plot aren’t we just punishing someone for his thoughts. And in a free society aren’t free people to think as they wish? This must be so. Because if the government can punish us for our thoughts, there is no limit to its power,” he said emphatically.

Officials from Bowling Green, Kentucky also responded by saying in a statement, “while in 2011, two Iraqi nationals living in Bowling Green were arrested for attempting to provide money and weapons to terrorists in Iraq, there was no massacre in Bowling Green.” And Mayor Bruce Wilkerson said he also appreciated the clarification given by Conway.

Taken as a whole, the two stories serve as an example of “fake news” put out by members of the Trump administration. Whether the motives for doing so are war with Iran, or simply a reaction to defending the Trump administration’s travel ban on seven largely Muslim countries, is anyone’s guess at this point. Free thinkers everywhere can only hope the U.S. and it’s war machine, military industrial complex aren’t planning for yet another devastating war with Iran.

It has long been the position of The Free Thought Project that the reason why there exists a “radical Islamic terrorist” problem is because the U.S. continues to bomb people in the Middle East and elsewhere, a move which creates more terrorists.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and What You’re Not Being Told About Trump’s Travel Ban

January 31, 2017   |   Alice Salles

(ANTIMEDIA) President Donald Trump’s decision to bar nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days prompted one of the largest protests America has seen since anti-Iraq war sentiment compelled thousands to hit U.S. streets in 2003.

Moved by the ban’s inclusion of green card holders who were suddenly left stranded at U.S. airports, protesters flooded airports nationwide, demanding U.S. officials let foreigners who were lawful residents in. On Sunday evening, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly declared “the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,” making the “lawful permanent residence status” of foreign nationals “a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”

While many have pointed out that the precedent that allowed Trump to impose the 90-day ban came from a bill signed into law by President Barack Obama, known as the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, others pointed out the list’s omission of countries such as Saudi Arabia, “home of 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.” But while these same publications claim these countries were spared because of Trump’s business ties, countries listed in the current ban mirror the list of countries present in the bill signed into law by Obama. So why did both Obama and Trump choose to spare travelers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates from extra scrutiny?

The answer may lie somewhere in the past, long before both Obama and Trump were considering running for president.

U.S. presidents are often judged by how the economy fares during their terms, leading many to take credit for sudden upticks while others blame everybody else for downfalls.

In a carefully written piece from 2014, founder, president, and Executive Director of the Carl Menger Center Paul-Martin Foss explains that in 1971, when President Richard Nixon “[closed] the gold window,” unilaterally canceling the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, Saudi Arabia entered the picture.

Striking a deal with the Saudi Kingdom, Nixon established the oil-rich nation as its partner. From then on, Saudi Arabia became the “anchor of the petrodollar system,” making the kingdom’s demise unthinkable if the dollar were to remain a reserve currency.

Fearing the dollar would lose its value due to his economic policies regarding gold reserves, Nixon made the Saudis promise to “denominate oil sales in dollars” in exchange for America’s endless military protection. Being one of the world’s top oil producers and exporters, Saudi Arabia’s promise meant that foreign nations “seeking to purchase oil on international markets needed to purchase dollars and maintain dollar reserves.” By establishing a demand for the dollar “as an international reserve currency that counteracted the desire of countries to move away from the dollar due to the [U.S.] government’s inflationary policies of the 1960s and 1970s,” Nixon was able to protect the value of the U.S. dollar despite the obliteration of the only system that had kept the currency strong all through the years: the gold standard.

Since then, this relationship has kept the U.S. dollar relatively strong despite the U.S. Federal Reserve’s follies, which have accelerated inflation. This adds an extra burden on the poor, who have continued to see the purchasing power of their cash decline over the decades. But who cares about the poor when the U.S. government can keep printing more money without worrying about having the currency lose its power?

Over the years, other oil-rich nations joined the pact, with Gulf Arab countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait maintaining large dollar reserves.

According to a 2016 Bloomberg article, Saudi Arabia still holds $289 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. But aside from that, Foss continues in his piece, “the estimated sizes of the Arab countries’ sovereign wealth funds” totals almost $2.5 trillion. These wealth funds invest their oil revenues across the globe, holding America in a special place in their hearts.

As America’s top U.S. military hardware purchaser, Saudi Arabia also helps keep the U.S. dollar strong through a vibrant war market while benefitting from the 1971 deal with President Nixon.

As a new president takes office, we can only guess what the learning process might look like. We’re not sure who approached Obama to let him know of the U.S. special relationship with the Saudi royals. We’re also not sure how this happened under Trump. All we know is that under Obama’s watch, the Saudis purchased $115 billion worth of weapons from America, totaling “more than any previous administration and were intended to replenish arsenal after war in Yemen.”

In the Yemen files, the database “of more than 500 documents from the United States embassy in Sana’a, Yemen” released by WikiLeaks, the staff at the whistleblower hub writes that “Yemen is of significant strategic interest as [the country] controls a narrow choke-point to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal through which 11% of the world’s petroleum passes each day.” With Saudi Arabia seeking to “control a port in Yemen to avoid the potential constriction of its oil shipments by by Iran along the Strait of Hormuz or by countries, which can control its other oil shipment path along the Red Sea,” it’s suddenly clear why America has been so invested in the Yemen war. The U.S. government must keep the promise made by President Nixon if it wants to keep the dollar strong without reforming or putting an end to the Federal Reserve’s grip on the U.S. dollar.

President Trump has only been in office for a little over a week, and he’s already following the lead of his predecessors.

Understanding the background of the special relationship between America and Saudi Arabia gives us an idea of why economic policies of the past are so entwined with wars being waged today — and why Saudi Arabia and others were left out of the list of countries under the watch of the U.S. government under Obama and Trump.

As over seven million people starve to death in Yemen while America presses on, aiding its number one partner in the region. But this is not because they care about the war itself, but because American presidents care about the strength of the dollar — at least, that’s what it looks like once you analyze the background of this special relationship.

Without oil-rich nations using the U.S. dollar to trade their product — and without the gold standard — there’s nothing keeping the dollar’s worth from crashing. And if that occurs, world markets would feel the boom with only America truly hurting since its currency would lose its worth, boosting other world powers.

Will there ever be a president who will challenge that? If so, reform should start first by ending the Federal Reserve.

---

This article (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and What You’re Not Being Told About Trump’s Travel Ban) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Trump’s Travel Ban: Targeting Terrorism…Or Iran?

President Trump’s Executive Order putting a 90 day hold on visas issued to citizens of seven countries has led to chaos and anger at the airport. Is the opposition justified? Is the list justified? We discuss where Trump got it wrong.

Donald Trump Is About to Create a Bunch of New Terrorists

January 30, 2017   |   Carey Wedler

(ANTIMEDIA) Amid the chaos that swept airports across the United States over the weekend, families were kept apart and sick, elderly individuals with documentation were turned away. At the same time, terrorists around the world rejoiced as the United States confirmed what they have long asserted: the United States is at war with Islam.

As Stuart Shapiro, professor and director of the Public Policy Program at the Bloustein School at Rutgers University, recently explained in The Hill:

“An organization that was on the run in Syria and Iraq has just been handed an amazing recruiting tool: A written proclamation from the U.S. president that everything they’ve been saying all these years about the United States being at war with Muslims is true.

“This recruiting tool is likely to be effective in messages consumed by individuals like those who perpetrated the awful attacks in Fort Hood, Orlando and San Bernardino. So while we will be keeping out individuals who mean the United States no harm and indeed are in many cases the victims of those who do, we will have handed our enemies an important weapon.”

Shapiro makes two important points: one, that ISIS can now further assert that the United States hates Muslims, driving a wedge between moderate Muslims and the West, and two, that the most recent gruesome terror attacks that have plagued the United States have been committed by natural-born citizens who became radicalized. The shooters at Fort Hood, Orlando, and San Bernardino (with the exception of Syed Rizwan Farook wife, who came from Pakistan) were all American — not individuals who came in via the visa or refugee program. Farook’s wife entered the U.S. with a visa from Pakistan.

A 2013 report by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, further confirms the futility of the ban. They noted that of 154 attempted terror attacks since September 11th, 77 had been perpetrated by U.S. citizens. Thirty-three came from the U.K. The next highest country of origin was Pakistan, which was not included in Trump’s recent executive order ( Barack Obama did exert a great deal of effort drone bombing that country). Though Afghanistan, which was included in the ban, had four nationals who attempted attacks, that country was followed closely by Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and Albania — none of which were banned. Those countries came in ahead of Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, which were banned (though some supporters of the executive order have asserted the list Trump used was crafted by Obama, the language of the legal authority Trump claims to have appears to allow him to include any country he pleases).

The inconsistencies among the banned countries speak for themselves, and ISIS is already using the order as a recruiting tool. The Washington Post notes that jihadists were posting on Telegram, an encrypted messaging platform, that “Trump was fulfilling the prediction of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader and preacher who famously said that the ‘West would eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.’” Obama killed al-Awlaki without trial (setting a dangerous precedent for President Trump). He also had his sixteen-year-old son, Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki killed, and just this week, a raid ordered by Trump killed Abdul Rahman’s eight-year-old sister.

One post said the new president’s ban “clearly revealed the truth and harsh reality behind the American government’s hatred toward Muslims.”

But one need not listen to the sentiments of terrorists and the Post, a tried and true establishment outlet. The statements they reported echo previous sentiments from ISIS and Osama bin Laden before them. According to a 2015 essay in Dabiq, the Islamic State’s official magazine, the “grayzone,” wherein Muslims can co-exist peacefully with Westerners, is deteriorating. This makes it easier to recruit jihadists.

“The grayzone is critically endangered, rather on the brink of extinction. Its endangerment began with the blessed operations of September 11th, as these operations manifested two camps before the world for mankind to choose between, a camp of Islam – without the body of Khilāfah to represent it at the time – and a camp of kufr – the crusader coalition,” they wrote. [emphasis added]

Even bin Laden noted this dynamic. “The world today is divided into two camps. Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ Meaning, either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam,” the famous terrorist leader said.

This divide is only further deepened when the United States projects broad disdain for Islam, whether through warfare, after attack by terrorists, or with Trump’s recent ban.

Though many have claimed the ban is based on nationality and “danger” rather than religion, Trump’s indication that Christians will be given priority easily demonstrates the intent is to make it more difficult for Muslims, specifically, to enter the country. This is line with his campaign rhetoric.

But even neoconservative Republican Senator John McCain, who criticized the ban — and in doing so drew the ire of the president himself — admitted the potential effects. “The effect will probably in some areas give ISIS some more propaganda,” he said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

According to Robert Richer, a former chief of the CIA’s Near East division, the ban was a “strategic mistake.”

“This was a win for jihadists and other anti-U.S. forces,” he said. “It fuels the belief out there that Americans are anti-Islam. Otherwise, it accomplishes nothing, because the ones we are most concerned about can still get to the United States.” Considering countries like Saudi Arabia (where the majority of 9/11 hijackers originated), Qatar, and Turkey – which have all been demonstrated to support violent extremism — were left off the list, Richer appears to be right.

And considering Trump has continued air strikes and violence and seeks to expand the already massive U.S. military while provoking Iran — a country included on the ban list that has had more than its share of unwarranted U.S. intervention — this ban is yet more fodder for extremism. Add that to Trump’s fervent support for torture and the effect these practices have on prisoners — and others — and the anti-terror leader is setting the stage for further radicalism and terror attacks.

As Shapiro concluded, “By allegedly trying to decrease the risk of a terrorist attack, we may have increased it.”

---

This article (Donald Trump Is About to Create a Bunch of New Terrorists) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

‘Like Being Arrested in Iran’ — BBC Journalist Detained, Interrogated at US Airport

Chicago — “I was arrested back home in Iran in 2009 because I was working for the BBC. It felt the same this time,” observed BBC World Service journalist Ali Hamedani, after being detained at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport thanks to the ban on refugees and clamp down on immigration.

Allow a moment to consider the irony of such a comparison — particularly in the context of the executive order’s stated purpose of combating terrorism imported from despotic nations.

At an American airport, Hamedani — a BBC journalist and British citizen — endured over two hours of interrogation by U.S. border agents because, at one time, he hailed from Iran. But Hamedani no longer even possesses an Iranian passport due to his employment with the BBC since 2009.

Agents requested Hamedani hand over his cell phone — commandeering it in a manner leaving it unlocked and searchable.

When phone was siezed it took me a few mins to remember here is the US and no one can question me about my viewes. He was reading my tweets.

— Ali Hamedani (@BBCHamedani) January 29, 2017

“They took away my phone and started searching my Twitter account. So, they were looking to find out about my political views, whether I’m ‘supporting’ anybody — any kind of extremist view or not,” he told Stephen Nolan in an interview for BBC Radio’s 5 live. “I was also asked questions like if I had been training with the military in Iran … When was the last time I’d been home in Iran.”

Hamedani had traveled from London’s Heathrow Airport on his way to Los Angeles when border agents detained him for his Iranian roots. But considering the journalist hasn’t even possessed an Iranian passport — nor has he been allowed to enter the country — in eight years, the encounter evinces astonishing scrutiny with which Trump’s ban is being enforced.

Indeed, Hamedani indicated the agents were entirely unreasonable, putting suspicions before evidence — making the lengthy detainment more inquisition-style harassment than simple questioning.

Returning to Iran wouldn’t be an option, he explained to interrogators, because of the fact he works for the BBC — a media agency the Iranian government does not find favorable — would see him arrested by authorities.

“But still, I couldn’t convince the guy,” Hamedani said of a border agent, “because he kept questioning me about an Iranian passport; why I’m holding a British passport; why didn’t I enter the country with an Iranian passport.”

Nothing the journalist told the interrogators satisfied suspicions he somehow still held strong ties to Iran — one of seven predominantly Muslim nations targeted by the temporary halt on immigration.

Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen also made Trump’s list of verboten countries — none of which have had civilian or government connections to any terror attacks on U.S. soil.

Nonetheless, citizens of the blacklisted nations already en route to the United States to immigrate legally suddenly found themselves in a new refugee status — some, unable to stay, faced possible arrest or death upon returning to their nation of origin.

In particular, the absurdity fell hard on Iraqi, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who was detained in New York’s Kennedy Airport at the nascent stages of the ban.

Darweesh signed up to work as an interpreter for the U.S. military in 2003 upon the invasion of Iraq, and later worked as a contract engineer — literally putting his life on the line on both the battlefield and in the betrayal of his nation’s government.

Returning to Iraq after receiving official permission to enter the U.S. would be an act of suicide.

Darweesh’s case garnered the international spotlight and attention from the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an emergency intervention order to allow his release. That order allowed a temporary stay from several federal judges in a smattering of similar incidents, permitting those with valid visas or green cards who had already set foot on U.S. soil to remain in the country.

Hameed stopped Trump. He also once dragged wounded troops to safety. How much does this guy have to do for America before we get it together pic.twitter.com/gCoQGNMBwg

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) January 29, 2017

“This is the soul of America,” Darweesh told a waiting crowd of protesters upon his release from custody. “This is what pushed me to leave my country and come here.”

But the scrutiny Hamedani, Darweesh, and others were subjected to suggest an authoritarian, letter-of-the-law interpretation of the refugee ban — portending an ominous future of the nation once cherished as the world’s melting pot.

Hamedani explained it seemed the agents “were basically cross-checking what I told them when I applied for an ‘I’ visa last year, because I saw the guy was holding my visa application form” they’d printed, asking the same questions as if to ensure he hadn’t lied.

Asked by Nolan whether the interaction was intimidating, the journalist replied,

“It wasn’t pleasant at all. To be honest with you, I was arrested back home in Iran in 2009, because I was working for the BBC  — and I felt the same this time, when they took away my phone and laptop, and the guy was trying to keep my phone unlocked. And it was like, ‘So, are they going to search what I’m writing? Do they care about it? Why are they doing it?’”

READ MORE:  NYPD Detained Men for Planning to "Prepare Rice"

Perhaps it isn’t only those who hail from blacklisted nations who should be concerned with Trump’s flurry of sweeping executive actions — will journalists specifically now be targeted, too?

Hamedani noted the agent stated it wasn’t the journalism career that was the focus of questions — but his own story hints otherwise.

A single bright moment for Hamedani happened upon his release, when a group of about 50 people — who had followed the journalist’s tweets narrating the detainment — welcomed him upon release. Many of these Americans — some of Afghan and Iranian descent — were waiting for immigrants and passengers at the airport while figuring out the implications of Trump’s travel restrictions.

“They hugged me and they welcomed me,” Hamedani said. And these foreign-born U.S. citizens reassured him,

“This is not the real America. We are the real American people.”

Trump’s Ban on Refugees is Creating a New Refugee Crisis and More Terrorists

President Donald Trump claims sweeping strictures barring refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States do not constitute a ‘Muslim ban; but — however you view these temporary prohibitions — severe travel restrictions have created a secondary refugee crisis, with epic ramifications.

Families separated across continents. U.S. citizens and those with green cards unable to return to their homes. Random people detained in airports. Translators who have assisted the U.S. military suddenly forced to return to the countries they betrayed to help American troops overseas. Spouses barred from communicating as one faces deportation without appeal.

With the sweep of a pen, Trump set fire to the most fundamental foundation of the United States: that we — those of us whose ancestors are not Indigenous — are indisputably a nation comprised entirely of both immigrants and descendants of refugees. Emma Lazarus’ immortal words adorning the Statue of Liberty extend a warm invitation to anyone in need of safe harbor, and weren’t viewed as conditional before the billionaire took office:

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Shirking humanitarianism so hypocritically is perhaps the greatest abomination in Trump’s long-expected yet abrupt slamming of America’s doors — indeed the move perhaps evinces the new president’s desire to placate supporters rather than base policy on fact.

And facts, even those deemed ‘alternative,’ simply do not validate a ban on immigration — particularly not on the terms the president has set forth.

“The order blocks citizens from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya from entering the country for at least 90 days. It also bans refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days — and from Syria indefinitely. Trump said the goal is to screen out ‘radical Islamic terrorists’ and to give priority for admission to Christians,” the Washington Post reported on the tectonic presidential orders.

Considering the largest terror attack on U.S. soil was coordinated primarily by hijackers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon. In fact, no immigrants or refugees from any of the named restricted countries have ever carried out an attack against Americans domestically — but not for lack of U.S. military provocation on their soil.

No refugees will be allowed to set foot inside the Land of the Once Free for 120 days — but for Syrians fleeing the morass of civil and proxy wars in their homeland, the ban is indefinite. Funny, that, considering the United States’ goal of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could facilely be said to have worsened the massive efflux of civilians desperate to save their own lives.

And that’s one of several glaring points where Trump’s immigrant and refugee clamp-down laughably miss the mark — refugees who happen to adhere to the religion of Islam or hail from Muslim-majority countries aren’t, by default, terrorists. Indeed, the U.S. already has one of the strictest screening procedures for newcomers on the planet — these restrictions just choke logic out of the system and create a bottleneck in travel at airports around the globe.

World leaders, human rights advocates, security experts, international groups — and even tech leaders — spurned Trump’s autocracy. And for good reason.

His paper tigers, The Ban and The Wall, might appease the masses, for whom the murky concept of terrorism has been instilled for decades as more pervasive and insidious than reality belies, but they do nothing to curb terrorism — and indeed, will likely fuel further blowback.

If the U.S., whether Obama or Trump mans the helm, truly sought to end terrorism, the military would not be party to bombing campaigns in the Middle East and elsewhere in which innocent, non-combatant civilians die at exponentially higher rates than actual militants.

If the U.S., whether Obama or Trump mans the helm, truly sought to quash terrorist cells, the government would cease turning a blind eye when allies fund, arm, and train extremists — or would cease doing the same, itself.

If the U.S., whether Obama or Trump mans the helm, truly sought to prevent an influx of embittered radicals from any religion or faction, the pantomime of denying entry to disparate groups based on their geographical happenstance wouldn’t be considered practical or reasonable or effective.

Muslim ban or not, the orders will undoubtedly be perceived as such by actual terrorists already emboldened by what they term the West’s war on Islam — particularly in light of preferential consideration for Christian immigrants over Muslim counterparts as mandated by Trump.

None of the policies the U.S. government has enacted since the attacks of 9/11 made war on a concept acceptable have effectively curtailed terrorism — many, in fact, worsen the matter exponentially.

In truth, our government never intended or sought to end terrorism — and cared little our foreign policy foments more terrorist groups than prevents future attacks, domestically and abroad.

One of the pricklier issues responsible for sparking cynicism and descent into radicalism is the refugee crisis. Vulnerable by nature in foreign lands where citizens have wearied of the burden outsiders place on the system, resentment builds in the minds of young immigrants and refugees — creating fertile ground extremist leaders can readily farm for their own political goals.

Randomly forcing people to become refugees, due only to their nationality and religion, exacerbates the resentment.

When you fabricate real-world obstacles adding to the staggering refugee crisis spawned by the war on terror — without ending the wars creating terrorists in the first place — your moves must be called out for the exercise in pacifying the geopolitically illiterate they are.

Trump’s ludicrous Wall and maddeningly futile travel bans aren’t legitimate for their stated goals; and as far as preventing criminals and terrorists from continuing business as usual — or slowing to a trickle the number of people evacuating their homes out of necessity for a better chance at survival elsewhere — such policies are the epitome of counterproductive.

You want to stop terrorists in their tracks? Stop gifting the disaffected with myriad motivations to radicalize.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Issues Emergency Stay on Trump’s Immigration Ban

A federal judge issued an emergency stay against President Donald Trump’s tectonic Executive Order imposing a ban on immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries to, at least temporarily, allow people in possession of a valid visa who have already landed in the United States to remain in the country.

For now, people already in the U.S. will not be deported under sweeping terms dictated by Trump’s blanket restrictions.

As The Verge reports,

“The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who were denied entry to the US upon landing at JFK airport in New York City and detained indefinitely by Customs and Border Patrol. Darweesh spent a decade working for the United States military in Iraq as an interpreter and engineer and had been granted an entry visa after background checks; Alshawi had been granted a visa in order to join his wife and son who are already permanent residents of the US after their similar service with the US military.”

Trump’s immigration and refugee ban has utterly shocked the world, sparking vociferous protests at airports around the country and garnering equivalent responses from countries on the president’s verboten list.

“We don’t want them here,” Trump said upon signing the order. “We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people.”

At issue is the broad strokes of the executive order, as law enforcement, airport staff, and Transportation Safety Administration personnel scrambled to interpret the move on the fly.

Beyond the aforementioned two cases, anecdotal tales of families being separated and inexplicable deportation orders circulated around social media, as human and civil rights groups rushed to handle the fallout and assess the scope of the damage.

4 factors have been met: Irreparable harm established, likelihood of success on merits, no harm to govt. Likelihood of class cert.

— Jackie Vimo (@JackieVimo) January 29, 2017

Now, thanks to the emergency stay issued by the federal judge for the Eastern District of New York,

“The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; other similarly-situated people being detained and those in transit are covered by the ruling, which is only temporary,” the Verge continued. “But the point of a stay is to preserve the status quo while a permanent ruling is made — something the judge specifically reminded the lawyers for the goverment in the courtroom. And as the tweet from the National Immigration Law Center’s Jackie Vimo indicates above, the judge feels there is a likelihood of success on the merits for the case moving forward.”

According to the ban, citizens from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya are barred from entering the country for at least 90 days — and refugees from anywhere on the planet will not be allowed to enter the United States at all.

Critics immediately called the sweeping legislation a ‘Muslim ban’ on the order of similar proposals proffered by the new president while on the campaign trail. Trump, however, denied the executive order banned anyone adhering to the religion of Islam, again championing national security as the impetus for the pointedly contentious action.

Authorities and officials remain confused as to how the restrictions should be applied. Although the emergency stay provides additional guidance, the days to come will hopefully provide further insight on the abrupt order — and families will discover more directly if they are allowed to remain together.