Dudley DoRights Nab Dozen Adults, Five Minors; Charge Terror Plot against Canuck Secret Agents

Tim Cavanaugh | June 3, 2006

Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 12 men and five youths yesterday, alleging a plot to use three tons of ammonium nitrate against a Toronto office of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Says the Toronto Star:

For the spies who work on the 10th floor of a Front St. office building, with the CN Tower looming above and a hub of Toronto's tourist district buzzing below, this investigation was personal.

The group arrested yesterday allegedly had a list of targets, sources have told the Star, and the Toronto headquarters of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was one of them.

So were the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa and a smattering of other high-profile, heavily populated areas. But since most of the suspects lived in the GTA, it was the potential threat to the spy service's office and the chaos an attack would create in the heart of Toronto that concerned CSIS most.

Canadian Press gives the perp walk and some detail on the suspects:

Of the adults, six are from Mississauga, just outside Toronto; four are from Toronto and two are from Kingston in the eastern part of the province.

Most were Canadian citizens or residents. Police described them as coming from a broad "strata" of society. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed. The adults range in age from 19 to 43.

Rocco Galati, lawyer for two of the Mississauga suspects, said Ahmad Ghany is a 21-year-old health sciences graduate from McMaster University in Hamilton. He was born in Canada, the son of a medical doctor who emigrated from Trinidad and Tobago in 1955.

Detroit News says only 10 of the adults were brought into court today to be charged.

Breitbart's AP story reminds us to be respectful of our neighbors to the north:

Though many view Canada as an unassuming neutral nation that has skirted terrorist attacks, it has suffered its share of aggression, including the 1985 Air India bombing, in which 329 people were killed, most of them Canadian citizens.

Intelligence officials believe at least 50 terror groups now have some presence in the North American nation and have long complained that the country's immigration laws and border security are too weak to weed out potential terrorists.

Comments

Stephen Macklin|6.3.06 @ 4:59PM|#

The 12 adults arrested are:

1. Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
2. Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
3. Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
4. Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
5. Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
6. Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
7. Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
8. Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
9. Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
10. Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, 25, Toronto;
11. Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
12. Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

Not that I'd suggest they fit any sort of profile or anything. Because that would be wrong.

|6.3.06 @ 5:09PM|#

OMG, they're almost all from Toronto or Mississauga! You're right, they do fit a profile!

:)

|6.3.06 @ 5:11PM|#

Specifically, the section called Browntown.

|6.3.06 @ 5:28PM|#

Hmmm, that's funny, I was always told that Islamic terrorist plots were a result of being in Saudi Arabia and the West's interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Maybe now we recognize it's a result of being civilized and Western; but I am sure I will hear the howls of the paleos and the ANSWER people saying that this is somehow the United States' fault as well...

|6.3.06 @ 5:35PM|#

"Hmmm, that's funny, I was always told that Islamic terrorist plots were a result of being in Saudi Arabia and the West's interference in Middle Eastern affairs."

Hmmm, oh look, Canadian soldiers have been killing Afghans at the behest of the American government for 3 and a-half years:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=00022d18-c51e-4a2f-af73-32d658f44b9d&k=80586

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden first pointed the finger directly at Canada in 2002 as a target of his terrorist group for its support of the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

|6.3.06 @ 5:36PM|#

"but I am sure I will hear the howls of the paleos and the ANSWER people saying that this is somehow the United States' fault as well..."

It definitely is the USA's fault for interfering in Canada's affairs - prescribing their drug laws, poaching hockey players, making offensive quebec jokes etc.

|6.3.06 @ 5:39PM|#

Just out of curiosity, Ayn, Stephen, what do you make of the fact that your fist reaction, on hearing about the foiling of a terrorist plot by Canadian Muslims in Canada, is to denounce a certain segment of the American public?

I remember Andrew Sullivan did this. On hearing about the 9/11 attacks, on of the first things he did was to write on his blog that he expects people in "decadent" coastal areas to form a Fifth Column.

I think it's a bit much, actually.

|6.3.06 @ 5:46PM|#

joe, why is it you question my motives instead of addressing the point, which is, in case you missed it, that despite the hundreds of times I heard "Iraq will create more terrorists that will attack those nations that invaded" it seems that even those countries that didn't really participate in OIF are still targets. Could it be because (I hate to sound repetitive) we're generally Christian and our women get to wear tank tops?

As uncomfortable as it all makes us feel, Mr. Macklin's implicit premise is certainly something we shouldn't ignore.

SR - Did you disagree with the decision to invade Afghanistan? I can understand Iraq, but Afghanistan? Seriously.

|6.3.06 @ 5:55PM|#

"SR - Did you disagree with the decision to invade Afghanistan? I can understand Iraq, but Afghanistan? Seriously."

I supported a limited American intervention for purposes of capturing bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leadership; I opposed toppling the Taliban and attempting to remake the country. I also completely opposed Canadian involvement in the occupation because Canada had no compelling security interests in Afghanistan.

|6.3.06 @ 5:56PM|#

Because I find this behavior very interesting, and significant, in the way it pretty much defined this country's political culture for a couple years.

Something frightening happens, the specter of terrorism is raised, and a good number of people's first response has been to spit invective at their neighbors.

It would be possible to make your political point some other way, but this is what a lot of people do. Some of it is cynical. Some of it is psychological. I don't think it's healthy.

Stephen Macklin|6.3.06 @ 6:08PM|#

Actually, Joe,

I missed the part where I " denounce a certain segment of the American public."

Did I spell everything correctly. Sometimes I forget to spell check.

|6.3.06 @ 6:13PM|#

Stephen Macklin,

Instead of spell-checking, you could bring more clarity to your insinuations by explicitly describing the profile - it may even help intellignce agencies the world over to catch evildoers.

|6.3.06 @ 6:13PM|#

They're "generally Christian" and wear tanktops in Brazil, Ayn. Personally, I've also suspected that it's because we're so gosh darn wonderful, and Islamics hate that. Apparently, the Canadians are pretty gosh darn wonderful, too.

Islamic terrorists mostly carry out their attacks in the Middle East, central Asia, south Asia, and southeast Asia. When there are attacks attempted elsewhere, they're mostly in those non-Muslim countries - the US, Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia - that have the most powerful militaries and the greatest military and political involvement in Middle Eastern countries.

Are you and Stephen trying to lead a crusade against the Infidels? Is that the "implicit premise" it's so important we not ignore?

|6.3.06 @ 6:13PM|#

"It would be possible to make your political point some other way, but this is what a lot of people do. Some of it is cynical. Some of it is psychological. I don't think it's healthy."

I agree that it is unhealthy, but I suspect it is also unavoidable. The argument about terrorism, war, and appropriate reponses is about fundamental stuff. It is impossible to make a liberal case regarding terrorism and war, even if you use the most moderate tones imaginable, without at least implying that those who disagree with you are killing people for no reason and don't care about human rights. It is impossible to make a case for more aggressive action without implying at a minimum the other side is naive. These are the most mellow arguments from ideology possible, and I think we can all agree that we usually hear much worse. Escalation and defensiveness are inevitable.

The ways to avoid this sort of thing are to either argue from utility or to become apathetic. People on blogs aren't predisposed to the latter, so maybe the former is all we have.

|6.3.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Jason Ligon,

First of all, there's pretty big difference between denouncing your opponents as naive and "implying that those who disagree with you are killing people for no reason and don't care about human rights."

FDR managed to do a pretty good job of not ripping the country in half. But then, he actually tried to unite the country, rather than exploiting security issues for their election-year wedge potential.

|6.3.06 @ 6:29PM|#

Canadian Intelligence Service -- heh.

What I don't get is if they were casing the so-called Canadian Intelligence Service why they are so beholden to using bombs? Why don't they follow the intelligence agents home and murder them and their families and pet animals -- perhaps five or six all at once on one night? Thats so much easier to pull off than bombing them in downtown. Or incite racial violent or kill one or two RCMP a month or something?

|6.3.06 @ 6:43PM|#

joe:

I know there is a pretty big difference, but that is the nature of the arguments. The principled liberal argument is moral and carries with it the implication of unjust killing or outright murder. The basic argument for aggression from the right is that we had better do something about this, and it carries the minimum implication that you are naive if you don't agree and can easily evolve into an implication that you are a coward or sympathizer. The usual form of discourse is evil baby killers supporting aggression and naive sympathizers opposing.

As to FDR, you will never see that again, and we are probably better off for it. I truly fear the policy prescriptions of a guy who could achieve that level of popular support in today's cynical world.

|6.3.06 @ 7:20PM|#

spur,

It's not simply the agents, it's the infrastructure. Additionally, it's the show and theatrics of a large scale event.

|6.3.06 @ 7:37PM|#

"Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden first pointed the finger directly at Canada in 2002 as a target of his terrorist group for its support of the U.S.-led war on terrorism."

Uh, yeah. Sort of like Hitler first pointed the finger directly at Canada in 1939 for our naughty support of the British-led war on, um, Hitler.

You'd think we would have learned our lesson. Oh, wait ... I think we won that one too. Never mind.

|6.3.06 @ 7:46PM|#

"We," huh, gramps?

Uh huh. You can tell a solid, battle-scarred veteran of the ETO by how he compares a cult leader hiding in a hut to Adolph Hitler.

|6.3.06 @ 7:51PM|#

This song is dedicated to Stephen Macklin for his astute observation that the band arrested was NOT MacNamara's.

But, heh, maybe the Canadian group is just a tad heavy on the percussion?

"Oh, me name is MacNamara, I'm the leader of the band
Although we're few in numbers, we're the finest in the land
We play at wakes and weddings and at every fancy ball
And when we play the funerals, we play the March from Saul

Oh, the drums go bang and the cymbals clang and the horns they blaze away
McCarthy pumps the old bassoon while I the pipes do play
And Henessee Tennessee tootles the flute and the music is somethin' grand
A credit to old Ireland is MacNamara's band

Right now we are rehearsin' for a very swell affair
The annual celebration, all the gentry will be there
When General Grant to Ireland came he took me by the hand
Says he, "I never saw the likes of MacNamara's Band"

Oh, the drums go bang and the cymbals clang and the horns they blaze away
McCarthy pumps the old bassoon while I the pipes do play
And Henessee Tennessee tootles the flute and the music is somethin' grand
A credit to old Ireland is MacNamara's band"

|6.3.06 @ 8:20PM|#

Joe says:

They're "generally Christian" and wear tanktops in Brazil, Ayn.

They often wear a lot less than tanktops in Brazil too...

Jim Henley|6.3.06 @ 8:36PM|#

SR - Did you disagree with the decision to invade Afghanistan? I can understand Iraq, but Afghanistan? Seriously.

For the purposes of the question, "Why did a bunch of Muslims plot to blow up Canadian Intelligence Headquarters?" it doesn't matter what SR or you or I think about the decision to invade Afghanistan. It doesn't matter what God Himself thinks. The question is a question regarding the motives of the attackers, not the worthiness of those motives.

Joe argues that

When there are attacks attempted elsewhere, they're mostly in those non-Muslim countries - the US, Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia - that have the most powerful militaries and the greatest military and political involvement in Middle Eastern countries.

The Canadian plot seems to fit the fact pattern pretty well.

Needless to say that simply recognizing that attacks like the alleged Canadian bomb plot are a predictible outcome of intervention doesn't settle the question of whether the intervention is worth it. Canada may decide that helping the military occupation and the attempted reconstruction of Afghanistan are so just or important that it's worth paying the price of a higher risk of Muslim terror on Canadian soil. The United States may decide that overthrowing anti-American and anti-Israeli Muslim governments is worth the added risk of Muslim terror on American soil. But saying it's worth the price is different from pretending the price doesn't exist.

|6.3.06 @ 8:37PM|#

This never would have happened if Canada had built a wall on their southern border.

|6.3.06 @ 8:51PM|#

I have had a hard time getting explosives quality ammonium nitrate recently. Did the article say where they were able to get 3 tons of it? The farm supply stores used to sell it.

|6.3.06 @ 9:35PM|#

TomHynes,
What's Osama's latest advice?
"Allah will provide"?

What's the name of your band?

|6.3.06 @ 9:38PM|#

joe, what exactly were you smoking this afternoon?

|6.3.06 @ 9:50PM|#

Why do Canadians hate Allah? Why do Canadians persecute Muslims who just want a greener garden? I think it is because they just want to keep Canada white.

Those darn Muslims don't play a decent game of hockey, what with those robes and turbans and such getting in their way.

|6.3.06 @ 9:55PM|#

Muslims can't play hockey; they're not allowed to touch their stick.

|6.3.06 @ 9:58PM|#

"I supported a limited American intervention for purposes of capturing bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leadership; I opposed toppling the Taliban and attempting to remake the country. I also completely opposed Canadian involvement in the occupation because Canada had no compelling security interests in Afghanistan."

How exactly would one capture Bin Laden and AQ's leadership without toppling the Taliban? Furthermore, if attacking AQ in response to the 911 attacks is warranted, then why should the Talinan be spared? The Taliban were engaged in a round the clock circle jerk with OBL and AQ, so they were undoubtedly part of the 911 attacks as well. If the Taliban is righteously destroyed, then what choice is there but to occupy and stabilize the country? If Canada is in the cross hairs of AQ, then it seems plausible that Canada has a compelling security interest in the events in Afghanistan, hence they might want to join in the stabilizing force on the ground.

|6.3.06 @ 10:02PM|#

"Muslims can't play hockey; they're not allowed to touch their stick."

I guess we won't be seeing a child of Islam winning the billiards championship any time soon then. To do well at billiards you have to have a very precise stroke...

|6.3.06 @ 10:43PM|#

Something frightening happens, the specter of terrorism is raised, and a good number of people's first response has been to spit invective at their neighbors.

It would be possible to make your political point some other way, but this is what a lot of people do. Some of it is cynical. Some of it is psychological. I don't think it's healthy.

This is why I am so tempted to believe the conspiracy theories regarding Al Qaeda. I don't actually believe the conspiracy theories, but it is so tempting. Because the fact of the matter is that terrorism is a great way to turn a country's factions against each other, and turning factions against each other is a great way to increase a leader's power.

|6.3.06 @ 11:01PM|#

"This is why I am so tempted to believe the conspiracy theories regarding Al Qaeda. I don't actually believe the conspiracy theories, but it is so tempting."

What conspiracy theories are you talking about?

|6.4.06 @ 12:47AM|#

Im not sure from looking at the names in this list that I would have used the phrase "...broad strata of society..." it obviously does not include any white trash or evil Norwegian Boat People.

|6.4.06 @ 3:46AM|#

Since you guys brought it up, obviously, certain groups of people are more active in certain types of behavior. Kids that go on shooting sprees killing their classmates tend to be white. Drive-by shootings tend to be done by blacks and Latinos. Serial killers tend to be white. Racist skinheads tend to be white. The question is, where is it appropriate to use profiling? Certainly, if a crime has been committed and there is no suspect, the police have to draw up a profile of the suspect, and no one has argued that that's wrong. But we're talking about profiling *before* something happens, and we can go down a slippery slope if we use preemptive profiling. So then Asian kids shouldn't have to go through metal detectors or be searched in schools because I've never heard of a case where Asian kids have committed murder in school? It seems like the Canadian authorities did their homework, and specifically targeted a certain group of Muslim men who have shown that they may be capable of a terrorist act. Just like the FBI targets a white hate group because they are a specific group of individuals who may be prone to violent acts, but they don't randomly check every white person for Nazi tatoos to see if they belong to a hate group. Certainly, we don't want to go overboard with political correctness, but since 9-11, I haven't seen any cases where the fear of profiling has caused any gov. official to not pursue a terrroism case. Let's be rational before we start advocating a type of profiling that accomplishes nothing and only unnecessarily antagonizes a group of people.. after all, this is reason.com, not emotionalrashresponse.com.

Kevin Hayden|6.4.06 @ 7:20AM|#

While most were Canadian citizens, their lineage traces back to Egypt, Somalia, Trinidad, and Jamaica.

Based on our post-Afghanistan foreign policy, that means Canada now has the right to attack Syria, Kenya, St. Johns and Haiti for being in the proximity of the ancestors of these thugs.

|6.4.06 @ 8:47AM|#

"Because the fact of the matter is that terrorism is a great way to turn a country's factions against each other, and turning factions against each other is a great way to increase a leader's power."

thoreau,
Which "leader"? Have you noticed Dubya's power dwindling with the polls?
Terrorism and violence never work for similar reasons nuclear explosions are not suitable for digging canals, etc.
Terrorism and violence always produce unintended consequences that overwhelm and subvert the so-called strategy of the terrorist "leader."
Now, if we could just convince terrorists that Allah is whispering bad strategery into their ears... just as God is whispering bad strategery into Dubya's.

|6.4.06 @ 8:54AM|#

We need to pay attention to people who are a threat.

It's not PC - but we need to PROFILE!!!!!

No more strip searching grandmothers

|6.4.06 @ 9:19AM|#

"No more strip searching grandmothers"

tom,
It's okay for me to continue "strip searching" the Little Woman, isn't it?

|6.4.06 @ 10:16AM|#

What an odd thread. I'm just glad they caught these guys before anything happened.

uncle sam|6.4.06 @ 10:45AM|#

I think SR made a sufficient point at 5:35 PM.
Oh gee, the Canadian gov't hasn't been quite innocently minding it own business after all.
Who are all these people who think history began on 9/11.

Oh, they attacked because we did not respond sufficiently earlier.

Well they certainly tried to provoke a response, but the earlier bombing at the WTC didn't do enough damage to arouse sufficient numbers of Americans to allow them to be led into military action.

How is the middle east intervention like Vietnam?

They are/were very expensive.

Since PNAC has been broadcasting administration intentions for many years, would it be reasonable to suppose that a military response from the U.S. was expected by bin Laden? He handed them their Pearl Harbor.

|6.4.06 @ 11:16AM|#

SR,

"I supported a limited American intervention for purposes of capturing bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leadership; I opposed toppling the Taliban and attempting to remake the country. I also completely opposed Canadian involvement in the occupation because Canada had no compelling security interests in Afghanistan."

I gotta agree with wayne on this. I don't think you can separate the Taliban regime from Al Qaeda like that. They were one and the same. Mullah Omar married his daughter off to Bin Ladin to seal their alliance - real medieval shit. This wasn't some camps out in the boonies where the government has no presence. The tools of the Afghan state were put at the disposal of Al Qaeda.

|6.4.06 @ 11:21AM|#

FDR managed to do a pretty good job of not ripping the country in half. But then, he actually tried to unite the country, rather than exploiting security issues for their election-year wedge potential.

He was especially successful in uniting Japanese Americans living on the west coast, too.

|6.4.06 @ 11:22AM|#

...and when you have as intimate a mutual defense pact with an ally as Canada has with the United States, an attack on one is an attack on all. Their security interests compelled them to participate in Afghanistan, and I hope I can trust our government to be as honorable and loyal to our obligations if the tables were turned.

I know I could have trusted Kerry. I don't know about Cheney.

|6.4.06 @ 11:23AM|#

Cheap shot, DA, and off point.

|6.4.06 @ 11:58AM|#

Is it off point, joe? I'm not so sure. If FDR is the benchmark for how to act in the face of a national security threat, how are we to judge any or all of the actions his administration took to that end?

We now view the internment of Japanese Americans as a violation of their civil rights and an example of inexcusable overreach, and I certainly would not argue to the contrary. But to say that something is inexcusable from the comfortable distance of history is not to say that it was not at the time an understandable and possibly even useful measure.

My point is that it is not per se racist to conclude that whatever limited resources a nation may be able or willing to expend in responding to a perceived threat will be most optimally expended by targeting more rather than less likely sources of that threat and that if that results in racial or ethnic profiling that should be viewed as a factor to weigh against the necessity of thwarting that threat and not a per se sufficient reason not to do so.

If, as I think was the case, it was Pearl Harbor and not FDR that united the nation insofar as it was, in fact, united against the Axis threat (and it was rather less united than you seem to contend), then it is also true that such unity as did then exist led to public acceptance or approval of the Japanese American internment. In that sense, FDR was less constrained by public opinion than Bush now is. Again, I don't argue that this is a bad thing (quite the contrary, in fact), but if we are going to invoke FDR at all we should consider his entire record in historical context.

|6.4.06 @ 12:07PM|#

D.A. Ridgely,

Remember that FDR is amongst the liberal pantheon of heroes.

|6.4.06 @ 12:10PM|#

D.A. Ridgely,

And of course I doubt whether joe knows much about FDR's behind the scenes efforts to draw the U.S. into WWII when the American people generally desired no such entry. Indeed, he was rather two-faced in these efforts - on the one hand pursuing such efforts secretly while telling the public that he was keeping the U.S. out of war. (And no, this is not a defense of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy mongering.)

|6.4.06 @ 3:18PM|#

"FDR's behind the scenes efforts to draw the U.S. into WWII when the American people generally desired no such entry."

FDR favored rear entry. How many red-blooded Democrats know that?

(I couldn't help myself. I'm fresh back from a gay-lesbian festival here in Sinincincinnati. You heard right. Yes, right here in the QUEEN City.)

|6.4.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Ruthless,

Glad you had fun. :)

|6.4.06 @ 5:37PM|#

"FDR favored rear entry. How many red-blooded Democrats know that?"

FDR was a fudge packer? Tell me it ain't so!

|6.4.06 @ 5:40PM|#

"Remember that FDR is amongst the liberal pantheon of heroes."

And Michelle Malkin has been enthusiastically fellating his corpse for going on three years, now.

|6.4.06 @ 8:38PM|#

And Michelle Malkin has been enthusiastically fellating his corpse for going on three years, now.

You know, one of Dan Savage's readers would probably actually dig a porno along those lines. God knows they're into every other conceivable kink imaginable.

|6.4.06 @ 11:23PM|#

DA,

"If FDR is the benchmark for how to act in the face of a national security threat..."

Uh, no, I was making a specific point. You can go back and read the debate, but I'm not interested in discussing overall impressions of Franklin Roosevelt.

|6.4.06 @ 11:25PM|#

Phil,

You have a lot of reading to do about FDR before I'd be able to rouse myself.

|6.5.06 @ 12:25AM|#

joe,

I'll take your chest thumping for what it is.

|6.5.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Rex,

There is nothing wrong with denouncing the Japanese internment. It was a terrible atrocity, FDR deserves a great deal of blame for it.

But it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand, which was about the different ways the FDR and Bush administrations dealth with disagreement about their foreign and security policies.

FDR went to great lengths to keep Republicans in fold before the war, so that he had their genuine consent for Lend Lease and the like. He and his people, like Marshall, were very careful not to get out in front of the American people, and to remain respectful, in both word and deed, towards their opponents. They knew the importance of keeping the country united going into war.

This is sharp contrast to the Bush administration, who, when faced with a much more united country after September 11, deliberately exploited security and war issues as a political wedge, even as they knew that they were going to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way in Iraq.

That was the point I was making, and coming back with "Yeah, well, FDR did this bad thing..." is both cheap and off the point.

|6.5.06 @ 11:02AM|#

"...not to get TOO FAR out in front of the American people."

Also, I'll point out that FDR was quite happy to exploit wedges on economic issues throughout the Great Depression, which makes his shift into a careful consensus builder, even going so far as to delay the necessary military buildup in order to maintain national unity, all the more striking. Particularly since he and his party commanded much larger majorities than did Bush.

|6.5.06 @ 11:48AM|#

joe,

You say "FDR managed to do a pretty good job of not ripping the country in half." But you don't explain what you mean by that. As far as I can tell, there were sections of the country that greatly hated FDR and his policies. However, popularity doesn't determine whether policies unite or divide. It's possible to have unpopular policies that unite in the long term just as it's possibility to have popular policies that divide.

If you're taking FDR's reelection numbers as proof that he did a pretty good job of not ripping the country in half, then you have to consider all of his policies as well as other issues concerning his reelections. Would his numbers have been better or worse had he not interned the Japanese U.S. citizens?

Personally, I think FDR had already begun to tear the country in half before we entered WWII and that we're still feeling the effects.

But regardless of what I believe, it's not fair to use FDR's popularity as proof that he was a uniter, when his popularity was, in all likelihood, in part due to him doing bad things, rather than despite him doing bad things. You agree that the internment was bad. Do you think that the internment was unpopular? Isn't it likely that if you ignore the Japanese themselves and some civil rights folks, that overall the country was united by the internment?

|6.5.06 @ 1:54PM|#

anon2,

I tried to clear it up in my 11:02 post.

Imagine what a nightmare this country would have been in for if FDR has spent 1940 and 1941 playing wedge politics against the Republicans and leftie pacifists, the way Bush did in 2002 and 2003. Imagine if he had started a war with Germany on false pretenses, and the story collapsed six months before the Bulge.

|6.5.06 @ 5:50PM|#

Doncha love the way Muslim males between the ages of 19 to 43 qualify as a "broad strata" of Canadian society?

I'm not even sure I would say that Muslim males ge 19 to 43 qualify as a broad strata of Saudi Arabian society, but the Canucks have the multi culti virus so bad that a group made of all men, all from one religious group, and all within a fairly narrow age band, constitutes a "broad strata."

Unless what they are getting ready to do is start profiling the hell out of young Muslim men, while PRing it as giving enhanced scrutiny to a broad strata of society.

|6.5.06 @ 5:54PM|#

joe, don't look now, but FDR was engaged in pretty widespread violations of American neutrality in WWII long before "war" was "declared" by Congress. All that aid to the British, you know.

I'm pretty sure those would also be violations of "international law."

And if you believe for a minute that FDR didn't play bare-knuckle politics with Republicans and isolationists of all stripes, well, I feel sorry for you. This is the FDR who strong-armed SCOTUS nominations by threatening to overthrow long-standing tradition and pack the court, after all.

|6.5.06 @ 5:57PM|#

Yeah, joe, imagine if FDR had credible intelligence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, and did nothing with it because it would be a good casus belli.

And what Pearl Harbor had to do with the Germans, I'm still not sure. Why exactly did FDR violate neutrality and go to war with them, again?